Evidence for Evolution: resources

Phronesis said:
Not too bright with this now are you. Replace "a pink unicorn in the field" with agency (your understanding of it :eek:)

Ten bucks still up for grabs:
Person X is looking to detect something he thinks does not exist. Using reductionsm...
Person X is sane, rational, logical and coherent.



Another stupid question from the "I can detect something with reductionism" and "philosophy 101 is stupid because of all the amazing mental and linguistic leaps" clan.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Person X is looking to detect something, toward which he is agnostic, using reductionsm...

Person X is sane, rational, logical and coherent.

Person y asserts Person X's methodology is flawed, yet while Person X has found a whole host of interesting stuff, Person Y has found nothing.
 
Last edited:
BrandonH said:
Why is it incoherent?

Religious people say god is an entity that created everything. He must have come into existence somehow.

You people like to rubbish the theory of evolution because it cant explain everything. So by your standards you must understand everything about god or you would not believe in him. So why cant you tell me how he came about?
Click to expand...

Perhaps Atheists should protest outside Theology Schools shouting "Teach the Controversy!"?
 
alloytoo said:
Sigh.

Person X is looking to detect something, toward which he is agnostic, using reductionsm...

Person X is sane, rational, logical and coherent.

Person y asserts Person X's methodology is flawed, yet while Person X has found a whole host of interesting stuff, Person Y has found nothing.
Click to expand...

alloytoo said:
I do too, I would hate to misrepresent anyone which is why I desire clarity.

His answers seem strangely at odds with his previous posts on this issue.

I've certainly in the past avoided the J-Person, and rather used terms like Prime Cause/mover/Loader etc in the context of FLE, and Prhony has readily shot me down for suggesting such a thing.

In the context of reductionism I merely want proof that "x" exists before we condemn any methodology for a failure to detect it.

Perhaps you could explain how any methodology can detect something which does not exist? I confess I'm at a loss in this regard.
Click to expand...
There is a reason why you are at a loss in this regard ;).
 
Phronesis said:
Is the universe an open system?
Click to expand...

Yet another fallacious argument. I'm not really in the mood to explain these concepts to you, since you wilfully ignore any idea that is contrary to your position. But since you started with a ridiculous analogy to bolster you ID argument... let's examine it further.

You are showing "snow" on a screen of some description. Your argument is that the random changes appearing on the screen will never become a TV broadcast, because all they are is random specks, and random changes will result in random outcomes.

Why this analogy is fallacious:
1. One frame of "snow" on a TV screen has NO impact on the following frame. The snow is the result of an RF tuner showing electromagnetic noise. So changes in one frame will not have any impact on the next frame. The snow is the RESULT, not a cause.
2. It is fallacious to argue that no pattern will emerge, because the source of that electromagnetic noise is cosmic, and there are many examples of completely naturally occurring EM patterns. Google "Quasar" or "Pulsar" for instance.
3. Thirdly, your analogy is a straw-man, and is not approached from any form of meaningful debate. You would do better to argue your position in a constructive manner rather than resorting to straw-men and red herrings. A good jumping off point would be for you to state your position clearly. And by this I don't mean quote-mining 300 other sites and blogs.
 
arf9999 said:
Yet another fallacious argument.
Click to expand...
The universe is an open system? :eek:

arf9999 said:
You are showing "snow" on a screen of some description. Your argument is that the random changes appearing on the screen will never become a TV broadcast, because all they are is random specks, and random changes will result in random outcomes.

Why this analogy is fallacious:
1. One frame of "snow" on a TV screen has NO impact on the following frame. The snow is the result of an RF tuner showing electromagnetic noise. So changes in one frame will not have any impact on the next frame. The snow is the RESULT, not a cause.
Click to expand...
Tickle me this... paraphrased:
One time-frame of the universe has NO impact on the following frame. The effects in the universe are the result intelligible and fine-tuned laws resulting in the arrow of time and the effects we as agents observe. Changes in one time-frame of the universe will have no impact on the next frame. The effects you and I observe is the RESULT, not a cause.

arf9999 said:
2. It is fallacious to argue that no pattern will emerge, because the source of that electromagnetic noise is cosmic, and there are many examples of completely naturally occurring EM patterns. Google "Quasar" or "Pulsar" for instance.
Click to expand...
Just no intelligent noise right? Like an agent...making a TV show, creating, manipulating and sending information...


arf9999 said:
3. Thirdly, your analogy is a straw-man, and is not approached from any form of meaningful debate. You would do better to argue your position in a constructive manner rather than resorting to straw-men and red herrings. A good jumping off point would be for you to state your position clearly. And by this I don't mean quote-mining 300 other sites and blogs.
Click to expand...
Well, I might as well tell you the same thing since you have no coherent, non-self-refuting position either.
 
What have you done in this thread besides trolling? Mmmm. Start mowing.
 
You sure they have a point and they are going somewhere with their arguments? To what end do you think? Most of them believe that ultimately everything is pointless anyway... So... what is your point exactly?
 
Phronesis said:
What have you done in this thread besides trolling? Mmmm. Start mowing.
Click to expand...

Stop dat trash-talking now, bubba!

You obviously have no clue how to differentiate between polyzygotes and wanganuis. Try to comprehend now.
 
Phronesis said:
You sure they have a point and they are going somewhere with their arguments? To what end do you think? Most of them believe that ultimately everything is pointless anyway... So... what is your point exactly?
Click to expand...

so now you're attacking the people I'd rather listen to? how small of you!
 
You'd much rather listen to people who believe that ultimately everything is pointless anyway?

Kind of pointless do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X