Why does this exist?

[Inquirer]

Is there a difference between this and random notes, random tempo, random pauses - if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

[Jose Fly]

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target. From what I've seen, creationists now mostly focus on three subjects: 1) the origin of the universe, 2) the origin of the first life on earth, and 3) intelligence. All three are subjects of the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain X then" tactic.

So in my experience it's best to just cut that off right at the start by acknowledging that yes, all three of those are unsolved mysteries. We have some evidence and hypotheses for each, but none of them are anywhere near "settled science".

But the follow-up to that is to ask the creationist....so what? If there were no unsolved mysteries, we'd know everything there is to know and science would be finished.

Specific to intelligence, whether it be human, chimp, dolphin, corvid, or worm, there's much still to be learned about what it is, what causes it, and how it emerged.

And therefore..........?

[Inquirer]

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target. From what I've seen, creationists now mostly focus on three subjects: 1) the origin of the universe, 2) the origin of the first life on earth, and 3) intelligence. All three are subjects of the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain X then" tactic.

So in my experience it's best to just cut that off right at the start by acknowledging that yes, all three of those are unsolved mysteries. We have some evidence and hypotheses for each, but none of them are anywhere near "settled science".

But the follow-up to that is to ask the creationist....so what? If there were no unsolved mysteries, we'd know everything there is to know and science would be finished.

Specific to intelligence, whether it be human, chimp, dolphin, corvid, or worm, there's much still to be learned about what it is, what causes it, and how it emerged.

And therefore..........?

How does a persecutorial post attacking people who believe in God address any of the points in my post? Of course it doesn't, why am I not surprised nor am I surprised by the all too predictable "thank you" !

For those who attach value to facts you'll likely have noticed too that my OP makes no mention of intelligence, in fact it contains nothing that can justify such an attack.

[Jose Fly]

How does a persecutorial post attacking people who believe in God

Attack? By acknowledging your own arguments?

address any of the points in my post?

Um, that was the intent of my post, i.e., to ask you what your point is. The nature of, causes of, and origin of intelligence are, to varying degrees, mysteries. Therefore......?

For those who attach value to facts you'll likely have noticed too that my OP makes no mention of intelligence.

Your latest exchange with DrNoGods did, which is why I posted my reply after that exchange. Please try and keep up.

[Inquirer]

How does a persecutorial post attacking people who believe in God

Attack? By acknowledging your own arguments?

address any of the points in my post?

Um, that was the intent of my post, i.e., to ask you what your point is. The nature of, causes of, and origin of intelligence are, to varying degrees, mysteries. Therefore......?

For those who attach value to facts you'll likely have noticed too that my OP makes no mention of intelligence.

Your latest exchange with DrNoGods did, which is why I posted my reply after that exchange. Please try and keep up.

Well all I can say is you took rather a lot of words to ask "what is your point?" Jose, but why say that in four words when you can say it forty eh!

Dr. NoGods brought up the subject of intelligence Jose not I please pay attention.

[Jose Fly]

Well all I can say is you took rather a lot of words to ask "what is your point?" Jose.

Dr. NoGods brought up the subject of intelligence Jose not I please pay attention.

So when you said to DNG, "Would you argue that a mass of fundamental particles and forces of electricity and gravitation possess intelligence? I think not. Yet we are told that from this, intelligence "emerged". Unintelligence can generate intelligence (it is claimed).", you had no point?

When you asked "Can you give me an example of worm intelligence? how does one infer the presence of intelligence in worms?", there was no point to your questions?

[Inquirer]

Well all I can say is you took rather a lot of words to ask "what is your point?" Jose.

Dr. NoGods brought up the subject of intelligence Jose not I please pay attention.

So when you said to DNG, "Would you argue that a mass of fundamental particles and forces of electricity and gravitation possess intelligence? I think not. Yet we are told that from this, intelligence "emerged". Unintelligence can generate intelligence (it is claimed).", you had no point?

When you asked "Can you give me an example of worm intelligence? how does one infer the presence of intelligence in worms?", there was no point to your questions?

Let me try to make this easier for you to understand, who's post in this thread was the first to contain the word "intelligence"? Go on, do some research and fact finding and report back with the answer when you're done.

[Jose Fly]

Let me try to make this easier for you to understand, who's post in this thread was the first to contain the word "intelligence"? Go on, do some research and fact finding and report back with the answer when you're done.

I'm not interested in who brought up intelligence first. I'm interested in what your point is with this thread (I replied to your OP and you ignored it) and your latest questions/assertions about intelligence.

You seem extremely reluctant to explain. That too is very interesting.

[Inquirer]

Let me try to make this easier for you to understand, who's post in this thread was the first to contain the word "intelligence"? Go on, do some research and fact finding and report back with the answer when you're done.

I'm not interested in who brought up intelligence first. I'm interested in what your point is with this thread (I replied to your OP and you ignored it) and your latest questions/assertions about intelligence.

You seem extremely reluctant to explain. That too is very interesting.

No, that's not true Jose, you just posted this:

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target.

Once again I did not introduce the term "intelligence" to the discussion (the name of who did was given to you as an exercise but we're still waiting for the answer).

Nor does your personal interpretation of all this mean anything to me, you can respond to my OP as any polite person would do or you can persist in these disparaging and insulting characterizations if you must but I will ignore anyone who acts that way.

If I am a "creationist" that has no bearing on the questions I asked, well it shouldn't matter any more than my age, gender, height, sexual proclivity, taste in science fiction, the art I choose to hang on my wall or the music I listen to or who I vote for.

If you cannot respond to questions about nature without resorting to personal attacks then I won't spend my valuable time replying to you.

Why does it always matter to you what the presumed beliefs are of who asks a question and why they asked that question? can you really not be objective and dispassionate when discussing science?

[Jose Fly]

I'm not interested in who brought up intelligence first. I'm interested in what your point is with this thread (I replied to your OP and you ignored it) and your latest questions/assertions about intelligence.

You seem extremely reluctant to explain. That too is very interesting.

No, that's not true Jose, you just posted this:

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target.

Then allow me to explain. I am not interested in who first mentioned intelligence. However, in the last few posts, intelligence has become the focus of discussion and I am interested in aspects of that discussion (as I've already described). My observation about creationists, "God of the Gaps", and intelligence is just that....my observation.

Nor does your personal interpretation of all this mean anything to me

Good. Then we can dispense with this recent "who said what first" nonsense.

you can respond to my OP as any polite person would do

Which I did and you ignored.

If I am a "creationist" that has no bearing on the questions I asked, well it shouldn't matter any more than my age, gender, height, sexual proclivity, taste in science fiction, the art I choose to hang on my wall or the music I listen to or who I vote for.

Are you denying that "intelligence" is a common topic of discussion and debate among creationists?

If you cannot respond to questions about nature without resorting to personal attacks then I won't spend my valuable time replying to you.

I have not engaged in any personal attacks here.

Why does it always matter to you who asks a question and why they asked that question? can you really not be objective and dispassionate when discussing science?

Can I then take it that there is no point to the OP or the questions you posed to DNG about intelligence?

[Inquirer]

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target. From what I've seen, creationists now mostly focus on three subjects: 1) the origin of the universe, 2) the origin of the first life on earth, and 3) intelligence. All three are subjects of the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain X then" tactic.

If you were a teacher teaching a class about say information, structure or some such and a student who you knew was an atheist, asked:

Professor, is there a difference between this pianists achievements and random notes, random tempo, random pauses - if so, then to what can we attribute these differences?

Would your answer be phrased differently if the student was someone you knew was not an atheist, perhaps a student you knew was also taking theology classes?

You should understand that to seriously claim you are a scientist your answer should be the same irrespective of the student's presumed beliefs or your own personal feelings, yet when I asked the question you were clearly incapable of decoupling your personal prejudices and had to reply with:

It's interesting to see how "intelligence" has become creationists' latest "God of the Gaps" target. From what I've seen, creationists now mostly focus on three subjects: 1) the origin of the universe, 2) the origin of the first life on earth, and 3) intelligence. All three are subjects of the "Oh yeah, well how do you explain X then" tactic.

I wonder how that theology student, having asked you that question, might proceed with the university authorities when they hear your reply in full view of the rest of the class...