Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on October 13, 2009 at 10:28pm

Oh, any proof of intelligent design yet?

Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on October 14, 2009 at 6:08am

The theory I find most convincing thus far is that of an aggregate consciousness which favors the development of life in myriad forms.

For all this debate is completely off-topic (!) I'm covering a variation on this argument in my rebuttal paper right now.

Intelligence doesn't come into it unless we draw a parallel between our chaotic biosphere and evolutionary pressure; course, that's no more intelligence than I have a third leg.

Permalink Reply by Heidi Guedel on October 14, 2009 at 9:49am

FROM: http://www.skepdic.com/theist.html

(Bold emphasis mine):

Theist

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. --Stephen F. Roberts

A theist is someone who denies the existence of all gods except (at least) one; an atheism denier.

A theist believes in at least one god but denies the existence of many other gods. For example, a believer in the Christian god denies the existence of Zeus, Thor, Danu, Athena, Horus, and thousands of other gods.

Theists usually believe that some sort of god created man. Atheists, on the other hand, believe that man created all the gods out of his imagination.
.................................................

I am an atheist. 8-)

Permalink Reply by Heidi Guedel on October 14, 2009 at 9:54am

Reply by Stephan Goodwin 11 hours ago

"Oh, any proof of intelligent design yet?"

Back to the topic of the OP.

Any proof of the random causation of self-replicating life yet?

Any proof of exclusively NON-intelligent design yet?

Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on October 12, 2009 at 11:57am

I love you guys (and gals)! And thank you for all this research, but we're descending into Allele Hell again.

Mention a nucleotide or a sequence or allele or an anything to do with biology and they glaze over. Hell some of this is beyond me! (But unlike Ham, Marshall, Gish et al. I'm happy to admit it and will learn it given the chance!)

What's crucial to me (and the essence of the post) is for all of you as my respected peers and betters (honestly) to study what I've done as a spoof/refutation and make sure I've gotten my facts AND logic right! I don't need someone from Perry's camp spotting a mistake and tearing me a new ass for doing it!

There's no better spoof than one that actually proves the point while also being funny. (I have ideas for the comic aspect, but that requires images and I haven't had the time to collect or photograph them.)

I'm minded of an episode of Red Dwarf (cult Brit sci.fi comedy) where the Kryten (an android) "ponders for a cogent paradigm" and another character (Rimmer I think) counters with, "I'd settle for a good example". Don't quote me on those precisely - I don't have the script handy, but hopefully you can see what I'm dealing with.

I'm aiming at people who are likely to fall for the sort of crap spouted by these lunatics and give then an alternative that they can understand and, more important, re-use. We don't want to preach to the choir.

When I was a professional writer, my readership consisted mainly of "learners" and I was often charged with taking a complex subject and disseminating it in an easily digestible form. My good friend Larry (Lawson) has recently called me for using words like DNS, nameservers and the like in an email about webhosting.

The current revision is here: http://www.cosmicfingerpuppets.com/drafts/writers/Marc_Draco/Inform... and still needs a fair bit of graphical input to make it appealing to the mass market.

I'm working on a further idea to prove mutation in a computer system where the message is changed without losing any of its meaning - and could, in a very specific case, even be beneficial. All this has to do with the way information is transferred and copied but there are very lose similarities with DNA again.

Permalink Reply by Richard Goscicki on October 12, 2009 at 3:49pm

I caught a couple of the Perry Marshall lectures and I must admit it was a nifty bit of sophistry. He spends a lot of time downplaying mutation as a viable mechanism of evolution but barely mentions natural selection. How can a gazelle can evolve into a giraffe, he asks. He completely ignores the power of small changes over time. Mutation is only a small part of evolution.

What's disturbing is how the audience bought his explanations so enthusiasticly.

Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on October 12, 2009 at 3:54pm

What's disturbing is how the audience bought his explanations so enthusiasticly.

Ain't that the truth. I've modified the front page of CFP to now display his most outrageous boast - and a direct link to the 1300+ answers proving everything he says is bullshit. Plus his input which I counted at 27 replies over more than three years.

Of course, this won't break him, but it's start.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on October 14, 2009 at 6:25am

Sorry about the off-topic "debate" but she seems to throw her intelligent design crap around everywhere like an angry monkey, and I just can't stand it at times. Especially when I'm bored =D

Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on October 14, 2009 at 7:20am

No worries, Stephan. ;-)

I'm on to that "theory" in this paper: not by name of course but by addressing the ideas. I think I can see how it works and why it's wrong.

You have a lot to offer my site mate which is why I'd hope you can divert some energy into making CFP better! Hey, if you're bored, why not take one of Perry's dozy proposals and write something simple to understand. I note that since the debate on Infidels he's changed his idea on chaos and snowflakes, for example.

Permalink Reply by Heidi Guedel on October 14, 2009 at 10:10am

Marc re: Perry Marshall: "I note that since the debate on Infidels he's changed his idea on chaos and snowflakes, for example."

Interesting. I'm always pleased to see someone alter their viewpoint as a result of new information.

Permalink Reply by Heidi Guedel on October 14, 2009 at 10:00am

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the topic of this thread was to hopefully provide proof of exclusively random, NON-intelligent creation (and subsequent NON-intelligent evolution) of self-replicating life in order to defeat Perry Marshall's claim that no such proof has been provided.

Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on October 14, 2009 at 10:09am

Actually, the point of the thread is to discuss and correct any errors that I might have made in the paper refuting Perry Marshall's rather ludicrous claims that an intelligence is required to design, create or direct life.

I know we're all guilty of slipping off on tangents.

I'm only a p/t pop-science writer - unemployed as of today [growls] - (with a specialism in computing and micro-electronics*) so I don't have the qualifications or learning that some of you guys have.

The point of the article in question (which may have to go over several pages) is to teach people how to poke holes in the bullshit without getting their mind's dirty.

*Where's Bruce Salem when you need him?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page