|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Dare to bet on this one??? Using what as the criterion? Creation "science" -- the exact opposite of science? Or real science? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
Coyote writes: Is this all that intelligent design really is? Religion in disguise? If not, how is it that the proponents of intelligent design always seem to fall back upon religious belief as their support? I see a machine (called life) so I call it a machine!The thread is about the creator - And if that's religious to you then that is the way it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Bio-molecularTony writes:
So if I am reading this correctly, you are saying that we cannot really tell the difference between life and the well-defined processes of a machine. You go on to conclude that the truth must be beyond our understanding, because if we were simply the sum of mechanical processes and not at the core "magic" then you would get the sniffles and be really bummed. If you did a public survey of what is life and why is it different from a machine. It becomes painfully apparent that this is beyond the human emotion and imagination too. At lest at the start. Just saying such things requires a whole lot of faith, that’s faith in modern science just because we are not self-aware of this fact our selves Well sorry to disappoint you, but I am pretty sure that reality does not reconfigure in order to avoid letting you down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
Bluejay writes: Why are you so willing to conclude that understanding is impossible? The message of Christ is not one of nihilism, is it? "We'll never fully understand it" is hardly a reason not to try, especially when the only reason you have to believe that we'll never understand it is that you can't make the evidence match your worldview. Maybe we'll never learn everything, but we can learn something’s, and we're more likely to do it by trying to learn everything than we are by giving up; so, why should we stop trying? That thought was regards to God almighty - what are his limited / maximums. So as fools that we are, we're not in a good state for ever knowing things like that, that far up over our little heads.God can not be measured by little man, for if we did, it would mean so little to anyone hearing it and not understanding it at all. Even the bible says it is impossible to know the ways of the universal creator from start to finish. Like measuring and never getting to the end just to get a final reading.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The thread is about the creator - And if that's religious to you then that is the way it is.
The thread is about intelligent design, supposedly a branch of science. Why are you interjecting the supernatural into what is otherwise a naturalistic field of study? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Even the bible says it is impossible to know the ways of the universal creator from start to finish. Like measuring and never getting to the end just to get a final reading.
So? Intelligent design is supposed to be science. What does that have to do with ancient religious texts? (You didn't get the memo! ID is supposed to be science, not religion. You are supposed to pretend that the bible has no role in ID, nor does any other scripture or religious belief. We all know that's not true, but you have to pretend it is in order to help ID sneak back into the schools in the guise of science!) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
DevilsAdvocate writes:
The very idea of "intelligent design" aka supernatural intervention falls outside the realm of acceptable science theory therefore one cannot use this as a valid underpinning of a SCIENTIFIC theory. This is not to say that supernatural intervention is philosophically impossible, just that science cannot directly address it, because science itself is defined as describing predictable natural phenomena not unpredictable, capricious supernatural phenomena. IMHO, the idea of intelligent design belongs solely in philosophy and religion classes not in legitimate science classes (both in high school and college). Thanks for those kind words of insight. Your logic answered your own question for me. Let me point out your insightful words of wisdom.
The very idea of "intelligent design" aka supernatural intervention falls outside the realm of acceptable science theory If life has nothing supernatural about it, has nothing special, nothing greater then even bio-machinery on the molecular level. Then I truly have won this debate hands down. If man is non-supernatural, just a cleverly designed machine, programmed and built to "think" he is alive. This is what true modern science can test for, can understand, and is in the true realm of acceptable science theory today. Everyday science just to understand an everyday mechanical machine that would have us believe it is truly "alive".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Bio-molecularTony writes:
If it is a given that everything generally considered "living" can be explained as a bio-machine then isn't your concept of "truly alive" a fiction? Should we be disappointed if the reality of things does not live up to this fiction, and if so, are you suggesting that our disappointment somehow alters this reality? Everyday science just to understand an everyday mechanical machine that would have us believe it is truly "alive". Also, I strongly urge you to form complete sentences when posting. Roughly half of your sentences in the aforementioned post lack important parts, making it difficult to follow your meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
Coyote writes: (You didn't get the memo! ID is supposed to be science, not religion. You are supposed to pretend that the bible has no role in ID, nor does any other scripture or religious belief. We all know that's not true, but you have to pretend it is in order to help ID sneak back into the schools in the guise of science!) I don't really care. I don't expect the "hells angels" to feed the sick and the elderly, though it would be a great thing indeed. And I don't expect this ungodly system of things to Preach "righteousness", though we could all use some... Man is a machine, Nature is mechanical, and all life is a carefully disgusted illusion made from technological superiority. Wakeey, wakeey....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
Phage0070 writes: If it is a given that everything generally considered "living" can be explained as a bio-machine then isn't your concept of "truly alive" a fiction? Should we be disappointed if the reality of things does not live up to this fiction, and if so, are you suggesting that our disappointment somehow alters this reality? Well when you find out your "universe" is constructed on many layers of artificial "realities", from physical matter, all the way up to artificial "life" and this additional illusion of "nature" being natural. One starts to get a little rattled just thinking about it. Yes it does change your views on "realities".
Should we be disappointed if the reality of things does not live up to this fiction, and if so, are you suggesting that our disappointment somehow alters this reality? It's like winning a million dollars just to find out they've given you only fonny money.Everything is seen differently, everything shows an up front implied purpose, yet the underlying functions speak of another reality with an artificially created one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3128 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Tony writes: In playing mind games with some friends of mine, I would ask the question "what is life", and after giving the Text book definition, I point out what Respire / respiration does sound a lot like a mechanical device. You know like a car, the Gas goes in, the machine turns and compresses the gas and air the it ignites the fuel, and pow the work is done, the pistons arm pushes out. So in the same way respire sound so much just like that. If that turns out to be all that "life" is then we are all fools and life is not real and we are just machines "THINKING" are "living". Can anyone (dare try) really find the magical difference between man and machine. Is there any real magic in life that machines can never have. Give me that kind of definition of life if you can. Basically is the function of metabolising a mechanical act or something magical only to life? I say there is no life here, no magic, just basic mechanical functions of a machine. Dare to bet on this one??? Hmm, not much I disagree with here. I think the only thing we probably disagree on is whether these living "machines" can develop and evolve via natural means with no supernatural intervention or the opposite. I also think where you going awry in your anthropomorphic reasoning is this: does life imitate human-made machines or is it really that human-made machines are created to imitate the structure and functions we see in nature and life around us? I would venture the latter. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Why would you conclude that those realities are artificial? The way I see it you must do one of two things to conclude a reality is artificial: Either find proof of its creation by another being, or find proof of the true reality. Without one of those things, even if you can describe life as a machine it does not prove that such a machine did not come about naturally.
constructed on many layers of artificial "realities"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
In playing mind games with some friends of mine, I would ask the question "what is life", and after giving the Text book definition, I point out what Respire / respiration does sound a lot like a mechanical device. You know like a car, the Gas goes in, the machine turns and compresses the gas and air the it ignites the fuel, and pow the work is done, the pistons arm pushes out. Cars do not reproduce nor grow so they would fail those two requirements for life.
Can anyone (dare try) really find the magical difference between man and machine. Is there any real magic in life that machines can never have. Give me that kind of definition of life if you can. It is certainly possible that man can make machines that will one day meet all of the requirements for life. Many a sci-fi author has tackled this problem, Asimov being a notable example. IMO, you could call these machines "life", but life that is different than our own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Man is a machine, Nature is mechanical, and all life is a carefully disgusted illusion made from technological superiority. Comparitively yes, man does resemble a machine. Nature does resemble a functioning machine. But, it's not because they are machines, it's because we humans designed our machines to resemble what we intuitively recognize as a functioning system...which is nature. So we design our machines to function as natural as possible and more and more this is where technology has gone to. Systems that look almost alive. As if they were living, thinking beings...but we know better than that because machines are designed and built into existance, and not part of a natural reproductive process. So, if, like you suggest, we are designed and built, we, like machines, would, by definition, not be alive. Nature itself would simply be a functioning program and would not really exist. Nothing would be real in any sense, sort of like The Matrix, and our relationship to this "creator" would be irrelevant. The problem with all of this is you can't prove any of it objectively. Also, it would be irrelevant to our existance. The evidence gathered from the reality we experience is the only thing that is useful to us. From medicine derived from biology/chemistry to space travel derived from physics equations, our life and existance is dependant on what we learn from objectively studying our experienced reality. How does thinking that we are designed and part of a program benefit our reality in any way? "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5405 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
Coyote writes: The thread is about intelligent design, supposedly a branch of science.Why are you interjecting the supernatural into what is otherwise a naturalistic field of study? Why is it you always think intelligence must be SUPERNATURAL.Are all creatures with some level of intelligence now to be called supernatural by "scientists". Why is it you think we can not prove it was intelligently designed, just because you think intelligence must be supernatural and therefore impossible to prove? If you can't identify something intelligently designed then the problem is with you, not with the evidence, or the existence of the creator that designed it. This all starts with you more then it does with God almighty. If your a complete "X%#@$&*" then all the evidence in the whole universe is meaningless if the hearer can't understand what is being stated. So proving intelligent design is more an IQ test for you, then it is a problem of lack of evidence. If you can't understand the simplicity of the question so as to see the simplicity of the answer right in front of you. Then your the defect as regards logic and not the evidence. Well, of course not all persons have a logical argument, but this is not the case here is it. You just can't see so you think I am the blind one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024