A Dawkins interview goes badly off-message (but the guy has a great smile!).
Is Dawkins really a Hindu?
Just askin'.
21 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Lets simplify this, when i use my hands to build things or handle hammers and shovels....the skin was designed to adjust to wear and tear by building up callast to protect it. Yes the skin evoled to become hard, but, someothing had to have engineered the skin to be flexible and adjust. Then we have the hot/cold receptors under out skin. They were designed to protect us because the HOT sensors are closer to the surface to detect burns that do more damage much faster and tell you that you are expose to heat and the body starts to cool you via sweat. But, the COLD sensors are lower down in the skin because of the design to withstand some cold and trigger the heart to speed-up and pump warm blood around and burn more glucose.Frost-bite is from the water in the body that freezes and stops the blood flow, but, i can endure the cold much longer than I can tolerate being burned in a fire , so the body tell me to get away from the problem. As for the Cold, it merely alerts me of a potential problem if i failed to act soon. Lets look at the nails because toe nails grow at 1/6th the speed as finger nails. Why, well the design could be from blood circulation or that we need finger nails to scrap and claw away at food or dirt far more than eating with out feet. Your ears provide a 360 observation for sound while the eyes need a neck that rotates and the 3 eye for depth perception to spot the sourse fo the sound for hunting and a danger. Vital organs are housed inside the chest by design to protect them, the digestive systen is designed for Gravity to force the food down the system and then muscles pump waste up the colon for discharge at the low point like a sink-trap that uses water pressure. If Hawkins want to believe that Obama came form apes, then that's his right . But I'd like to think that a Cake that evolved over time was still Created by someone in the begining from all the ingredients.
Hardly, Richard; if you'd bother to pay attention, these things have the APPEARANCE of design because they tend to work; if they DIDN'T work, those adaptations wouldn't have survived. For some REAL embarrassment, take a gander at William Lyin' Craig's method for dealing with doubt in his imaginary invisible magic man in the sky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ His method? He "knows" his "god" is real, because he "feels" his "god" is real, regardless of what the actual evidence says. SDC
I wonder if Same Dumb Comment has ever studied statistics. I rather doubt it or he would begin to realize the futility of his pet theory.
The probability of life auto-generating out of nothing is ZERO. The sustainability of life during undirected evolution approaches ZERO. So let me see here according to mathematics ZERO times almost ZERO equals ZERO. Sorry there ol' Same Dumb Comment but your theory is busted.
Yes zero times zero = zero, NORMALLY. Unless the zeroes you have are really, really BIG! If they're big enough, you'll get something.
But, this does help extend our knowledge. What this shows is that it is not enough just to have two buckets of nothing -- it show that the two buckets of nothing must be really, really BIG.
It's obvious that you've never "studied" anything except "trust me, it was an invisible magic man in the sky", Joe. Evolution is the gradual change in a species' genome as least adaptive characteristics are replaced by more adaptive characteristics, which is statistics IN ACTION. SDC
I prefer Dan Dennett's way of looking at things. He says he has no problem using the word "design" to refer to things like the human body. There is design. Just no intelligent designer. No designer other than the process of evolution.
Well Same Dumb Comment when you explain the evolution of Nothing into Something we can sit down and discuss areas of study. Until then all discussion with you is nonsense. Just like the singularity you are searching those two big buckets of nothing for. Maybe Richard has a better idea! Maybe as Richard suggests you need a Really Really Really Big Zero. Say Richard do you think that Zero the size of infinity times infinity to the power of infinity would be big enough? I have my doubts but maybe you have a better insight. No point in asking Same Dumb Comment he still thinks there's a magic man in the sky. snork
Say Richard do you think that Zero the size of infinity times infinity to the power of infinity would be big enough?
Joe: Good point. It's a start. Infinity has a nice ring to it.
But, for this to work, I think you need time plus chance. So, I think you don't just multiply big-zero times big-zero once -- ha ha that wouldn't amount to anything -- ha ha ha -- you keep doing it, over and over and over again. Until, finally, presto! something happens -- that produces Mozart, Einstein, beauty, rationality, moral sense, etc. All mindlessly and purposelessly. To believe anything else would be irrational!
So, to summarize: you gotta have two really, really big buckets of nothing and you have to mix them back and forth back and forth back and forth until something happens.
Anon1152: Of course, I would argue that a snowflake is designed, as is all of creation. But the argument in terms of biological life is that there is a gulf of gigantic proportions between the elemental designs seen in e.g., snowflakes and the information-rich, information-soaked complexity of lifeforms. And, I believe, ID theorists make a technical distinction between the kind of information that would be associated with a snowflake (if any) and that required for life.
Random variation/natural selection has been shown in laboratory work to have very feeble creative powers.
Is there a definition of "information"? I don't deny that DNA contains information. But I do deny that someone needs to have been there a few thousand years ago in order to put the information there.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Lab experiments are interesting. If there was a lab that could conduct experiments over billions of years rather than mere years and decades, you would see commensurate results.
Do we disagree about how old the universe is? If I didn't believe that the earth was approx 4.5 billion years old, I'd have much more trouble believing in evolution.
The evidence supports a theory that massive information is injected at various points in time along the way far better than it supports the idea of smooth continuous change via random mut/nat selection ("ramunasel").
The evidence also supports the idea that evolution is algorithmic; that the changes that do occur are driven much more by algorithms than copying errors (which, by the way, is a nonsensical idea under darwinism because there's nothing that's supposed to be, so nothing can be considered an error).
If the evidence actually supported ramunasel, I would believe it. But it just doesn't.
When it comes to copying errors, perhaps you are taking the term error too... moralistically. Error comes from a latin word meaning to stray. Sometimes straying from the beaten path is good. Sometimes it's bad. And whether or not a mutation is good or bad depends on the context. In caves without light, changes that improve an eye's ability to see are not useful at all. Which is why creatures that have lived in lightless caves for a very long time have no eyes, or rather, have only the vestiges of eyes.
Error - no, it's more fundamental than that. Since there is nothing that is supposed to be -- life included -- then nothing than happens can be considered an error. It's just dumb mindless nature at work. Cancer cannot be considered a malfunction since there is no intention that anything function in the first place, and life is no better than non-life. It is just nature "doing its thing".
Of course, no one can actually live their life as a rock-bottom atheist; when it comes to a trip to the doctor, they are relieved to hear that their heart is functioning "normally", "as it is supposed to". Etc. That's why I say that even atheists live as though they inhabit a theistic universe -- which is OK, because they do.
Why not take a relativist point of view. A heart works "as it's supposed to" from the point of view of the heart's body/mind.
I think a better argument for a theistic universe wouldn't be to point to the patient's relief when they are told that their heart is working, but to the patient's prayers when they fear their heart is not working.
But of course, what we think/feel about the universe is not always a good guide to what the universe is really like.
And, Joe, when you can explain why your "magic man in the sky musta done it" theory is worth any more in regards to this than it was in regards to lightning, or earthquakes, or disease, or tides, or eclipses, or ANYTHING ELSE that you lunatics have used it for, then your theory might be worth something. Until then, you are in EXACTLY the same spot as a witch doctor who says "well, the volcano didn't erupt after we sacrificed a virgin to it, so that must mean that the volcano god is real". SDC
I take it Same Dumb Comment is a little slow on the uptake because he still thinks I believe in a 'magic man in the sky'. Bwhahahahahaha! Gasp!!!! Maybe his brain was addled by Richard pointing out the fact that his two big buckets of nothing aren't big enough.
I'm simply repeating the claims of your cult, Joe, so if you can't deal with with the obvious nonsense that your superstition preaches, that tells me you shouldn't be believing such crap in the first place. SDC
21 comments:
Lets simplify this, when i use my hands to build things or handle hammers and shovels....the skin was designed to adjust to wear and tear by building up callast to protect it. Yes the skin evoled to become hard, but, someothing had to have engineered the skin to be flexible and adjust.
Then we have the hot/cold receptors under out skin. They were designed to protect us because the HOT sensors are closer to the surface to detect burns that do more damage much faster and tell you that you are expose to heat and the body starts to cool you via sweat.
But, the COLD sensors are lower down in the skin because of the design to withstand some cold and trigger the heart to speed-up and pump warm blood around and burn more glucose.Frost-bite is from the water in the body that freezes and stops the blood flow, but, i can endure the cold much longer than I can tolerate being burned in a fire , so the body tell me to get away from the problem. As for the Cold, it merely alerts me of a potential problem if i failed to act soon.
Lets look at the nails because toe nails grow at 1/6th the speed as finger nails. Why, well the design could be from blood circulation or that we need finger nails to scrap and claw away at food or dirt far more than eating with out feet.
Your ears provide a 360 observation for sound while the eyes need a neck that rotates and the 3 eye for depth perception to spot the sourse fo the sound for hunting and a danger.
Vital organs are housed inside the chest by design to protect them, the digestive systen is designed for Gravity to force the food down the system and then muscles pump waste up the colon for discharge at the low point like a sink-trap that uses water pressure.
If Hawkins want to believe that Obama came form apes, then that's his right . But I'd like to think that a Cake that evolved over time was still Created by someone in the begining from all the ingredients.
I was following you until the second last sentence.
Hardly, Richard; if you'd bother to pay attention, these things have the APPEARANCE of design because they tend to work; if they DIDN'T work, those adaptations wouldn't have survived. For some REAL embarrassment, take a gander at William Lyin' Craig's method for dealing with doubt in his imaginary invisible magic man in the sky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ
His method? He "knows" his "god" is real, because he "feels" his "god" is real, regardless of what the actual evidence says.
SDC
I wonder if Same Dumb Comment has ever studied statistics. I rather doubt it or he would begin to realize the futility of his pet theory.
The probability of life auto-generating out of nothing is ZERO. The sustainability of life during undirected evolution approaches ZERO. So let me see here according to mathematics ZERO times almost ZERO equals ZERO. Sorry there ol' Same Dumb Comment but your theory is busted.
Joe, Joe, Joe -- once again you are WAY off base.
Yes zero times zero = zero, NORMALLY. Unless the zeroes you have are really, really BIG! If they're big enough, you'll get something.
But, this does help extend our knowledge. What this shows is that it is not enough just to have two buckets of nothing -- it show that the two buckets of nothing must be really, really BIG.
Gi-normous, even!
It's obvious that you've never "studied" anything except "trust me, it was an invisible magic man in the sky", Joe. Evolution is the gradual change in a species' genome as least adaptive characteristics are replaced by more adaptive characteristics, which is statistics IN ACTION.
SDC
I prefer Dan Dennett's way of looking at things. He says he has no problem using the word "design" to refer to things like the human body. There is design. Just no intelligent designer. No designer other than the process of evolution.
Well Same Dumb Comment when you explain the evolution of Nothing into Something we can sit down and discuss areas of study. Until then all discussion with you is nonsense. Just like the singularity you are searching those two big buckets of nothing for. Maybe Richard has a better idea! Maybe as Richard suggests you need a Really Really Really Big Zero. Say Richard do you think that Zero the size of infinity times infinity to the power of infinity would be big enough? I have my doubts but maybe you have a better insight. No point in asking Same Dumb Comment he still thinks there's a magic man in the sky. snork
Of course there is Annon 1152's wisdom: If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck its an elephant.
Say Richard do you think that Zero the size of infinity times infinity to the power of infinity would be big enough?
Joe: Good point. It's a start. Infinity has a nice ring to it.
But, for this to work, I think you need time plus chance. So, I think you don't just multiply big-zero times big-zero once -- ha ha that wouldn't amount to anything -- ha ha ha -- you keep doing it, over and over and over again. Until, finally, presto! something happens -- that produces Mozart, Einstein, beauty, rationality, moral sense, etc. All mindlessly and purposelessly. To believe anything else would be irrational!
So, to summarize: you gotta have two really, really big buckets of nothing and you have to mix them back and forth back and forth back and forth until something happens.
Joe: I thought I was making the opposite point. If it looks like there's design there, then say there's design there.
There's design in a snowflake, but each snowflake forms according to various laws of nature. Evolution is an analogous process.
Anon1152: Of course, I would argue that a snowflake is designed, as is all of creation. But the argument in terms of biological life is that there is a gulf of gigantic proportions between the elemental designs seen in e.g., snowflakes and the information-rich, information-soaked complexity of lifeforms. And, I believe, ID theorists make a technical distinction between the kind of information that would be associated with a snowflake (if any) and that required for life.
Random variation/natural selection has been shown in laboratory work to have very feeble creative powers.
Is there a definition of "information"? I don't deny that DNA contains information. But I do deny that someone needs to have been there a few thousand years ago in order to put the information there.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Lab experiments are interesting. If there was a lab that could conduct experiments over billions of years rather than mere years and decades, you would see commensurate results.
Do we disagree about how old the universe is? If I didn't believe that the earth was approx 4.5 billion years old, I'd have much more trouble believing in evolution.
"Do we disagree about how old the universe is?"
Nope.
The evidence supports a theory that massive information is injected at various points in time along the way far better than it supports the idea of smooth continuous change via random mut/nat selection ("ramunasel").
The evidence also supports the idea that evolution is algorithmic; that the changes that do occur are driven much more by algorithms than copying errors (which, by the way, is a nonsensical idea under darwinism because there's nothing that's supposed to be, so nothing can be considered an error).
If the evidence actually supported ramunasel, I would believe it. But it just doesn't.
Could you point me in the direction of any information that says that mutation is driven by algorithms? I always thought it was more of a heuristic thing. But math was never my forté.
*
When it comes to copying errors, perhaps you are taking the term error too... moralistically. Error comes from a latin word meaning to stray. Sometimes straying from the beaten path is good. Sometimes it's bad. And whether or not a mutation is good or bad depends on the context. In caves without light, changes that improve an eye's ability to see are not useful at all. Which is why creatures that have lived in lightless caves for a very long time have no eyes, or rather, have only the vestiges of eyes.
Error - no, it's more fundamental than that. Since there is nothing that is supposed to be -- life included -- then nothing than happens can be considered an error. It's just dumb mindless nature at work. Cancer cannot be considered a malfunction since there is no intention that anything function in the first place, and life is no better than non-life. It is just nature "doing its thing".
Of course, no one can actually live their life as a rock-bottom atheist; when it comes to a trip to the doctor, they are relieved to hear that their heart is functioning "normally", "as it is supposed to". Etc. That's why I say that even atheists live as though they inhabit a theistic universe -- which is OK, because they do.
Why not take a relativist point of view. A heart works "as it's supposed to" from the point of view of the heart's body/mind.
I think a better argument for a theistic universe wouldn't be to point to the patient's relief when they are told that their heart is working, but to the patient's prayers when they fear their heart is not working.
But of course, what we think/feel about the universe is not always a good guide to what the universe is really like.
Well, it might be a heuristic; the bottom-line is there's a mathematical, er, algorithm at work that seems to dictate the search field.
And, Joe, when you can explain why your "magic man in the sky musta done it" theory is worth any more in regards to this than it was in regards to lightning, or earthquakes, or disease, or tides, or eclipses, or ANYTHING ELSE that you lunatics have used it for, then your theory might be worth something. Until then, you are in EXACTLY the same spot as a witch doctor who says "well, the volcano didn't erupt after we sacrificed a virgin to it, so that must mean that the volcano god is real".
SDC
I take it Same Dumb Comment is a little slow on the uptake because he still thinks I believe in a 'magic man in the sky'. Bwhahahahahaha! Gasp!!!! Maybe his brain was addled by Richard pointing out the fact that his two big buckets of nothing aren't big enough.
I'm simply repeating the claims of your cult, Joe, so if you can't deal with with the obvious nonsense that your superstition preaches, that tells me you shouldn't be believing such crap in the first place.
SDC
Post a Comment