|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4798 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buzsaw.
Buzsaw writes: didn't mean to imply the same intuitive non-formalized sense of design as earth natives. I mean enough time to observe a variety of objects on our planet. But, that is exactly what you are saying when you say things like this:
Buzsaw writes: Logically an alien would soon be able to distinguish a paper clip and things alive as designed and things like dirt, rocks, lakes, and icicles which are inanimate as undesigned, assuming, that is, that the alien is of sufficient intelligence to make such determinations, say at least as intelligent as earth humans. How would this alien be able to distinguish these things?If your answer is "by experience," then what you are proposing is an intuitive, non-formalized system for determining design. In order to answer the question from the OP ("When does design become intelligent?"), we need a formalized approach. Otherwise, we don't really know why we think X is designed and Y is not. So, we can't use it well outside of our realm of experience, we can't teach other people how to do it, and we can't discern things for which the distinction is ambiguous. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why would natural selection/ random mutation choose to build the skull with the perfect size and shape to house the brain? And isn't it funny how the tea somehow knows to adopt the shape of the teacup? Intelligent Pouring!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4798 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Tell me, is this a bad design (thank you Subbie): OK Subbie, I keep seeing your antenna so here is my response.I think that is probably a antenna developed on a computer designed by intelligent designers on an algorithm program designed by intelligent designers. Then after all that, it was fashioned by an intelligent person with materials developed by intelligent people. Come back and see me when it can do it without intelligent help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4798 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
So far the responses I am seeing are so foolish and nonsensical I feel like I should open another topic to answer them called:
"When does ignorance become moronic stupidity" They developed alongside eachother. How is this possible when the theory of evolution requires one small step at a time in one direction?Are you telling me that you believe more than one system develops at a time. Where is your proof and evidence that the skull, brain and eyes developed at the same time. I have much, much tougher questions than this for evolution to answer as soon as we get past this simple stuff. Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICDESIGN writes:
Evolution has no direction.
How is this possible when the theory of evolution requires one small step at a time in one direction? ICDESIGN writes:
It should be pretty obvious that more than one system develops at a time.
Are you telling me that you believe more than one system develops at a time. ICDESIGN writes:
Learn to ask for evidence, not proof. Where is your proof and evidence that the skull, brain and eyes developed at the same time. The evidence is in every living organism. There are skulls, brains and eyes at every "stage" of development. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I think that is probably a antenna developed on a computer designed by intelligent designers on an algorithm program designed by intelligent designers. Then after all that, it was fashioned by an intelligent person with materials developed by intelligent people. Well here's your opportunity to educate yourself. This is an outline prepared by the company that produced the antennae. You can continue to think what you think without any factual basis, and continue to look ignorant, or you can see what they actually did and we can move on from there. Ball's in your court, Slick. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
OK Subbie, I keep seeing your antenna so here is my response. I think that is probably a antenna developed on a computer designed by intelligent designers on an algorithm program designed by intelligent designers. Then after all that, it was fashioned by an intelligent person with materials developed by intelligent people. Who designed the antenna?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Are you telling me that you believe more than one system develops at a time. In the body? As it grows? Yes, absolutely. The way your skull "knows" to be as big as your brain is that your brain grows at the same time as your skull. All those tissues develop at the same time, next to each other, and they signal each other where to grow to. Your brain gets signals from bone cells that say "stop growing here." Your skin and muscles "know" to grow as long as your leg bones because the muscles get chemical signals that say "grow and attach to these points." And muscle cells produce signals that say "cover us with skin." There aren't instructions in your genetics for your eyes to be a certain size, your bones to be a certain length, your skull to be a certain volume. Your body is harmonious not by design but because your cells are sending each other signals to keep it that way. Your body can't be the result of genetic design because much of it isn't designed; your genes don't contain a blueprint of your adult body. They contain blueprints for proteins. No part of your genetics specifies your height in inches, the length of your arms, how much skin your body needs to cover all of your muscles and organs. None of that can be the result of genetic design because none of that is ever specified in your genetics. The proportions of your body, ultimately, are determined by your body itself, as your cells make arrangements - and even compete - amongst each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICDESIGN.
ICDESIGN writes: How is this possible when the theory of evolution requires one small step at a time in one direction? This is not what the Theory of Evolution says. No where is an exact process dictated. The ToE can handle situations where multiple changes happen at roughly the same time; or where large changes occur; or where no changes happen for a long time. The gradualistic paradigm of evolution isn't saying that evolution has to progress in discreet phases. There is no rule that says an organism cannot evolve X right now because they are currently working on evolving Y. Remember, it's a population that evolves, not an individual. Within a population, there may be one individual with one new trait, and another individual with another new trait. Over time, these two new traits may come to dominate the population. And, they can both start at the same time. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: In the body? As it grows? Yes, absolutely. The way your skull "knows" to be as big as your brain is that your brain grows at the same time as your skull. All those tissues develop at the same time, next to each other, and they signal each other where to grow to. Your brain gets signals from bone cells that say "stop growing here." Your skin and muscles "know" to grow as long as your leg bones because the muscles get chemical signals that say "grow and attach to these points." And muscle cells produce signals that say "cover us with skin." There aren't instructions in your genetics for your eyes to be a certain size, your bones to be a certain length, your skull to be a certain volume. Your body is harmonious not by design but because your cells are sending each other signals to keep it that way. Your body can't be the result of genetic design because much of it isn't designed; your genes don't contain a blueprint of your adult body. They contain blueprints for proteins. No part of your genetics specifies your height in inches, the length of your arms, how much skin your body needs to cover all of your muscles and organs. None of that can be the result of genetic design because none of that is ever specified in your genetics. The proportions of your body, ultimately, are determined by your body itself, as your cells make arrangements - and even compete - amongst each other. Truly amazing; the enormity of intelligence in genes, cells and DNA. So all this intelligence is what has allegedly driven evolution to relatively continuous progression into ultra complex design for scores of millions of years into what is observed today. We don't seem to hear a whole lot about how all this amazing intelligence got into the earliest genes, cells and DNA so as to get get and keep this alleged evolution ball rolling in the direction of progression into more complexity, especially when just about everything else we observe with our naked eyes rusts, deterioriates, winds down, goes chaotic, rots, and disintegrates into disorder. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buzsaw.
Buzsaw writes: Truly amazing; the enormity of intelligence in genes, cells and DNA. So all this intelligence is what has allegedly driven evolution... There is no reason to think that this is "intelligence." Yet. We're still waiting for you, or one of the other three creationists on this thread, to provide us with a reason. So, why can't chemical signaling just be chemistry? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Truly amazing; the enormity of intelligence in genes, cells and DNA. Well, no. Intelligence would be specific genes for bone length, skin area, brain volume. Intelligence would be organisms that were endlessly identical mold-copies of each other, with interchangeable parts.
We don't seem to hear a whole lot about how all this amazing intelligence got into the earliest genes, cells and DNA so as to get get Well, what are your thoughts on the RNA world? The earliest cells would have had little need for extracellular signaling. That's an adaptation to a world of scarcity and competition. The early Earth is a world of plenty for the earliest organisms, a world where organisms are barely more complex than their inorganic food sources.
especially when just about everything else we observe with our naked eyes rusts, deterioriates, winds down, goes chaotic, rots, and disintegrates into disorder. That entropy isn't an obstacle to life. Entropy is what makes life possible in the first place. Every metabolic process in your body is one that exploits an increase in entropy. Your body is a battlefield, not the result of somebody's design. The more you find out about biology the more obvious that is. But you're determined to avoid education in the sciences because your cherished dogma is more important. I pity you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Truly amazing; the enormity of intelligence in genes, cells and DNA. It is simply trial and error. What works gets to roll the dice again. What doesn't is out of the game.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
Bolder-dash writes: Secondly, everything else you wrote seems the product of a mind addled by PTSD or acute syphilitic brain damage-so forgive me if I cross you off the list of possible sources of new knowledge. Congratulations, in five years of posting here you are the first fundie ever to follow a link. Secondly, I will always consider you a source of new knowledge, false as it may be, just as I read up on fundie delusion literature. That is why I will always have more information than my opponents. In fact I probably know more about the history of your delusions than you do, not bad for a purported syphlitic with PTSD, eh? Edited by anglagard, : tried to provide a link, didn\'t work Edited by anglagard, : restore text The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Good ol' Buz, hadn't seen you lately and was beginning to worry you may have OD'ed on Comfrey tea or something.
If you want to meet us halfway (a doubtful proposition), you may want to read something other than the Bible. Your words in this post remind me of Liebnitz' Monad Theory, which caught sick with Spinoza and was buried by Voltaire. For a rather hilarious account of how Liebnitz was pretty much wrong about everything except calculus, in particular his idea we live in the best of all possible worlds, read Candide, it is free on the net. Now for a quick review: Singularity - evidence: universal background radiationExpansion of the universe - evidence: red shift (Doppler effect) Coalescing of matter into planets and stars - evidence: gravity Explosions of supernovas in order to create heavy elements - evidence: astronomy, radiation Assembly of complex organic molecules in space - evidence: astronomy (spectroscopy) meteorites (chemistry) Assembly of complex organic molecules into proto-RNA - evidence: chemistry (in the lab in front of your face) Assembly of proto-RNA to life - evidence: forthcoming (the last 'missing link') Evolution - evidence: physics, chemistry, geology, biology, agriculture, history and modern (as opposed to witch-doctor) medicine If you would like to further understand the connection between the observed and the conclusions, I suggest using a library. You may want to start with Ridley's Genome or Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. For a start. Oh, I forgot, you are beyond all learning as you are self-proclaimed infallible. Either that or the old saw concerning old dogs and new tricks. Did it ever occur to you or anyone of your ilk that cursing God's works and cursing all good works of humans in favor of making a graven idol of the Bible, contrary to the very text within, may be a big mistake? The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024