Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

I kinda want to die

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#61  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 05, 2018 3:07 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Now of course, we have a problem, in that characterising that three-step process above as "design", leaves the entire topic wide open to apologetic abuse, at the hands of miscreants taking ruthless advantage of uneducated or credulous audiences. Which not only stems from the multifarious issues already covered above, but from another issue I've yet to deal with - namely, how one defines the 'successes' in step [3]. Of course, in the world of evolutionary biology, 'success' is easily and simply defined, as an affirmative answer to the question "has X produced descendants?" Step [3], on the other hand, does not admit of a well-defined universal criterion independent of subjective human judgement, when humans are the generators in step [1]. What constitutes 'success' for one set of humans, seeking one goal, will constitute dismal failure for a different set of humans, with a different goal. "Does it work?", in the case of human activity, constitutes such a broad brush that its utility value as a defining criterion, is limited by being similarly open to subjective change across instances."Does it work?" is a useful first step along the way during our infant trials, but necessarily gives way to more precise specification later, and for different instances of the requisite human activity, those precise specifications will differ too. Evolutionary processes differ sufficiently substantively in that respect also, to render the homomorphism I expounded above apologetically useless in the face of an informed audience.


We do define 'success' as part of evolutionary theory. In that vein, extinction isn't really a failure simply because environmental changes might outstrip the pace of adaptation.

Those who want to define 'success' and 'failure' (or, as above, 'design') are welcome to do so. Sorry if I don't stand at attention and salute anything but efficient communication, where no one has yet given the utility of using 'design' to refer to structures arrived at in organic evolution. This roadshow isn't headed anywhere: as Gould pointed out, there's a wall of low-complexity at one end, and everything seems to get more complex from there, but only up to a point.

Design, as I take it, is aimed at meeting criteria posed by a particular set of extant conditions, so all these temporary successes meet the requirements; nevertheless, without the aim of doing so, it's strange to call it 'design'. Simply failing to fail is, of course, one way to do that, but it's weak in terms of the way we define 'success' (in the context of 'design'. In past cases of mass extinction brought about by drastic environmental change, calling the survivors successes seems out of place.

There are strains of humanism that go right down this street, but what those humanists bring along with them includes stuff like consciousness, morality, free will radio. On the air 24/7/365. Need a substitute religion? They have your back.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26975
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#62  Postby felltoearth » Jan 05, 2018 7:07 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:

On the air 24/7/365.


You forgot /12/ in that list. Was that intentional? Asking for a friend.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 9778
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#63  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 06, 2018 8:20 am

felltoearth wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

On the air 24/7/365.


You forgot /12/ in that list. Was that intentional? Asking for a friend.


It's a data error, not an omission. The 365 should have gone in as 52.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26975
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#64  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

On the air 24/7/365.


You forgot /12/ in that list. Was that intentional? Asking for a friend.


It's a data error, not an omission. The 365 should have gone in as 52.

Let's not get side-tracked onto irrelevant trivia.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 65
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#65  Postby felltoearth » Jan 07, 2018 1:45 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

On the air 24/7/365.


You forgot /12/ in that list. Was that intentional? Asking for a friend.


It's a data error, not an omission. The 365 should have gone in as 52.

Let's not get side-tracked onto irrelevant trivia.

:coffee:
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 9778
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#66  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 07, 2018 2:22 pm

Sendraks wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Well, not "design" in the usual, conscious sense, of course, but in the sense of "trial and error", as in military wing "design" (the crucial bit, that you mysteriously left out in your reply).


*sigh*
I didn't "mysteriously" leave anything out of my reply, given there was nothing in what I quoted about "military wing design" and therefore no reason why I would comment about such a thing. Once again you unhelpfully go down the path of projecting all sorts of agendas onto your interlocutors.

A. I am not "projecting all sorts of agendas".
B. The question is, why did you not mention military wing design. I looks like convenience to me, because it enables you to pretend that all connotations of the word, "design" imply consciousness. Ask Cali, he'll put you right.

EDIT: BTW, the military wing design methodology is sometimes known as "evolutionary design", for obvious reasons.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 65
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#67  Postby Fallible » Jan 07, 2018 5:34 pm

Oh for god's sake.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 47221
Age: 45
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#68  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 11, 2018 3:07 pm

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, Fallible.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 65
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#69  Postby Sendraks » Jan 11, 2018 3:35 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Well, not "design" in the usual, conscious sense, of course, but in the sense of "trial and error", as in military wing "design" (the crucial bit, that you mysteriously left out in your reply).


*sigh*
I didn't "mysteriously" leave anything out of my reply, given there was nothing in what I quoted about "military wing design" and therefore no reason why I would comment about such a thing. Once again you unhelpfully go down the path of projecting all sorts of agendas onto your interlocutors.

A. I am not "projecting all sorts of agendas".
B. The question is, why did you not mention military wing design. I looks like convenience to me, because it enables you to pretend that all connotations of the word, "design" imply consciousness. Ask Cali, he'll put you right.

EDIT: BTW, the military wing design methodology is sometimes known as "evolutionary design", for obvious reasons.


Are you talking to me or to Cito? Only on the previous page, WHERE YOU ALREADY RESPONDED TO THIS COMMENT, you claimed it was directed at Cito not me.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 14886
Age: 102
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#70  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 11, 2018 6:27 pm

Sendraks wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Well, not "design" in the usual, conscious sense, of course, but in the sense of "trial and error", as in military wing "design" (the crucial bit, that you mysteriously left out in your reply).


*sigh*
I didn't "mysteriously" leave anything out of my reply, given there was nothing in what I quoted about "military wing design" and therefore no reason why I would comment about such a thing. Once again you unhelpfully go down the path of projecting all sorts of agendas onto your interlocutors.

A. I am not "projecting all sorts of agendas".
B. The question is, why did you not mention military wing design. I looks like convenience to me, because it enables you to pretend that all connotations of the word, "design" imply consciousness. Ask Cali, he'll put you right.

EDIT: BTW, the military wing design methodology is sometimes known as "evolutionary design", for obvious reasons.


Are you talking to me or to Cito? Only on the previous page, WHERE YOU ALREADY RESPONDED TO THIS COMMENT, you claimed it was directed at Cito not me.

Does it really matter? The offending post was edited to hide one of the posters' identity, ad life's too short to dive ito that level of detail when it's only a derail anyway.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 65
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#71  Postby Fallible » Jan 11, 2018 6:51 pm

DavidMcC wrote:If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, Fallible.


What heat? Get over yourself.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 47221
Age: 45
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#72  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 13, 2018 4:20 pm

Fallible wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, Fallible.


What heat? Get over yourself.

I was referring to your part in the general harrassment by the "pack" unleashed when I dared to criticise something RS said (but not on the basis of a mere typo), pumping up minor issues into attempts at a major off-topic row.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 65
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#73  Postby Fallible » Jan 13, 2018 9:04 pm

Thanks for that total gibberish.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 47221
Age: 45
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#74  Postby Hamster » Jan 14, 2018 2:41 am

Seems to me that there's more than a hint of All Things Bright And Beautiful about how I.D. is marketed.
Not so much time given over to the more (in our minds ) brutal but successful "designs".
Pretty sweet smelling elegant things. No dwelling on the life of a male praying mantis, who dies before mating and whose twitching corpse impregnates the female.
Of course evolution has no regard for niceties. What works survives.
User avatar
Hamster
 
Posts: 84

Country: Australia
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#75  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 14, 2018 6:11 am

Hamster wrote:Seems to me that there's more than a hint of All Things Bright And Beautiful about how I.D. is marketed.
Not so much time given over to the more (in our minds ) brutal but successful "designs".
Pretty sweet smelling elegant things. No dwelling on the life of a male praying mantis, who dies before mating and whose twitching corpse impregnates the female.
Of course evolution has no regard for niceties. What works survives.


Which is why I describe Acarophenax tribolii as the supernaturalist's worst nightmare. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 21865
Age: 56
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#76  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 15, 2018 4:14 pm

Fallible wrote:Thanks for that total gibberish.

What gibberish?
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 65
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#77  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 15, 2018 4:14 pm

Fallible wrote:Thanks for that total gibberish.

What gibberish?
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 65
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#78  Postby Fallible » Jan 15, 2018 4:21 pm

Shhh.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 47221
Age: 45
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest