Comments on: Bachmann Promotes Creationism

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:10:56 +0000

I have a feeling that, once we get past the quirky definitions and semantic tricks, there will be nothing left but the logical fallacy we might call Argumentum ad Jereminsignificantiam

By: eiskrystal

eiskrystal — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:27:59 +0000

Myers runs a tight ship, deviations from the text are blasphemous, and heretics will be dealt with accordingly.

Given the size of Myers audience, he couldn’t run a tight ship if he wanted to. Actually he has one of the most open policies on posting out there.

…and we love heretics. So by “deal with them” I assume you mean that we tell them why they are wrong in excrutiating technical detail backed up with all necessary facts and links to the evidence.

By: Mlema

Mlema — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:10:25 +0000

Jeremiah, thanks for your last post. It reminded me of where my thinking was before all the accusations about what I was thinking regarding rocks got inside my brain!
Sometimes my mind is defenseless.

I’m glad you approve of me. i would hate to be on your bad side.

By: vezelay 1146

vezelay 1146 — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 01:50:14 +0000

Hello Jeremiah.

Down dusky trails by old, slow creeks,
the one who wanders is the one who seeks.
Here life is cool and neat and clean,
here is one sixty serpentine.

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:24:01 +0000

vezelay 1146, welcome back.

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:12:15 +0000

Miema, a rock can’t reason. It’s not intelligent. It’s held together by internal forces in what has to be an intelligently structured molecular arrangement to work. This “dead rock” scenario is a typical red herring that the neo-Darwinists throw out to blow smoke up you know where.
The anticipatory system theories, rightly or wrongly, make that distinction clear. Material formations are systemically and systematically constructed to serve their particular energetic purposes. The systems in all such constructions must be anticipatory to maintain and defend their forms.
Speaking of rocks, one can’t deny that a rock reacts as we anticipate it will when force is applied. Different forces will be consistent with differently anticipated results, and shale rock will react differently than granite, etc.. So our anticipation is based on the reality that the rock’s construction is anticipatory.

But I’ve gone over this before, made references to the scientific research and the philosophy that supports it. So if you still feel that the arguments fail when it comes to solid objects, then that’s fine. I like you anyway. You have an intelligent immune system where most other things are concerned.

By: Mlema

Mlema — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:29:04 +0000

Jeremiah, I’m looking for a distinction because all of the definitions of intelligence I’ve read include “reason” (as in “the skilled use of reason”)
Maybe I’m understanding that word wrong, but I don’t know that a rock can reason. I’m just thinking that stressing the information aspect of this: intelligence as the ability to utilize information, then we don’t get into this deliberation about anthropomorphization.
PS – I know this is all hypothetical, since none of the professors I’ve known to refer to “the intelligence of living systems” are going to change their terminology – but I do enjoy making up new words.

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:10:50 +0000

Miema, to make up a new word to accommodate the ignorant is a bit elitist, no? It’s basically a way of dumbing down the concept, and we already do that with children

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:05:25 +0000

It seems, little nybgrus, that the only things you can take and run with are lies. I specifically noted every time that lie was told that rocks are not intelligent. Not enough to be even minimally stupid.

I will however posit that rocks have been assisted by their constituency of intelligently reactive elements to maintain a state of hardness in their anticipation of destructive forces. But hardly as you seem to think it works, to anticipate the destruction as somehow a satisfactory solution to the problem of continuing their existence.

So “too stupid” right back at you in spades.

By: Mlema

Mlema — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:52:13 +0000

perhaps if we focus more on how this “intelligence” we’re talking about has to do with utilizing information, we will develop a terminology that everybody can conceptualize. Maybe it’s time for somebody to make up a new word.