Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Darwin's Finch · 08-07-2002, 10:38 AM

Thiaoouba: "Any one with a trace of intelligence would realize that 'laws' of physics are 'laws' due to design. You do not get a 'law' randomly -- there is a contradiction and please, think about it, because it is important to realise that any law requires a design of the law first."

Personally, I dislike talk about "laws" of matter/energy. The analogy doesn't work because, as Nietschze pointed out, laws by their nature (being human rules) can be and are transgressed. Where in nature do we find such transgressions? Is it even an option? If you replace "law" with "necessity" you will see for yourself how easily your analogy is done away with. Matter has no choice. It cannot act/react other than it does. Once you understand that, further claims that there must be some supernatural designer or lawgiver to account for these necessary relations are baseless.

Jonesy · 08-07-2002, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sci_Fidelity:
[/b]

They don't "learn", and they don't "become resistant." There will be a number of resistant individuals in the population, and those are the ones which survive and reproduce.

They are resistant, because they learn how to resist and hence survive. That's the law of the jungle - the survival of the fittest=survival of the smartest.

Sci_Fidelity · 08-07-2002, 10:39 AM

Please provide some support for your assertions. Show me how viruses "get smart." This is utter bullshit.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Sci_Fidelity ]

KC · 08-07-2002, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:


"Please show how ANY physical phenomenon described by a law" DOES NOT REQUIRE a Designer. You cannot. No one can. And out of the two possibilities that are left (designer or no designer) - even though we cannot PHYSICALLY prove either - we can intellectually BETTER prove the one that holds that 'designer is required'

I don't have to. As anyone with an ounce of sense understands, the person making the assertion (that's YOU, genius), takes on the burden of supporting the assertion. Now please demonstrate that you comprehend this simple fact and show how any physical phenomenon REQUIRES a designer.

Thanks,

KC

Darwin's Finch · 08-07-2002, 10:44 AM

Thiaoouba: "They are resistant, because they learn how to resist and hence survive. That's the law of the jungle -- the survival of the fittest=survival of the smartest."

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Seldom have I seen two sentences get so much wrong.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 08-07-2002, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:

...can you PROVE that evolution did NOT have a reason?

Actually, you must prove that it DID have a reason--not we must prove the oppossite. Nice burden shifting there.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 08-07-2002, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:

What makes anyone say this? It is obvious that viruses, like any living thing, are not only NOT simple, but actually LEARN - eg. when people try to 'beat' viruses' with drugs, they become resistant - this is learning.

Actually, no--it's more along the lines of survival of the fit enough. And if they aren't fit enough to successfully infect us, then they go extinct. No "learning" involved. Period. Bacteria that devolop resistances do not do so by reading a book or the like, but because they weren't all killed off by the drug--and therefore, were partially resistant to begin with, and therefore, so will all their offspring (or most of them anyhow).

Princess of Peace · 08-07-2002, 10:52 AM

I thought the answer was obvious. In the beginning, IPU caught a cold. When she sneezed, out popped the universe, big bang and all. Since the universe is expanding, it is obvious that IPU is still in the middle of her sneeze, and that time passes differently for IPU. Because IPU is still in the process of sneezing, she has no awareness of what her sneeze has wrought. Some time in the future, though, there will be the coming of the great white handkerchief.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 08-07-2002, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:


"Please show how ANY physical phenomenon described by a law" DOES NOT REQUIRE a Designer. You cannot. No one can. And out of the two possibilities that are left (designer or no designer) - even though we cannot PHYSICALLY prove either - we can intellectually BETTER prove the one that holds that 'designer is required'

BURDEN SHIFTING!! BURDEN SHIFTING!!!!
This has been a test of the emergency burden shifting detection system. If this had actually been an argument, there would be need to actually refute it. Once again, this has been a test of the emergency burden shifting detection system. We will now return you to your regulary scheduled threads
BURDEN SHIFTING!! BURDEN SHIFTING!!!!

Autonemesis · 08-07-2002, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:
We have simply reached a stage in our evolution when we are now 'smart enough' to realise that 'things that exist have a meaning', including the way we evolved. What this meaning is, is the next step. The people you mention from the past where simply less evolved intellectually than we are today and hence it didn't even 'cross their minds' to think about the 'meaning of our existence' and 'the meaning of the process in which we have evolved UP TO the point in time where we are at the moment'.

You seem to be of a mind that things have inherent meaning, independent of the mind that contemplates the thing.

But what does it tell us about a thing to say that the thing has a meaning? Is "having meaning" different from "having mass"? We can say "the Sun has mass" and "the Sun is beautiful". Are these statements both attributing some quality to the Sun? Or are they attributing something to the observer of the Sun? Is the Sun massive whether or not someone measures its mass? It would seem so. Is the Sun beautiful whether or not someone looks at it? Not so sure now, are you?

08-07-2002, 10:39 AM	#23
Sci_Fidelity Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 595	Please provide some support for your assertions. Show me how viruses "get smart." This is utter bullshit. [ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Sci_Fidelity ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-07-2002, 10:38 AM	#21
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Thiaoouba: "Any one with a trace of intelligence would realize that 'laws' of physics are 'laws' due to design. You do not get a 'law' randomly -- there is a contradiction and please, think about it, because it is important to realise that any law requires a design of the law first." Personally, I dislike talk about "laws" of matter/energy. The analogy doesn't work because, as Nietschze pointed out, laws by their nature (being human rules) can be and are transgressed. Where in nature do we find such transgressions? Is it even an option? If you replace "law" with "necessity" you will see for yourself how easily your analogy is done away with. Matter has no choice. It cannot act/react other than it does. Once you understand that, further claims that there must be some supernatural designer or lawgiver to account for these necessary relations are baseless.

08-07-2002, 10:44 AM	#25
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Thiaoouba: "They are resistant, because they learn how to resist and hence survive. That's the law of the jungle -- the survival of the fittest=survival of the smartest." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Seldom have I seen two sentences get so much wrong.

08-07-2002, 10:52 AM	#28
Princess of Peace Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western Washington Posts: 109	I thought the answer was obvious. In the beginning, IPU caught a cold. When she sneezed, out popped the universe, big bang and all. Since the universe is expanding, it is obvious that IPU is still in the middle of her sneeze, and that time passes differently for IPU. Because IPU is still in the process of sneezing, she has no awareness of what her sneeze has wrought. Some time in the future, though, there will be the coming of the great white handkerchief.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.