"The privileged planet argument isn't that great."-Rich Hughes
-
So Rich Hughes sez that the priveleged planet argument isn't that great-
two points:
1- It is better than anything Rich's position has to offer
and
2- I doubt that Rich understands argument put forth in "The Privileged Planet"- ya see it contains real science which is over Rich's head.
However I could be wrong- so here is Rich's- or anyone elses- chance-
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
So Rich Hughes sez that the priveleged planet argument isn't that great-
two points:
1- It is better than anything Rich's position has to offer
and
2- I doubt that Rich understands argument put forth in "The Privileged Planet"- ya see it contains real science which is over Rich's head.
However I could be wrong- so here is Rich's- or anyone elses- chance-
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
posted by Joe G @ 7:49 AM
85 Comments:
At 10:31 AM,
blipey said…
Blipey: "The argument against Rich Hughes' argument against the privileged planet isn't that great."
1. bald assertion
2. an unsupported opinion
At 10:44 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Mass of Universe
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/KristineMcPherson.shtml
Mass of world Population
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/DanielTouger.shtml
This would be the least efficient (and possibly worst) design ever.
At 10:46 AM,
Joe G said…
Blipey: "The argument against Rich Hughes' argument against the privileged planet isn't that great."
Rich never prsented any argument.
And yes what Rich said was
1. bald assertion
2. an unsupported opinion
At 10:48 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
No one said anything about "efficiency" and even a bad design is still designed.
And I see you still haven't demonstrated any understanding of what "The Privileged Panet" argues.
At 10:50 AM,
Joe G said…
Also Rich please learn how to post links using html
a href=place url here
'
put a < before the a and a > after the link.
Then name the link and close it with an a after a
Your first link didn't work- it gets truncated by the blog's software.
At 10:51 AM,
Joe G said…
And what does your second link hve to do with anything?
At 10:53 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"No one said anything about "efficiency" and even a bad design is still designed."
Well what a quandary! The designer is an idiot, yet smart enough to fashion the laws of nature and all we see. No wonder he came up with you! :-)
Here's a thought for you, can a design be measured by the percentage of its activities that accomplish its design goal / output?
At 11:03 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
It is only YOUR opinion that the design is possibly the worst ever.
Actually it is nothing but a bald assertion that only exposes your ignorance.
Here's a thought for you, can a design be measured by the percentage of its activities that accomplish its design goal / output?
Perhaps if one knows all there is to know.
We don't know if we are the only observers.
We don't know what other goals/ targets there may be.
IOW Rich once again you prove that you don't know what you are talking about.
At 11:03 AM,
Joe G said…
Any chance of either of you presenting an argument that supports your position?
Or is "it just happened" still the best you have?
At 11:05 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
The designer is an idiot, yet smart enough to fashion the laws of nature and all we see.
Perhaps Rich is the idiot- more likely- and doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.
At 11:11 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Calm down, Joe. I'm suggesting that a good design is EFFICIENT.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/efficient
The universe, isn't.
At 11:16 AM,
Joe G said…
How do you know the universe isn't efficient?
And here is a thought- perhaps if it were too efficient we wouldn't have anything to discover.
Shit happening drives discovery...
At 11:18 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
It's not efficient because it's massively redundant. How many galaxies do and stars do we need for discovery? How many do we have?
At 11:36 AM,
blipey said…
Come on, Rich! We all know that designs can't be studied, measured, compared, discovered, or meaningful. They just are!
ID'd it...uh, He d'd it...whatever.
At 11:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
It's not efficient because it's massively redundant.
Being redundant can be a design feature.
If there is failure to one then the other takes over.
How many galaxies do and stars do we need for discovery?
As many as it takes.
As with snowflakes perhaps no two are exactly alike.
And again the discovery part may be just one aspect the design is covering.
At 11:38 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
We all know that designs can't be studied, measured, compared, discovered, or meaningful.
Science has demonstrated exactly the opposite.
OW we all know that designs can be studied, measured, compared, discovered, and add knowledge.
At 11:39 AM,
Joe G said…
By Rich's "logic" the internal combustion engine is one of the worst designs ever as it is about as inefficient as it gets.
At 11:45 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, so how many stars and galaxies would it take for us to study them? We only need our solar system for life if you choose to create via special creation (You need a couple of generations of stars to synthesize heavier elements in reality) - surely a few thousand close stars would be enough. And what about all those too far away to study, what's with that. Maybe the universe is designed to be unknowable?
What is useful if falsification of a biblical prophecy:
Genesis 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.
Here God tells Isaac that his descendents (Hebrews) will be as numerous as the stars. Considering the number of stars there are in the universe, that would have to be on the order of 10^20 Jewish people.
So we learn there might be a designer who's not very good at design, but it certainly isn't the god of the bible.
I could get into this 'ID science'.
At 11:47 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
The internal combsution engine isn't that great, but then again it's an old design made with limited knowledge and rescources by a young species.
At 11:48 AM,
blipey said…
Alright, since we can discover and study a design, why is it we can't discover and study the designer? What fundamental barrier exists between us and the designer?
At 11:53 AM,
blipey said…
So, you're telling me that God has the ability to design the universe, but did it so poorly that He needed to make a possibly infinite number of galaxies in order get one in which a human being was created.
A human being that would fundamentally be unable to view and/or study the vast majority of the design he was supposed to be the center of.
The design that only existed so that the human being could study it?
Is that right? The proof that the universe is designed is that humans can study it--even though humans can basically study none of it?
I think you're onto something here...
At 12:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Joe, so how many stars and galaxies would it take for us to study them?
What does that have to do with anything?
You do realize that NASA is getting set to launch a 5 billion dollar telescope- the weebb space telescope- so we can mke new discoveries.
We only need our solar system for life if you choose to create via special creation (You need a couple of generations of stars to synthesize heavier elements in reality) - surely a few thousand close stars would be enough.
So your "argument" is nothing more than yur stupidity.
Got it.
Rich:
The internal combsution engine isn't that great, but then again it's an old design made with limited knowledge and rescources by a young species.
Yet is has been around for over 100 years- we must be very stupid- well you and blipey do lower the over-all IQ of the population.
At 12:14 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Alright, since we can discover and study a design, why is it we can't discover and study the designer?
Try that with Stonehenge and get back to me.
blipey:
So, you're telling me that God has the ability to design the universe, but did it so poorly that He needed to make a possibly infinite number of galaxies in order get one in which a human being was created.
No you made up that stupidity all by yourself.
So far only evotards think the design is poor.
At 12:14 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I think the internal combustion engine runs at about 20% efficiency? That's many many orders of magnitude more than the universe based on your conjecture.
[number of stars that teach us something new] / [total number of stars]
Do the math, Joe. If you can.
At 12:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
I think the internal combustion engine runs at about 20% efficiency?
That seems very high, but whatever.
That's many many orders of magnitude more than the universe based on your conjecture.
You have no idea and are just spewing nonsense.
And you have proven that once again you don't read my posts or are too stupid to understand them.
Why are NASA and friends building a new telescope Rich?
At 12:22 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Why are NASA and friends building a new telescope Rich?"
Because the universe Inst efficient enough to tell us about itself using the naked eye, presumably.
At 12:25 PM,
Joe G said…
"Why are NASA and friends building a new telescope Rich?"
Rich
Because the universe Inst efficient enough to tell us about itself using the naked eye, presumably.
Spoken like a true evotard.
Umm the universe isn't supposed to tell us- that would defeat the purpose of scientific discovery.
And so would having to have things directly in front of us, within unaided eyesight.
IOW Rich it is obvious that you are clueless and left to grasp at phantoms...
At 12:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Doin' the math:
[number of stars that teach us something new] / [total number of stars]
Seeing that each star has the potential of teaching us something new-
[all of the stars]/ [total number of stars] = 1
100% efficiency!
Thanks Rich...
At 1:18 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Seeing that each star has the potential of teaching us something new- Emperically proven to be false.
The vast majoirty have millions of duplicates.
If you want to mathemetically work out the chance of every new star from here being unique, you laplace's induction.
But your non-math is typical for ID.
At 1:27 PM,
Joe G said…
The reason we build telescopes and are building bigger and better 'scopes, is because each star has the potential of teaching us something new.
Anytime we look anywhere we have the potential of observing something new.
That is why we keep looking!
At 1:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Seeing that each star has the potential of teaching us something new-
Rich:
Emperically proven to be false.
Evidence please.
Rich:
The vast majoirty have millions of duplicates
Perhaps they just appear to be duplicates but each may vary by some degree- IOW just as identical twins are not identical these apparent duplicates are NOT all that duplicate.
Rich:
If you want to mathemetically work out the chance of every new star from here being unique, you laplace's induction.
And where is your math that says most are EXACT duplicates?
Rich:
But your non-math is typical for ID.
Umm your position doesn't have any math nor evidence.
Shit you have failed to dio the two things requested of you in the OP:
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
What the fuck Rich?
At 1:33 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Here's a large database of 163 Million objects.
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/
Clearly they've not all individually taught us something new.
Your thinking is childishly simplistic. Because X has the attribute Y it is simply the fallacy of afirming the concequent to suggest X was designed for Y, and the case you present (the universe being designed for discovery) is incredibly weak as the vast majority of it is inscrutable and repeated enormously.
Your universe is a dictionary where each definition is repeated a million times but the words aren't in order.
Geocentrism would make a much better case for a privileged planet, and creationists like yourself get really upset when that was disproved.
At 1:35 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
And Joe - to push past your conflation - we are clearly talking about being identical with reagard to what they can teach us.
At 1:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
And Joe - to push past your conflation - we are clearly talking about being identical with reagard to what they can teach us.
No conflation- if they are not identical- ie exactly alike- then we can learn something new.
Whether or not we do is a sign of our ability.
At 1:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Geocentrism would make a much better case for a privileged planet, and creationists like yourself get really upset when that was disproved.
Wow- such ignorance!
Geocentrism was a scientific PoV-
Two Creationsists- Kopernik and Galileo- provided the scientific research that overturned that scientific PoV.
Geez Rich if you are that ignorant of such an open issue what does that say about everything else you spew?
At 1:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
Learn how to put links inside of html tags.
That you cannot grasp how to do that says you are a fool.
Clearly they've not all individually taught us something new.
They don't have to.
We can learn by finding exact duplicates.
Your thinking is childishly simplistic.
Nice projection.
Because X has the attribute Y it is simply the fallacy of afirming the concequent to suggest X was designed for Y, and the case you present (the universe being designed for discovery) is incredibly weak as the vast majority of it is inscrutable and repeated enormously.
Again it is obvious that you are clueless and grasping.
You never read "The Privileged Planet" and think you can refute it with nonsense.
At 1:53 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe - read the whole sentence "..regard to what they can teach us."
Very few stars teach us something new. The incidence of novelty in teh universe (so far) is tiny.
At 1:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Very few stars teach us something new.
Nothing can teach you.
However scientists learn something new with each new star discovered.
The incidence of novelty in teh universe (so far) is tiny.
Again with more bald assertions.
Shit we just found a new planet in a habitable zone of a star.
At 2:40 PM,
Joe G said…
We used to think that when we found other solar systems they would be like ours.
The universe has taught us otherwise.
At 4:27 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
We used to think that when we found other solar systems they would be like ours.
Really? I thought we didn't know, hence the drake equation.
At 5:39 PM,
Joe G said…
We used to think that when we found other solar systems they would be like ours.
Rich:
Really?
Really, really.
Did you take any science classes at any schools?
I thought we didn't know, hence the drake equation.
I guess I should have been more clear-
We thought the solar systems would be like ours in that all planets would have nearly circular orbits- those types of similarities.
At 7:17 PM,
blipey said…
I'll just put in here that the average efficiency of internal combustion engines is around 18%. So you're right, Joe; Rich's estimate of 20% was stupendously high.
Maybe you should take your "THAT SEEMS very high" and actually attempt to look up the data.
Your entire world view is based on "IT SEEMS". You use it in all your posts. You use it in all your arguments. It's like you're stuck in the Middle Ages when maggots SEEMED to spontaneously generate and all sorts of spirits SEEMED to do all sorts of things.
Try to post something that doesn't have "IT SEEMS" at the core. This not only means that the phrase shouldn't appear in your post but that:
Your argument cannot be reduced at any level to "it seems" like (your argument).
At 7:18 PM,
blipey said…
While you're working on the above, how about copying and pasting the description of a non-designed universe?
At 7:25 AM,
Joe G said…
Nice evotardgasm clownie.
Is that all you have to offer?
I thin it is hilarious that you think if you act like an asshole that it somehow refutes ID.
It is also funny that neiother of you two evotards c:
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
At 8:11 AM,
Joe G said…
And erik, your entire worldview is based on you being an asshole.
And you don't have an argument- all you can do is act like an asshole- the sad part is you think that while you are acting like an asshole that it actually refutes your opponents' claims.
At 9:50 AM,
blipey said…
So, you're not able to give a description of a universe that wasn't designed? It would really help your argument if you could provide a description of anything that would be a counterpoint. Right now all we have is that anything we could possibly see is designed. Not very helpful. If, however, you were to provide a counterpoint, we could start exploring....
At 11:57 AM,
Joe G said…
So, you're not able to give a description of a universe that wasn't designed?
So your not able to do anything but act like a complete asshole?
And it is very telling that you cannot:
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
BTW how to falsify the premise of the book is included in the book.
And I have blogged about it more than once.
IOW Ewik PRATT list spewer, buy a vowel and consult with a 5th grader...
At 12:01 AM,
blipey said…
Really? No idea what a non-designed universe looks like? A shame...
At 7:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Why can't YOU tell us what a non-designed universe would look like.
Shit I have only been asking evotards that question for decades.
Yet you can't do it.
You can't provide any positive evidence for your position.
At 8:15 AM,
Joe G said…
And it is very telling that you cannot:
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
If you can't do that don't bother posting-
At 6:58 PM,
blipey said…
A non-designed universe looks like the one we're in. Your turn.
At 9:17 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
A non-designed universe looks like the one we're in.
And your evidence for that is?
If you are going to make a claim you have to back it up.
Please present your testable hypothesis.
At 9:24 PM,
blipey said…
First, let's here what your non-designed universe looks like.
You have no idea.
At 9:26 PM,
Joe G said…
There isn't any evidence that a non-designed universe can exist.
That is the whole point.
You don't have any evidence for your position.
That is evidenced by the fact that you canNOT:
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
At 9:35 PM,
blipey said…
That is the point! Nice job. That means that every single piece of evidence that could possibly be found supports your view. Your view is self-fulfilling! Thanks for coming around.
At 9:39 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
That is the point!
The point is you cannot provide any positive evidence for your position?
Nice job.
No problem.
That means that every single piece of evidence that could possibly be found supports your view.
Strange how we have provided what would overturn/ falsify our claims.
So we have provided positive evidence to support our claims AND have said what would refute them.
OTOH all you can do is act like an asshole.
Your parents must be very proud of you...
At 9:41 PM,
blipey said…
Just to be clear.
There is no possible counter point for a designed universe?
That sounds awesome.
At 9:46 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Just to be clear.
Liar
There is no possible counter point for a designed universe?
There are possible counterpoints for a designed universe.
I have presented them.
The main counterpoint would be for YOU to actually step up with some positive evidence for your position.
Yet apparently all you can do is say "here is the universe- its existence supports my position"
At 9:47 PM,
blipey said…
The counterpoint to your argument would be for someone to tell you what it is? Strong.
At 9:42 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
The counterpoint to your argument would be for someone to tell you what it is?
Wrong again, as usual.
I have presented what would falsify ID.
OTOH all you can do is spew your ignorance.
Go figure...
At 5:29 PM,
blipey said…
So you didn't really mean this:
"The main counterpoint would be for YOU to actually step up with some positive evidence for your position."
The MAIN counterpoint is for someone to come up with a counterpoint. Someone who isn't you apparently.
Seriously.
At 6:35 PM,
Joe G said…
You are ignorant.
Yes the counterpoint of ID is your position!
IOW to refute the design inference all you have to do is demonstrate blind, undirected processes (your position) can account for it.
Duh.
At 11:21 AM,
blipey said…
And you have no idea what that would be. You need someone to come up with it for you--someone to actually type the words because you're afraid you might get hem wrong. We get it; IDiots are by nature conservative and reactionary. That's fine. It's just funny when you pretend you're progressive and cutting edge.
At 11:33 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
And you have no idea what that would be.
Obviously you don't.
But anyways you have already said that you are a clown and should not be taken seriously.
And you have proven that with every post.
At 12:46 PM,
Joe G said…
And this one is particularly funny:
We get it; IDiots are by nature conservative and reactionary.
You must be the IDiot because all you are is reactionary and you sure as hell won't post anything that you actually have to support.
What a clown you are- and a projectionist at that!
At 10:34 AM,
blipey said…
Still no progress on what a non-designed universe would like?
Let's take it one step at a time.
1. Would stars exist?
At 11:49 AM,
Joe G said…
We are waiting on you- we have been waiting on you:
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
Your queries have been answered.
That you keep asking is proof that you didn't understand the book- most likely because you didn't read it and you haven't read what I have already blogged.
At 1:06 PM,
blipey said…
Sheez. You can't even cut and paste the description of a non-designed universe? One begins to think such a description doesn't exist?
What about stars? Would they exist in a non-designed universe?
At 3:05 PM,
Joe G said…
We are waiting on you- we have been waiting on you:
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
Your queries have been answered.
That you keep asking is proof that you didn't understand the book- most likely because you didn't read it and you haven't read what I have already blogged.
Still waiting....
At 6:06 PM,
blipey said…
Non-designed universe. Does it include fuzzy bunny rabbits?
At 6:09 PM,
Joe G said…
and still waiting.
But thanks for continuing to fulfill my predictions.
At 6:20 PM,
blipey said…
Here's a conundrum. Space. A feature of non-designed universes?
At 11:34 PM,
blipey said…
Answers. Are they part of a non-designed universe (Be careful how you answer...)?
At 6:57 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Answers. Are they part of a non-designed universe (Be careful how you answer...)?
You won't answer so perhaps not...
At 7:08 PM,
blipey said…
So answers to questions prove a designed universe? Please describe the proof of this....
At 7:11 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
So answers to questions prove a designed universe?
Not what I said nor implied.
However it is obvious that you can't answer any questions about your position.
At 8:41 PM,
blipey said…
I asked if answers were part of a non-designed universe. You said "perhaps not". This does lead to the idea that maybe they're important to a designed universe.
How 'bout it? Or, if that's too difficult for you, maybe you could remember the name of just 1 of the 1000s of people who know what you're doing....
At 8:54 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
I asked if answers were part of a non-designed universe. You said You won't answer so perhaps not...
And you still won't answer.
IOW it appears that your position is just soo fucked up you are too embarrassed to talk about it.
Who knew?
At 9:35 PM,
blipey said…
Could you describe the importance of answers to a designed universe? Thank-you.
At 7:02 AM,
Joe G said…
It appears that your position is just soo fucked up you are too embarrassed to talk about it.
At 7:26 AM,
Joe G said…
However I could be wrong- so here is Rich's- or anyone elses- chance-
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
Evotards are just too cowardly to try to support their position.
Who knew?
At 12:48 AM,
blipey said…
How about just describing a non-designed universe? After all, none of us are in New Hampshire (the only state where people know what you're doing).
At 7:14 AM,
Joe G said…
1- Present a better argument that supports your position
and
2- Demonstrate an understanding of the argument in "The Privileged Planet"
Evotards are just too cowardly to try to support their position.
Who knew?
At 10:26 AM,
blipey said…
As long as the only people who know what you're doing live in New Hampshire, you're never going to be as popular as you want to be.
Why don't you spread the word to all those non-New Hamphirites out there? Start with describing a non-designed universe.
At 10:55 AM,
Joe G said…
I am more popular than I ever wanted to be.
Heck I am so popular I have attracted pieces of shit like you.
Ya see i is a given that you are an unpopular piece of shit so you have to run around and badger people with your ignorance just so you can get a little attention.
Understandable, but still pathetic.
Post a Comment
<< Home