|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 10:08:34 [Permalink]
|
The challenge should be for a formal written debate. SFN would be happy to set that up. He can even take part in deciding on the rules for the debate.
Rather than being hostile in your communications with him, remind him that to date, no creationist or ID advocate has been willing to submit to a formal written format for a debate, which might be quite interesting.
A formal debate would include opening statements, rebuttals and closing statements, all without interference. Point out that forum and email debates are a dime a dozen but a written debate has the likely potential of rising above the din and actually have some impact on those he is trying to reach out to.
We have another accepted offer in the works right now, but it seems that the foot dragging on the other side may go on indefinitely...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 02/10/2008 : 10:42:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
The challenge should be for a formal written debate. SFN would be happy to set that up. He can even take part in deciding on the rules for the debate.
Rather than being hostile in your communications with him, remind him that to date, no creationist or ID advocate has been willing to submit to a formal written format for a debate, which might be quite interesting.
A formal debate would include opening statements, rebuttals and closing statements, all without interference. Point out that forum and email debates are a dime a dozen but a written debate has the likely potential of rising above the din and actually have some impact on those he is trying to reach out to.
We have another accepted offer in the works right now, but it seems that the foot dragging on the other side may go on indefinitely...
|
Eh. I think his standard reply is that he's "debating" right now (and has been for sometime) on IIDB and that if we wanted to engage him, we go there. But he'll ask that we slog through all 47 pages. And if you try to bring up already-introduced points, he'll simply say that that's been addressed and refuse to engage.
Seriously. He doesn't have a leg to stand on anymore, but (like any in the creationism/ID debate) he's not going to admit that.
What's the use? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 11:16:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by Kil
The challenge should be for a formal written debate. SFN would be happy to set that up. He can even take part in deciding on the rules for the debate.
Rather than being hostile in your communications with him, remind him that to date, no creationist or ID advocate has been willing to submit to a formal written format for a debate, which might be quite interesting.
A formal debate would include opening statements, rebuttals and closing statements, all without interference. Point out that forum and email debates are a dime a dozen but a written debate has the likely potential of rising above the din and actually have some impact on those he is trying to reach out to.
We have another accepted offer in the works right now, but it seems that the foot dragging on the other side may go on indefinitely...
|
Eh. I think his standard reply is that he's "debating" right now (and has been for sometime) on IIDB and that if we wanted to engage him, we go there. But he'll ask that we slog through all 47 pages. And if you try to bring up already-introduced points, he'll simply say that that's been addressed and refuse to engage.
Seriously. He doesn't have a leg to stand on anymore, but (like any in the creationism/ID debate) he's not going to admit that.
What's the use?
|
Has he been challenged and made to see the difference that a formal debate might make? I see no reason not to remind him that, to date, we think our offer (or any offer) for a formal written debate has not been accepted by creationists or ID advocates because it raises the level of intellectual discourse and, of course, idea's and facts can be presented and rebutted to in a coherent, easy to read, orderly way. We're suggesting a grown up debate.
If he is fine with wallowing around in kiddy-land, that's fine. Par for the course in fact.
I would bring those things up with him.
Anyhow, what harm could it do to ask? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 22:10:02 [Permalink]
|
Perry Marshall as originally quoted by bngbuck
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... |
In my earlier haste, I neglected to point out that Perry forgot...6) DNA occurred non-randomly and spontaneously. He might try to lump that in with number 4, but I would contend that an as-yet undiscovered natural chemical process is not an undiscovered law of physics. That would be like saying that the manufacturing of Teflon was impossible until a new "law" of physics was accidentally discovered.
Of course, even adding #6, he'll dismiss that as untestable. The real problem - if he thinks that his five possibilites truly address the objection - is that the original syllogism...All known-to-have-been-designed codes have been designed by X.
DNA is a code.
Therefore, DNA was designed by Y. ...includes an implicit inductive step not actually listed between the first and second lines:All codes are designed. But the induction step fails the "airtight logic" test. A syllogism with 10,000 premises of "swan #1 is white; swan #2 is white," etc. cannot validly conclude "therefore, all swans are white." The proper induction is that it appears that all swans may be white, and then you go find some experiment with which you can support or falsify that proposition.
Perry Marshall is stopping his investigations after the induction, and reaching a conclusion he claims is scientific, yet without benefit of any testing. What experiment could he create that could possibly result in "DNA is not designed by an intelligence?" That is, of course, for him to say (or he could use my handy index to point to one of his already-existing treatises in which he's already said it).
Until he provides evidence of having tested his conjecture (repeatably and repeatedly), anything he dismisses as being unscientific will simply blow out irony meters.
Because either "prove me wrong" isn't a test, or third-grade playground bullies are doing science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 23:39:20 [Permalink]
|
I've come to the rock solid conclusion that all ID proponents are bat shit insane. Seriously. I've yet to read any of them that don't strike me as certifiably nuts. Creationist always struck me as fundamentally dishonest. But the IDers...they're write-on-the-walls-with-feces crazy. No point in attempting to discussing anything with them. Just keep your eyes on the floor and back away slowly.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2008 : 00:14:41 [Permalink]
|
I think they are mostly just stupid people. Not quite smart enough to grasp basic logic, not quite smart enough to comprehend some concepts. They obviously can memorize long lists of data (explains how some of them have degrees), and regurgitate it. thats the lowest stage of learning though.
But yeah, some of them are really insane.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2008 : 06:33:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Perry Marshall as originally quoted by bngbuck
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... |
In my earlier haste, I neglected to point out that Perry forgot...6) DNA occurred non-randomly and spontaneously. He might try to lump that in with number 4, but I would contend that an as-yet undiscovered natural chemical process is not an undiscovered law of physics. That would be like saying that the manufacturing of Teflon was impossible until a new "law" of physics was accidentally discovered.
Of course, even adding #6, he'll dismiss that as untestable. The real problem - if he thinks that his five possibilites truly address the objection - is that the original syllogism...All known-to-have-been-designed codes have been designed by X.
DNA is a code.
Therefore, DNA was designed by Y. ...includes an implicit inductive step not actually listed between the first and second lines:All codes are designed. But the induction step fails the "airtight logic" test. A syllogism with 10,000 premises of "swan #1 is white; swan #2 is white," etc. cannot validly conclude "therefore, all swans are white." The proper induction is that it appears that all swans may be white, and then you go find some experiment with which you can support or falsify that proposition. |
Right, Dave, and this has been brought up before even though Marshall hasn't addressed it. To his question, "show me a code that's not designed" I could just offer DNA! And then we're back at square one. Marhsall has no reply and so there's a reason he's not opted to answer it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
‘Information,’ ID, and evolution
