Comments on: Return of the label maker http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/ An independent blog about intelligent design Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:39:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: matt_nadler http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/#comment-5231 matt_nadler Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:59:49 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=382#comment-5231 <blockquote>surfguard says: Got a link for me? I'm not sure if you're talking about the "irreducible complexity" argument?</blockquote> Not exactly. My apologies that I couldn't find a link for it. Here is the source: Behe, Michael J. <i>Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution</i>, New York: The Free Press, 1996, p. 209-216. I am not sure where you could find it in Cologne (it is at local libraries and bookstores in the states). He reconsiders Paley's "watchmaker" argument, and his own argument in relationship to it. I was just wondering your thoughts on that, in light of your own "watch" claims. Don't worry about: there are enough fish to fry as is. Anyways, <i>mach's gut</i>.

surfguard says:
Got a link for me? I'm not sure if you're talking about the "irreducible complexity" argument?

Not exactly. My apologies that I couldn't find a link for it. Here is the source:

Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: The Free Press, 1996, p. 209-216.

I am not sure where you could find it in Cologne (it is at local libraries and bookstores in the states). He reconsiders Paley's "watchmaker" argument, and his own argument in relationship to it. I was just wondering your thoughts on that, in light of your own "watch" claims. Don't worry about: there are enough fish to fry as is. Anyways, mach's gut.

]]> By: Joe G http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/#comment-5223 Joe G Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:05:52 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=382#comment-5223 surfguard: <i>The fact that there are things in the world that are obviously man-made/designed is no proof whatsoever of the fact the man itself was designed. Bringing this up as an argument doesn't help the discussion.</i> It shows we don't need to identify the designer(s) in order to detect and attempt to understand the design. That is the point. surfguard: <i>That you cannot compare an arrangement of stones to a living being and hence your Stonehenge comparision completely misses every point.</i> Actually if we can detect design in the simple arrangement of stones we should also be able to detect design in living organisms. What is there that prevents us from doing so? <b>That is like saying the theory of evolution isn't science because it doesn't say anything about how life originated. That is IF you want to hold each to a similar standard.</b> surfguard: <i>Evolution doesn't say how life originated? Excuse me but you can't mean that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life</i> LoL! Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. Do you anything about biology? surfguard:
The fact that there are things in the world that are obviously man-made/designed is no proof whatsoever of the fact the man itself was designed. Bringing this up as an argument doesn't help the discussion.

It shows we don't need to identify the designer(s) in order to detect and attempt to understand the design. That is the point.

surfguard:
That you cannot compare an arrangement of stones to a living being and hence your Stonehenge comparision completely misses every point.

Actually if we can detect design in the simple arrangement of stones we should also be able to detect design in living organisms. What is there that prevents us from doing so?

That is like saying the theory of evolution isn't science because it doesn't say anything about how life originated. That is IF you want to hold each to a similar standard.

surfguard:
Evolution doesn't say how life originated? Excuse me but you can't mean that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

LoL! Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. Do you anything about biology?

]]> By: surfguard http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/#comment-5218 surfguard Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:51:23 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=382#comment-5218 matt_nadler: Got a link for me? I'm not sure if you're talking about the "irreducible complexity" argument? matt_nadler: Got a link for me? I'm not sure if you're talking about the "irreducible complexity" argument?

]]> By: surfguard http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/#comment-5217 surfguard Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:48:15 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=382#comment-5217 MikeGene, please don't claim to know me (like: thoroughly, better that I know myself) from a few lines I've written on a specific subject. That ridculous. We can discuss for a while, we can meet for a beer once you're in Cologne, Germany, and then, maybe, after a while I'd accept your judging my personality. MikeGene, please don't claim to know me (like: thoroughly, better that I know myself) from a few lines I've written on a specific subject. That ridculous. We can discuss for a while, we can meet for a beer once you're in Cologne, Germany, and then, maybe, after a while I'd accept your judging my personality.

]]> By: matt_nadler http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/#comment-5206 matt_nadler Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:04:41 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=382#comment-5206 Hey Surfguard, <blockquote>That we don't need to go through the obviously flawed watchmaker argument: The fact that there are things in the world that are obviously man-made/designed is no proof whatsoever of the fact the man itself was designed. Bringing this up as an argument doesn't help the discussion. It just makes the other look stupid. ("Would you say Stonehenge wasn't made by man? See!" See what?)</blockquote> What do you think of Behe's treatment of Paley's old argument in <i>DBB</i>? Just curious. Hey Surfguard,

That we don't need to go through the obviously flawed watchmaker argument: The fact that there are things in the world that are obviously man-made/designed is no proof whatsoever of the fact the man itself was designed. Bringing this up as an argument doesn't help the discussion. It just makes the other look stupid. ("Would you say Stonehenge wasn't made by man? See!" See what?)

What do you think of Behe's treatment of Paley's old argument in DBB? Just curious.

]]> By: MikeGene http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/#comment-5198 MikeGene Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:21:20 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=382#comment-5198 Sorry Surfguard, but I don't think it is silly - I think it is more accurate than you may realize. You have told us you are increasingly worried about a coming theocracy because of ID. You said that you agreed that ID is a threat to science and democracy. Are you now going to try to convince me that by putting on the white lab coat and acting oh so intellectual that you cease to be a human being? You have told us you are afraid and thus your fear defines you. But don't experience too much cognitive dissonance on this, as the point probably applies to most ID critics. Sorry Surfguard, but I don't think it is silly - I think it is more accurate than you may realize. You have told us you are increasingly worried about a coming theocracy because of ID. You said that you agreed that ID is a threat to science and democracy. Are you now going to try to convince me that by putting on the white lab coat and acting oh so intellectual that you cease to be a human being? You have told us you are afraid and thus your fear defines you. But don't experience too much cognitive dissonance on this, as the point probably applies to most ID critics.

]]> By: surfguard http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/#comment-5197 surfguard Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:04:56 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=382#comment-5197 MikeGene: <blockquote>Your fear defines you.</blockquote> Well, that's just a silly thing to say, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Let's talk about this again in a while, if I possibly posted a few more comments on other topics. The topic of this post was being worried, and I tried to stick to it. I don't see how that would give anybody a broad enough basis to judge what "defines" me. MikeGene:

Your fear defines you.

Well, that's just a silly thing to say, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Let's talk about this again in a while, if I possibly posted a few more comments on other topics. The topic of this post was being worried, and I tried to stick to it. I don't see how that would give anybody a broad enough basis to judge what "defines" me.

]]> By: matt_nadler http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/#comment-5188 matt_nadler Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:17:23 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=382#comment-5188 <blockquote>Or are you just trying to obscure my position with a little Latin?</blockquote> Wouldn't it be easier to obscure your position with a tall Latin? :) (I know, puns are the lowest form of humor. We can't all be Krauze and Mike Gene.)

Or are you just trying to obscure my position with a little Latin?

Wouldn't it be easier to obscure your position with a tall Latin? :)

(I know, puns are the lowest form of humor. We can't all be Krauze and Mike Gene.)

]]> By: matt_nadler http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/#comment-5187 matt_nadler Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:05:04 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=382#comment-5187 or absurdum. whatevs. or absurdum. whatevs.

]]> By: matt_nadler http://telicthoughts.com/return-of-the-label-maker/#comment-5186 matt_nadler Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:04:10 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=382#comment-5186 Surfguard, you said, "Let's take each other serious and not insinuate one of us would deny what we both can agree on, e.g. that Stonehenge was made by men." I only pointed out that Joe was actually doing the opposite. He wasn't insinuating that you would deny that Stonehenge was made or made by men, but rather insinuating that the logic of your position precludes an empirical inference that it was <i>made</i> at all, and that yet you wouldn't deny what you could agree on, that it was made by men. That's the position insinuated by the question. Reductio. Ad. Absurdim. Surfguard, you said, "Let's take each other serious and not insinuate one of us would deny what we both can agree on, e.g. that Stonehenge was made by men."

I only pointed out that Joe was actually doing the opposite. He wasn't insinuating that you would deny that Stonehenge was made or made by men, but rather insinuating that the logic of your position precludes an empirical inference that it was made at all, and that yet you wouldn't deny what you could agree on, that it was made by men. That's the position insinuated by the question.

Reductio. Ad. Absurdim.

]]>