Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2017 9:50 PM
410 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), edge, Faith, kjsimons, LamarkNewAge, NoNukes, Phat (AdminPhat) (7 members, 403 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,092 Year: 16,698/21,208 Month: 2,587/3,593 Week: 54/646 Day: 54/78 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
222324
25
2627Next
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
MrHambre
Member
Posts: 1493
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 361 of 393 (759817)
06-15-2015 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 11:57 AM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
This is what we call the Rube Goldberg paradox. Goldberg was an old cartoonist who "designed" insanely complicated gadgets for doing simple tasks; the humor came from the fact that these contraptions were unlike anything an intelligent agent would design.

Michael Behe, in his ID manifesto Darwin's Black Box, reprinted a Goldberg cartoon to draw a parallel to the crazed, redundant complexity of biochemical processes. But he must have missed the joke, because he was trying to argue that such complexity is prima facie evidence of intentional design. The dizzying complexity of something like DNA or a protein cascade is more plausibly attributed to countless iterations of a mindless process than an intelligent designer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 11:57 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 1:17 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 362 of 393 (759821)
06-15-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 11:57 AM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
Hi mikechell, the problem is the nature of the current source code of life (DNA). Its just too damn complicated to create itself ...

I guess that's why no-one says it "created itself".

Just the fact that scientist's are currently battling just to copy the process even though the blueprint and the ingredients are already known, is testimony to the impossibility of nature not just copying DNA, but DESIGNING it spontaneously.

So the fact that it is difficult to produce something by design proves that that's how it was produced? If no-one can make a tree, that proves that someone did?

The concept requires intelligent life.

Whereas life complex enough to conceive, design and create DNA apparently doesn't require anything ... it "created itself", I suppose?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 11:57 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 1:04 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 363 of 393 (759824)
06-15-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Dr Adequate
06-15-2015 12:50 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
Whereas life complex enough to conceive, design and create DNA apparently doesn't require anything ... it "created itself", I suppose?

Either the original creator was always there, or was made from a less complicated substance than DNA, allowing for the possibility of self-generation from non-living matter. The possibility of DNA self generating is too far -fetched to be a plausible scientific argument for the appearance of matter. Could it be termed a hypothesis? On what scientific basis?

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2015 12:50 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2015 1:41 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 364 of 393 (759826)
06-15-2015 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by ringo
06-15-2015 12:10 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
ringo, I beg to differ. If mankind finds it difficult to copy something using intelligent minds its a little far fetched that nature can design the original spontaneously. Anyway if that's your proposed hypothesis for the origin of life, that's your call.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by ringo, posted 06-15-2015 12:10 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by ringo, posted 06-15-2015 1:18 PM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 365 of 393 (759827)
06-15-2015 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by MrHambre
06-15-2015 12:24 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
Interesting thoughts there MrHambre. I see DNA as highly integrated and functional, with far too many interrelationships between the genes to be a natural created process.

But if you are correct, i look forward to mankind's improvements on DNA... interesting proposal of yours indeed!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by MrHambre, posted 06-15-2015 12:24 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13194
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 366 of 393 (759828)
06-15-2015 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 1:11 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
mind-spawn writes:

If mankind finds it difficult to copy something using intelligent minds its a little far fetched that nature can design the original spontaneously.


That's an empty statement. Quantum mechanics was "far-fetched" until we began to understand it. We don't slam on the brakes just because somebody thinks an idea is "far-fetched".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 1:11 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 1:40 PM ringo has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 367 of 393 (759830)
06-15-2015 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by ringo
06-15-2015 1:18 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
I wasn't suggesting we slam on any brakes regarding trying to replicate DNA. I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood of the original design occurring spontaneously if intelligent minds battle to replicate it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by ringo, posted 06-15-2015 1:18 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2015 1:50 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 370 by JonF, posted 06-15-2015 1:57 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 388 by ringo, posted 06-16-2015 11:42 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 368 of 393 (759831)
06-15-2015 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 1:04 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
The possibility of DNA self generating is too far -fetched to be a plausible scientific argument for the appearance of matter. Could it be termed a hypothesis?

Not unless you can find someone who believes it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 1:04 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 369 of 393 (759834)
06-15-2015 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 1:40 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
I wasn't suggesting we slam on any brakes regarding trying to replicate DNA. I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood of the original design occurring spontaneously if intelligent minds battle to replicate it.

Whereas biochemical processes replicate DNA all the time. So, we have something that you say can't be done by intelligent minds, but which we know can be done by unintelligent natural processes. And on this basis, we're meant to conclude that it was done by an intelligent mind?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 1:40 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 2:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3650
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 370 of 393 (759836)
06-15-2015 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 1:40 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood of the original design occurring spontaneously if intelligent minds battle to replicate it

You need to establish some connection between those two clauses. Why does difficulty in replicating the origin of DNA without access to the original conditions and over much smaller time periods than it is hypothesized to have taken place have any relationship to the difficulty (or lack thereof) in the original formation of DNA?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 1:40 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 2:20 PM JonF has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 371 of 393 (759837)
06-15-2015 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Dr Adequate
06-15-2015 1:50 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
Firstly, I never said it cant be done by intelligent minds.

Secondly, natural biochemical processes do not "replicate DNA". Please show me your evidence for your statement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2015 1:50 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2015 2:02 PM mindspawn has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 372 of 393 (759838)
06-15-2015 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 2:00 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
Firstly, I never said it cant be done by intelligent minds.

Then what was your point?

Secondly, natural biochemical processes do not "replicate DNA". Please show me your evidence for your statement.

Start here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication

Edited by Admin, : Fix typo, "The" => "Then".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 2:00 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 2:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 373 of 393 (759840)
06-15-2015 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Dr Adequate
06-15-2015 2:02 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
Dr Adequate, my point is that its difficult for humans to copy DNA

I see what you mean by replication, I misunderstood you, i thought you meant natural processes are creating replicas from scratch, which of course isn't happening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2015 2:02 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 374 of 393 (759841)
06-15-2015 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by JonF
06-15-2015 1:57 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
I disagree. I believe my point is easy to understand on its own, its a subjective argument. Conceptual. As is any argument for abiogenesis mere hopeful conjecture at best without any objective evidence in support.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by JonF, posted 06-15-2015 1:57 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by dazz, posted 06-15-2015 2:54 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 379 by JonF, posted 06-15-2015 4:56 PM mindspawn has responded

  
dazz
Junior Member (Idle past 643 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 04-30-2015


Message 375 of 393 (759846)
06-15-2015 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 2:20 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
How is your design hypothesis not pure conjecture?
Where is your objective evidence?
How is your hypothesis nothing more than an argument from ignorance?
How is the design hypothesis not abiogenesis anyway?

quote:
I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood of the original design occurring spontaneously if intelligent minds battle to replicate it

Why do creationists always put human intelligence over nature? Why be so self centered? Of course, we are intelligent, the universe can't live without intelligence. Well, breaking news, it did for billions of years and will do so once we're gone


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 2:20 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 3:36 PM dazz has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
222324
25
2627Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017