Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington
April 14, 2017

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

O:
I hold that I am a free responsible rational person, whose essence is immaterial.
I hold that I am a free responsible rational person, whose "essence" is the result of material processes. As with many things, we are more than the sum of our parts. That doesn't require an immaterial causation. Water is more than the sum of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. But it is wet at room temperature and solid at -10 because of material processes.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PST}

LM:
If you demand no coincidences or “chance” in your OOL, then you are demanding that a single, predictable or even deterministic event produced your first life form.
I never said that chance didn't play a part.
If you are demanding no “chance” in your evolution, then you are demanding that mutations are predictable with respect to the genotype they are affecting.
Again, who has suggested that Chance doesn't play a role?
Firstly, evolutionists in general refer to “random” (i.e. unpredictable in general, thus unpredictable with respect to the target genome) mutations and a great many OOL schemes fall back on the Darwinian analogy. Therefore, it’s obviously not a straw man, and your line of argument is clearly in conflict with the majority of evolutionary thinking.
Chance is only one aspect of evolution. When WJM makes a rediculous statement like "Happenstance physical interactions are not up to the task of creating such sophisticated, information-driven nanotechnology.", he is building a big beautiful strawman ripe for being knocked down. He completely ignores the significant impact that non-chance interactions can have.
Secondly, the reason evolutionists like to use randomness is it allows them a certain fuzziness.
No, the reason they use the word 'random' is because all evidence indicates that mutations are random with respect to fitness. It's a very discriptive and accurate term.
If mutation is actually predictable, it could very well doom materialistic accounts of life, as it could very well show that the necessary sequence to produce various features of biology simply does not happen.
Sorry, I don't follow your argument here. In some respects, mutations are predictable. Every generation has them. We know that exposure to certain chemicals or radiation will increase mutations. We know that certain parts of the genome are more prone to mutations than others.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PST}

Armand Jacks:
Origenes: BTW Armand Jacks, in what sense are you not a meatbot?
In the same sense that you aren’t.
I hold that I am a free responsible rational person, whose essence is immaterial. In that sense I am not a meatbot. What's your excuse?Origenes_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PST}

AJ: Coincidence is a synonym for happenstance. Coincidence means there's no causal connection between events, i.e. one cannot be predicted with respect to the other; and thus it follows that their intersection cannot be predicted with respect to either event. If you demand no coincidences or "chance" in your OOL, then you are demanding that a single, predictable or even deterministic event produced your first life form. If you are demanding no "chance" in your evolution, then you are demanding that mutations are predictable with respect to the genotype they are affecting. Firstly, evolutionists in general refer to "random" (i.e. unpredictable in general, thus unpredictable with respect to the target genome) mutations and a great many OOL schemes fall back on the Darwinian analogy. Therefore, it's obviously not a straw man, and your line of argument is clearly in conflict with the majority of evolutionary thinking. Secondly, the reason evolutionists like to use randomness is it allows them a certain fuzziness. If you assume some random input whose interval is all possible inputs, it will eventually give you every combination of inputs. If you don't, then you quite possibly won't get every sequence of inputs. Thus, demanding that the sequence of inputs you needed happened is nothing more than special pleading if you can't offer the causal sequence with any degree of (stochastic) confidence. If mutation is actually predictable, it could very well doom materialistic accounts of life, as it could very well show that the necessary sequence to produce various features of biology simply does not happen.LocalMinimum_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PST}

O:
You must be mistaken, WJM won the argument by citing Merriam-Webster in post #6.
And I won by citing Mercian-Webster in post #8.
BTW Armand Jacks, in what sense are you not a meatbot?
In the same sense that you aren't.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PST}

You must be mistaken, WJM won the argument by citing Merriam-Webster in post #6. BTW Armand Jacks, in what sense are you not a meatbot?Origenes_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PST}

O:
If a person claims to be a meatbot, why exactly is it “cowardly” to treat a person in accord with that claim? What would be the bold/correct way to treat such a person?
I must have missed the part where I claimed to be a meatbot. That was just WJM's cowardly attempt to win an argument by dehumanizing his opposition. The strategy has a long and storied past.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PST}

Armand Jacks @9 If a person claims to be a meatbot, why exactly is it "cowardly" to treat a person in accord with that claim? What would be the bold/correct way to treat such a person?Origenes_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PST}

WJM:
IMO, if an entity claims to be a meatbot, why not treat it as one?
Well, that is certainly one way to avoid admitting that your statement is a complete misrepresentation of physics and chemistry. A cowardly way, but an effective one.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PST}

KF: Or, as Merriam-Webster defines the adjective usage:
Happenstance: a circumstance especially that is due to chance.
Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PST}

But, we can't really blame the biological automaton known as Armand Jacks for making the noises and having the nonsensical thoughts caused by the happenstance chemical interactions that drive it. IMO, if an entity claims to be a meatbot, why not treat it as one? A meatbot cannot be reasoned with. A meatbot doesn't understand reason or truth. They are only useful as a educational example.William J Murray_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST}

KF: Or, as Merriam-Webster defines the adjective usage:
happening without being planned
William J Murray_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PST}

Something -- molecular interactions driven by molecular energy distributions and similar phenomena such as diffusion -- that would be dominated by statistical thermodynamics considerations can be described in such terms when speaking in a non technical manner. That is part of why I often sum up on blind chance and mechanical necessity.kairosfocus_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST}

AJ: What do I mean when I use the term "happenstance"?William J Murray_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PST}

LM, I am stating that calling physical interactions "happenstance" demonstrates a woeful ignorance of physical and chemical processes.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PST}

AJ: Would you care to contrast your position with that which you label as a "strawman"? Are you arguing that evolution is driven by deliberate interactions? Or that biology isn't sophisticated, information-driven nanotechnology? Is there a third way? Please elucidate.LocalMinimum_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PST}

Happenstance physical interactions are not up to the task of creating such sophisticated, information-driven nanotechnology.
That strawman isn't going to knock itself over. OK. Put your shoulder to it. Now, PUSH.Armand Jacks_{April 14, 2017
April
04
Apr
14
14
2017
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply