RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (417) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2014,06:32   

Quote
Why do you guys even talk to him over at SZ? He's despicable.


Site rules! ""Treat all other commenters as if they are posting in good faith". It does sometimes require suspension of disbelief.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4221
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2014,08:32   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 18 2014,04:53)
Why do you guys even talk to him over at SZ? He's despicable.

I'll note that human shitstain Sal abandoned his latest thread with YEC claims at TSZ as soon as he was asked about them.  He along with phoodoo have retreated to the safety of UD where he doesn't have to answer those tough questions.  The IDiots over there will pat him on the back no matter what kind of idiocy he barfs up.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2233
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2014,19:39   

Incipient Torley fatigue?
Mapou:    
Quote
lnteresting piece even if a little on the long side.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2233
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2014,19:45   

Oh yeah, the title of that too-long piece?  "Why the best arguments for the existence of God are not stupid."

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,02:32   

Anyone following StephenB's evisceration by RDFish/aiguy in the "ID Foundations 21 ...etc" thread may be amused to note KF's correction of HTML errors in comment 346. Gordon assumes all the ad hominems must be by RDFish and "corrects" accordingly, crediting StephenB with making the key point in RDFish's argument (pointing out the new schism of Dembski-ID and Meyer-ID).

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,03:24   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 19 2014,19:39)
Incipient Torley fatigue?
Mapou:    
Quote
lnteresting piece even if a little on the long side.

Demonstrating that it is possible for one's legs -- though lengthy-- not to reach the ground.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,08:03   

Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2357
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,08:39   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:  
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,10:01   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:  
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!

I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:

Protein folds as platonic forms....

He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"

These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!

Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God?

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,10:40   

Quote
ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about.

Serious students of nature might want to learn the where, when and how of the designer's effort. Unless the designer is God, in which case it is all done by magic - his preferrered method according to reliable sources.
 
Quote
The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.
Please keep us updated.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1267
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,12:19   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,15:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:    
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

They won't react, Big Tent and all.

By the way, the post immediately above the one you linked to is interesting:  
Quote
He is a well-known writer — though mainly in the evangelical world — on “science and theology,” but has no training in theology to speak of. His Ph.D. was in physics, and while he taught a course on theology and science for years at his little Nazarene College, he never had any notable academic achievement in theology and science, never had any published articles in any serious academic journals in that field. (He may have published one or two pieces in journals like Zygon, but to my knowledge you won’t find him in Isis, Review of Metaphysics, Journal of the History of Ideas, Scottish Journal of Theology, etc.)

He did publish several *books* on theology and science, but these books are all of a popular rather than an academic character,  and slanted toward evangelicals struggling with evolution and with science generally. They therefore aren’t used in graduate or even undergraduate courses in serious universities, but only in little Christian colleges and seminaries. (Serious universities aren’t concerned with the angst of evangelicals who fear science.)


Now who does that remind me of?  :p

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11169
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,16:15   

Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,16:38   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

Well, if they could recognize irony, they'd immediately overdose on their own hypocrisy.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1920
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,16:49   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

Maybe it's just their in house awards for a the year?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,17:05   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

I believe at UD they are also considering giving out awards: " DiscoTute's Universal Moral and Manly Yaweh-Like" Awards - (aka the D.U.M.M.Y. Awards) for the following categories:

The Fast Talker Of The Year category (The Golden Gish)
The Holier Than Thou category (A 20 way tie between the Usual UD Posters)
The Bestest ID Writer (O'Leary to get Lifetime Achievement recognition)
And of course the crowd will be on the edge of their pew seats for the Final "Best Liar For Jesus" category.

I for one expect another 20-way tie...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3177
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,17:32   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,14:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

The nominees are:

The CBEB's.

The Atheist Darwinist Materialist Baby-Eating Conspiracy.

The Entire Scientific Community.

Corny Hunter.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1267
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,13:48   

From vjtorley's thoughts about Lizzie's post on the SZ - "Getting some stuff off my chest" - the discussion quickly degrades to bickering about the nature of god. First highlight , written by RexTugwell:
 
Quote
Eric and Mapou, are you guys Mormons? If you are, we’ve got bigger disagreements than whether God has a body or not.



--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
sparc



Posts: 2015
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,13:54   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

I used their Twitter button but added a bit before re-teeting:
Quote
Censor of the Year: Who Will It Be? Obviously, Barry Arrington of http://uncommondescent.com/....ent.com  http://shar.es/UslLM  via @sharethis


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,18:22   

Quote (REC @ Jan. 20 2014,16:01)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39)
 
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:    
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!

I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:

Protein folds as platonic forms....

He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"

These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!

Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God?

The 'platonic' forms all ultimately relate back to the charge of the quarks and their packing in threes. Obviously it's a put-up job. Things like that don't just happen!

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,18:33   

Nobody expects the charge of the quarks.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1920
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,19:05   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 21 2014,18:22)
Quote (REC @ Jan. 20 2014,16:01)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39)
 
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:      
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!

I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:

Protein folds as platonic forms....

He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"

These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!

Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God?

The 'platonic' forms all ultimately relate back to the charge of the quarks and their packing in threes. Obviously it's a put-up job. Things like that don't just happen!

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Quark?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,19:21   

I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3177
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,21:15   

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 21 2014,17:21)
I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.

Ramans do everything in threes

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Henry J



Posts: 5390
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,21:40   

Quark? He follows the rules of Acquisition.

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,21:47   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 22 2014,03:15)
Quote (Driver @ Jan. 21 2014,17:21)
I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.

Ramans do everything in threes

Okay, you're more obscure.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,21:50   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 22 2014,03:40)
Quark? He follows the rules of Acquisition.

No, you are the most obscure.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
rossum



Posts: 261
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2014,05:48   

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 21 2014,19:21)
I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.

Only in the south, on Tuesdays.  Otherwise they are Zoroastrian.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,04:16   

I have to say, I find it a bit annoying (but "revealing" as KF would say) that UD bans me, lets vjtorley post nice posts commenting on my posts at TSZ, which I can't comment on at UD, and yet the commenters there can "paraphrase" my views, without link, so that they make no sense whatsoever, and then congratulate themselves on the vacuity of the paraphrase.

Phoodoo:

Quote


William,

I thought Lizzie argument of why we should see humans as anything more than chemical oddities if one believes in evolution, is particularly unsophisticated. Basically her idea is that, well, we can call humans special, because we feel they are special. And her biggest cop-out, well, they have “emergence”. A completely vague, and unexplainable science term which tries to make sense of how a bunch of ants can make something smart, or how our individual brain cells can put together a complex thought.

She kept trying to say, “well, they are emergent, see, so that is where we get our moral ideas.” I think she didn’t even have a clue what she was trying to say, but simply was trying to throw out some concepts and hope they deflected the problem of finding morality in a completely materialist world.

If we are all just different mixes of chemicals, all the talk in the world about emergence doesn’t erase the fact that its just chemicals creating the illusion of value.

The fact is, science doesn’t even know what emergence is, they have no idea how ants make complex decisions, and how individual brain cells, add up to consciousness. Its a complete mystery,and she is using it as a defense for pulling morality out of thin air.

Eric A:
Quote


phoodoo:

Thanks for calling out the “emergence” business. It is amazing how many people buy into the “emergence” buzzword as though it were some kind of actual explanation.

Emergence, without more explanation of what is actually going on at the micro and macro level, is just another way of restating the old evolutionary storyline:

Stuff Happens.


Needless to say, I have never said that humans "have" "emergence".

geez.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,04:37   

I'm somewhat guilty of arguing for emergence. I don't think I've ever said it is an explanation of anything,  but I think it is silly to say humans can't have this or that attribute because the attribute isn't an attribute of mere molecules.

It would be interesting to have a coherent description of emergence,  preferable a readable one. It would seem to be a cousin of vitalism.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,05:15   

I've certainly talked about emergence - I think it's really important. But I don't think it's a property that things have.  I think a way of indicating that wholes have different properties from their parts.

The properties of a carbon dioxide molecule are different from those of atomic carbon or oxygen.  So to that extent, its properties are "emergent" from the configuration of its more fundamental components, which in turn have properties that "emerge" from their more fundamental components, and so on.

I don't think it's even controversial.  Wholes have properties not possessed by their parts, and they have them by virtue of their configuration, not by possessing Magic Parts.

And we call these properties "emergent" properties because nothing is added that wasn't there originally, unless you call the configuration "added".  In which case what has been "added" is good old "information", which is lost when the configuration is destroyed.

But then IDists consider "Information" to be "Magic Parts".

  
  12489 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (417) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]