Quake3World

First off, I freely admit that I'm not really equipped to fight this ID vs. Evolution battle. I have a cowrker here who is VERY smart and has done a lot of reading on this subject. I will say that he has me at a bit of a disadvantage, because he's quite good at turning the debate away from my argument and down line of reasoning.
My point is this: I don't want to accept ID, because it's based on belief in god, whether people will admit it or not. His core argument is one of complexity not being able arise naturally.
Here's an excerpt from our ongoing email war:

Him - "do you object to a design argument in general? or just the specific ones that get press?"

My response, with his comments in italics - "I think that it's more of a general objection, primarily because of all the religious "baggage" as you called it that associated with it. Some people that I talk to refer to it as junk science, and I tend to agree as there have been no experiments performed to support it. Then you get the whole "ARCHANGELS DID IT" type of nonsense.
-I think you are using that as a strawman argument.

Put it this way: If ID had not "evolved" (haha) out of Creationism, I'd be far more likely to listen to it. But, it is based on the acceptance of a god/designer/whatever you want to call it, and the proponents of ID don't just want it taught, they want Evolution Theory removed.
-How would you conduct an experiment to prove that complexity is by design, or that it wasn't? How do you get intelligence from a non-intelligent source? Where does "information" come from?

I'm really looking for some ammo regarding the complexity issue.

Lil' help?

riddla wrote:You could always point out that neither of you know and are both arguing about theory

you lost your balls

riddla wrote:You could always point out that neither of you know and are both arguing about theory

Thats an interesting concept.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

riddla wrote:You could always point out that neither of you know and are both arguing about theory

you lost your balls

wtf is with commenting on comments and why the feck do I comment on a comment on a comment.

saturn wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

riddla wrote:You could always point out that neither of you know and are both arguing about theory

you lost your balls

wtf is with commenting on comments and why the feck do I comment on a comment on a comment.

Because else i couldn't comment on a comment on a comment on comment.

Now why did I do that :icon32:

Survivor wrote: Now why did I do that :icon32:

no comment.

Nightshade wrote:Where does "information" come from?

lol, what an idiot...

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

Survivor wrote: Now why did I do that :icon32:

no comment.

go back to your corner and be quiet

saturn wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

Survivor wrote: Now why did I do that :icon32:

no comment.

go back to your corner and be quiet

go get plained and let's play dodge ball.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

saturn wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote: no comment.

go back to your corner and be quiet

go get plained and let's play dodge ball.

dotn go haywir now, migth becom messi :gooflol:

saturn wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

saturn wrote: go back to your corner and be quiet

go get plained and let's play dodge ball.

dotn go haywir now, migth becom messi :gooflol:

sommey then :pissant:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

saturn wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote: go get plained and let's play dodge ball.

dotn go haywir now, migth becom messi :gooflol:

sommey then :pissant:

thread :hijac:

be sure to tell him you got all your info from the internet. that will help your arguement.

saturn wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

saturn wrote: dotn go haywir now, migth becom messi :gooflol:

sommey then :pissant:

thread :hijac:

oops :eucalyptustree:

prince1000 wrote:be sure to tell him you got all your info from the internet. that will help your arguement.

Yes, well, not having an advanced biology lab in my cube here does limit my resources somewhat.

P.S. Stupid spamming arseholes.

I have a big cock!

Nightshade wrote:

prince1000 wrote:be sure to tell him you got all your info from the internet. that will help your arguement.

Yes, well, not having an advanced biology lab in my cube here does limit my resources somewhat.

P.S. Stupid spamming arseholes.

keeps it on the first page. surely it would die a horrid death until you bumped it yourself :panflute:

riddla wrote:You could always point out that neither of you know and are both arguing about theory

the·o·ry

n., pl. -ries.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.


As far as I'm concerned ID does not even fit this bill.

FragaGeddon wrote:I have a big cock!

i think youre getting that mixed up with your new monitor.

*snicker*

Nightshade, has he given you a specfic argument as to why he finds ID theory compelling? If not, ask for one and then post it here...I'd be happy to try to poke holes in it.

The burden is on your friend to support ID, not on you to demonstrate why ID isn't the best hypothesis currently known given the data available at this point (if a legitimate hypothesis at all).

He probably knows you're not fully armed to debate this topic, so he may ask questions to plant doubt in you. Questions you may not be able to answer.

prince1000 wrote:be sure to tell him you got all your info from the internet. that will help your arguement.

He will get some of it from me, and my name is on the cover of a couple books about biology.

Give me some time, I'm not in the mood to think much right now, but I'll try and give you some advice a bit later tonight or tomorrow. How soon do you need this?

Nightshade wrote: His core argument is one of complexity not being able arise naturally.

In order to get at the heart of the objection, one needs to attempt an understanding at the nature of complexity.

Nightshade, I would say that until you have an understanding of complexity, you are no better than a puppet who is dogmatically repeating his master.

The complexity argument, at its fundamental core is one of the deepest mysteries of existence, to me.

Its strongest form is in the properties of the universe - the fine tuning that allows such complexity to emerge.

Now I would say that based on my own limited understanding of complexity, it is perhaps a radical inference to posit an intelligence behind it. I would even say that positing intelligence as necessary is fundamentally flawed. But I would certainly say that we currently don't have any plausible explanation.

In fact, the main way we've tried explaining it is through parallel probabilities, which has incarnations in the fringes of quantum theory and multiple universes.