|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2008 : 17:55:21 [Permalink]
|
Looks to me that Marshall has constructed a chain of weak-to-outright-fallacious analogies. If any link fails, his whole argument fails. Most of the links are spun out of wishes, faith, and ectoplasm.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2008 : 21:21:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave......
| "Prove I'm wrong." Classic shifting the burden of proof. The guy's got nothing. |
True, but no reason to run away from his challenge. More like, "Prove you wrong? Look, Buster, how about you prove you're right? Because you haven't yet proven a goddam thing!"
And on to the front!
How about it Dave? Let's get four or five ballsy types from SFN to each separately take him on on his selected turf. He thinks he's demolished the "infidels" (whoever they are, maybe you know). Let's one at a time dissect him as he requests. I volunteer! Anybody else?
I think he needs to be presented with four or five questions which require a response, most which have been clearly stated here in this thread. I have a few I'd like him to answer in addition to the ideas already expressed.
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 02/04/2008 21:27:25 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 02/04/2008 : 21:51:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
True, but no reason to run away from his challenge. More like, "Prove you wrong? Look, Buster, how about you prove you're right? Because you haven't yet proven a goddam thing!" |
I haven't read the IIDB thread yet, but I'd be surprised to not find that in there already. Marshall will simply state that he has proven himself correct, and now it's up to other people to find "holes" in his logic, which he will ignore. This is classic stuff. There's no there, there.
Look at the responses he's already copied to his own Web site. The things that he thinks are the main objections are pretty pathetic. "DNA isn't a code." Sure, it is. But who cares? That only matters if all codes are created by "intelligences," and Marshall asserts that they are and nobody has found any codes which haven't been created by intelligences. He claims that's his inductive reasoning. It fails because the only sample he has are man-made things. Anything else that looks like a code must be "unknown" until he shows his induction has value outside the single sample. Marshall hasn't done that (not that I've seen), and again, I have little doubt that the IIDB crew has already slaughtered him on this point.
Then there's the whole "who's the transmitter? Who's the receiver?" thing. But that's basic stuff, too.
But, I haven't read the thread. Maybe tomorrow. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2008 : 04:28:36 [Permalink]
|
| Good luck, Dave. I've been reading the thread for days. I'm on 17 of 47 (!). It's dense work. And, as to be expected (think Mozina), there's lots of goal post-moving, and lots of not-acknowledging-tough-questions. Some of that is simply because it's 30-1 and Marshall can't possibly answer everything. But some people have made some good points that he has thus far ignored. But I still ahve 30 more pages to read... |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/05/2008 04:54:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2008 : 07:41:36 [Permalink]
|
I just read the first two pages of the thread. The commenters pierce Marshall's arguments quite well. Marshall seems to simply re-assert his prior assertions.
But I was wrong in thinking that Marshall would deny that bird song is a language (or "code"). But that just means that God can have a mind as simple as a bird's, at most.
At any rate, I'm not going to bother with the other 1,100+ messages in that thread. Marshall's only posted 25 times over there, so finding needles in haystacks I'll leave to others. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2008 : 09:21:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But I was wrong in thinking that Marshall would deny that bird song is a language (or "code"). But that just means that God can have a mind as simple as a bird's, at most. |
If I recall correctly, he plays fast and loose with the goalposts here. Since DNA is designed, then things like bee dances and bird songs are simply a result of something designed and so also designed. In other words, any "code" that comes from a living thing is, by definition, defined (from Yahweh). But I'm only on page 18 now. Perhaps that will change... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2008 : 14:57:15 [Permalink]
|
An Index to Perry Marshal at IIDB:- (Page 1) Just one code not made by intelligence will disprove Marshall's idea
- (Page 2) Every code is a derivative of DNA
- (Page 2) Marshall's definition of "code" is sufficient
- (Page 3) Encoding and decoding with regard to DNA
- (Page 3) Difference between coded information and not
- (Page 4) More coded-versus-non-encoded stuff
- (Page 4) More still
- (Page 5) Extensive Yockey quotes
- (Page 6) Huge dump
- (Page 7) Another dump (would be nice if he figures out quoting)
- (Page 7) And another
- (Page 9) Dumps are getting larger
- (Page 10) And larger
- (Page 11) Slightly smaller dump
- (Page 12) Hey, he says receiver and transmitter can be found in Yockey
- (Page 13) Getting close to four screen-fulls in a single post
- (Page 13) Surprisingly short post
- (Page 14) Huge dump includes definition of 'mind' that is circular
- (Page 15) Five-and-a-half-screen post, with "ID equals religion" statement
- (Page 17) Hey, he figured out quotes!
- (Page 18) Nearly six full screens
- (Page 19) Nearly twelve full screens
- (Page 23) Agrees that "we don't know" is the only purely empirical answer
- (Page 25) 9.25 screens' worth
- (Page 33) Marshall returns after months of absence, sounding the same, and hasn't been back since
Now, here is the task for some intrepid soul... There was a lot of repetition on Marshall's part. Digest all of his posts down into a list of unique assertions. Then read the other 1,137 posts in that thread, and tally how many times each of Marshall's assertions were rebutted. If my hastily-formed hypothesis is correct, the only statements left with a count of zero rebuttals will be things like "I am an engineer," and I'm not too sure about that one.
See also PZ's short write-up a year ago. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2008 : 15:06:41 [Permalink]
|
From Marshall's comments post way up above alone, it seems clear to me that he simply ignores or rejects all arguments that contradict him. In Marshall's mind, he's not defeated until he says he's defeated.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/05/2008 15:10:28 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2008 : 15:33:13 [Permalink]
|
Marshall's arguments boil down to this: all codes we see outside of biology have been designed by people, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that all codes we see within biology (which are all "derived from" DNA according to Marshall) were designed by some intelligence.
Of course, the argument is wrong for several reasons, not least of which is that the conclusion should be that DNA was designed by humans, too. Jumping from the all-human design samples to designs by God is unwarranted because we have precisely zero examples of codes that are known to have been designed by a deity.
In syllogism form:All known-to-have-been-designed codes have been designed by X.
DNA is a code.
Therefore, DNA was designed by Y. "X" must be "human beings." Without more evidence, "Y" can only equal "X." There is no justification inherent in the logic for making "Y" equal "God," but that's exactly what Marshall has done.
And he does so because he refuses to entertain the possibility that DNA is not designed, and because the logical conclusion, that humans designed DNA, is ludicrous even to him.
In my skimming of the IIDB thread, I saw bits and pieces of this refutation of Marshall's stuff, so I'm sure that the whole thing is in there somewhere, also. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2008 : 16:47:33 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, Dave, a number of people have argued that using Marshall's own logic, his only conclusion is that humans designed DNA. One better, here, where the author, a guy SophistiCat, says:| Even accepting Marshall's special pleading, his claim still doesn't stand. According to him, we have essentially only two classes of code: human-created codes and DNA codes. But when earlier in the thread various examples of codes in living things were presented to him, such as bee waggle dance, he swept aside all such examples, pointing out that all living creatures are already "coded" by DNA. But so are humans! Therefore, following Marshall's logic, DNA code must subsume human-made codes as well. We are now left with only one independent class of codes: DNA-based life. Marshall's assertion that "all codes are created by a conscious mind" doesn't follow. |
Which, yeah. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2008 : 19:09:33 [Permalink]
|
Attention all Perry Marshall Fans.....
I took the liberty of contacting the esteemed Mr. Marshall and inviting him to visit SFN, sending him one of Dave's comments in the hope of piquing his interest. He appears slightly peaked and sallow! On Feb 5, 2008 6:07 PM, William Buck wrote:
Perry Marshall.....
Your debate challenge concerning the existence of God as related to DNA "evidence" has been heavily discussed at www.skepticfriends.com for the past week. We have internet readership well into the five figures, and we thought perhaps you might like to come aboard for a comment or two and defend or reconstruct your outrageous statements, which have been pretty well shredded here.
A typical commentary posted today:
"Marshall's arguments boil down to this: all codes we see outside of biology have been designed by people, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that all codes we see within biology (which are all "derived from" DNA according to Marshall) were designed by some intelligence.
Of course, the argument is wrong for several reasons, not least of which is that the conclusion should be that DNA was designed by humans, too. Jumping from the all-human design samples to designs by God is unwarranted because we have precisely zero examples of codes that are known to have been designed by a deity.
In syllogism form:
All known-to-have-been-designed codes have been designed by X.
DNA is a code.
Therefore, DNA was designed by Y.
"X" must be "human beings." Without more evidence, "Y" can only equal "X." There is no justification inherent in the logic for making "Y" equal "God," but that's exactly what Marshall has done.
And he does so because he refuses to entertain the possibility that DNA is not designed, and because the logical conclusion, that humans designed DNA, is ludicrous even to him." |
We would be delighted to hear your rebuttal of this or any of the other derisive commentary concerning your theological nonsense. If you think you can stand up to a group of genuine critical thinkers, we will be more than happy to hear from you!
William Buck
bngbuck@roadrunner.com
Forum Member
Skeptical Friends Network (www.skepticfriends.org) |
I received this response from him today (February 9)....On February 9, 2008 10:22 AM, Perry Marshall wrote:[b]
William,
I have thoroughly covered all of these arguments already, at www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm
and if you want active debate the place to do it is on the Infidels discussion board and the link that you find on this page. I'm sure the moderator can re-open the thread if that is necessary. I see no need to have the same argument in multiple places.
Your person said, "Without further evidence, Y can only be X." But that is clearly impossible because I think it's fair to say, we know humans did not design DNA. So this X/Y question is fully addressed on http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm,
I consider all 5 logical possibilities for Y:
1)Humans designed DNA
2)Aliens designed DNA
3)DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4)There must be some undiscovered law of physics that createsinformation
5)DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.
(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans.
(2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time.
(3) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck.
(4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code.So the |
[Post truncated by DB crash of 9/2009 - Dave W.] |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2008 : 19:41:42 [Permalink]
|
Ugh. Not really, bngbuck. There are plenty of refutations out that that he simply refuses to discuss. What makes you think he's suddenly going to start now??
And I've had my own email discussion with him calling him out on some rather dishonest used of quotes and a rather disingenuous presentation of scholarly research. His reply, while gracious, made it clear that he either a) doesn't understand that he's still being dishonest and disingenuous, or b) doesn't care.
Given this, I see little reason to think that further discussion with him will be of value on iidb. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 01:35:50 [Permalink]
|
Cune.....
| There are plenty of refutations out that that he simply refuses to discuss. What makes you think he's suddenly going to start now?? |
He's not going to suddenly start now, or ever for that matter! He's a ideolouge of the first water, and the type of fanatic that I understood, at some point, that folks of the "critical thinking" persuasion were honor bound to oppose and deny and outpoint when they surfaced and started disseminating their crap!
I thought that all the ID and Creationist bullshit cried out for rebuttal. So now comes a guy with some linguistic facility and a pedigree of commercial success and big balls. And he shoves it right in your and mine and Dawkins' and Hitchens' faces! And nobody wants to talk to him directly! He ain't worth the superstars expensive time, and he scares off the minor leagues! It pisses me off! I congratulate you Cune, you got into a dialogue with him!
So did I! I have started a private e-mail "discussion" with this asshole and I'm not going to quit until I send ten successive challenges to him without reply! And they're going to get meaner and meaner! He has the arrogance of ignorance and I'm going to bait him into corners that have no weasel exit. He is so fucking full of himself he has become unilaterally monozygotic! He's made a few bucks and now he's grandstanding in the Elysian Fields of Intelligensia and using every dirty street trick in the used car salesman's book!
I can kind of understand no one here in the Ivory Towers wanting to take him on, because he certainly doesn't play fair. It's the Golden Rule of Commerce - fuck others over as you would not tolerate yourself being fucked! You can do it in debate as well as in commercial transactions, as Marshall has learned in his tender few years of huckstering.
| And I've had my own email discussion with him calling him out on some rather dishonest used of quotes and a rather disingenuous presentation of scholarly research. His reply, while gracious, made it clear that he either a) doesn't understand that he's still being dishonest and disingenuous, or b) doesn't care. |
He understands, Cune! I would appreciate any specific information you have gathered in your communications with him, concerning his dishonesty and disingenuousness. I'm going to use everything that I can find!
I sent him a long e-mail this evening with six specifics to respond to. He wants to hide behind the Infidel website, citing "I see no need to have the same argument in two places". Shit, he hasn't been to the Infidel site for two years!
I'm challenging him to mano a mano without all the static and irrelevance of twenty or thirty other participants. He wants a free-for-all, I'm insisting on a tauromierdamaquia (bullshitfight)! Stay tuned! I'll send you reports straight from the Quixotic Front! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 06:58:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...he hasn't been to the Infidel site for two years! |
You're going to need to get your facts straight better than that if you intend to take him on. It's been a little more than six months since he last posted to IIDB.
But if you decide to continue in your current course, then...(3) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck. ...ask him how he measured "remote." Because his objection - as written - is nothing more than an unscientific appeal to improbability. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
‘Information,’ ID, and evolution
