Religion/Spirituality The Intelligent Design/God/Theism Thread
- Thread starter blackzeus
- Start date
I repped and dapped you off top for a post void of ad hominems that poses critical questions
With that said:1) The first 4 pages are a primer of ID and the arguments for/against. it. We're Higher Learning, we should be somewhat educated about what we are arguing, just my .02
2) I am arguing that ID is the logical choice for the genesis of the universe and all that are within it, which is what ID is, nothing more, nothing less. From that standpoint, I am further willing to say (which wasn't part of the original argument BTW), that while natural selection and adaptation are statistically probably (and IMHO are facts), Darwinian evolution is not logically probable in regards to the genesis of the universe and/or the origin of species. In short, ID and Darwinian evolution are incompatible as genesis theories. I don't see how it's possible to believe in both. I believe in ID because it is statistically a hell of a lot more probable than Darwinian evolution
3) Natural selection has never been proven to create a new species, it's only been assumed to do. Natural selection being a driving force behind evolution is a loaded statement, it presumes that statement is true. Natural selection is the driving force behind adaptation. You "adapt" by natural selection by being the element in your species most suited to your environment. IMHO, mixing in natural selection and adaptation with evolution is mixing a truth with a falsehood. Just my .02
4) If you euthanize dogs to breed dogs with better vision, that is simply artificial selection. Evolution is in essence the belief that we came from a common ancestor. If your euthanization dogs in successive generations produces werewolves, then yes, THAT is evolution by artifical selection, but we all know the odds of that happening
5) Complexity is not an ill defined term in comparative analysis, only in object description. Calculus may be simple to you, but complex to me. However, it's a bit facetious IMHO to argue that defining Calculus as more complex than addition is an ill-defined statement
6) Again, you're lawyering breh with the words "intelligence". These are comparisons we are making. Again, what is intelligent for you may not be intelligent for me, but it is logical to assume it takes more intelligence to make a rocket than it does a bicycle. Intelligence and complexity are directly proportional in comparative analysis, IMHO it's facetious to argue anything to the contrary when common sense will tell you that the odds are very low that a bicycle designer is also a rocket scientist
At that point this argument becomes philosophical, not scientific, not mathematical, which is the ironical point, ID is based on pure empirical date from science and math, as opposed to some of the other scientific doctrines being purported as truth 
Well I will try to explain the simplest method, likewise I can provide a philosophical/mathematical proof later on, very busy right now:
Using simple statistical analysis, assuming I didn't have the video of the fabrication of the laptop, I could simply go in my neighborhood, collect all the laptops, working and not working, in parts or in whole, and start with the assumption each one and each part exists by chance. Then I could start inspect the the parts, and observe that X part goes with Y part, and Y part goes with Z part, and Z part goes with A part, etc etc. (complexity). Then I could calculate the odds that all these parts came together by chance (random walk theory). Then I can look at the results of my calculation and deduce if it is logical to assume that it the laptop was created by chance, or if I should look for another explanation as to how the laptop came to be
I'm not gonna really argue that video proof is not proof, that's just a whole 'nother level of crazy
, so for the sake of argument I'll stick to the above post, if you want a mathematical redaction I can do it later tonight, but a little busy right now, sorry about that.How do you know whats statistically improbable?They mock you for believing in the statistically improbable, and at the same time mock you for believing in the statistically probable. And then claim they are not part of a religion
This is what you don't understand.
A lot of chemical reactions are "statistically improbable"...(when in the context of our base-10 number system and attention to percentages) but they happen all the time under the RIGHT conditions.
fukk nikkas gonna lay down one way or the other
except this isn't how bayesian statistics works.Well I will try to explain the simplest method, likewise I can provide a philosophical/mathematical proof later on, very busy right now:
Using simple statistical analysis, assuming I didn't have the video of the fabrication of the laptop, I could simply go in my neighborhood, collect all the laptops, working and not working, in parts or in whole, and start with the assumption each one and each part exists by chance. Then I could start inspect the the parts, and observe that X part goes with Y part, and Y part goes with Z part, and Z part goes with A part, etc etc. (complexity). Then I could calculate the odds that all these parts came together by chance (random walk theory). Then I can look at the results of my calculation and deduce if it is logical to assume that it the laptop was created by chance, or if I should look for another explanation as to how the laptop came to be
You have no way to know the extent of all forms of complexity to even derive the odds in the first place.
Not to mention that you simplify how chemistry actually works into some bullshyt "random walk theory" (another thing you're perverting) and ignore all other forms of nuance.
You're perverting statistics to make it explain what it does not represent.
cyanobacteria shyt all over Intelligent DesignI repped and dapped you off top for a post void of ad hominems that poses critical questions
1) The first 4 pages are a primer of ID and the arguments for/against. it. We're Higher Learning, we should be somewhat educated about what we are arguing, just my .02
2) I am arguing that ID is the logical choice for the genesis of the universe and all that are within it, which is what ID is, nothing more, nothing less. From that standpoint, I am further willing to say (which wasn't part of the original argument BTW), that while natural selection and adaptation are statistically probably (and IMHO are facts), Darwinian evolution is not logically probable in regards to the genesis of the universe and/or the origin of species. In short, ID and Darwinian evolution are incompatible as genesis theories. I don't see how it's possible to believe in both. I believe in ID because it is statistically a hell of a lot more probable than Darwinian evolution
3) Natural selection has never been proven to create a new species, it's only been assumed to do. Natural selection being a driving force behind evolution is a loaded statement, it presumes that statement is true. Natural selection is the driving force behind adaptation. You "adapt" by natural selection by being the element in your species most suited to your environment. IMHO, mixing in natural selection and adaptation with evolution is mixing a truth with a falsehood. Just my .02
4) If you euthanize dogs to breed dogs with better vision, that is simply artificial selection. Evolution is in essence the belief that we came from a common ancestor. If your euthanization dogs in successive generations produces werewolves, then yes, THAT is evolution by artifical selection, but we all know the odds of that happening
5) Complexity is not an ill defined term in comparative analysis, only in object description. Calculus may be simple to you, but complex to me. However, it's a bit facetious IMHO to argue that defining Calculus as more complex than addition is an ill-defined statement
6) Again, you're lawyering breh with the words "intelligence". These are comparisons we are making. Again, what is intelligent for you may not be intelligent for me, but it is logical to assume it takes more intelligence to make a rocket than it does a bicycle. Intelligence and complexity are directly proportional in comparative analysis, IMHO it's facetious to argue anything to the contrary when common sense will tell you that the odds are very low that a bicycle designer is also a rocket scientist
this motherfukka lost it. alright i capitulate
im not even going to bother going through all that nonsense...between idiocy and false assumptions being made on my background and stance its just not worth it (i never denied evolution for example..i absolutely believe in evolution etc).
Which is why Philosophy can be useful in this pursuit..and if you really have faith in that statement, then you should have never spoken on me in the first place. zeus is talking more math and science than i am. have a nice day
Yo. Why don't dudes like you just shut the fukk up when you're faced with people who know what they're talking about?
I mean seriously... you're out here defending all sorts of irrational pseudoscience, then when pressed you wanna talk about philosophy while ironically claiming that "oh i didn't mean that guys. My bad
fukk outta here.
You have no interest in LEARNING anything.
you proffered the video as potential proofI'm not gonna really argue that video proof is not proof, that's just a whole 'nother level of crazy
How do you know whats statistically improbable?
This is what you don't understand.
A lot of chemical reactions are "statistically improbable"...(when in the context of our base-10 number system and attention to percentages) but they happen all the time under the RIGHT conditions.
fukk nikkas gonna lay down one way or the other
A hurricane is not statistically probable, but it happens all the time under the right conditions, and we can predict with relative accuracy when a hurricane will occur. So what you are saying is that is something that is statistically probably under certain conditions = statistically improbable, that my friend is semantics, and more in tune with the philosophical discussion @Mission249 and @VMR were having about a fine tuned universe. When something is statistically improbable, it's statistically improbably under any condition. Pigs flying is statistically improbable under any condition, electrolyzing non iodized salt to create sodium hydroxide (soap) is not. Those situations are not analagous
LOL at all this. What pseudoscience did i endorse? Didnt I say I dont believe in the religious fables, just not randomness? Did I not say there is room for science within my beliefs and said I can reasonably "believe" in evolution/natural selection/adaptation etc? I also brought up Quantum Multiverse and had a discussion with @Mission249 about fine tuned universe theory and he, in turn, said he is interested in the philosophical side of this. You just have sand in your p*ssy because I wont go to absolutes and say ATHEISM EVOLUTION BWAAH which is amusing because you chastised @blackzeus for talking in extremes. Here I am taking a moderate and reasonable stance and you continue to respond in childish ways..meanwhile I am reading the back and forth and trying to process what everyone is saying in here to potentially modify and learn.
To you, no one else knows what they are talking about unless they agree with you on everything..maybe youre the one who should shut the fukk up and fall back to accept your TWO WOAT badges at the same damn time. That is unprecedented. You have no interest in learning anything because you refuse to engage and respect any other opinion than your own..your whole intellect and braintrust is a pseudoscience.
Thats what Im saying. I essentially fell back on science/math on this and never really used it as a crutch in anything I said outside of perceived probability. We got into philosophy then philosophy became useless in a discussion about philosophy because Napoleon..who has an avi saying "Hystori" doesnt believe philosophy is a worthwhile pursuit while acknowledging your post referencing Plato by saying something about who cares about something someone 2000 years ago said
As if the Socratic method and his pupils didnt father modern dialectics...which is exactly what this thread is about. dialectics. the stupidity is just 
1) Bayesian statistics is a subset of the field of statistics, stop misrepresenting it. There is no relation between Bayesian statistics and frequentist statistics, two different things
2) Why do I need to know all forms of complexity to note that one object is more complex than another? In what way is a single celled organism more complex than a human being? Do I need to take a course in complexity to note that a plane is more complex that a carriage?
You're just being facetious at this point IMHO.3) a) Random walk applies to probability, which applies to all fields of science. b) What do forms of nuance have to do with the improbable? Please explain to me, please educate me. What do forms of nuance have to do with the improbability that I can shoot a fireball out of my hands?
4) No, you're twisting my argument into something it isn't. Ironically, frequentist statistical inference is the main alternative to Bayesian statistical inference, yet you are trying to combine the two to argue with me.
Bayesian statistical inference example for those who don't know:
Bayesian statistical inference: Assuming I like all girls, and in a row, there are 3 white girls, and in second row, there are 3 black girls, and I have no bias towards color, what are the odds I end up with a black girl?
Frequentist statistical inference: I have observed a collection of laptop parts. I took apart the hard drive. It takes me approximately 20 billion years to assemble it by chance, and takes me 2 minutes to assemble it with a manual. What are the odds that the hard drive was originally created by chance?
^^^^Two different types of statistics breh
Thats what Im saying. I essentially fell back on science/math on this and never really used it as a crutch in anything I said outside of perceived probability. We got into philosophy then philosophy became useless in a discussion about philosophy because Napoleon..who has an avi saying "Hystori" doesnt believe philosophy is a worthwhile pursuit while acknowledging your post referencing Plato by saying something about who cares about something someone 2000 years ago said
They argue that ID is a modern invention, then when you point out it's as old as Plato, they tell you "who cares what he had to say on the subject"
Start on page 1.
This entire time you've dodged any accountability for your flawed beliefs and assertions, rejected information used to correct them, then claimed that you in fact never believed the very things you asserted.
So yeah, like a typical philosophy major, all you did was dance around until the music stopped.
No one cares what you believe. Theres no evidence to support it. Intuition won't win you any arguments.
I don't want to hear about how you "work it in" with your beliefs.
Your standing beliefs are utter horseshyt and I won't acknowledge them in part of any aspect of your whole M.O.
You will not get points for being "open minded" while still holding irrational and DEMONSTRABLY wrong assertions.
Except philosophy doesn't matter without the testing, experiments, and analysis done by people who don't sit on their asses trying to think their couch-potato status is equivalent to years of hard science, math, and downright luck in trying to answer some of the hardest puzzles humanity has ever faced.
Modern physicists have done just fine without you all.
Go focus on civic matters, the nature of reality and the core of our basic function is not your forte.
@blackzeus loses when he taks in extremes because he invokes the problem of induction without realizing the flaw in his thinking. He asserts things he can't know and as such, he'll lose the argument every time with those sophomoric assertions. He's playing on the kid level out here....and you're in bed with him.
I don't care how nice you are.
You're wrong.
And whats more, is that you want to think this grants you some sort of leverage over anything Ive thus introduced in here since you want to be the nice guy.
fukk your emotions.
Lets get to the facts.
maybe others should invest more time into being correct, themselves.
The opinions of the community do not reflect on your inability to grasp simple scientific truths as a function of your reluctance to abandon your specious and intellectually lazy views.
Weak insult.
I have tons of interest in learning...I do not however have interest in things that are wrong, have been shown to be wrong, or make no sense. You happen to fit all three of the aforementioned.
Don't think that because people don't "understand" you that you're right.
You're actually really fukking out there on everything you've said and only until directly called out have you started to backtrack.
Don't front for the people now.
Own up to your bullshyt and wear it like a champ. You're an idiot. Be proud in that fact and embrace the sense that you not only think you have the tools to compete (you don't) but you're too arrogant to just sit on the sidelines instead of trying to insert your craptacular belief structure where it doesn't belong, isn't valued, isn't validated, and will never be revered.
false.
bayes is often misused by charlatans like yourself who try to apply it to the unknown...and you can not do this.
"complexity" is a human demarcation of utility.2) Why do I need to know all forms of complexity to note that one object is more complex than another? In what way is a single celled organism more complex than a human being? Do I need to take a course in complexity to note that a plane is more complex that a carriage?
It bears no significant meaning in the real world.
False. Probability is different from deterministic prediction...which statistics doesn't do, but only reflects on.
You just don't like the fact that life exists without inserting your god into it. Stop dancing.b) What do forms of nuance have to do with the improbable? Please explain to me, please educate me. What do forms of nuance have to do with the improbability that I can shoot a fireball out of my hands?
4) No, you're twisting my argument into something it isn't. Ironically, frequentist statistical inference is the main alternative to Bayesian statistical inference, yet you are trying to combine the two to argue with me.
Bayesian statistical inference example for those who don't know:
Bayesian statistical inference: Assuming I like all girls, and in a row, there are 3 white girls, and in second row, there are 3 black girls, and I have no bias towards color, what are the odds I end up with a black girl?
Frequentist statistical inference: I have observed a collection of laptop parts. I took apart the hard drive. It takes me approximately 20 billion years to assemble it by chance, and takes me 2 minutes to assemble it with a manual. What are the odds that the hard drive was originally created by chance?
^^^^Two different types of statistics breh
Go read your wiki page on frequentist statistics.
It can not be usefully applied to the unknown.
Stop perverting statistics with this inane bullshyt.
This is just like the fukking Watchmaker Fallacy
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design