| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Daryl" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2004 11:55:02 PM |
| Object: |
Intelligent Design Disproven |
The Teleological argument, or Argument to Design,
was soundly disproven this week by researchers in
the international think-tank alt.atheism using an
extremely rigourous triple-blind methodology. Not
only were the researchers and the subjects of the
study unaware of their roles in it, they were also
unaware that a study was being conducted. The
researchers employed a robust time-proven problem
solving methodology akin to evolution. By merely
maintaining their daily routines, which include
communicating with each on the Internet in the
specialized newsgroup alt.atheism, they lived part
of their lives in an environment not unlike the
Galapagos Islands in its isolation; the perfect
"laboratory" for studying the effects of newly
introduced elements on organic systems. If there
were in fact an intelligence in the design of the
universe, this would be the place to observe it.
The study commenced, unbeknownst to anyone, when
a foreign element was introduced into the stable
system. If there were intelligence in the design
of alt.atheism, it would adapt to the foreign
element so as to continue down the road to its
purpose; it's "end cause". The foreign element
was a troll message, crossposted to a singular
additional newsgroup, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy.
alt.atheism did not adapt. There was no evidence
of intelligence in its response to the foreign
element. Replies to replies to replies to
messages took place without anyone noticing the
extra newsgroup in the header. alt.atheism
started down the path to becoming something else,
something more like alt.*, proving that there was
no purposiveness, and therefore no intelligent
design, behind it.
When this study first revealed itself to the panel
of peers (who oversaw it a posteriori) some
wondered if it weren't possible that there was
still intelligent design because the non-adaptation
of alt.atheism might be serving a purpose of its
own. This possibility quickly vanished with the
understandings that newsgroups only exist nominally
in the first place, and that the Internet itself
lacks purpose by definition. As one observer,
Siddhartha Hume, summarized "one doesn't serve a
purpose by disappearing from a purposeless
existence into a purposeless non-existence."
--
Daryl .... to email me add dawt cee eh?
"Love your sig!" --Kirsten Bayes, absfg
.
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Disproven |
14 Aug 2004 10:05:03 AM |
|
|
"Daryl" <absfg50@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol> wrote
As one observer,
Siddhartha Hume, summarized "one doesn't serve a
purpose by disappearing from a purposeless
existence into a purposeless non-existence."
:-)
Is that to mean even the object lesson of such a passing is purposeless?
/leebert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Disproven |
14 Aug 2004 11:58:41 AM |
|
|
nobody (asdf@asdf.com), an otherwise honourable person, allowed some thoughts to escape
into public view via article <zSpTc.10061$nu2.3477@fe2.texas.rr.com>:
"Daryl" <absfg50@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol> wrote
As one observer,
Siddhartha Hume, summarized "one doesn't serve a
purpose by disappearing from a purposeless
existence into a purposeless non-existence."
:-)
Is that to mean even the object lesson of such a passing is purposeless?
I am squishing your head!
--
Daryl .... to email me add dawt cee eh?
"Love your sig!" --Kirsten Bayes, absfg
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Disproven |
14 Aug 2004 04:46:12 AM |
|
|
"Daryl" <absfg50@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol> wrote
Did you read "Calculating God?" Sawyer is one of your guys. I enjoyed the
intelligent design argument. I suspect he borrowed it from elsewhere,
perhaps some very clever Xian deists or creationists.
Sawyer's argument is that the universe must have been designed because the
chances of it coming into being in the way it did, particularly to support
atomic chemistry which makes life possible, are essentially zero. So then,
the probability of intelligent life evolving is either 0 or 1, leaving us
with intelligent design as the answer to both unlikelihoods.
I like to dodge the argument entirely. Ask me whether the universe evolved
through a kind of natural selection into a stable quantum set of rules
compatible with life OR through some intelligent design that ensured the
conditions necessary to life and my reponse is that I find both
possibilities equally unlikely.
/leebert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Disproven |
14 Aug 2004 10:40:56 AM |
|
|
nobody (asdf@asdf.com), an otherwise honourable person, allowed some thoughts to escape
into public view via article <EblTc.10148$MD.2768@fe1.texas.rr.com>:
"Daryl" <absfg50@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol> wrote
Did you read "Calculating God?" Sawyer is one of your guys. I enjoyed the
intelligent design argument. I suspect he borrowed it from elsewhere,
perhaps some very clever Xian deists or creationists.
Sawyer's argument is that the universe must have been designed because the
chances of it coming into being in the way it did, particularly to support
atomic chemistry which makes life possible, are essentially zero. So then,
the probability of intelligent life evolving is either 0 or 1, leaving us
with intelligent design as the answer to both unlikelihoods.
I like to dodge the argument entirely. Ask me whether the universe evolved
through a kind of natural selection into a stable quantum set of rules
compatible with life OR through some intelligent design that ensured the
conditions necessary to life and my reponse is that I find both
possibilities equally unlikely.
Well, Sawyer's argument (which I haven't read) doesn't hold
water because it's incoherent, as is any argument based on
what must have been prior to being. One can't say anything
about the odds of things one has no knowledge of whatsoever.
There are no other cases to be observed (much less enough of
them to establish odds), and any attempt to extend principles
back into time (in fact extending time itself back is
extending a principle) is presumption, no better than mere
declaration.
The God of the gaps is wholly unacceptable because it is apt
to be (and has been) disproved in particular cases, the most
famous of which perhaps is evolution (natural selection and
large numbers is a sufficient explanation, thus removing the
necessity of design). I'm rather more sympathetic to the
idea that the foundations of the regularities that we
observe must be divinely maintained, because that view is
both not disprovable and connects the observer and the
observed intimately (although infinitely regressively and
at the expense of denying any necessary purposiveness in
Creation). It can be a good enough excuse to exclaim "how
marvellous" about Creation, and leave it at that.
--
Daryl .... to email me add dawt cee eh?
"Love your sig!" --Kirsten Bayes, absfg
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Disproven |
14 Aug 2004 10:55:56 AM |
|
|
"Daryl" <absfg50@static-b2-190.highspeed.eol> wrote
I'm rather more sympathetic to the
idea that the foundations of the regularities that we
observe must be divinely maintained, because that view is
both not disprovable and connects the observer and the
observed intimately (although infinitely regressively and
at the expense of denying any necessary purposiveness in
Creation). It can be a good enough excuse to exclaim "how
marvellous" about Creation, and leave it at that.
Well the deist / Voltairian argument stops just about there. Sawyer's
arguments edge beyond the deist argument, but only just a little, the
universe is still a clock that God wound.
/leebert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brainfried" |
|
| Title: Re: Intelligent Design Disproven |
14 Aug 2004 09:07:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 04:55:02 GMT,
(Daryl) wrote:
-clip-
The study commenced, unbeknownst to anyone, when
a foreign element was introduced into the stable
system. If there were intelligence in the design
of alt.atheism, it would adapt to the foreign
element so as to continue down the road to its
purpose; it's "end cause". The foreign element
was a troll message, crossposted to a singular
additional newsgroup, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy.
Your study is flawed. It can not take into account those like me who
did see the crossposting and therefore ignored your post. It also
does not take into account those that like to play with trolls. IMHO,
the problem with playing with trolls is like competing in the Special
Olympics. No matter who wins, you're both still retarded.
alt.atheism did not adapt. There was no evidence
of intelligence in its response to the foreign
element.
Again, flawed. Adaptation and design are two completely different
things, for if something is designed properly, it does not need to
adapt. Furthermore, alt.atheism is not one thing, but many and now
that I'm getting off into arguing with a troll, I'll stop there before
I turn retarded.
Replies to replies to replies to
messages took place without anyone noticing the
extra newsgroup in the header. alt.atheism
started down the path to becoming something else,
something more like alt.*, proving that there was
no purposiveness, and therefore no intelligent
design, behind it.
Already covered.
When this study first revealed itself to the panel
of peers (who oversaw it a posteriori) some
wondered if it weren't possible that there was
still intelligent design because the non-adaptation
of alt.atheism might be serving a purpose of its
own. This possibility quickly vanished with the
understandings that newsgroups only exist nominally
in the first place, and that the Internet itself
lacks purpose by definition. As one observer,
Siddhartha Hume, summarized "one doesn't serve a
purpose by disappearing from a purposeless
existence into a purposeless non-existence."
Dribble, but what else is to be expected from a troll. The purpose of
the Internet is to communicate and does allow very good communication.
But as with any communication, the signal to noise ratio can run quite
low. There is far too much noise in your communication.
In other words, you think yourself to be so clever, but in reality
you're just retarded.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
