« The Gospels Aren’t Ancient Fiction | Main | Challenge: A Real God Wouldn’t Have Let His Chosen People Suffer Defeats »

November 30, 2015

Comments

Ron-

I mentioned the sand on trains. And why they'll use it, but not all the time.

If the friction drive wears out faster, sure some animals may reproduce. Others will die sooner.

They were, presumably, already living long enough to reproduce.

Also, a little roughness is one thing. Are bumps that are not yet gears the same thing?

Planthopper, neurons inside skulls, gears, laptops, rocks.... whatever... it's all the same singular seamless continuum of non-design in motion given the Non-Theist's painfully insufficient means to (rationally) claim otherwise.

Because physics.


WL,

They were, presumably, already living long enough to reproduce.

That an individual reproduces is an all-or-nothing thing: you do (to some degree) or you don't.

But for a population, you have to think in terms of the probability of reproducing.

A trait giving an advantage - even a small one - works like compound interest.

Meaning: Such a trait gets more common with every generation.

Like so...

Download this Popg and run it with this set of numbers.

http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/popgen/popg.html

Population size:1000
Fitness of genotype AA:1.01
Fitness of genotype Aa:1.0
Fitness of genotype aa:1.0
Mutation from A to a:0
Mutation from a to A:0
Migration rate between populations:0
Initial freqency of allele A:.5
Generations to run:600
Populations evolving simultaneously:0 (no genetic drift)
Random number seed:(Autogenerate)

These numbers describe a situation where a trait A is already possessed by half the population and conditions change so that, now, individuals with trait A have a 1% advantage in fitness.

That is: those that have trait A leave 1% more offspring per individual than those that don't have A.

Here's what I get: After only 600 generations, everybody has trait A.

You can also set the program up to simulate a trait, A, that's new.

Start with a zero initial frequency of A and a mutation rate from a to A of 1/10,000.

Here's what I get: Under those conditions it takes about 2100 generations before everybody has A.

RonH,

How many generations does it take for the illusions of design, of purpose, of reasoning, to phosphoresce within those un-designed motions of those un-designed things inside our skulls?

It's a matter of seeing how willing you are to be intellectually consistent -- across the board.

Because physics.

Please point us to a calculator for this -- or to "purpose" in your explanatory terminus of fact -- either attempt by you will be quite satisfying for us.

It's odd -- you sort of just plow ahead.... immersed within the fog of an inexplicable As-If.

Oh well.

So again -- the calculator or the purpose, please. Because make-believe and as-if and fog and semantics are fine. For awhile. Until the wheels fall off.

We do have to grow up and face reality at some point.


schbrownlhrms arguements:

"Because physics"

Physics which schlbrownhrm does have the foggiest clue about.

schlbrown - your constant insistence that there is or must be a purpose to the universe or a cosmic orchestrator DOESNT MEAN THERE IS ONE

Mike,

Please unpack for us your own metaphysical defense of your own (irrational) claim that laptops are designed.

"Please unpack for us your own metaphysical defense of your own (irrational) claim that laptops are designed"

Why do I need to? Was your laptop not designed? Go visit a laptop making factory and try them metaphysical apples lol

Ive already shown that my claims are rational - after said robust defense you went remarkably quiet towards me and didnt answer any of my questions about the relevance of your Bulls Dingly Danglys.

Your hackneyed, cynical and predictable retreat to 'schlbrown metaphysics' doesnt mean its

1. useful
2. appropriate
3. relevant
4. meaningful

So do be brief

Mike,

You've only appealed to appearance.

And you (thereby) miss the point.

It's rational for the Christian / Theist to posit design, purpose, in the laptop.

His explanatory termini in fact buttress and define such actualization (purpose) inside of a universe such as ours.

Whereas, the Non-Theist is irrational to agree that the laptop is designed, that metaphysical (actual) purpose exists within a universe such as ours. His explanatory termini in fact eliminate, annihilate, all such actualities (in a universe such as ours -- because physics).

You've not logically demonstrated for us -- in anything you've stated thus far -- substantive termini which (rationally) affirm otherwise.

If you're content to stop at appearances -- rather than metaphysical landscapes which must necessarily constitute said appearances, that is fine.

Your contentment with such a stopping point -- and your unwillingness to dig deeper -- is quite satisfying for us.

We appreciate the gift.

scbrownlhrm

I'll say this in your favour - you are consistent

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/08/a-simple-explanation-of-the-cosmological-argument.html

"Whereas, the Non-Theist is irrational to agree that the laptop is designed"

utter guff. Lets go to a laptop factory. Thats torpedoed that load of dingly danglys.

"that metaphysical (actual) purpose exists within a universe such as ours. His explanatory termini in fact eliminate, annihilate, all such actualities (in a universe such as ours -- because physics).

You've not logically demonstrated for us -- in anything you've stated thus far -- substantive termini which (rationally) affirm otherwise."

What? Rectally extracted assertions.

See my comments above - you are at it again.

I love the "because physics". Mirth

I echo Boris's comments from 2 1/2 years ago - " I don't know what you are talking about but more importantly neither do you"

scbrownlhrm,

You said to Mike.

You've only appealed to appearance.

I can't speak for Mike of course, but it seems to me he's appealed to common courtesy.

A presuppositional stance, you may feel, applies to every situation.

However, if your presupposition is true, then you ought to be able to keep up with the particulars of evidence presented.

If you feel compelled to deposit a presuppositional comment on top of (sometimes it seems like) every single opposing comment, you could still make it brief.

Mike,

You've not given us anything more distal than the appearance of *purpose* -- you've not unpacked for us metaphysical landscapes which must necessarily constitute said appearances, and, again, that is fine.

Your contentment with such a stopping point -- and your unwillingness to dig deeper -- is quite satisfying for us.

We appreciate the gift.

RonH,

This isn't complicated.

Granted, you may have to make it appear complicated....

How many generations does it take for the illusions of design, of purpose, of reasoning, to phosphoresce within those un-designed motions of those un-designed things inside our skulls?

It's a matter of seeing how willing you are to be intellectually consistent -- across the board.

Because physics.

Please point us to a calculator for this -- or to "purpose" in your explanatory terminus of fact -- either attempt by you will be quite satisfying for us.

Oh, that last one reminds me that Mike ask you to make your comments meaningful. Comprehensible, I think he means.

schbrownlhrm

You are wrong. Because physics.

How does that feel? Because thats precisely the reasoning you are giving me when saying I am wrong.

I essence you are simply saying "you're worong you're wrong ner ner di ner ner"

You want to see a rational basis for claiming laptops are designed, lets visit a laptop factory

RonH,

Sure, that's another option for you.

The saving stop of As-If.

As-If you've no idea what you're being asked to do regarding your semantics.

Mike,

Appearances aren't enough.

Your contentment with such a stopping point is, again, quite satisfying.

Mike,

You can never win playing Scbrownlhrm's game. His posts do more to obfuscate than to illuminate and if you dig down, he is simply begging the question. He has a set of assumptions and premises that at the end of the day simply "define" Christianity as true. There is not evidence other than philosophical argument that any of it is actually true. And when you or RonH provide some actual evidence that contradicts, he simply waves his hands and claims it is meaningless because of his assumptions. It is kind of like Zeno's Paradox - It is really difficult to point out where that argument goes wrong but the fact of the matter is that we actually do reach the finish line in real life.

Bill K

Thank you for reading this far. I absolutely agree!

The fact that he/she is asking me todo things like "unpack for us your own metaphysical defense of your own (irrational) claim that laptops are designed" is to me as funny as it is meaningless and unjustifed

"Appearances aren't enough"

wut?

Im talking about being able to provide evidence - EVIDENCE - that laptops are designed. We can go to a laptop factory and see laptops being designed.

So what are on wibbling about now?

"Your contentment with such a stopping point is, again, quite satisfying"

Ah ha ha ha ha ha. What?

Mike,

Pointing to undesigned neurons and their undesigned cascades constituting their undesigned motions vis-à-vis an undesigned wad of reflexes called homosapien is an appeal to appearances.

Galaxies draw circles too by such an unsophisticated and unscientific standard. And particles in a cloud appear to coalesce and wave.

Or whatever.

You haven't unpacked. You haven't explained.

You haven't done any science.

You haven't employed any physics.

You've merely pointed to select slices which are themselves (all) comprised of the same singular seamless continuum of non-design, or particle, or whatever, in motion (given the Non-Theist's available explanatory terminus).

You're content stopping there in your explanation of all motions.

Which, again, is something the Christian finds very, very satisfying.

Bill K.,


I'm asking the Non-Theist to employ his own means and his own explanatory termini to justify his own claim.

I'm sorry you find that somehow dishonest.

They were, presumably, already living long enough to reproduce.
That an individual reproduces is an all-or-nothing thing: you do (to some degree) or you don't.

But for a population, you have to think in terms of the probability of reproducing.

A trait giving an advantage - even a small one - works like compound interest.

I get that. It seemed to me that like throwing sand on the rails shortens the life of a locomotive wheel, roughening up the traction drive in an insect would shorten its life (until you get to full gears).

In the averages, a shortened life also works like compound interest, but you're paying it out instead of receiving it back.

"Pointing to undesigned neurons and their undesigned cascades constituting their undesigned motions vis-à-vis an undesigned wad of reflexes called homosapien is an appeal to appearances"

What does this mean?!

"Galaxies draw circles too by such an unsophisticated and unscientific standard. And particles in a cloud appear to coalesce and wave."

WHAT?!?

All I have done in this thread is asked a very simple and reasonable question - let me explain AGAIN for you in simple terms.

1. Intelligent design claims biological organisms were designed
2. It absolutely follows from that claim that IDers have a means of detecting design in biological organisms
3. Id like to know what that detection mechanism is please

If they havent got a robust detection mechanism that withstands scrutiny, they dont have a theory.

So what is wrong with that?
Why do I need to do metaphysics?
Do you even know what metaphysics is?
Why do you keep talking about unpacking things?

Mike,

You've made an irrational claim that designed things exist in a universe such as ours. Like laptops. It's irrational because you've failed to justify the claim.

You're entire justification for that claim has consisted of appeals to appearances....full stop.


If as a Non-Theist you're of the belief that any living thing is something other than an undesigned wad of undesigned reflexes, you hold a belief that is irrational.


Clouds of particles don't wave. Regardless of appearances.

Squeezing clouds into skulls isn't a magic wand.

Because science.

Because physics.

Explain to us, rationally, scientifically, how undesigned wads of undesigned reflexes counts as your means. If such wads are NOT your means, then unpack, explain, your explanatory terminus, whatever it is.

scbrownlhrm

This is madness. I obviously dont know exactly what type of device you are using to type your comments.

But is that device designed or not?

"You've made an irrational claim that designed things exist in a universe such as ours. Like laptops. It's irrational because you've failed to justify the claim"

If one isnt allowed to claim anything is designed, then this rather destroys Intelligent Design doesnt it?

Or can only theists claim design?! I suppose that's "because physics"?!

The crazy thing here is that there an abundnace of Theists who actually listened in science class at school who think, like me, that ID is a bunch of hogwash. And what basis do you disagree with them given that their arguments would be identical to the one Ive posed? They dont waffle on about 'explanatory terminii' - whatever that is or means.

You are doing a massive amount of insisting that things have to be done and not offering one jot of explanation as to why.

"Clouds of particles don't wave. Regardless of appearances.
Squeezing clouds into skulls isn't a magic wand."

Explain what this means. What are you waffling on about?

Mike,

You're being asked to justify your (up to this point) irrational claim that designed things exist in a universe such as ours.

All you've done so far is point to appearances of this or that undesigned cloud of undesigned particles which themselves constitute the undesigned wads of undesigned reflexes termed "homosapien".

Appearences can be deceiving.

We use to think, ages ago, that a cloud in the sky that had the appearance of a hand which also had the appearance of waving was certainly purposeful.

But science and physics, in discovering the sort of universe we live in, unpacked what was "really" going on and, simply, disposed of "purpose".

You irrationally believe that all the rules just inexplicably change if we squeeze those undesigned wads of undesigned motions into the skulls of an undesigned wad of undesigned reflexes called "homosapien".

Which is fine -- your belief in such an inexplicable rule change. One "physics" for outside the skull and another "physics" for inside the skull.... in those undesigned wads of undesigned reflexes called neurons.

Only, such an extraordinary claim as that incredible rule change is going to require extraordinary evidence.

Unfortunately, you've not presented evidence other than your (irrational) appeals to the *same* appearances cast by clouds of undesigned wads of undesigned reflexes which are the *same* wads termed neurons.

Appearences *can* be sources of knowledge -- *assuming* one has justified the sort of metaphysical landscape which must necessarily constitute said appearances.

You've just not delivered any such metaphysical accounting.

Given that deficiency, you're irrationally claiming that designed things exist in a universe such as ours.

I’ve only read a small percentage of these posts so no doubt I’ve missed some important points but isn’t all this really very simple? Per the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling intelligent design is a form of creationism, in other words God is involved in some way. As Mike pointed out there is a mountain of evidence that common descent of all living things is true so you choose; it all happened by natural selection / biological process or God helped or directed it in varying degrees. Does it really matter how you define or recognize design? If there is no God then nature can, apparently, “design” stuff. Seems like a philosophical or religious choice with no right or wrong answer at this point in our scientific knowledge. If the Christian is saying evolution is false then argue the scientific evidence and leave behind the word definitions and philosophical stuff.

The assertion that definitions and philosophical means and ends (metaphysics) are irrelevant to this or that set of truth claims is, on occasion, though less often these days, employed to help salvage the integrity of the Non-Theist's array of "As-If" landscapes. A soft and subtle scientism typically couches such moves.

Fortunately our more sophisticated Non-Theist friends, more and more often of late, don't mind following their own paradigm’s means through to whatever (rational) conclusions such means necessarily carry them into.

That sort of poised, eyes-wide-open intellectual appetite is a refreshing change which is taking place among the new and upcoming breed of our Non-Theist friends.

"Appearences *can* be sources of knowledge -- *assuming* one has justified the sort of metaphysical landscape which must necessarily constitute said appearances"

Utter utter utter tripe.

Is your laptop designed - yes or no? It is absolutely bizarre that you keep insisting that some form of metaphysics has to happen before knowledge can be acquired. That is demonstrably untrue - one just has to look at the History and Philosophy of Science. As humans we have done that very successfully because it yields useful results for us.
Besides, metaphysics is not going to provide an answer that we can check or that we will necessarily agree on - because we are doing philosophy.
So no, I dont have to do any metaphysics.
I am being entirely rational and you are talking utter nonsense.

"Given that deficiency, you're irrationally claiming that designed things exist in a universe such as ours"

Your laptop - how was it made? Were humans involved do you think?

scbrown

Where did I make a truth claim?

Mike,

Your appeal to appearances as your stopping point clearly satisfies you.

Don't let the fact that the Christian counts that as an embarrassing move on your part bother you.

Just be content with appearances and carry on.

In the averages, a shortened life also works like compound interest, but you're paying it out instead of receiving it back.

Paying out means lost fitness, not lost lifespan.

In fact, evolution will favor a trait that causes a shorter life if it results in more offspring.

And it's not necessarily true that the incremental increases in roughness on the bug legs have any cost in terms of life span or in any other terms.

Sand costs lifespan for the train wheel, but that doesn't mean it does for the bug.

It could be that the increasing roughness helps the bug legs work better and last longer from the beginning.

This would be true if, for example, the roughness was gear-like from the start.

Alternating mini-teeth.

As the NASA evolutionary simulator format helped unpack, the probability of design is 100%.

Reason ceaselessly motions amid the intellect's rational corridors as she alone necessarily begets both design and designer. Given that the probability of design is 100%, Reason comes upon an unavoidable conclusion. Physics testifies on Reason's behalf as well, tenaciously tearing down the many and varied false hopes foisted by the Non-Theist. The physical sciences, and physics, and metaphysics, and the force of logic all declare Reason the Victor as she, Reason herself, affirms that having found the curious state of affairs wherein design and designer actualize *within* a universe such as ours, it is ipso facto the case that design and designer exist *outside* of a universe such as ours.

The only hope of escaping God comes by:

[1] Change the definition of design and designer in a frantic attempt to salvage plausibility such that in speaking of design and designer we are, at some ontological seam somewhere, speaking of the unintelligible.

[2] Forfeit solvency and simply suffer the intellectual price. Annihilate design and designer within the corridors of scientism's eliminative materialism vis-à-vis eliminative metaphysics.

Else - God.

Curiously, Reason herself cannot be found the Victor within the landscapes of [1] or [2] as some other incomprehensible something makes of reason its slave.

Fortunately Reason breaks free, ultimately, of all such chains, as she ipso facto both precedes and out distances all such contingent contours.

Such is the fruit of allowing Reason to do her full and proper work: God

Reason, as truth-finder, finds the following testifying of God:

[1] EAAN (evolutionary argument against naturalism).

[2] EAAE (Evil within the red of tooth and claw concurs with the NASA evolutionary simulator on Eden's Possible Worlds).

[3] NASA evolutionary simulator format.

[4] Physics in a universe such as ours given [5].

[5] Design and designer in a universe such as ours given [4].

[6] Bayes' Theorem. From the get-go.

[7] Ought love.


The question of circularity arises on [4] and [5].

The question disolves once we realize that neither 4 nor 5 functions as the Christian's ultimate explanatory terminus. The intelligibility of the universe (#4) and the hard fist of science vis-à-vis physics (again #4) and reason/design (#5) are both preceded by and surpassed by the metaphysical necessity they are testifying of. That they, along the way, happen also to testify on one another's behalf is simply the (necessary) result of (paradigmatic) seamlessness.

scbrownwibble

Was your laptop designed? Yes or no?

"Reason ceaselessly motions amid the intellect's rational corridors as she alone necessarily begets both design and designer. Given that the probability of design is 100%, Reason comes upon an unavoidable conclusion."

Slerk sprong nosh dang woibbit spreck speck zipatrong zipatrong dash dingles zib zob wibbit.

Mike,

Both WisdomLover and myself have made it clear that we are not telling you that you are wrong in claiming this or that X is designed. Rather, we're telling you that you haven't a clue what you're claiming once reason requires that you go beyond appearances.

You've been given about 100 requests to unpack, to explain.

"I saw it built" and "It looks designed" seems to be the entirety of you're reasoning.

That clearly satisfies you despite physics outside the neuron and despite physics inside the neuron.

So carry on. Be content.


"Both WisdomLover and myself have made it clear that we are not telling you that you are wrong in claiming this or that X is designed"

FINALLY! Then good - we agree your laptop was designed. Now, when it comes to biological organisms, which are qualitatively different from artefacts, I am making no such claim of design. I dont even know what design is in that context. So up to ID to say what it means

"Rather, we're telling you that you haven't a clue what you're claiming once reason requires that you go beyond appearances."

This doesnt make sense. What are you saying? I've just torpeodoed this with the above frankly. It doesnt hold.

"You've been given about 100 requests to unpack, to explain"

And youve been given 10000 opportunities to explain why I need to do this - and you have catastrophically failed to do so.

""I saw it built" and "It looks designed" seems to be the entirety of you're reasoning""

Hha ha ha! No it isnt. Seeing things being designed by primates is exactly enough evidence to support the premise "primates design things".
"It looks designed" is exactly the problem ID is suffering from. Thanbks for making my point.

"That clearly satisfies you despite physics outside the neuron and despite physics inside the neuron"

Take the pants off your head and the pencils out of your nose and seek professional help. #nonsense

Mike,

"Seeing things being designed by primates is exactly enough evidence to support the premise "primates design things".

Yes.

You've told us this before -- regardless of physics.

That clearly satisfies you even though you still haven't told us what you mean by design.

So carry on. Be content.


You see schlbrown, the thing you cant seem to hoist on board, is that Im not claiming anything about 'truth' or 'ultimate reality'. Or 'explanatory terminii' ha ha ha

Why is that difficult for you?

Maybe its because you only have a juvenile view of philosophy?

What bit of 'science makes no truth claims' dont you understand? If you do understand that sentence, how about you unpack it for me ;)

"You've told us this before -- regardless of physics."

Wut?!

That clearly satisfies you even though you still haven't told us what you mean by design"

So hang on - you agree with me that your laptop was designed..... but you still need me to define what I mean by design?

What am I mistaken on here?

Lets just recap on what you said earlier.

"Blah blah blah and myself have made it clear that we are not telling you that you are wrong in claiming this or that X is designed"

So you CLEARLY know what I mean when I say your laptop is designed AND you agree with me. So what are you quibbling about?

Mirth.

Mike,

Physics is science.

Explain what you mean by design.

Scientifically.

Your contentment with appearances void of both physics and metaphysics isn't news to us.

It's been obvious from the start.

We're just not sure it's obvious to you.

If you already know this about yourself and your definitions, then carry on.

Be content.

"Explain what you mean by design."

One more time schbrownlhrm.

We agree your laptop is designed - youve just said as much.

Im not claiming biological organisms were designed.

People that punt Intelligent Design are claiming biological organisms were designed.

So its up to them to say what they mean by design in that context and how they detect it.

ITS REALLY SIMPLE!

"Your contentment with appearances void of both physics and metaphysics isn't news to us"

wut? This doesnt make any sense. Waffle. Physics deals with phenomena. You dont need to do metaphysics to describe phenomena because in doing so one claims nothing more than that which is observed - no truth claims, no claims about ultimate reality, no metaphysics required.

Thats high school level science/philosphy.

One more time just so you get it - science makes no truth claims - the map is not the terrain. *sigh*

So you are simply spurting more effluent sourced from that bulls hind quarters.

"We're just not sure it's obvious to you. If you already know this about yourself and your definitions, then carry on.
Be content."

And trying to be patronising to boot whilst commenting like you speak for a group of people. #bonkersdelusional

You still havent justified why any metaphysics needs to be done while I have given fully valid reasons why metaphysics doesnt apply

The amusing thing about all this is that Luskin and Behe agree with me.

They understand that they need to show how ID can detect design. Which is why they talk about CSI and explanatory filters.

This is what I thought I might end up talking about 9 pages ago.

However, it seems that there are simply people that like arguing the metaphysical toss so to speak, which is how we end up here still arguing that its IDs job to show how ID identifies design in biological organisms. Funny.

@schbrownwibble - if you think any of the above is wrong, explain why Behe/Luskin talk about CSI/explanatory filters/irreducuble complexity. lol

Mike,

Yes, we already know that you are content without physics. You don't need physics, just appearances.

Again, it's not news to us.

So carry on. Be content.

Mike,

We're satisfied with your stopping point.

If you are too, then all this carrying on seems pointless.

Just be content with your terms.

We certainly are.


"Yes, we already know that you are content without physics. You don't need physics, just appearances"

lol what physics? You dont understand physics.

this is simply "I cant answer your substantive arguments so Im simply going to claim Im right"

In other words, you concede. Thanks schbrownlhrm

"We certainly are."

Who is 'we'? lol

"We're satisfied with your stopping point"

Meaningless waffle. Another example of assertion/accustaion without rationale basis.

Behe/Luskin agree with me.

The comments to this entry are closed.