narcimund

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    3,736

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by narcimund

  1. narcimund
    That's a rare talent. I admire it greatly. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  2. narcimund
    I wrote that badly. I didn't mean YOU personally. I have no memory of you ever saying that. I meant that in general I can easily predict that anyone who comments on my very carefully reasoned posts will compliment my intelligence if they agree with the side I'm arguing or they'll bitch about my personality if they don't. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  3. narcimund
    They could sell those right next to the footed Darwin fish. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  4. narcimund
    Fraid not. I get involved only when I think people actually have a chance of understanding. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  5. narcimund
    I find it grotesquely fascinating that I'm "clear and concise" to people when I argue for their side but I'm "angry" when I argue the other side. I chalk it all up to more fallacies. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  6. narcimund
    Oh don't worry about that. No matter how much I explain the fallacies, I"m quite sure you will gleefully continue to exploit them. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  7. narcimund
    You're absolutely right. They're not synonymous. I was getting bogged down in a complex answer and decided to punt on that point for efficiency. They're closely related however and my point can be made with either of them, so let's consider them a set. And that's why the conclusion "It must be intelligence" is a premature conclusion at best. But it doesn't negate the value of the research if in fact the research discovers anything. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  8. narcimund
    It's good that you have it. Have you considered reading it? First Class Citizen Twice Over
  9. narcimund
    No, that's not how it began. I've shown there's quite a bit of theoretical meat to the research even if the conclusions are wacky. I'm not convinced that anyone has benefitted from my explanations. It's pretty clear that most (if not all) people are too dogmatic to follow clear reasoning on any topic unless the conclusions are comfortable. And THAT fallacy is known as argumentum ad consequentiam. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  10. narcimund
    There are two parts to ID as I've explained it. A) Discovering whether or not there is too much complexity to be explained by random chance B) Concluding what the missing element is. Part (A) is potentially interesting science. Possibly fruitful or fruitless. I have no idea. Part (B) seems silly in the absence of more information. Your claimed presumptions of ID are a iittle odd. (1) and (2) are basically synonymous and only come into play with part (B) above. But (3) is fallacious on YOUR side. It's not necessary to discover that ALL life in the universe is too complex to arise through evolution. It's only necessary to discover ONE example. I have no idea if any examples have been found, but if one were, it would be enough to satisfy (A) above. (B) is another matter entirely. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  11. narcimund
    I don't know anything about the ID findings. I've been explaining what the CONCEPT is because you (and others) seemed to be curious if it was more rigorous and scientific than "god says so". It IS more rigorous than that, at least in theory. Maybe somebody else has current findings. My guess is there isn't much. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  12. narcimund
    I think what's going on is people are not recognizing the differences between Creationism (which is literal faith in the Bible) and ID (which is actually does some interesting math and science.) Of course it's true that ID is MOTIVATED by faith in the Bible. But that isn't sufficient to invalidate any scientific findings. I think it's unfortunate that people won't pull the anti-creationism blinders off long enough to at least RECOGNIZE that this is different. The fallacy here, for those following along, is argumentum ad hominem. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  13. narcimund
    Of course it is. Anti-evolutionists made a prediction ("evolution can't explain this, so a 'designer' must have been involved"). ID doesn't predict that it will find extreme complexity. It EXPLAINS extreme complexity when it's found. Your example simply removes one case where ID's explanation is required. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  14. narcimund
    You're arguing that handpuppets are not capable of sex but they are capable of friendship? First Class Citizen Twice Over
  15. narcimund
    Oh, I see. It looked like a legitimate question. I guess it was just a rant phrased like a question. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to be rational. Note to self: One more person not to try to engage rationally. Isn't it funny how I'm finding them on every side of every question? First Class Citizen Twice Over
  16. narcimund
    So you support summary execution for typos? First Class Citizen Twice Over
  17. narcimund
    Childish bickering aside, you asked the original question and I've tried to answer it. Did that help? First Class Citizen Twice Over
  18. narcimund
    I'm going out on a limb here but I'm going to assume that ID proponents are sophisticated in the issues you bring up. Even if the individuals involve are not sophisticated, that isn't evidence for or against the theory. It just means they should be doing better recruiting. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  19. narcimund
    I wouldn't mind if the right to live were based on intellect. But keep in mind that's coming from an intelligent person :) First Class Citizen Twice Over
  20. narcimund
    Ask markharju about that. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  21. narcimund
    What about the ones relating to homosexuality? Those seem to keep getting repeated over and over while the others get conveniently misplaced... First Class Citizen Twice Over
  22. narcimund
    Look, I already showed that your eyeball example is not an argument against ID. If you don't (A) accept or (B) refute what I said and just keep on using the example anyway, I'm going to assume you're just preaching. And isn't that what you object to ID for? First Class Citizen Twice Over
  23. narcimund
    I don't believe the ID people dismiss random mutations. It would be terribly silly if they did. If I understand right, they acknowledge that mutations occur, and do science to discover the rates. Actually, the rates of change are already quite well established by biology. The ID result is, "given the observed rates of change, we couldn't have gotten here from there without some extra help." First Class Citizen Twice Over
  24. narcimund
    If that were all it is, it would be much less interesting than it is. First Class Citizen Twice Over
  25. narcimund
    But that's not the situation in your example. I know it seems like it is, but look closely. ID didn't PREDICT that eyes would be found to be too complex. Instead, it offered an alternative development explanation since it appeared that eyes were too complex. When it turned out eyes were NOT too complex, the theory simply became irrelevant in this case. There's a very big and critical difference. First Class Citizen Twice Over