|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A thought on Intelligence behind Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Geno Inactive Member |
Hey, pure erosion sculpted a human face on Mars. Uh, no it didn't. Ned, Thank you for pointing that out! I'm reading this time-late and just saw that old saw.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
NosyNed responds to me:
quote:quote: Hmmm...I was under the impression that Boeing used genetic algorithms to design the new 777. It wasn't that a drafter sat down and used AutoCAD to design the plane. It was that the system came up with a set of genes for airplanes, let the computer run, and out popped a design. That's what I meant when I said "no human knows how it works." No human designed it. Again, I was under the impression that they had used genetic algorithms. Is that impression mistaken? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
'In that sense, science is the best way to find out anything that can be known.'
o.k fair enough ,but i think science is not the meaning to life,just the tool Creator has used to give us life.as for fluffy clouds i meant something more impressive ,like a galaxy or mountains,in my head or not i think these things are awesome i think most would agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Warren<< What if Mount Rushmore was on the moon? What would you conclude produced it? >>
Crashfrog<< We're not talking about Mount Rushmore on the moon; we're talking about life on Earth. So answer me this - when faced with trying to figure out what process gave rise to something, which is better: to explain it through the action of process we observe and can test in the present time; or to explain through the action of entities no longer present and inaccessable to scientific inquiry?>> Warren<< Why didn't you answer my question? If Mount Rushmore was found on the moon what would you think produced it? The simple answer is you would suspect it was produced by beings with human-like intelligence. Right? That the entities are no longer present and accessable to scientific inquiry shouldn't prevent the logical inference to ID. >> [This message has been edited by Warren, 06-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
quote: If the standard of "good" and "bad" is related to the question of whether or not we have evidence to support the claim, then yes, it is bad. There are many people whose standard of good/bad is that a painful truth is much preffered to a comfortable lie.
quote: Not everything is tested by science and nobody in science claims that it is the meaning of life. F'rinstance, science can tell you a lot about the properties of a sound wave like its frequencies, its harmonics, the decibel level, how far it will travel in the air, etc., etc. It cannot tell you if it is music. The problem arises not because of science but because of faith. If you put your faith in things being a certain way and those things are amenable to scientific inquiry, then you may find yourself in a crisis of faith when we find out that they don't behave in the way your faith demands that they do. If your faith requires a flat earth, it isn't science's fault that we determined the earth is round. If your faith requires the earth to be the center of the universe, it isn't science's fault that we determined it isn't...that it isn't even the center of the solar system. Religions have managed to survive these revelations that were once considered so important. Why should any other scientific discovery such as evolution be any different? How does evolution change the message of your god? How does an ancient universe and an ancient earth that developed through natural processes change the relationship you have with your god? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why didn't you answer my question? If Mount Rushmore was found on the moon what would you think produced it? It's a stupid question. There's no Mount Rushmore on the moon because sculptors have never lived on the moon. What's your point? You didn't answer my question, which is considerably more relevant- why do you think it's better to imagine entities and processes that don't exist today to explain things that the natural processes we see today can easily explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
'How does evolution change the message of your god? How does an ancient universe and an ancient earth that developed through natural processes change the relationship you have with your god?'
it does not ,nor does it come against my faith,it is just a theory where as the things that were mentioned by God ,the earth,the universe,his message to us,are fact. 'Not everything is tested by science and nobody in science claims that it is the meaning of life.' 'It cannot tell you if it is music.' so why then test the soundwaves when you can listen to the music? but what is wrong with the logic i was talking about,and why am i so wrong in believing in the Creator?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:quote: Then why your cry to the universe of why does everything have to be tested by science? If nothing that science discovers can affect your faith, then why are you picking on science? Why are you behaving as if science is trying to destroy your faith? Why are you behaving as if you are resentful of science?
quote: Methinks you don't know what a theory is. From Merriam-Webster: 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject You seem to think that when science uses the word "theory," it means something along the lines of definitions 2, 4, 6a, or 6b. Instead, science means definitions 1, 3, 5, and 6c. Do you doubt the germ "theory" of disease? Even though it's "just a theory"? What about the photon "theory" of light? Do you think that you just might not plummet to the ground if you were to jump off the Empire State Building just because it's gravitational "theory"? Is it just a coincidence that atomic clocks work because quantum mechanics is "only a theory"? In science, a theory is an analysis of a set of facts. You cannot have a theory without a fact to back it up. When I drop a ball, it falls to the ground. That's a fact. We happen to call the force that pulls it down "gravity." We then develop theories about gravity to explain how the ball falls. Thus, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Similarly, if we watch organisms over time, they change. That's a fact. We happen to call this change "evolution." We then develop theories about evolution to explain how it happens. Thus, evolution is both a fact and a theory.
quote:quote: Because I've got to get the sound to come out of the speakers somehow. And if I'm planning a concert that is going to be miked, it'd be nice to know how many speakers I'll need, where they should be placed, how much amplification to use, etc., etc. Knowing that this particular piece of music is heavier in the lower frequencies while the piece after that is more concentrated in the higher ones will affect my work.
quote: Nobody said you were. What was said was that you were wrong to insist that your creator did something that was apparently not done. Did I have anything to do with what you ate for breakfast? Did I plant it? Grow it? Harvest it? Transport it? Process it? Package it? Ship it? Advertise it? Market it? Sell it? Purchase it? Prepare it? Serve it? Feed it? No? Does that mean I don't exist? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Is the impression mistaken?
I don't actually know. But I would be astonished if it had been done. The type of designs being evolved with genetic algorithms hasn't reached this level yet. There was work done on wing design some years ago it may have been incorporated into real aircraft design but that's not the same as the whole plane. Maybe someone else actually knows something about this. All I have is a TV show on the building of the plane. It didn't mention this and what was shown looked like conventional engineering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Why didn't you answer my question? If Mount Rushmore was found on the moon what would you think produced it?
Crashfrog<< It's a stupid question. There's no Mount Rushmore on the moon because sculptors have never lived on the moon. What's your point?>> The point is simple. We don't need to observe intelligent designers making something in order to infer ID. If a simple mousetrap was found on Mars, scientists would infer a human-like intelligence made it. They wouldn't go looking for some non-intelligent mousetrap-making process. Crashfrog<< why do you think it's better to imagine entities and processes that don't exist today to explain things that the natural processes we see today can easily explain? >> Simple. No natural process could explain the existence of a mousetrap on Mars. [This message has been edited by Warren, 06-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
If a simple mousetrap was found on Mars, scientists would infer a human-like intelligence made it. They wouldn't go looking for some non-intelligent mousetrap-making process.
You right, I think, if the mousetrap was like mousetraps here. But if the mousetraps had sex and produced little mousetraps with wee little differences they might well infer that they evolved. Any reference to things which don't reproduce as an analogy to things which do is a meaningless analogy. Mousetraps don't f**k!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
NosyNed: "You're right, I think, if the mousetrap was like mousetraps here. But if the mousetraps had sex and produced little mousetraps with wee little differences they might well infer that they evolved."
I see. If we found a self-replicating mousetrap on Mars we could dismiss intelligent design? I don't think so. What we would have is a super sophisticated mousetrap that far exceeds anything human technology can produce. A design inference in the case of a self-replicating mousetrap would be even stronger than in the case of a non-replicating mousetrap. In the case of a self-replicating mousetrap you need to explain the origin of the advanced technology behind the self-replication. Using self-replication to explain the origin of self-replication is circular reasoning that explains nothing. [This message has been edited by Warren, 06-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
In the case of a self-replicating mousetrap you need to explain the origin of the advanced technology behind the self-replication. Using self-replication to explain the origin of self-replication is circular reasoning that explains nothing.
We were talking about evolution of living things. I think you've made the jump to the origin of life. That isn't a settled issue yet. But it does appear that self catalyzing chemicals can be fairly simple. If so it isn't hard for them to arise. If they self catalyze imperfectly you have the basis for the evolutionary process. Since that area isn't in this topic maybe you'd like to revive one of the threads on it. There is lots of interesting research being done there so it might be interesting to discuss. Meanwhile we were talking about the "design" of living things. So we need to stay on topic don't we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The point is simple. We don't need to observe intelligent designers making something in order to infer ID. No, you do. Mount Rushmoon, we suspect, was sculpted because sculptors on earth make similar sculptures. Our experience with things that we have seen designed tells us that when we see something like that we have seen designed, it was probably designed as well. If we find mousetraps on mars, we would know that they were designed because on earth, mousetraps are designed. Life is unlike anything that has ever been designed. So why assume it has been? Especially when natural processes are sufficient to account for the formation of life? Since we're all up into stupid questions, let me ask you one - suppose you find a fizazzle on the moon. Was it designed? Can you know without knowledge of what a fizazzle is supposed to do, if anything?
No natural process could explain the existence of a mousetrap on Mars. We're talking about life on earth, not mousetraps on mars, which don't exist. Life isn't a moustrap. It's nothing like a mousetrap, nor any other human artifact. So why apply the same rules as human artifacts? You may say that complexity is evidence of design; I say that the complexity of living systems is far too great to have been designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Warren<< The point is simple. We don't need to observe intelligent designers making something in order to infer ID.>>
Crashfrog<< No, you do. Mount Rushmoon, we suspect, was sculpted because sculptors on earth make similar sculptures. >> Warren<< Finally, you got it! You would infer that a human-like intelligence designed Mount Rushmoon even though you have no independent evidence of their existence. Why? Because as you correctly point out, intelligent designers on earth make similar designs. Likewise, ID is a known mechanism for producing codes and machines. There is no evidence that geochemistry spawns molecular machines or codes, therefore, I suspect life is carbon-based nanotechnology. And so far, no one has given me a good reason to think my suspicion is mistaken.>> [This message has been edited by Warren, 06-18-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024