Cognitive dissonance, you're soaking in it.

It may just LOOK LIKE intelligent design because it IS so.

Say we have a room where there is a table and some hundreds of coins scattered randomly across the table.

We have locks on the door and cameras on the doors for 24 hours. We know no one can enter or exit the room for 24 hours.

Yet at the end of that period we go into the room and find the coins nearly arranged in pennies together, nickels together, dimes together, quarters together, and half dollars together - all in stacks.

The evidence, we have to admit, points to intelligence. It is less likely that an earthquake shook the coins into denominational stacks.

Now we haven't a CLUE as to HOW someone got into the room to arrange the coins intelligently. Not a clue ! But that does not effect the validity of the realization that intelligence has arranged the scattered coins though we do not know how he, she, or it entered the room to do so.

It looks like intelligence was at work probably because intelligence WAS at work. How is still a mystery. But intelligence is more plausible than ascertaining some kind of room shaking arranged the coins logically.

Originally posted by sonship
It looks like intelligence was at work probably because intelligence WAS at work. How is still a mystery. But intelligence is more plausible than ascertaining some kind of room shaking arranged the coins logically.

There are however many processes in nature which do sort things. My favourite one is what happens if you take a jar of muddy water, shake it, then leave it to stand for a while.
The thing is, you are not basing your claim of intelligence on the sorting, but on your own personal experience of coins. You are then making the error of applying the 'logic' that all sorted things must have an intelligent cause.
To give an analogy: you notice that all red roofs are man made, and conclude that all red things are man made.

Originally posted by sonship
It may just LOOK LIKE intelligent design because it IS so.

Say we have a room where there is a table and some hundreds of coins scattered randomly across the table.

We have locks on the door and cameras on the doors for 24 hours. We know no one can enter or exit the room for 24 hours.

Yet at the end of that period we go into the room and find t ...[text shortened]... nce is more plausible than ascertaining some kind of room shaking arranged the coins logically.

The things is, there are lots of things going on in this universe that follow strict rules and can even be predicted and might appear therefore to being designed by an intelligence even though these are just natural "unintelligent" processes. I don't understand why life can't be among those processes.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
The things is, there are lots of things going on in this universe that follow strict rules and can even be predicted and might appear therefore to being designed by an intelligence even though these are just natural "unintelligent" processes. I don't understand why life can't be among those processes.

That would be because you don't have a built in blindness to the actual world around us, not being restricted and self lobotomized by religion.

Originally posted by Great King Rat

The things is, there are lots of things going on in this universe that follow strict rules and can even be predicted and might appear therefore to being designed by an intelligence even though these are just natural "unintelligent" processes. I don't understand why life can't be among those processes.

When you examine the reproductive system of, let us say human beings, do you see nothing suggesting a purposeful operation ?

If so how do you imagine the millions of steps involved in the replication and reproduction of another human is a operation totally void of a planning intelligence ?

Do you imagine that the first living organism accidently reproduced with no intelligent forethought and plan or scheme imposed upon it from outside of it ?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
- Frantz Fanon

Although I've never heard of Frantz, I've often said something very similar.

Essentially we all require a believe system or world view. This is because we can prove precious little in this world, if anything. All we have are little facts, or what we think are facts, that we try to assimilate and join together to help interpret our reality. Without a belief system this would be impossible and we could not function.

Having said that, we build upon this belief system, and the bigger the structure that is built the more we have invested in protecting it. If for some reason this belief system fails, a crisis of sorts occurs. We avoid this at all possible, but it does happen from time to time. As a result, we at times ignore facts or simply shove them aside if they counter our belief system. Not all beliefs are equal. For example, sacrificing one belief might cost us a room in the structure we have built as where another belief being sacrificed might cost us the entire structure to come crumbling down.

I am often remined of what Jesus once said regarding building your house on sand verses a firm foundation. Those that build their entire house on sand will have it all come crashing down some day, and great will be its demise.

I think we all are confronted with "facts" that conflict with what we believe and we have all lost debates regarding things that we believe. Looking back, just because this occured did not mean that those beliefs were wrong as where other times it did mean those belief systems were wrong. To confound the issue even more, all of us have beliefs that are wrong. All we can hope for is that it will not cause our house to come tumbing down. Preferably it will only cost a window or two. 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are however many processes in nature which do sort things. My favourite one is what happens if you take a jar of muddy water, shake it, then leave it to stand for a while.
The thing is, you are not basing your claim of intelligence on the sorting, but on your own personal experience of coins. You are then making the error of applying the 'logic' th ...[text shortened]... gy: you notice that all red roofs are man made, and conclude that all red things are man made.

You are introducing a strawman and arguing against your own strawman. You are not addressing sonship's example at all. He did not come to the conclusion that all sorted things must have an intelligent cause. He was using a particular case of sorted things.

Anyone knows your analogy is nothing more than a demonstration of bad logic and has nothing to do sonship's post. So try to post something intelligent next time, if it is possible for an African computer programmer, such as yourself.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
That would be because you don't have a built in blindness to the actual world around us, not being restricted and self lobotomized by religion.

No, it is because he is ignorant and stubborn, just like you.

The Instructor

Originally posted by whodey
Although I've never heard of Frantz, I've often said something very similar.

Essentially we all require a believe system or world view. This is because we can prove precious little in this world, if anything. All we have are little facts, or what we think are facts, that we try to assimilate and join together to help interpret our reality. Without a bel ...[text shortened]... not cause our house to come tumbing down. Preferably it will only cost a window or two. 😵

Maybe we'd be wiser to stop pretending that our beliefs explain everything. Leave a little bit of flexibility in our metaphorical home.

Originally posted by whodey
Although I've never heard of Frantz, I've often said something very similar.

Essentially we all require a believe system or world view. This is because we can prove precious little in this world, if anything. All we have are little facts, or what we think are facts, that we try to assimilate and join together to help interpret our reality. Without a bel not cause our house to come tumbing down. Preferably it will only cost a window or two. 😵

When Frantz Fanon's revolutionary tract The Wretched of the Earth appeared in the United States in 1965, it quickly became a bestseller. The book's publisher called it the handbook for black revolution, and African-American militants and other young American leftists took its message to heart: a widely quoted statement attributed to two different leaders of the radical Black Panther group, Eldridge Cleaver and Stokely Carmichael, held that "every brother on a rooftop can quote Fanon." The Wretched of the Earth advocated the violent overthrow of the European and American colonial presence in Third World countries. "Violence," Fanon wrote, "is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect."

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/frantz-fanon#ixzz2YVu3g68o

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are introducing a strawman and arguing against your own strawman. You are not addressing sonship's example at all. He did not come to the conclusion that all sorted things must have an intelligent cause. He was using a particular case of sorted things.

If you are correct (which I doubt) then he wasted his time. There is no dispute about coins. The dispute is about life. So his example of coins must have drawn some sort of conclusion more general than the specific example. What is that more general conclusion? He did not say. He left it open because he knew that stating it would leave him open to counter examples.
If I guess wrong about what his conclusion was, he is free to correct me and state what point he thought he was making. He clearly was claiming that there was some aspect of his example which could be used to point towards intelligent design. My claim is that sorting is not one of those aspects because it happens frequently in nature. It is only a strawman if he clearly states that that is not what he was claiming.

In reality however he knows perfectly well that he does not have a case, so he will not be specific about his claims, and if pushed will turn to quoting the Bible in large volumes in the hope that I will go away.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you are correct (which I doubt) then he wasted his time. There is no dispute about coins. The dispute is about life. So his example of coins must have drawn some sort of conclusion more general than the specific example. What is that more general conclusion? He did not say. He left it open because he knew that stating it would leave him open to counter ...[text shortened]... , and if pushed will turn to quoting the Bible in large volumes in the hope that I will go away.

I haven't been following this thread, but with some free time, I skimmed over it and may have missed the point in doing so. However, it appeared to me that your argument was based on a strawman. I guess I should leave it to him to answer in the manner he wishes.

I find it humorous that you think he quotes the Bible in large volumes for the purpose of driving you away.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, it is because he is ignorant and stubborn, just like you.

The Instructor

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. I go by the evidence trail and the logic behind it. I can change and WILL if the evidence changes.

You on the other hand are frozen in time, a relic to a bygone day you fervently desperately gasping for breath want to return.

That is never going to happen again, at least I just as fervently hope it never happens again.

It sure can happen again though. I have zero faith in the ability of the weak minded to fall for the Ponzi scam of religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. I go by the evidence trail and the logic behind it. I can change and WILL if the evidence changes.

You on the other hand are frozen in time, a relic to a bygone day you fervently desperately gasping for breath want to return.

That is never going to happen again, at least I just as fervently hope it never ...[text shortened]... ugh. I have zero faith in the ability of the weak minded to fall for the Ponzi scam of religion.

I also go by the evidence trail and the logic behind it, but with a different worldview that guides me to a different conclusion than you.

You say you can change and will if the evidence changes. However the evidence has changed with the recent discovery of the DNA molecule and the complex molecular machinery in the cells of all living creatures and yet you have no desire to change you archaic Darwinian beliefs. You have a small "will" to change.

http://www.dnarefutesevolution.com/self_replication.html

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
When Frantz Fanon's revolutionary tract The Wretched of the Earth appeared in the United States in 1965, it quickly became a bestseller. The book's publisher called it the handbook for black revolution, and African-American militants and other young American leftists took its message to heart: a widely quoted statement attributed to two different leaders of ...[text shortened]...

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/frantz-fanon#ixzz2YVu3g68o

The Instructor

Just because he was a psychopath does not mean all of what he said was off base. Most ideologies have truth in them. It sounds to me that the man built his house on sand, even though he had enough truth to build a house.