Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Geno
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 261 (43218)
06-17-2003 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by NosyNed
06-17-2003 7:21 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 7:21 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 32 of 261 (43219)
06-17-2003 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
06-17-2003 8:43 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
NosyNed responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Take a look at the latest Boeing 777. It was completely designed by computer. No human knows how it works. And given the extensive use of robotics in manufacturing these days, a goodly portion of the planes weren't even made by humans. Seems we've got a completely artificial development process going here.
This is not an example of a genetic algorithms. The design is a human one aided by tools but not replaced by tools as is the case with genetic algorithms.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 8:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 9:37 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 33 of 261 (43221)
06-17-2003 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
06-17-2003 8:55 PM


'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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 8:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 261 (43222)
06-17-2003 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Warren
06-17-2003 8:55 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 8:55 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 9:11 PM Warren has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 35 of 261 (43223)
06-17-2003 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
06-17-2003 8:46 PM


mike the wiz writes:
quote:
the universe and earth is so impressive , so brilliant ,so awesome i just think it is logical to assume there is intelligence behind it,is that really so bad ?
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:
and why must everything have to be tested by science.science is not the meaning of life,just the tool used to give us life.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2003 8:46 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2003 9:16 PM Rrhain has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 261 (43225)
06-17-2003 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Warren
06-17-2003 9:06 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 9:06 PM Warren has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 37 of 261 (43226)
06-17-2003 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rrhain
06-17-2003 9:09 PM


'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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 06-17-2003 9:09 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Rrhain, posted 06-17-2003 9:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 38 of 261 (43233)
06-17-2003 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mike the wiz
06-17-2003 9:16 PM


mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
quote:
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,
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:
it is just a theory where as the things that were mentioned by God ,the earth,the universe,his message to us,are fact.
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 another
2 : 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 b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
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:
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?
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:
but what is wrong with the logic i was talking about,and why am i so wrong in believing in the Creator?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2003 9:16 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 261 (43234)
06-17-2003 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rrhain
06-17-2003 9:00 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 06-17-2003 9:00 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 10:04 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 51 by Peter, posted 06-18-2003 6:09 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 261 (43242)
06-17-2003 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
06-17-2003 9:37 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 9:37 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 10:10 PM Warren has replied
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 11:12 PM Warren has replied
 Message 63 by Silent H, posted 06-18-2003 5:58 PM Warren has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 261 (43244)
06-17-2003 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Warren
06-17-2003 10:04 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 10:04 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 10:23 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 261 (43248)
06-17-2003 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by NosyNed
06-17-2003 10:10 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 10:10 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2003 10:40 PM Warren has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 261 (43249)
06-17-2003 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Warren
06-17-2003 10:23 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 10:23 PM Warren has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 261 (43251)
06-17-2003 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Warren
06-17-2003 10:04 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Warren, posted 06-17-2003 10:04 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Warren, posted 06-18-2003 1:35 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 261 (43262)
06-18-2003 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
06-17-2003 11:12 PM


Re: A thought on Intelligence behind Design
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2003 11:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Warren, posted 06-18-2003 1:58 AM Warren has not replied
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 06-18-2003 4:55 AM Warren 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