Posted on 03/29/2006 7:53:52 PM PST by SampleMan
"Something that passes the Turing test."
Even though this has Turing's name attached to it it is not an objective scientific definition since it depends on opinion of a human observer. And in any case, how are you going to apply the Turing test to God?
"Plus you gave a credible one in your answer."
A good score on the SAT? Again, not likely applicable in this situation. And in any case, I'll be willing to throw the argument to the IDers if God shows up for an SAT test regardless of His score.
"Tell me what is the scientific definition of species?"
No idea. I am not a biologist; I am a computer scientist and mathematician. Anyways, I am not necessarily defending evolution and probably couldn't since I am not a biologist. However, I do have a strong background in computer science, artificial intelligence, probability, information theory, etc. which are relevant to many of the arguments that IDers are trying (incorrectly in my opinion) to use to give their position more of a scientific air; from what I have seen thus far, these arguments would only be convincing to non-experts and true-believers.
I didn't get beyond the personal ad hominems of Darwin.
If there was an actual argument in the post, the author should have made it before making the ad hominems.
I didn't get beyond
Figgers!!
Are you implying that the only thing people get emotional about is religion?
"Something that passes the Turing test."
Note that a superior form of intelligence might appear like nonsense to our limited human intellect and thus the Turing test would prove inadequate for this reason also.
Nobody uses insults if they have a real point. The insult is the refuge of the person who has no argument. This fellow you quoted started off with insults. Why?
If he's registered at FR, I'd be glad to ask. Otherwise, I have no interest in sharing any contact information, which I would have to do to get a response.
Then don't be asking me quesions I can't answer.
This fellow you quoted started off with insults. Why?
I guess you would have to ask HIM that question.
I didn't, you old grouch.
It appears the first ad hominem goes to the anti-evolution crowd. Go figure.
Here's the kicker -- each of those examples is perhaps a proof (or suggestion) of evolution by chance and then "natural selection" (whatever that is). Yet each of those examples is much more lkely a proof (or suggestion) of evolving design and/or evolving purpose reflected in design.
The design, of course, by Intelligent agents.
bookmark for later
What ID needs is a specific prediction only it can make that would preclude the naturalistic theory.
I didn't, you old grouch.
I'll have you know I am not old. :>)
It easy to dismiss ID because it's not even a theory.
I'm continually amazed that these ID/evolution threads are so full of hamfisted posts like yours. You aren't comparing apples and oranges. The correct question is, can you remove (not modify) any single element of a simple single cell and still have anything? If not, then a logical question is, "Did all of these elements have to come together at once for life to start, or is there something we're missing?" Barring missing something, you then might ask, is this possible? This might be where you are presented with the million monkeys, typing for a million years, will eventually write a complete version of Hamlet. On the other hand, you are faced with a natural human urge to see intent in wild statistical anomolies, like being a lottery winner or being born Paris Hilton.
The ID argument as I understand it (and I'm not a proponent) is that the "simplist" structure cannot be reduced to anything worthwhile.
For all of the blowing about ID not being scientific, I rarely see anything scientific disputing it. Now that I've read up on ID, it would be nice to see more than, "ID isn't science." Then your input could actually contribute to people forming an opinion.
If you want people to take you seriously, you should engage in the discussion instead of pretending that you are above it.
My interest in the subject is based on an interest in discovery and science, a belief that there is a substantial element of mutation which isn't yet understood, and a fascination with the absolute rage that nonconformity throws into self-described scientific people.
As I kept getting accused of being an ID adherent, I went and read an article on it so I would at least know what I'm being accused of. Then I posted it to reaffirm my belief that a nonsensical attack would commence. By all means disagree, but be sensical if you can.
I don't believe in UFO's, but I take a reasonable approach and tone in disputing them. I've also been accused of being a troll, but I just posted the "Mad Dog" sign. I didn't force anyone to stand under it.
You need to reread my post I do believe, as you appear to misunderstand what I said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.