Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design explains many follies
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 61 of 302 (296520)
03-18-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Rahvin
03-18-2006 2:07 PM


You must give the instruction first
You must give the instruction first in order for the computer to do what you expect it to do. You give the intelligent instruction. Therefore, you are the designer. Does it make sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2006 2:07 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2006 7:10 PM inkorrekt has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 302 (296521)
03-18-2006 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by inkorrekt
03-18-2006 6:58 PM


Re: You must give the instruction first
You must give the instruction first in order for the computer to do what you expect it to do.
Except that it doesn't do what we expect it to do. We're specifically programming it so that it can't rely on its programming and our intelligence for the design.
Thus, the programmers are not the designers; the algorhythm is the "designer". No intelligence needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by inkorrekt, posted 03-18-2006 6:58 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by inkorrekt, posted 03-19-2006 4:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 63 of 302 (296545)
03-18-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by NosyNed
03-18-2006 2:38 PM


Re: True Folly
The best biological organisms can do is adapt and mutate. If that's your idea of how biological organisms have designed themselves, that's your choice to believe. But it's a very bad choice and is not true science at all.
I'm sad to hear that you don't have a scientific answer for how the universe and inorganic matter came to be. I would have thought sophisticated thinkers would have it all figured out by now.
It's still folly to believe that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe came to be without ID, no matter what us simple people of faith believe.

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2006 2:38 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 03-18-2006 11:24 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 65 by Discreet Label, posted 03-18-2006 11:29 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 66 by ReverendDG, posted 03-18-2006 11:32 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 68 by nator, posted 03-19-2006 9:16 AM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 79 by sidelined, posted 03-19-2006 5:33 PM John 10:10 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 302 (296548)
03-18-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by John 10:10
03-18-2006 11:02 PM


Re: True Folly
John10:10, posts like yours are really embarassing to most of us Christians. You are over here in the Science Forums and you are expected to provide evidence to support your positions and not to just make silly statements like "But it's a very bad choice and is not true science at all."
Also, when you get an honest answer a response like
I'm sad to hear that you don't have a scientific answer for how the universe and inorganic matter came to be. I would have thought sophisticated thinkers would have it all figured out by now.
just sounds sophomoric.
But when you then go on to say:
It's still folly to believe that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe came to be without ID, no matter what us simple people of faith believe.
you really are expected to provide some evidence. Otherwise it's just another unsupported assertion and something to be ignored.
If you have some support or evidence of ID, bring it out so it can be discussed.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by John 10:10, posted 03-18-2006 11:02 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by inkorrekt, posted 03-19-2006 4:30 PM jar has not replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 65 of 302 (296549)
03-18-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by John 10:10
03-18-2006 11:02 PM


Re: True Folly
How is to believe that organisms reproduce is unscientific?
Where is the flaw in science in how the reproductive system works? I mean this is something you can look into, how things have sex and what the resultant offspring looks like or the traits it carries.
As to the belief that complex organic and inorganic matter must be from ID...well thats for you to believe and think about.
I feel the question of evolution and abiogensis is most assuredly not about how the universe started. I feel abiogensis never made claim to touch those areas and its presumptous to attribute those characteristics to it.
IMO abiogenesis and evolution is solely concerned with after matter came to be, what happend with the matter. And the coolest things about those incdeibly complex in/organic substances is that the structures they are in (while being viewed as incredibly unlikely to form due to the number of processes un/known) are very likely to occur because the complexes are in a far stabler configuration then having isolated atoms floating around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by John 10:10, posted 03-18-2006 11:02 PM John 10:10 has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 66 of 302 (296550)
03-18-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by John 10:10
03-18-2006 11:02 PM


Re: True Folly
The best biological organisms can do is adapt and mutate. If that's your idea of how biological organisms have designed themselves, that's your choice to believe. But it's a very bad choice and is not true science at all.
then you need to read more about it, theres more to evolution than just adaption and mutation, theres natural selection and other factors, evolution does design it just isn't human like in anyway
I'm sad to hear that you don't have a scientific answer for how the universe and inorganic matter came to be. I would have thought sophisticated thinkers would have it all figured out by now.
we do have answers but they have nothing to do with evolution, you want to look at the big bang theories and abiogenesis for answers
It's still folly to believe that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe came to be without ID, no matter what us simple people of faith believe.
why is it "folly"? i can only surmise that you think its folly because you don't understand it, so the conclusion is anything but ID is folly
can you answer one question for me? what is complexity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by John 10:10, posted 03-18-2006 11:02 PM John 10:10 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 67 of 302 (296568)
03-19-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by John 10:10
03-18-2006 11:34 AM


Re: You have been warned before John.
quote:
Show me one intricately complex man made thing that exists without man first designing and then constructing his design.
I did that.
I showed you a naturally-occurring, randomly-produced stone arch.
quote:
The same truth principle applies to the intricately complex universe, and even to man himself.
Well, I just showed you a natural stone arch which was not designed by an intelligence; it was produced by random weathering.
This is something that qualifies as "intricately complex", right?
But, instead of conceding this to be the case, you move the goalposts;
quote:
OK, show me one intricately complex "man made thing", not a pic of some nature scene, that exists without man first designing and then constructing his design.
hy does it matter if it's man-made or not?
Didn't you just say, "The same truth principle applies to the intricately complex universe"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by John 10:10, posted 03-18-2006 11:34 AM John 10:10 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 302 (296569)
03-19-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by John 10:10
03-18-2006 11:02 PM


Re: True Folly
quote:
The best biological organisms can do is adapt and mutate. If that's your idea of how biological organisms have designed themselves, that's your choice to believe. But it's a very bad choice and is not true science at all.
Well, let me ask you a question, then.
What is your understanding of the role of DNA in reproduction of organisms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by John 10:10, posted 03-18-2006 11:02 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by John 10:10, posted 03-19-2006 10:24 AM nator has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 69 of 302 (296571)
03-19-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by nator
03-19-2006 9:16 AM


Re: True Folly
Since I am just a simpleton man of faith in amongst many sophisticated thinkers, I must confess I can't compete with your intelligence, but I will offer a few observations;
(1) Some here seem to know precisely how the universe and inorganic matter can to be. Please enlighten those who do not.
(2) Please forgive me for being an embarrassment to the Christians here in the Science Forums. I thought true science is the study and proof of cause and effect, not theory of how things came to be.
(3) It seems only ID believers are required to provide proof of ID, not those who believe otherwise. All ID has ever asked for is to be mentioned as a "possible cause" of why we exist along with the other "theories" of how we came to be.
(4) We who believe in ID understand that we cannot provide the ID proof any more than those who believe in something else can provide their proof. All we can do is provide the logical argument that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe "must" have ID. If that is not sufficient proof, then let's just agree to disagree on what is proof.
(5) What is complexity? One dictionary definition is this: A group of individual structures known or believed to be anatomically, embryologically, or physiologically related.
(6) What is my understanding of the role of DNA in reproduction of organisms? I believe all the design details of whatever creature will be reproduced when male and female join together is inherent in the joint male sperm DNA and female egg DNA. I believe the design in each DNA tells every reproducing cell what kind of cell it is and where it fits into the creature that is being reproduced. If that's not complexity, I don't know what complexity is.

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nator, posted 03-19-2006 9:16 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 03-19-2006 10:30 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 03-19-2006 10:59 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 03-19-2006 11:20 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 73 by Discreet Label, posted 03-19-2006 11:23 AM John 10:10 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 70 of 302 (296572)
03-19-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by John 10:10
03-19-2006 10:24 AM


next step
quote:
What is my understanding of the role of DNA in reproduction of organisms? I believe all the design details of whatever creature will be reproduced when male and female join together is inherent in the joint male sperm DNA and female egg DNA. I believe the design in each DNA tells every reproducing cell what kind of cell it is and where it fits into the creature that is being reproduced.
OK, that's fine.
I have another question.
Does DNA copy itself perfectly all the time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by John 10:10, posted 03-19-2006 10:24 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 302 (296579)
03-19-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by John 10:10
03-19-2006 10:24 AM


Re: True Folly
quote:
(1) Some here seem to know precisely how the universe and inorganic matter can to be.
As far as I know, it is only the Biblical literalists who claim to know precisely "how the universe and inorganic matter can to be."
-
quote:
I thought true science is the study and proof of cause and effect, not theory of how things came to be.
If known cause-effects can explain how things came to be, then, yes, "true" science (as practiced by true Scotsmen) can legitimately speak of a theory of how things came to be.
-
quote:
It seems only ID believers are required to provide proof of ID, not those who believe otherwise.
No one is asking for "proof". All anyone is asking for is good evidence that any biological system has been designed and produced by some intelligent entity. Personal incredulity is not good evidence.
-
quote:
All we can do is provide the logical argument that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe "must" have ID.
Logical arguments are fine, but in the end you need evidence for it to be considered science. If all you have is logical arguments you have a "philosophy", not science.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by John 10:10, posted 03-19-2006 10:24 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 72 of 302 (296581)
03-19-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by John 10:10
03-19-2006 10:24 AM


Re: True Folly
Some here seem to know precisely how the universe and inorganic matter can to be. Please enlighten those who do not.
The only ones that claim to know this in precise terms are the religious ones. If you care to stroll over to Big Bang and Cosmology you'll see that the scientists are saying that we don't know precisely how the universe etc came to be. If you want to discuss the science side of the universe, ask some questions over there.
I thought true science is the study and proof of cause and effect, not theory of how things came to be.
Unfortunately your idea of what science is is a little dated. Cause and effect have blurred considerably these days.
It seems only ID believers are required to provide proof of ID, not those who believe otherwise.
You are in the Intelligent Design forum where the ID side puts its position forward. Cosmology gets the same treatment in Big Bang and Cosmology, evolution in Biological Evolution, dating methods in Dates and Dating, geology in Geology and the Great Flood and abiogenesis in Origin of Life.
. All ID has ever asked for is to be mentioned as a "possible cause" of why we exist along with the other "theories" of how we came to be.
If that is all it wants, then mission successful. Perhaps they will stop trying to get it discussed in science classes then, since they are only asking that it be considered as a possibility rather than a scientific theory...it gets ranked alongside the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Creationism.
We who believe in ID understand that we cannot provide the ID proof any more than those who believe in something else can provide their proof.
Where proof = evidence then other positions have it in abundance.
All we can do is provide the logical argument that intricately complex inorganic matter, organic matter, and the universe "must" have ID. If that is not sufficient proof, then let's just agree to disagree on what is proof.
Anyone can provide logical argumentation for any position that can be conceived. The problem is that the premises can be shown to be flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by John 10:10, posted 03-19-2006 10:24 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 73 of 302 (296582)
03-19-2006 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by John 10:10
03-19-2006 10:24 AM


Re: True Folly
My recommendation is to you, instead of self-deprecating about your background is to remedy the problem.
JC's cost very little to take science classes to help you learn and understand what the scientific method is and how it is used. They also provide chemistry/physics/biology classes at relatively cheap costs so you can bone up on your general knowledge. And depending how good the JC is it may have a class on evolutionary biology in the anthropology section.
The largest difficulty with ID is that the majority of the people on that particular side have a tendency to be arm chair biologists with absolutely zero formal training. Lawyers, ethicists, public relation people, and engineers tend to be the main stay, and none of those particular cases have any real formal training in the sciences. (engineers do to a degree but they are pretty much only limited to lower division science classes which definetly are not nearly as rigorous in thought development)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by John 10:10, posted 03-19-2006 10:24 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 74 of 302 (296611)
03-19-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by John 10:10
03-18-2006 2:22 PM


Intricately complex and man-made, yet not designed
John 10:10 writes:
I was simply pointing out that intricately complex man made things must have been first designed by man's creativity, then put together by man's ability to build what he has has designed.
Is an old city, like, say London, an intricately complex man-made thing? I'd say it is.
But has it been designed? Hardly, it seems. A city like London is an almost organic, living thing that has taken centuries to grow into what it is now. No single human being is responsible for its plan, no one person designed it the way it is. Some aspects of it could be called really stupid, from a design point-of-view. Yet, it is very complex and unmistakably man-made.
Is this the kind of example you were after?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by John 10:10, posted 03-18-2006 2:22 PM John 10:10 has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 75 of 302 (296627)
03-19-2006 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
03-18-2006 7:10 PM


Re: You must give the instruction first
Who designed the algorithm????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2006 7:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 03-19-2006 4:22 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024