tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post3651831069004682120..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: To a sad college studentRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-75090315040476570082008-08-27T09:42:00.000-05:002008-08-27T09:42:00.000-05:00Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that in the post. Do...Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that in the post. Doh!<BR/><BR/>A human (heehee, not me, though!) can create an equation that leads to an infinitely-complex object like a Mandelbrot set. <BR/><BR/>It would most reasonable and nice of Smith (and Dick Dawk) to allow God the same.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-91632090758274356502008-08-27T09:37:00.000-05:002008-08-27T09:37:00.000-05:00The point is that Smith relied on the "ID is not f...<I>The point is that Smith relied on the "ID is not falsifiable" point to bolster his argument.</I><BR/><BR/>He got that wrong slightly wrong I reckon - since he says it's not true, but also that it can't be shown to be false, which seems a bit contradictory and they do offer up some claims which can be falsified:<BR/><BR/>a. complex IC systems exist (+ specific examples of such)<BR/>b. These cannot/did not arise by evolutionary mechanisms<BR/><BR/>The other claim of his I found a bit dubious was the complex designer argument:<BR/><BR/>Assuming this guy is an atheist, he obviously believes animals such as ourselves arose by natural processes of some description. We're obviously capable of designing some pretty sophisticated stuff already, and (given enough time) will possibly end up designing something more complex than ourselves.Rocky Rodenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620894198842461714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-44603276124349714482008-08-27T08:52:00.000-05:002008-08-27T08:52:00.000-05:00It says nothing. Of course I could be wrong. It wo...It says nothing. <BR/><BR/>Of course I could be wrong. It won't be the first time. An explanation of why it should matter might help me see where I'm wrong.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-45900828770087156842008-08-27T08:33:00.000-05:002008-08-27T08:33:00.000-05:00So...what does that say about relying really hard ...So...what does that say about relying really hard on the principle of falsifiability as a test for truth?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-15242561770877751802008-08-27T08:32:00.000-05:002008-08-27T08:32:00.000-05:00Rho:Examples - search for the label "evolution" he...Rho:<BR/><B>Examples - search for the label "evolution" here.</B><BR/><BR/>Typical Rho non-answer. <BR/><BR/>Rho:<BR/><B>The point is that Smith relied on the "ID is not falsifiable" point to bolster his argument. The principle of falsifiability is not falsifiable either, so...Smith (and apparently you) might want to do some rethinking.</B><BR/><BR/>So ... ? Usually after a "so", an explanation follows. Hint, hint.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-44783202117595300702008-08-27T07:18:00.000-05:002008-08-27T07:18:00.000-05:00Examples - search for the label "evolution" here.A...Examples - search for the label "evolution" here.<BR/>And remember, I agree 100% that TOE is falsifiable. I wouldn't believe it's false if I didn't believe that, would I?<BR/><BR/>The point is that Smith relied on the "ID is not falsifiable" point to bolster his argument. The principle of falsifiability is not falsifiable either, so...Smith (and apparently you) might want to do some rethinking.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-58186048244002946732008-08-27T07:15:00.000-05:002008-08-27T07:15:00.000-05:00OK, I'll move this over here:nal:Rho:One wonders i...OK, I'll move this over here:<BR/><BR/>nal:<BR/><B>Rho:<BR/>One wonders if Smith realises that the principle of falsifiability is unfalsifiable.<BR/><BR/>One wonders if Rho realizes that the theory of evolution is falsifiable.</B><BR/><BR/>Rho:<BR/><B>NAL,<BR/><BR/>Replace the "able" with "ed" and you're there.</B><BR/><BR/>Feel free to provide an example. <BR/><BR/>Rho:<BR/><B><BR/>BTW, think about it. Your comment responds not at all to the point I made and which you cited.</B><BR/><BR/>Point? What point?NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.com