|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member} | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Seti scientists agree that if they were to find 'coded information' on a radio signal it would be evidence of intelligence. Irrespective of content, we would know that another intelligent civilization is out there.
It is ironic that such expense, effort and scientific resources are being expended in an effort to find an unseen, undetected, unknown 'intelligence' by looking for "coded information" that, irrespective of content, would confirm another 'intelligent civilization' out there. So, SETI scientists have a plan for detecting an unseen intelligent being based on detectable design. How will they do this? By detecting the 'telltale' characterisitc of 'coded' information on radio signals. Only an intelligent being able to make choices among possible alternatives can organize (ie. code) information. One of the most remarkable discoveries of the 20th century was the discovery of coded information in the DNA of living things. "The genetic code is a linguistic system which functions to allow specified genetic symbols to carry biological information. A recent study concludes that the code is the most optimal of a million other random selected possibilities." (SJ Freeland and LD Hurst Journal of Molecular Evolution vol 47 pp 238-248 (1998)} Information organized per the DNA code is much more complex than any signal SETi researchers would attribute to intelligence, and yet, the coded information of DNA is attributed to an accident of nature. (Partially reworded from "The Cave Painting - A Parable of Science" by Randy Bullock -an allegorical novel that explores the evolution/ID controversy and is designed to inform and entertain -not to be missed!!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Unless you have something to say about the evidence for an intelligent designer, you really shouldn't be posting in this thread. Ok Percy, my apologies! According to the SETI website:"Failure to find a signal (radio signal) wouldn't prove that we're the only thinking beings in the galaxy. After all, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence." From Randy Bullock's "The Cave Painting":"To an objective onlooker, such a dichotomy of thought in science between the search for elusive extraterrestrial "intelligent" design to detect an unknown "thinking being" somewhere in the universe, and the denial of coded information in DNA as strong evidence of intelligent design, is difficult to reconcile. To reject evidence that life on earth may be a product of an intelligent being while simultaneously (and in the absence of any evidence) entertaining thoughts of other intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe is at minimum a profound contradiction in reasoning." "Darwinists go to great lengths to assure us, if not "prove" to us, that anything of non-human origin that has all the clear unambiguous hallmarks of design is not designed at all, but merely has the appearance of design. That is, the design is not objectively real; it is "just an illusion, like the rising and the setting of the sun."Evolution, as understood by Darwinists, therefore, can be characterized as the theory of "no design" in nature. Importantly, ID is simply the scientific challenge to the "no design" hypothesis of Darwinism. Contrary to the claims of today's grandees of evolution, Darwinism is not necessary to study,or even to understand, any other scientific subject, including molecular biology. Darwinism becomes necessary in biology only as a naturalistic attempt at explaining the origin of living things. There is a big difference between studying things and theorizing about their origins. Science in its simplest form is the human activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena, the explanations being based on observable data. Keeping this in mind, consider these two simple descriptions of science:1) Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena 2) Science is the activity of seeking only natural (ie. unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena. What's the difference between the two definitions? Definition 1 is objective.Definition 2 is not objective. Definition 1 is consistent with the definition given by the NAS, state dept of education definitions of science and the scientific method, and dictionary definitions.By Definition 1 ID is science (and is in fact consistent with the scientific method) Definition 2, on the contrary, imports an assumption as a limitation into what is 'science,' a limitation that is not required by any established definition of science or the scientific method. Definition 2 leads to a scientific method that is more limiting than the scientific method. Definition 2 inserts the limiting assumption of the philosophy of naturalism into an otherwise objective definition, and leads to a scientific method consistent with the assumptions of the philosophy of naturalism. This method is often referred to as methodological naturalism, and is insisted apon as the only method of science by virtually all Darwinists. So it is evolution only Darwinists who attempt to redefine science to fit a philosophy of naturalism, the idea that natural causes and effects alone are sufficient to explain all natural phenomena. Option 1 above is rejected because any hint at "intelligent design" sets off fears of a 'divine foot' in the door and is taken as 'creation science' which is anathema to modern science. Thus the NABT contends that, regardless of where the observations might lead, explanations involving non-naturalisitc or supernatural events are outside of the realm of science. Thus science according to the NABT, is not to be objective but is limited to only naturalistic explanations supported, if possible, by empirical evidence.According to Dawkins, we live in a universe that appears designed. All around us is unavoidably observable evidence of complex design in nature. Is it objectively real or is the design just an illusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
but where is your evidence against 'no-design'? Where is your evidence against design? My evidence for design is biological complexity and the genetic code.Your evidence against design is that living things all just fell into organized complexity over eons of imaginary and magical (it can perform wonders) time. Time can do nothing -you can stare at a container of hydrogen gas for all of eternity and it will never turn into a universe. Put a single cell into a test tube of water at an optimum temperature for life ,then stick a sharp object into it and see all the complex little machinary spill out into the water. Now wait...........................forever.............................. -you have all the ingredients for life, but who's going to organize the parts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Is this really your argument? Who organized the genetic code? It is a code, therefore requires an intelligence to organize amongst millions of potential choices -it is not a purely chemical arrangement that transfers coded messages from one part of a cell to another to make specific arrangements of amino acids into proteins that fold into specific shapes that do specific jobs that coordinate functions that work together to achieve a purpose.Who organized the message?? Only intelligence can put together a code. My evidence starts with the fact that there is NO evidence for a Designer But there is -the presence of the code is evidence for a codemaker.
Also note that the Designer would have been responsable for non-complex things as well, so then non-complexity would ALSO equal design. Repetitive patterns follow the laws of nature and yes, the designer would have had to organize the laws - the designer would also be the lawmaker.
Also the fact that the Designer would be complex and by your definition also requires design, im sure you've heard that position before. If the designer is outside of time and caused time and matter to come into existence then He is not bounded by time nor composed of physical matter.At some point something has to be self-existing.You can't really believe that everything came from absolutely nothing? That to me is thoroughly illogical default position. There must be an original cause. At the very least, there are two possibilities, everything came from nothing or something caused everything. The organization and complexity of life points to the latter as a more logical default position. Certainly excluding it from possibility simply because you have not seen the original cause is biased philisophical reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Mathematical computer models .... Something like Dawkins absurd computer modelling ...programmed with intelligence and with a predetermined aim?
non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired It does seem inspired doesn't it -but of course, it can't be - we have already decided that.
It undermines your entire argument by showing that Unintelligent Non-design Suffices. Predetermined cause and therefore non-design suffices -begging the question....
Another "gap" has squeezed closed For your sake it's a pity some of those yawning fossil gaps don't close a bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
It's own existence is something which we can never possibly comprehend because it doesn't exist in our own knowable universe It doesn't really matter how deep our comprehension could be -like gravity, we don't see the creator or creative intelligence but we can see it's effects - like biological complexity.
I see your problem with presenting evidence for this so-called designer. One doesn't need to get into the theology to know that a creative intelligence may have created what exists. Science can easily limit itself to the investigation of that possibility and leave the rest (who the creator may be) to theology. We should at least allow for the possibility if we're going to be objective truth seekers.
Therefore, nothing at all that we discover about the natural world can be attributed to the designer in any meaningful way because how can we possibly fathom its meaning? Why can't it be attributed to a designer? How can we investigate anything properly if we decide, before the investigation, that there definately wasn't one? It's an irrational presupposition.
This thing which is so mind-boggingly powerful that it created this immense, mind-boggling universe came from nothing Immense... mind boggling universe.....that should already tell you something about your presuppositions -either it came from nothing or from something. Why arbitrarily cut off one line of reasoning?
But what caused that something? Do you not see it yet? The inherent flaw in the designer argument? How about an eternal principle -beyond the laws that exist -not bound by time which was created along with matter. If time and matter are inextricably bound together then what made the matter is outside of time and therefore has no beginning itself, no time.
That is what you have failed to argue throughout many threads. Why? People can assert things all day long (and many others will believe them!) but until you follow the evidence all the way down and can explain how or why to at least some rational extent, then it is not an argument worth listening to and definitely not worth teaching in a classroom. So your intelligent unbiased alternative is to teach what may be a lie as fact until such time as the intelligent creator introduces himself to you personally? You can't falsify something that is an overriding assumption.So is it science?
Even more importantly, how could the designer argument possibly advance our knowledge of life and the universe? We carry on with science in the meantime which doesn't require an assumption of historical origins in any case. Biology, physics, chemistry everything can be and is investigated apart from evolution in the absence of proof one way or the other of how everything came to exist.Why the preoccupation with ramming naturalism down unsuspecting throats with no alternative even allowed to be considered? Do you imagine that cellular phones and television wouldn't exist in the absence of evolutionary theory? How does 'evolution' advance our knowledge of life and the universe? Especially in the light of the fact that it is possibly untrue?
For example, let's say that every science class in the world now admits ID. What now? What will be taught? How will it be different from what is now taught except to say "OK kids this is what happened and (insert ID mascot here) did it." Teach the science and leave the philosophy out. If you want to mention evolution, then be so kind as to allow the evidence against it to be taught so that everybody becomes aware of the fact that our origins cannot be proven, only theorized about.
See...I don't think that is all you guys really want taught, which is why you cannot come up with any positive evidence for design. If that was it, then it could be taught at home, but this is a battle for souls, not truth. Perhaps it is a battle for souls but it is also ultimately about the truth.Where did we come from? -what are we doing here? You are a random accident hanging around biding your time and trying to survive until you die -sooner or later. How can anyone honestly teach such things in the absence of evidence that it is so.How about "well kids, you may be a random accident brought about by mutation and natural selection or you may be a creation of an intelligence beyond our understanding but in the meantime since we can't prove either, lets just teach you physics, chemistry and biology etc. so that you can contribute to the advancement of technology etc. since that is what science can teach honestly." What will be taught? Biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics....but not origins or if we do, we should teach both possibilities since people do need to have options about where they came from to consider in the absence of absolute proof of either OR teach evolution and the evidence against it if you don't want to include ID specifically but don't deceive little children about what can be known. Teach actual science and don't inflict philisophical reasoning apon them in the name of science.
But all you have are lies and PR and armies of internet avengers equipped with the lies and half-truths and exaggerations and strawmen that we see day in and day out. You really have been bulldozed with evo propoganda.
We are all still waiting. No you aren't -no matter what I say you hear nothing and default back to what you have already decided is true.Nonetheless, we argue on.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Sorry Coyote -no broadband -can't watch the movie so you'll have to fill me in on how this computer model is better than others I have encountered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
In total then what we have been presented as the evidence for ID is some unsubstantiated assertions built upon a mound of personal incredulity; nothing of efficacy for the proposition. Or are you not listening? You have not told me how the genetic code is not evidence for intelligence? So I have the evolutionary contention that it could happen without intelligence - but then that's because evolutionist's believe that that's possible, not because it necessarily is. It's no good to say we can't see the creator therefore we can't consider it. Prove that natural causes brought the genetic code forth and I will bow out. If supernatural possibilities are automatically excluded then there is no falsification possible, no evidence necessary -evolution is the winner in the absence of choice. But is that science? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reply in the "no replies - single sumary statement only" parts of this topic "hidden".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Sorry admin -I replied before I saw this message. How do you post a summation rather than a reply? What button does one press instead of 'reply'?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024