Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 IDiot exposes once again, ID's religious nature.
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 04/09/2011 :  14:30:27  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Check this guy out.

He claims that IDers have no problem with the first five "definitions" of evolution, but note what the sixth one is.

6. "Blind watchmaker" thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.


Strictly religious.


>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 04/09/2011 :  16:54:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Aaaa, good old JoeG. They don't get more stupid than that.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 04/10/2011 :  10:20:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Where have you met him before?

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 04/10/2011 :  10:41:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
JoeG is a regular at Uncommon Descent, and so he's also a regular target for derision at After the Bar Closes (a sub-board of The Panda's Thumb).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 04/10/2011 :  15:13:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by the_ignored

Where have you met him before?
Like Dave said + I've posted a few times on his blog. He's quite "famous" for claiming that he knows how to estimate the CSI of a cake, but when asked to do so, he tells people that he's explained HOW to do it and that it's up to them to actually do it. Problem is, as always when it comes to ID, it's very easy to get widely different results depending on how you actually do it. This is ONE of the reasons people like to mock him.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

AnthroGeek
New Member

USA
38 Posts

Posted - 04/10/2011 :  16:00:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send AnthroGeek a Private Message  Reply with Quote
When I see things like this I just assume it is all POE and nothing but trolling. YouTube and blogs are so full of asshats, like joe there, that it becomes almost impossible to determine if the views expressed are genuine or just out there to get internet traffic and attention.

A series of fun one-liners about various pseudoscientific claims and, even better, a concise description of the scientific method - Ken Feder on Skeptic Friends Network from "Frauds, Myths and Mysteries"
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 04/10/2011 :  16:43:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by AnthroGeek

When I see things like this I just assume it is all POE and nothing but trolling. YouTube and blogs are so full of asshats, like joe there, that it becomes almost impossible to determine if the views expressed are genuine or just out there to get internet traffic and attention.
If he is a Poe then he is good at it. He's been doing it for years without much change in his Modus Operandi.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 04/11/2011 :  21:22:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I don't think we should dismiss probabilistic attempts to determine whether mutations at their expected rates could have resulted in the world we see, it could very well help us kick out bad assumptions, but this guy isn't earnestly trying to do that.

I don't know how to respond to the argument that "randomness could not have created this ordered world." I hear very educated and very intelligent people make this argument.

Undirected, random forces within the subject to some set of forces (whether it be the physical world's response to the natural forces, or supply and demand under regulations, or gambling games under rules) can always create very detailed, ordered, and predictable patterns. Which segues into why the forces exist, which is where they typically say god made them -- why this leap? I just don't understand.

Otherwise, I'll try the argument that "of course the world is ordered, our mere existence required this order, if this was not a habitable planet, if there wasn't an abundance of water and oxygen and other resources to sustain life, there would be no life -- if the order didn't exist, we could not even exist to speculate about how we came to exist." I never get much of a response on that one.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9672 Posts

Posted - 04/12/2011 :  11:41:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

Otherwise, I'll try the argument that "of course the world is ordered, our mere existence required this order, if this was not a habitable planet, if there wasn't an abundance of water and oxygen and other resources to sustain life, there would be no life -- if the order didn't exist, we could not even exist to speculate about how we came to exist." I never get much of a response on that one.
How curious. I've seen The Anthropic Principle being used by creationists as an argument for God, more than once...

Also, randomness does not imply chaos, as Creationists like to think. Random mutations may indeed be random, but existing laws of nature directs that randomness and weeds out the chaotic out of it. Carbon atoms only create 4 bonds, with specific geometries. Chemicals form according to natural laws. It's easy to anthropomorphise by using language like "...governing how chemicals form" as if there was a Governor, but such is the nature of language.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Baxter
Skeptic Friend

USA
131 Posts

Posted - 04/12/2011 :  13:57:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Baxter a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

I don't know how to respond to the argument that "randomness could not have created this ordered world." I hear very educated and very intelligent people make this argument.

Undirected, random forces within the subject to some set of forces (whether it be the physical world's response to the natural forces, or supply and demand under regulations, or gambling games under rules) can always create very detailed, ordered, and predictable patterns. Which segues into why the forces exist, which is where they typically say god made them -- why this leap? I just don't understand.
The principle of sufficient reason and inference to the best explanation.
Otherwise, I'll try the argument that "of course the world is ordered, our mere existence required this order, if this was not a habitable planet, if there wasn't an abundance of water and oxygen and other resources to sustain life, there would be no life -- if the order didn't exist, we could not even exist to speculate about how we came to exist." I never get much of a response on that one.
What is the argument exactly? It just sounds like stating a brute fact. I still want to ask, "What is the cause?"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey

"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 04/12/2011 :  20:32:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Originally posted by Machi4velli

Otherwise, I'll try the argument that "of course the world is ordered, our mere existence required this order, if this was not a habitable planet, if there wasn't an abundance of water and oxygen and other resources to sustain life, there would be no life -- if the order didn't exist, we could not even exist to speculate about how we came to exist." I never get much of a response on that one.
How curious. I've seen The Anthropic Principle being used by creationists as an argument for God, more than once...

Also, randomness does not imply chaos, as Creationists like to think. Random mutations may indeed be random, but existing laws of nature directs that randomness and weeds out the chaotic out of it. Carbon atoms only create 4 bonds, with specific geometries. Chemicals form according to natural laws. It's easy to anthropomorphise by using language like "...governing how chemicals form" as if there was a Governor, but such is the nature of language.



I guess it's sort of a response to that, their claiming the order is evidence of a creator, but if our thoughts about physics are correct, life could not exist otherwise, so to take that itself of evidence of some proposition like god doesn't seem to make sense.

My other contention is just what you say, randomness certainly does not imply a chaotic result. Probability is my area of study, finding order from randomness is essentially all I do.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 04/12/2011 :  20:35:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Baxter

Originally posted by Machi4velli
Undirected, random forces within the subject to some set of forces (whether it be the physical world's response to the natural forces, or supply and demand under regulations, or gambling games under rules) can always create very detailed, ordered, and predictable patterns. Which segues into why the forces exist, which is where they typically say god made them -- why this leap? I just don't understand.
The principle of sufficient reason and inference to the best explanation.
Otherwise, I'll try the argument that "of course the world is ordered, our mere existence required this order, if this was not a habitable planet, if there wasn't an abundance of water and oxygen and other resources to sustain life, there would be no life -- if the order didn't exist, we could not even exist to speculate about how we came to exist." I never get much of a response on that one.
What is the argument exactly? It just sounds like stating a brute fact. I still want to ask, "What is the cause?"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/


The answer is I don't know what the cause is, but by arguing this, I hope to break their argument which requires the existence of "order" to be evidence of another proposition (god). I'm not arguing anything about any cause. I guess my position is "I don't know and neither do you."

I don't have much problem with sufficient reason (other than my thinking that it is unjustified), but even if a person thinks a reason must exist, why must they also think they know what the reason is?

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/12/2011 21:01:16
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 04/13/2011 :  11:18:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Baxter

The principle of sufficient reason and inference to the best explanation.
The PSR tells us there has to be a reason, not that that reason is "goddidit." And "inference to the best explanation" is a term I had to Google, and it appears to be synonymous with "guessing." So you would seem to be suggesting that people make the leap to the god conclusion based on guessing that there's gotta be a reason for a lawful universe, and I wouldn't disagree.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Baxter
Skeptic Friend

USA
131 Posts

Posted - 04/13/2011 :  21:39:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Baxter a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Per PSR, there must be a reason and God seems to be the best explanation at hand.

Given the apparent design of the universe that allowed the emergence of mind, it's hard for our minds to conceive of anything but a transcendent mind being the cause.

The weakness of "inference to the best explanation" is that the cause could be something that we can't conceive.

Regarding the anthropic principle, I still fail to grasp how it argues for anything.

"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey

"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 04/14/2011 :  04:18:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Baxter

Per PSR, there must be a reason and God seems to be the best explanation at hand.
Why "seems to be?" What logic or evidence can support that claim?
Given the apparent design of the universe...
That the universe appears designed doesn't mean that it was.
...that allowed the emergence of mind, it's hard for our minds to conceive of anything but a transcendent mind being the cause.
The difficulty of grasping a hypothesis has no bearing on its truth.
The weakness of "inference to the best explanation" is that the cause could be something that we can't conceive.
Or just something we don't yet know.
Regarding the anthropic principle, I still fail to grasp how it argues for anything.
It only argues that the universe cannot have properties that are fatal to the existence of humans.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Baxter
Skeptic Friend

USA
131 Posts

Posted - 04/14/2011 :  08:59:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Baxter a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Baxter

Per PSR, there must be a reason and God seems to be the best explanation at hand.
Why "seems to be?" What logic or evidence can support that claim?
I don't know of any other explanation for the ontological mystery that doesn't violate PSR.
Given the apparent design of the universe...
That the universe appears designed doesn't mean that it was.
Yet it produced rational beings. The universe itself has designed beings who design.
...that allowed the emergence of mind, it's hard for our minds to conceive of anything but a transcendent mind being the cause.
The difficulty of grasping a hypothesis has no bearing on its truth.
The weakness of "inference to the best explanation" is that the cause could be something that we can't conceive.
Or just something we don't yet know.
Right, we have to work with what we know, so we're stuck with inductive and abductive reasoning. Which means we can't be certain and that's where the inference comes in. I think the inference to God is mainly based on our ability to recognize human design and see similar products of nature, and the belief that there must be something that transcends matter in order to explain the existence of matter.
Regarding the anthropic principle, I still fail to grasp how it argues for anything.
It only argues that the universe cannot have properties that are fatal to the existence of humans.
This causes a stack overflow in my brain.

"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey

"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.2 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000