Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

April 14, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From our WJM:

When one is asked to support the view that the most highly complex and sophisticated, precise, self-correcting, multi-level & interdependent software-controlled hardware machinery known to exist most likely did not come into existence by happenstance interactions of chemistry, you know that we are in an age of rampant, self-imposed, ignorant idiocy.

Happenstance physical interactions are not up to the task of creating such sophisticated, information-driven nanotechnology. There is no rational contrary position. You simply cannot argue such willful idiocy out of its self-imposed state. Thankfully, such exchanges are useful for other onlookers with more reasonable perspectives.

Comments

When one is asked to support the view that the most highly complex and sophisticated, precise, self-correcting, multi-level & interdependent software-controlled hardware machinery known to exist most likely did not come into existence by happenstance interactions of chemistry, you know that we are in an age of rampant, self-imposed, ignorant idiocy.
"[S]oftware-controlled hardware machinery" is an analogy not a description. Human computing and engineering are the nearest metaphors from human technology that we have for what we see happening in the cell, for example. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the cell was designed in the way a computer or a factory was. No, we do not have a plausible step-by-step account of how to get from inanimate chemicals to complex living organisms, although there is intriguing work being done in the field. But neither do we have any compelling evidence of a designer capable of such things as life and universes nor any better idea, if such exists, of how it might have accomplished its purposes. Only human hubris would insist that it must be design in the face of a lack of evidence to decide the matter either way.
Happenstance physical interactions are not up to the task of creating such sophisticated, information-driven nanotechnology. There is no rational contrary position. You simply cannot argue such willful idiocy out of its self-imposed state. Thankfully, such exchanges are useful for other onlookers with more reasonable perspectives.
You know as well as I do that neither Darwin nor any other evolutionist has argued that the evolution of life on Earth was due entirely to happenstance. That's a tired old creationist canard. The mutations on which natural selection acts are caused by something, whether radiation or viruses or chemicals. But the cause is random in the sense that there is no reason to think those mutations were intended to affect the processes of evolution in any way. They just happen. They also occur in the context of an ordered universe the laws of which ultimately determine whether the effects of a mutation are neutral, detrimental or beneficial. If you want to point out that we have no idea where that order comes from and that intelligent agency is one possible explanation, I would agree. But, call it "idiocy" all you like, being possible is a long way from the existence of such a designer being established and even further from it being necessarily the God of Christianity.Seversky_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

O: It is a reasonable inference.Armand Jacks_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

You are saying that, since freedom can be destroyed by physical stuff, it is reasonable to assume that it can also be constructed by physical stuff. Do I understand you correctly?Origenes_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

All I know is that freedom can be removed through the use of physical "stuff". We can destroy consciousness through the use of chemistry and physical changes to the brain. Damage to the physical brain has turned people from socially well adjusted sociopaths. All of this through purely physical changes to the brain.Armand Jacks_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

AJ Would you like to begin? Do you want to argue how freedom emerges from physical stuff? Or would you prefer me to show you that this cannot be done? Your call.Origenes_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

O:
Great. Are you arguing for emergentism? Are you saying that mental stuff is an emergent property of brain chemicals?
I think the term "emergent" is a weak term. But if you are comfortable with it, I am fine.Armand Jacks_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Armand Jacks: ... are you denying that in a materialist/physicalist environment the end product can be greater than the sum of the parts? Otherwise, how do you explain water, crystals, etc.? I am willing to discuss this ...
Great. Are you arguing for emergentism? Are you saying that mental stuff is an emergent property of brain chemicals?Origenes_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

O:
Why do you say that? Do you hold that WJM has some magical capacity to override the ongoing physical processes of his body and brain? How is that compatible with materialism?
If you are going to take the same childish tactics as WJM, can you explain to me why I should engage with you in discussion? Or are you denying that in a materialist/physicalist environment the end product can be greater than the sum of the parts? Otherwise, how do you explain water, crystals, etc.? I am willing to discuss this, but if you are going to adopt WJM's immature, childish approach, I will say my good byes.Armand Jacks_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Armand Jacks
AJ: Now WJM. Calm down.
Why do you say that? Do you hold that WJM has some magical capacity to override the ongoing physical processes of his body and brain? How is that compatible with materialism?
AJ: I hold that I am a free responsible rational person, whose “essence” is the result of material processes.
Can you explain how you can be free and a material process? And while you are at it, can you also explain how you can be responsible and a material process? And how you can be rational and a material process? And finally how you can be a person and a material process?Origenes_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Now WJM. Calm down. If you can't play nice with the big kids, there will be no ice cream for you. Take a deep breath and count till ten. Go sit in the corner until can play nicely with the other kids.Armand Jacks_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Armand said:
Actually, that is what intelligent people would say. But I understand why you wouldn’t know that.
Actually, under atheistic materialism, people say whatever happenstance interactions of chemistry makes them say, and I would experience as "knowing" whatever such interactions produces with such a sensation. Nothing more, nothing less.
When you are willing to take off the diapers and act like a mature adult, get back to me. Until then, I think it might be your nap time.
Note how the meatbot says things as if it expects others to have some sort of supernatural top-down power to redirect or change the onward march of physical processes. As if "I" was something other than whatever was producing the behavior in question; as if "I" was something that could reach down or in and stop it. How would he expect me to even do this? Does Armand expect me to know how to mix the right chemicals and fire a certain sequence of neurons to produce the desired behavioral effects? Am I (whatever he imagines that to be other than what is producing the behavior) supposed to understand what each enzyme and acid will contribute? Does he expect me to read DNA codes and do some editing on the fly? Armand argues as if all that is required is for me to simply will an imagined course change and **poof**, sudden WJM is acting in an entirely different manner. Am I supposed to be able to do this without reading some peer-reviewed papers on how to chemically induce various behaviors in certain body types and in certain DNA structures? What, does he think my **will** has some sort of magical capacity to override the ongoing physical processes of my body and brain and produce the desired physical effects with no chemistry or biological knowledge about how to do so? Does Armand believe in witchcraft and voodoo as well?William J Murray_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Some more meatbot shenanigans:
Are you calling WJM’s childish behaviour an attempt to reason? Or KF’s condescending sermonizing?
He says this as he expect some some kind of behavior out of KF or I other than what happenstance chemical reactions produce. Notice how he assigns inane qualities to the effects of physical processes like some physical effects being "childish" or others "condescending" - as if those perceptions were actually qualities of physics outside of his own personal experience. It's really pretty bizarre.
All you have to do is look at KF’s comment immediately above, calling those who disagree with him irrational.
But under atheistic materialism, everyone and everything is irrational. Physics has nothing to do with logic - what happens is just whatever happens. Whatever anyone thinks or says is just whatever sensations or utterances physics happens to produce. There's notion rational or logical about any of it. Armand might as well be complaining about the particular markings on the dirt because of a light rain.
I have had several good discussions here with people like yourself, UB, JoshuaB, etc.
All discussions are just the noises that happenstance chemistry and physics produces. But then, so is Armand's sensation of what conversations are "good" and which are "not good". Such things are determined by physical things bumping around in Armand's body. If he had eaten a different dinner last night, perhaps he would think the opposite. Who knows?
I would argue that there is an equal amount of smugness on both sides. And I am ashamed to admit that I can all be smug at times.
While there is no rational reason to be ashamed (I mean, am I ashamed of my dark hair, or height, or eye-color?) of a physics-produced series of occurrences, who knows what might produce a sensation of shame? Perhaps cut down on the sourdough? Maybe drink a some Earl Grey? Sadly, who knows if he'll remember the preventative for feeling shame - who knows what might cause his memory to change at any time. That's just part of the sad lot of being an atheist materialist meatbot.William J Murray_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

How does one debate a "rational" person who insists that his thoughts are not about stuff?
Physics has ruled out the existence of clumps of matter of the required sort. There are just fermions and bosons and combinations of them. None of that stuff is just, all by itself, about any other stuff. There is nothing in the whole universe—including, of course, all the neurons in your brain—that just by its nature or composition can do this job of being about some other clump of matter. So, when consciousness assures us that we have thoughts about stuff, it has to be wrong. ... But the thoughts are not about stuff. Therefore, consciousness cannot retrieve thoughts about stuff. There are none to retrieve. So it can’t have thoughts about stuff either. [A. Rosenberg, TAGTR, Ch.8]
And how does one debate with a "person" who insists that he is not a person?
Science provides clear-cut answers to all of the questions on the list: there is no free will, there is no mind distinct from the brain, there is no soul, no self, no person that supposedly inhabits your body, that endures over its life span, and that might even outlast it. So, introspection must be wrong. [A. Rosenberg, TAGTR, Ch.7]
A consistent materialist at last, but my question is: how does one debate him?Origenes_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

JaD:
Unfortunately, too many people on my side (and you don’t need to be an ID’ist to be on my side) enable these peoples smugness by trying to reason with them.
Are you calling WJM's childish behaviour an attempt to reason? Or KF's condescending sermonizing? All you have to do is look at KF's comment immediately above, calling those who disagree with him irrational. I have had several good discussions here with people like yourself, UB, JoshuaB, etc. I would argue that there is an equal amount of smugness on both sides. And I am ashamed to admit that I can all be smug at times.Armand Jacks_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Leibniz, Monadology 17:
It must be confessed, however, that perception, and that which depends upon it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is to say, by figures and motions. Supposing that there were a machine whose structure produced thought, sensation, and perception, we could conceive of it as increased in size with the same proportions until one was able to enter into its interior, as he would into a mill. Now, on going into it he would find only pieces working upon one another, but never would he find anything to explain perception.
In short, materialist reductionism (or even emergentism) reduces to blindly mechanical chains of cause and effect, modified by blind chance processes. In that there is simply no room for responsible, rational freedom. Reppert counsels:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
Evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers are inherently irrational through being incoherent and self-falsifying. KFkairosfocus_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

I think there are two basic type of people who actively participate in conversations here at UD: those who are motivated by truth and reason and those who are motivated by smugness. I see myself as someone who is motivated by truth and reason. I have said this before for me truth trumps faith. If you can convince me with facts and reason that my beliefs are untrue, I will change my beliefs. I see most of our regular interlocutors as being motivated by smugness, an arrogant self-centered belief that what they believe is true. Why? Because they believe it and whatever smug people believe must be true. After eleven years of participating in on-line discussions I can spot these people from their very first posts. They always start from a contrarian even hostile stance and a condescending tone, from which never back off. And they never ever try to establish any kind of common ground. They also appear to believe that high-minded but otherwise vacuous rhetoric is equivalent to good reasoning. Apart from a few occasional glib comments I no longer engage with people motivated by smugness. You cannot reason with people who do not understand what reasoning is. Unfortunately, too many people on my side (and you don’t need to be an ID’ist to be on my side) enable these peoples smugness by trying to reason with them. Like I said above, they aren’t interested in truth, reason or establishing any kind of common ground. For them winning is being able to shut down the discussion and debate. So when you try to reason with them they don’t see it as an offer to play fair but an opportunity to obstruct and obfuscate. Again if they are able undermine the discussion in any way they see that as winning. Notice that I haven’t named any names or given any specific examples. Why? Because that is one of the things that plays into their hands. Smug people crave being noticed, even if it’s negative. If nothing else they can feign being offended and that gives them an opportunity to counter attack with sarcasm, mockery and ridicule… which causes frustration on the ID side… which cause retaliation, which then gets the discussion going in the direction the want it to go-- downhill. Maybe it’s time for some us who are frustrated by decreasing quality of the discourse on this site to circle the wagons and have a public discussion on how to improve the conversation and debate. Of course anyone would be welcome as long as they can be respectful and constructive. If they can’t engage honestly and respectfully their comments would be deleted. That’s my suggestion for a future OP.john_a_designer_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

WJM:
Only an idiot (meaning, meatbot) looks at the interdependent, sophisticated, highly-complex, precision-operating, self-correcting software/hardware find in biological nanotechnology and says “there is no evidence one way or the other as to how it developed”.
Actually, that is what intelligent people would say. But I understand why you wouldn't know that.
Those physical interactions might cause it to say “I know I’m made of peppermint cotton candy” or “impsh ujojke you .lyouj ajjyy” and also make it think it has responded appropriately to written stimuli. Who knows?
Another lesson by WJM on the fine art of using childish behaviour in a debate. I concede. I am not capable of acting so childishly. Another win for objective morality and supernaturalism. When you are willing to take off the diapers and act like a mature adult, get back to me. Until then, I think it might be your nap time.Armand Jacks_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Armand said:
Only an idiot would make such a statement about something that they have no evidence one way or the other as to how it developed.
Only an idiot (meaning, meatbot) looks at the interdependent, sophisticated, highly-complex, precision-operating, self-correcting software/hardware find in biological nanotechnology and says "there is no evidence one way or the other as to how it developed".
Myself, I prefer to say that I don’t know whether the origin of life was natural or designed.
I'm sure your happenstance physical programming causes everything you say, along with the sensation that you prefer to say such things.
But I do know that there is extensive research being conducted looking at possible natural means of OOL. I look forward to reading all of the research being conducted into the designed means of OOL. Do you have links to any peer reviewed papers that I should start with?
Unfortunately, under Armand's worldview premise, there is no means by which for him to "know" any such thing other than that happenstance physical interactions cause it to have a sensation that it "knows" something (or prefers to say it doesn't know). Those physical interactions might cause it to say "I know I'm made of peppermint cotton candy" or "impsh ujojke you .lyouj ajjyy" and also make it think it has responded appropriately to written stimuli. Who knows? And here it is, "arguing" with another set of happenstance physical interactions as if the noises or markings produced in the exchange have some sort of significant value. But, the meatbots do what they must do, and think what they must think. They serve their purpose for those of us with supernatural sentience and will - cautionary tales of what the path of atheistic materialism can lead to.William J Murray_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Hmm, where did WJM get the idea: "sophisticated software/information driven/controlled, highly precise, multi-layered, interdependent, self-correcting nanotechnological machinery we find in a living cell" from, again? Oh, I forget, remind me: Nobel prize winning work starting with identifying DNA's structure and it's protein synthesis function, then onward, I presume. KF PS: I do not like WJM's tone here but find his substantial point hard to dismiss, precisely because I have had to work with such technologies, primitive though ours are by contrast.kairosfocus_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

WJM:
Only an idiot thinks that the sophisticated software/information driven/controlled, highly precise, multi-layered, interdependent, self-correcting nanotechnological machinery we find in a living cell can be the product of unplanned interactions of chemistry and physics.
Only an idiot would make such a statement about something that they have no evidence one way or the other as to how it developed. Myself, I prefer to say that I don't know whether the origin of life was natural or designed. But I do know that there is extensive research being conducted looking at possible natural means of OOL. I look forward to reading all of the research being conducted into the designed means of OOL. Do you have links to any peer reviewed papers that I should start with?Armand Jacks_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Take a look at these dramatic videos of people having color blindness seeing color for the first time ... https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601782/how-enchromas-glasses-correct-color-blindness/?utm_campaign=add_this&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post and https://youtu.be/XSD7-TgUmUY I'm wondering if these episodes illustrate how many people (including myself in past years) develop a type of blindness towards what is obvious to many others. I'm thinking of folks like RVB8 and Armand Jacks on this site, and Darwinian popularizers such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. In such cases, it seems like no amount of intellectual effort and argument sways the hardened mind to even consider an alternative view of evidence that is right before our eyes. I say evidence rather than proof, because each will interpret what we are presented through the glasses of our particular world view. But often, as in my own particular case, we are surprised when we find ourselves looking through lenses of a different sort and see things for the very first time and are touched dramatically in an entirely new way, and a way that we can't easily deny. As in these color blind folks seeing colors for the first time, we can no longer insist that the orange ball is in fact green. Perhaps the best we can do is continue to press the evidence of modern science in hopes that onlookers will find themselves suddenly, or not so suddenly, looking through corrective lenses. Lenses that continue to illustrate and illuminate the designs in nature that are all around and within us.ayearningforpublius_{April 15, 2017
April
04
Apr
15
15
2017
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Let's refocus again, from 19: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 19 kairosfocusApril 14, 2017 at 4:22 pm Let us refocus from OP, doing away with the sidetracking excuse:
When one is asked to support the view that the most highly complex and sophisticated, precise, self-correcting, multi-level & interdependent software-controlled hardware machinery known to exist most likely did not come into existence by happenstance [= blind chance and/or mechanical necessity-driven, non-foresighted] interactions of chemistry [and physics in a Darwin’s pond or the like prelife envt, etc], you know that we are in an age of rampant, self-imposed, ignorant idiocy. Happenstance physical interactions are not up to the task of creating such sophisticated, information-driven nanotechnology. There is no rational contrary position. You simply cannot argue such willful idiocy out of its self-imposed state.
I predict, there will be no serious engagement of the OOL info and organisation by blind forces challenge, nor of those tied onward to origin of body plans. And in particular, there will be no evidence observed in the here and now that requisite functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information beyond 500 – 1,000 bits can and does come about by blind process. In order to object or distract, objectors will be forced to create further examples of FSCO/I by intelligently directed configuration. KFkairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

F/N: Plato's warning on how minds and consciences are warped through evolutionary materialism, leading to marches of ruinous folly, never mind clever little turnabout rhetorical stunts:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
Notice, how the urge to the truth and the right are undermined through such ideologies and where it ends. Then, re-examine the issue put in the OP and the course of the thread. Then ask, are we simply seeing what Plato warned against playing out yet again? KFkairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Only an idiot thinks that the sophisticated software/information driven/controlled, highly precise, multi-layered, interdependent, self-correcting nanotechnological machinery we find in a living cell can be the product of unplanned interactions of chemistry and physics. It's beyond rational debate. The only meaningful debate is about the source, nature, implementation and goals of the planning, not whether or not planning was involved at all.William J Murray_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

As I've already pointed out to Armand in 2 threads now, I used the term "happenstance" as an adjective according to the Merriam-Webster definition of the adjective use of "chance":
happening without being planned
Unless it is Armand's position that according to atheism/materialism, planning was involved in the construction of OOL biological cellular nanotechnology, then his claim that I have misrepresented such ideas is misguided. IOW, another way to say what I said: "According to atheists/materialists, there was no planning involved in the construction of the biological nanotechnology of the living cell." Will Armand disagree with that statement? Will it say it's not a valid representation of the atheist/materialist position on OOL biological nanotechnology? Will it offer another definition of "chance" that supports its objection even though the validity of Armand's criticism of what I said depends on how **I** was using the term "happenstance", not upon however he might have mistakenly interpreted it? Let's see what nonsense the meatbot spits out next.William J Murray_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

KF:
Where, we would be well advised to heed Plato’s warning of the inherent amorality and ruthless factionalism that flow from those tainted springs. KF
Notice the sidetracking from a serious issue?Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

I will add, that while some will make the bare assertion that blind chance and mechanical necessity can and do give rise to rational, responsible freedom, they cannot substantiate such or address the copious evidence that in fact such forces are simply irrelevant to freedom to reason and responsibility to do so aright. When those specific issues have been on the table, the same sidetrack tactics were what were in use. To start with, the info and organisation just to get to a computational substrate cannot be explained on such grounds, nor the software. And that is the easy problem. Hard ones start with the fact that no computational substrate or process exhibits rational, responsible freedom, instead it is a matter of carefully organised mill wheels grinding away oblivious to meaning, intentionality, decision or purpose. Further, such is simply not governed from within by ought with freedom to choose beyond programming and blind random forces. We see here the confusion of concepts and the corruption of language to evade a critical example of the self referential incoherence of evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow traveller ideologies. Where, we would be well advised to heed Plato's warning of the inherent amorality and ruthless factionalism that flow from those tainted springs. KFkairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

KF:
Notice the sidetracking from a serious issue, dragging on and on instead of taking a well merited correction? The motive at work is clearly to find an excuse to side-track rather than face sobering issues.
KF, I have been talking about WJM's statement. The very same statement that is central to this OP. If you have something to add to the discussion other than groundless accusations, please do so. If not, your best approach would be to keep quiet. You only make yourself look childish and foolish otherwise.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Let us refocus from OP, doing away with the sidetracking excuse:
When one is asked to support the view that the most highly complex and sophisticated, precise, self-correcting, multi-level & interdependent software-controlled hardware machinery known to exist most likely did not come into existence by happenstance [= blind chance and/or mechanical necessity-driven, non-foresighted] interactions of chemistry [and physics in a Darwin's pond or the like prelife envt, etc], you know that we are in an age of rampant, self-imposed, ignorant idiocy. Happenstance physical interactions are not up to the task of creating such sophisticated, information-driven nanotechnology. There is no rational contrary position. You simply cannot argue such willful idiocy out of its self-imposed state.
I predict, there will be no serious engagement of the OOL info and organisation by blind forces challenge, nor of those tied onward to origin of body plans. And in particular, there will be no evidence observed in the here and now that requisite functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information beyond 500 - 1,000 bits can and does come about by blind process. In order to object or distract, objectors will be forced to create further examples of FSCO/I by intelligently directed configuration. KFkairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Notice the sidetracking from a serious issue, dragging on and on instead of taking a well merited correction? The motive at work is clearly to find an excuse to side-track rather than face sobering issues.kairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply