Old- TONY: 2# Your dogmatic belief system is blinding your eyes from seeing the evidence is all around us - so clearly exposed.
bluegenes: If you understood the arguments that I'm making to you, you would know that there's no dogmatic belief system involved. I'm pointing out that the complex phenomenon of intelligence must be able to exist without requiring intelligent engineers. That means that creator Gods can exist without requiring engineers, and that intelligence and other complex phenomena could be produced in this universe without engineers.
It is your argument that intelligence (a complex phenomenon) is a prerequisite for the existence of complex phenomena which is nonsensical because of its obvious inbuilt contradiction. Surely you understand this.
TONY: You got a couple of logic loops here. First (1#) God is not intelligently designed. Not physical, not functioning on physical laws to exist. Has an existence out side of his own handy work. He does not living in the fish bowl he himself made for the little fishes. Duh.
Man is a creation. All our functions can be explained right down to the simplest molecular laws of quantum physics. And so can this computer on my desk.
"If all things are equal, then they are but the same"- TONY
Quantum physics does not have mythical concepts of designs just happen (nature didit -theory)
Percy First, unless you're in the habit of handing out your account name and password to family and friends or have it posted somewhere on the Internet, or until you forget how to use the quoting codes, I think you can safely assume we know that "TONY" wrote this.
TONY: One forum I was on required it all the time. They even deleted your posts if you forgot. So forgive me - bad habits die hard, the scares still remain from their many beatings.(joke)
Percy: You're making the same type of mistake. You're noting that DNA possesses some of the qualities of software and then concluding that it must therefore have all the qualities of software. In reality, DNA has the qualities it is observed to have. It is an error of the first order to conclude it must have qualities of other things that it is similar to.
TONY: God is more intelligent then we are so the DNA programming is MORE able they anything we can come close too. It is more then just software - to use a primitive "man made it" analogy is my now mistake. It is what they call an understatement. Not an overextending analogies as you would have it.
Percy: The argument goes like this: ID would like to have it both ways. When explaining why life must be designed, IDists draw analogies to human designs. When explaining why life is too wondrous to have happened naturally they describe how far beyond human comprehension the complexity of life is. So which is it? Is life something we could design ourselves, or is it far beyond our meager talents.
TONY: If I remember correctly each cell has 100 trillion atoms, and the body has 100 trillion cells. So you'll be long dead before you finish what ever you planned to start.
Human DNA has 3.2 billion base pairs, and it's going to be a while just for one person to learn all that to get up to speed. The engineering physics of human structural design is still over our little heads. It is though a new technology - To try a little intelligent designing our selves. Oh but that might be impossible for it does not exist, Hehehehe. :-/
onifre: "how can you determine any of this to begin with?"
Racing cars are easy to make, untill you have to make one to win the race.
Life (cells) look so easy that some would have you think even nature could do it. Till you learn what is being done right now in bio-labs arould the world you will not understand what we have here.
Life is the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY we have ever seen. They are stipping it down and coping it, redesigning its functions.
Re: Life is the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY we have ever seen
Hi Bio-molecularTony,
In many posts you seem to be giving voice to whatever happens to pop into your head at the moment. EvC Forum has a large number of forums, and each forum has many different topics. Could you try to keep your posts in this thread focused on its topic? The topic of this thread is the evidence for ID. You can take the other topics you'd like to discuss (the Law of Biogensis, the illusion of reality, the Higgs Boson, comments by Bill Gates, and how little we really know) to threads where they would be appropriate.
Also, 12 of the last 16 messages were posted by you, many of them very short. Threads at EvC Forum are closed after they reach 300 messages and you're using those messages up very quickly. Moderators try to discourage members from posting lots of short messages. You might try to practice some consolidation and think about whether what you're going to say has anything to do with the topic.
About your Message 154, it's mostly off-topic, but it's worth noting that you've mischaracterized how science regards the supernatural. Science does not exclude the supernatural. Science doesn't exclude anything. All science requires is that the phenomena it studies produce observable and replicable evidence. Any supernatural phenomena that produce observable and replicable evidence would be considered scientific.
So do the processes of ID produce observable and replicable evidence? If the answer is yes then this is the right thread to begin offering that evidence, and we're all wondering when you're going to start? Let me again remind you, analogies and unsupported assertions are not evidence.
Old- TONY: 2# Your dogmatic belief system is blinding your eyes from seeing the evidence is all around us - so clearly exposed.
And I could reply, "The reality is that it is your own dogmatic belief system that is blinding your eyes from seeing the evidence for evolution all around us." Now what? And how many times are you going to repeat this fallacy? Does it need to be explained again?
But this isn't something that should be discussed in this thread, I'm just pointing out the fallacy. If you really want to talk about evolution as a dogmatic belief system (or about anything except the evidence for ID) then you should take it to another thread.
Anyway, you go on to say:
TONY: You got a couple of logic loops here. First (1#) God is not intelligently designed. Not physical, not functioning on physical laws to exist. Has an existence out side of his own handy work. He does not living in the fish bowl he himself made for the little fishes. Duh.
And then you continue in this vein in Message 168:
Tony in Message 168 writes:
TONY: God is more intelligent then we are so the DNA programming is MORE able they anything we can come close too. It is more then just software - to use a primitive "man made it" analogy is my now mistake. It is what they call an understatement. Not an overextending analogies as you would have it.
These two paragraphs are all just a bunch of unsupported assertions and more arguing by analogy fallacies, but your frequent references to God do manage to make very clear the religious nature of ID, which has been our point all along, that ID is religion, not science.
ife (cells) look so easy that some would have you think even nature could do it. Till you learn what is being done right now in bio-labs arould the world you will not understand what we have here.
Life is the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY we have ever seen. They are stipping it down and coping it, redesigning its functions.
If life's processes really involved elements of the supernatural then man couldn't analyze, understand and modify them, could he.
Re: Life is the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY we have ever seen
Percy:
- These two paragraphs are all just a bunch of unsupported assertions and more arguing by analogy fallacies, but your frequent references to God do manage to make very clear the religious nature of ID, which has been our point all along, that ID is religion, not science.
- If life's processes really involved elements of the supernatural then man couldn't analyze, understand and modify them, could he.
TONY: Rules, rules, rules. You've got it so well planned out, that you have made sure there can not be any valid answer to intelligent design now or ever. Even reading your posts I find there are so much I NOW can't even answer because its off topic, your about to get pissed off for not getting replies on them.
You've made evidence no longer valid because your story book says there is OTHER POSSIBLITIES that CAN HAPPEN. This is a lie.
Supernatural (superior then man) information coded that functions as good or better then our crappy software is now not good enough for you because if we understand it then it can't be from God. So your mind is closed to accepting any and all EVIDENCE. You have a dumb answer for everything, so as to dumb down even the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY man has ever seen. I can your going places, duh.
It is you that needs to get in line. If you can't understand what superior technology is and what it means then your not good time spent. If you wish to dumb down everything that comes your way, you become the "dumb critic" with the over size month, but little brains to speak of. I can see what you’re doing here. Evidence is not your issue. You’re just a political filibuster - your just here to shut down the discussion so it can never be fruitful. Nothing will ever be good enough for a (blind evolution) filibuster.
Rules, rules, rules. You've got it so well planned out, that you have made sure there can not be any valid answer to intelligent design now or ever.
Isn't that nice of us to set up rules that one can go by instead of setting up arbitrary standards after the fact. Try going by the rules. If you meet them, as all scientists do ” often only after multiple attempts, and are still rejected then you'll have a valid position. Please, we tell you where you're going wrong and how to fix it. That you are unable to fix it should be a clue.
So your mind is closed to accepting any and all EVIDENCE.
Until you supply some evidence to be rejected you'd not have a way of knowing whether or not it would be rejected.
The topic is "Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?" When someone is begging you for evidence, it seems odd that the only statement you offer is that no one gives you a hearing. This is one of the rare thousands of hearings you'll have this year. Don't waste it.
And remember, its low risk. If you don't succeed here you'll always be able to ignore it and start afresh tomorrow ” or even in your next post.
Kindly
When I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?
Re: Life is the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY we have ever seen
Tony writes:
You've made evidence no longer valid because your story book says there is OTHER POSSIBLITIES that CAN HAPPEN. This is a lie.
Makng evidence no longer valid? How would one go about doing that?
His story book? I don't think percy is using a story book, I think he's using a SCIENCED book, and other possibilities CAN happen, it's just that we find NO evidence for them, so we don't talk about them in a scientific way.
Supernatural (superior then man) information coded that functions as good or better then our crappy software is now not good enough for you because if we understand it then it can't be from God.
If we understand it, it's not superior to us. And like pointed out before to you, DNA doesn't work like software.
So your mind is closed to accepting any and all EVIDENCE.
I am open to accepting ANY and ALL evidence, not my fault you don't provide any.
You have a dumb answer for everything, so as to dumb down even the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY man has ever seen.
I found Percy's answer quite good actually, and, again, as said before, Life's not technology.
If you can't understand what superior technology is and what it means then your not good time spent.
Superior technology is technology we wouldn't understand.
Since the rest of your post is a nice little ad hmoinem attack against Percy, I won't bother answering it.
Re: Life is the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY we have ever seen
Bio-molecularTony writes:
TONY: Rules, rules, rules.
Long before you ever joined EvC Forum it had a set a rules that we call the Forum Guidelines. You agreed to follow them when you joined.
You're free to discuss anything you like at EvC Forum, we just request that you stay on topic in each thread. It's in the Forum Guidelines, rule 2. You agreed to follow them or you wouldn't be here. In this thread we're discussing the evidence for ID. If that's not what you want to discuss then you shouldn't be posting here.
The EvC Forum moderator team, of which I'm a member, is committed to maintaining an environment that encourages constructive discussion that actually gets somewhere. Experience has taught us that there are always those who are determined to do whatever they damn well please and hang any rules that might get in the way, and rather than coddle such members with one explanation after another we just suspend them for longer and longer periods until they either go away or are permanently suspended.
The thread for bringing problems to the attention of moderators is Windsor castle.
Moderators try to refrain from taking moderator actions in threads in which they're participating, but that isn't always possible. Think of a moderator participating in a discussion like a policeman at a football game. If one the players commits a penalty, the policeman is not going to get involved, that's not what he's there for. But if one of the players commits a real crime, say starts rifling the snack bar, then the policeman will step in. In other words, if you get far enough out of hand here I *will* step in.
Okay, that's all the help with EvC Forum rules you're going to get. Good luck.
About the rest of your post and all those rules that you claim make it impossible for ID to be science, I'm afraid that science had a set of rules and methods long before you were ever born. If ID wants to be thought of as science then ID researchers have to do some actual science. Convincing laypeople who happen to be legislators or school board members that ID is science doesn't make it science. You have to convince other scientists that ID is science. Your frequent invocation of supernatural explanations that have no supporting evidence makes it pretty clear that ID isn't science, it's religion.
Watch those Youtub videos on DNA functions and learn a little more about God's universal bio-technologies.
Youtube? You think I should go to Youtube to learn about how DNA functions? Youtube? Seriously?
Good god, if Youtube is your idea of a reliable source of information on how biological systems function it's no wonder you believe such rubbish. Here's how I know how DNA functions: I've spent the last few months reading my way through Concepts of Genetics, 5th edition by Klug and Cummings. It's about two inches thick, and it doesn't really have space to explain everything.
I've also spent the last eight years working as a professional computer programmer so I'm pretty damn familiar with how software and computers in general work.
I don't go to Youtube to educate myself on scientific topics; and I suggest you don't either.
DNA is not a computer; it does not function like a computer language. It is not software. There is no clear software/hardware divide.
Hacking the Mother Code | WIRED Hacking the Mother Code "The gene is by far the most sophisticated program around." - Bill Gates, quoted in Business Week, June 27, 1994
Google you way to better understanding....
Curiously Bill Gates (a) is not a biologist and (b) does not understand the genetic code. This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
TONY: When you fully understand depth of what DNA is and does, and can do. Then and only then can you let go of the old and stupid stand-by - nature-didit (non-intelligent evolution)
Here you repeat the same fallacy. Curiously, you also do not show any evidence that "you fully understand depth of what DNA is and does, and can do" (italic for empHAsis), nor do you demonstrate any way that DNA operates that is not done by nature.
TONY: Just as life has fully automated design structures for self-republication. So to the universe have similar abilities, only by design though. I just read an article on different kinds of Entropy. Gravity Entropy where things come together rather then flow apart. There is so much to learn and so like time to live life to learn it all.
Great. Now explain how gravity and entropy affect biological life functions. Demonstrate how entropy is a sign of design (what is it - planned obsolescence?)
Is the fact that all orbits decay a design feature? Do you know how to distinguish design from the apperance of design caused by natural actions according to natural laws? Is a snow flake designed?
Old- TONY: 2# Your dogmatic belief system is blinding your eyes from seeing the evidence is all around us - so clearly exposed.
This is an ad hominem another logical fallacy, and one wonders why you need to employ logical fallacies instead of presenting logical arguments that show why this purported "dogmatic belief system" is false and demonstrating your superior understanding of how things are "so clearly exposed." As I've said before, I await your contribution to science.
TONY: You got a couple of logic loops here. First (1#) God is not intelligently designed. Not physical, not functioning on physical laws to exist. Has an existence out side of his own handy work. He does not living in the fish bowl he himself made for the little fishes.
Curiously this is called the logical fallacy of special pleading, and strangely the fact that you plead for your god to be excluded from design means that -- logically -- anything else can be excluded from design.
If you are going to claim a logical basis, you would do well to learn more about logic.
Duh.
Another ad hominem
Man is a creation. All our functions can be explained right down to the simplest molecular laws of quantum physics. And so can this computer on my desk.
"If all things are equal, then they are but the same"- TONY
Quantum physics does not have mythical concepts of designs just happen (nature didit -theory)
This is just an assertion. Curiously if "All our functions can be explained right down to the simplest molecular laws of quantum physics" then we have a complete natural explanation for how life operates and we do not need a supernatural explanation. How does this demonstrate a creator is necessary?
TONY: One forum I was on required it all the time. They even deleted your posts if you forgot. So forgive me - bad habits die hard, the scares still remain from their many beatings.(joke)
Different forums have different rules. I've had posts deleted because the moderator didn't like that I said "Elvis lives" was a false idea. How was I to know he was an Elvis-lives-ist?
As a side note, Percy owns and operates this forum out of his own pocket and he has written the software that it runs on. When he tells you about a design feature for this forum it would do you well to pay attention. One such design feature is that every post is linked directly with an icon of the person who posted it. Another is that the replies are linked so that one can follow conversation subthreads on each thread as well as the major overall thread.
TONY: God is more intelligent then we are so the DNA programming is MORE able they anything we can come close too. It is more then just software - to use a primitive "man made it" analogy is my now mistake. It is what they call an understatement. Not an overextending analogies as you would have it.
This is another appeal to authority, in this case an anonymous authority who is rumored to exist, and it is based on an assumed level of intelligence that has not been demonstrated.
This assumption is also logically false:
Many time parents have had children that are smarter than they are and that can do things the parents cannot do.
Likewise, because of the knowledge that we have accumulated we can do things that our ancestors could not do. My grandfather was born in the era of horse and buggy, yet he saw man land on the moon before he died. The knowledge of how to do that did not exist in his childhood.
Finally programmers have created programs they do not understand, but that solve complex problems that they could not solve, and they did so using evolutionary algorithms.
Bad form to reference another forum: this is like spam. Better to make your argument here in your words.
Note it is also good form to distinguish between quotes of people you are replying to and quotes from other sources. One common practice here is to use the two different quote mechanims to do this.
quote:or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...\ 1 ma·chine 2 a : a living organism or one of its functional systems -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tech·nol·o·gy 1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : ENGINEERING 2 b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge 2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge 3 : the specialized
Strangely this does not mean that we are in fact machines. There are other definitions as well.
Now I don't know about you, but those definitions don't apply to me.Nor would I complement a date by saying how machine like they looked. We can argue about which definition is correct, but implicit in that argument would be a comparison of the concepts of machine and organism and what is meant by the terminology.
One difference I would note is that traditionally machines have built-in, pre-programmed responses and people aren't so limited, but that as we make machines that have capabilities to do things we can't (see above), that these machines will be capable of more independent responses to inputs. Eventually we will get to the point of needing to discuss the definition of life, as opposed to machine, and this - curiously - brings us back to abiogenesis and the creation of life by humans, just a different kind of life, one NOT based on DNA. Curiously such an achievement will not demonstrate that DNA life had to be designed.
TONY: If I remember correctly each cell has 100 trillion atoms, and the body has 100 trillion cells. So you'll be long dead before you finish what ever you planned to start. Human DNA has 3.2 billion base pairs, and it's going to be a while just for one person to learn all that to get up to speed. The engineering physics of human structural design is still over our little heads. It is though a new technology - To try a little intelligent designing our selves. Oh but that might be impossible for it does not exist, Hehehehe. :-/
Unfortunately once again your logic is faulty: the numbers of cells and molecules and atoms is irrelevant. All that is needed is to create a simple replicating system and let evolution take care of the rest.
Actually I would expect humans to do a better job of designing a human structure. There have been many complaints down through the years about problems with frequent failures in the structural system that could be easily solved with a little R&D and trial and error testing. Look at the knees and the spine for examples. Talk to a woman about how the design of the birth mechanism is well thought out. Curiously, for human intelligence to advance much further, it seems a redesign of either the mechanism that stores information or this delivery system will be required. The current, human designed, work-around is the C-Section. Incorporation of "machine intelligence" may be the next improvement. Perhaps one that uses bio-mechanical systems for greater compatibility and capacity.
Racing cars are easy to make, untill you have to make one to win the race. Life (cells) look so easy that some would have you think even nature could do it. Till you learn what is being done right now in bio-labs arould the world you will not understand what we have here. Life is the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY we have ever seen. They are stipping it down and coping it, redesigning its functions. Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online. A new version of a biomolecular computer
Strangely this doesn't mean that the bio-computer is an organism instead of a machine.
Curiously when you start racing cars, and you want to design winners, you start out with several different kinds, and select the winners to make copies of, with slight variations on systems, which are then tested in races, where you select the winners and repeat.
This just shows how well evolution designed intelligent modern life from billions of years of trial and error. Talk about terraflops of computing time eh?
Life (cells) look so easy that some would have you think even nature could do it.
What makes you think it hasn't? All you need to start with is a simple replicating molecular system, you don't need the latest version of the Daytona 500 winner's circle.
TONY: Rules, rules, rules. You've got it so well planned out, that you have made sure there can not be any valid answer to intelligent design now or ever. Even reading your posts I find there are so much I NOW can't even answer because its off topic, your about to get pissed off for not getting replies on them.
Remember (1) Percy owns the site: don't annoy the people that make the forum work, and (2) this thread topic is for you to present EVIDENCE FOR ID.
You've made evidence no longer valid because your story book says there is OTHER POSSIBLITIES that CAN HAPPEN. This is a lie.
You really just need to post the information that you think is evidence for ID. Otherwise this is just another in a long line of cop-outs from those with empty holsters.
Supernatural (superior then man) information coded that functions as good or better then our crappy software is now not good enough for you because if we understand it then it can't be from God.
As pointed out already, if we understand it then it isn't "superior than man information" ... 62 short biological years ago the first general purpose computer, ENIAC was assembled from tubes and wires, and I would hesitate to assume some limitation to where we will be in the next 62 years (though excited to find out).
So your mind is closed to accepting any and all EVIDENCE. You have a dumb answer for everything, so as to dumb down even the GREATEST TECHNOLOGY man has ever seen. I can your going places, duh. It is you that needs to get in line. If you can't understand what superior technology is and what it means then your not good time spent. If you wish to dumb down everything that comes your way, you become the "dumb critic" with the over size month, but little brains to speak of.
Which is just another ad hominem fallacy rather than any attempt to deal with the issues. Some people say that the first refuge of a failed argument is the personal attack (perhaps why politicians use it so much).
I can see what you’re doing here. Evidence is not your issue. You’re just a political filibuster - your just here to shut down the discussion so it can never be fruitful. Nothing will ever be good enough for a (blind evolution) filibuster.
And the second refuge is the conspiracy theory. Everyone's against the free flow of (your) ideas, it's a massive world wide conspiracy ... yawn, heard it before ...
Now: do you have some evidence or not? As you can see from this review of your several posts you have not provided any substance to support your assertions.
™ Version 4.2
