This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

The Alchemist's Profile

The Alchemist's Avatar Joined about 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by The Alchemist

More Discussions by The Alchemist

Latest Comments by The Alchemist

Go to: Atheists who hate atheists?

The Alchemist's Avatar Jump to comment 252 by The Alchemist

Please, I beg you... read about Natural Selection. Understand how it works. That's the minimum you should have to do before trying to argue about it.

No, I think you are just begging me to believe in what you want me to believe in. This is not going to happen, because this is not what I want you to do for me. I am just suggesting some possibilities, and I am not suggesting anything conclusively. As far as I know, this is how science works, of which you claim to be such an expert!

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:32:00 UTC | #849305

Go to: Atheists who hate atheists?

The Alchemist's Avatar Jump to comment 250 by The Alchemist

Comment 248 by All About Meme

Good night!

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:56:27 UTC | #849300

Go to: Atheists who hate atheists?

The Alchemist's Avatar Jump to comment 249 by The Alchemist

Your computer example fails because computers are made by humans, while the universe, as far as we can tell (which is a lot), has not been "made" by anyone.

Maybe so. But the example was just to further explain my point how something that responds in a predictable manner can be considered smarter or more reliable than something that doesn't respond in a predictable manner. But I should add this: The universe is not man-made for sure, or even god-made, but the truth is, we don't know how it was made.

If you say that the movement of the particles is too "perfect", then what about evolution?

Evolution took us from single-cell organisms to what we are today. Evolution works brilliantly, and is always there to select who stays and who goes. Is evolution "intelligent" in any way?

No. It is a process. You give it an input, it gives you an output. Just that. There is nothing more to it. Due to the properties (chemical and biological) of all living things, natural selection is an expected outcome. There's no secret there.

Evolution is a process all right, but why can't this process be conscious and intelligent? This process of evolution has somehow produced intelligent humans, that can claim to understand this whole process and the entire universe. Where did this human intelligence come from if evolution is not an intelligent process? Again, one way of saying it is, it all just happened. Another way is, it happened because it was some sort of intelligence at work! We have no evidence for both. Both are just views. Yours, mine, and of other people's.

Why shouldn't the same be true for any other natural process?

Other natural process like what?

When you say the universe is "intelligent" and complain that it isn't the right label, maybe what you really mean is the universe is "nature". That label suits pretty well, don't you think?

Nature? No, this is not what I mean. If you want to call it nature, then the question is, whether or not what we call 'nature' is a result of the interaction of some forces, which came about through some chance occurrence.

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:55:49 UTC | #849299

Go to: Atheists who hate atheists?

The Alchemist's Avatar Jump to comment 246 by The Alchemist

Nice talking with you. I'm off to watch Richard and PZ Myers on Youtube.

OK. But it looks like you are running away. So hang on a for a little more.

Every word needs definition, and when you start defining what a word means, well ... you are going to hit the same problem again. 2 for example is defined in dictionary as:

  1. The cardinal number equal to the sum of 1 + 1.

Simply put, we have 'cardinal' + 'number' + 'equal' + 'sum' + '1' that need further definition. So it just goes on forever.

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:19:44 UTC | #849290

Go to: Atheists who hate atheists?

The Alchemist's Avatar Jump to comment 244 by The Alchemist

How many partitions would you like? I'll assign a color label to each one. No problem. What I said was completely valid.

Just because you have some kind of strange issue with the fact that there aren't enough "color words" available in the common English vernacular to describe an intentionally discretized spectrum of visible light doesn't mean we couldn't invent some very quickly.

No, not that. We were talking about words as labels, and how words as labels do not and cannot define anything conclusively. In reply to comment 224, I gave the example how a colour like red can both be called red and pink, but in the end, neither red nor pink can conclusively define or describe what the colour red is. At precisely this point, you jumped in and started educating me on the scientific truths behind colours, and how one can accurately pinpoint each and every colour in the colour spectrum -- which, by the way, was a totally irrelevant discussion. So the whole point is, no word, even with agreed upon definitions, describes or defines anything conclusively, and there is always room for more. Just like the word yellow doesn't say much about what exactly the colour yellow is.

Why on Earth is this statement so profound to you? Using crude labels to characterize the continuous spectrum of visible light is an exercise in futility. Is that your point?

Again, that's not what the discussion is about.

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:43:18 UTC | #849284

More Comments by The Alchemist