Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 31 of 702 (569224)
07-21-2010 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by onifre
07-20-2010 6:14 PM


Re: When its intelligent
Well, is it perfectly acceptable to assume that something is derived from purely materialistic, or naturalistic causes simply because that is a default position? Even if there is no empirical evidence for this, and even if it does nothing to explain the precise fine tuning necessary for the stars and the planets and for life to exist. Is it really enough to just say that well, maybe its only fine tuned because it is one of zillions of universes (infinite universes even can you imagine), most of which are not fine tuned for life to exist, but this one just happens to be? Isn't that a flight of fanciful dreaming, the kind that you claim to be so opposed to?
Is it reasonable to say that this intelligence which enables us to ponder the origins of our path to existence, is derived entirely from un-intelligence And the only reason we have to assume that this intelligence arose from un-intelligence is simply because some have proclaimed that only unintelligent explanations can be considered? No matter how absurd the idea of intelligence spontaneously arising from un-intelligence is, even without a shred of evidence to prove it so, it is the only acceptable answer. And this is considered scientific?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 07-20-2010 6:14 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 3:14 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 36 by articulett, posted 07-21-2010 3:15 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 3:16 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 07-21-2010 12:57 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

articulett
Member (Idle past 3372 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


(1)
Message 32 of 702 (569225)
07-21-2010 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
07-20-2010 10:11 PM


Re: Logical Answer
As for complex organized things, what we observe is disintegration, deterioriation, weakening, a lessening of the varieties of species, increase of disease and so forth.
One could give evolutiion a huge head start by skipping on ahead of abiogenesis, placing a thousand fully developed living organisms, having no means of reproduction singly in a thousand perfectly suited terrariums for them (one in each terrarium) to begin the process of evolving and every last one of them would soon die. The unlikelihood of abiogenesis from non life developing would be grossly compounded from these thousand models.
You are confused. What we actually observe is that species evolve or they go extinct. For example, when you treat an infection with an antibiotic, if you don't kill all the bacteria, the ones that survive will pass on whatever genetic tendencies that helped them survive on to their offspring (thus the bacteria will evolve into antibiotic resistant bacteria.) This happens to all life. In humans, we see increasing diseases because, for the first time in history, people are living long enough to get diseases they never lived long enough to get before.... science enabled them to do that. But there are way more species of life that we can even begin to count. How many species are there? – Why Evolution Is True Sure, lots of them are icky to us, but you are under a delusion if you think there is a lessening of species. There's a lessening of larger complex animals because they take a long time to evolve, and humans are changing the environment faster than evolution can work. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any gods stepping in to save the polar bears, orangutans, tigers, giant redwoods, etc. But insect species, are thriving. So are extremophiles. Life on this planet will thrive even after the self-important humans are gone, I suspect.
Regarding your weird hypothetical. If a bacteria (or any life) had no means of reproducing, then naturally, they'd die out. So would you, if your cells could not copy themselves. Humans as a species would die out if they couldn't reproduce. Duh. But one bacteria on a plate of agar, can grow into a thriving colony. We do it all the time in science lab. You can grow huge quantities of icky, stinky stuff, just by putting a little of your saliva on an agar plate. You could die, but the bacteria in your mouth could live on an on and evolve so long as they had the correct medium to grow and reproduce in. Of course, that single first bacteria would die, but as a species, the bacteria could live on and evolve. We do a great little experiment in Biology class where we see which mouthwashes and such keep saliva bacteria from growing. They don't need any help from any gods to take off, I assure you. Life tends to happen wherever it's not being prevented from happening. You have a basic understanding of germ theory, right? Also, I'm assuming you understand why we fix our pets and practice birth control. DNA creates organisms that are good at copying their DNA.
Also, all organisms die the same species they are born as. It's the offspring that survive and reproduce the best that determines what a species will become over time. If an organism cannot copy it's DNA, it can't evolve. If it finds a way to get it's DNA copied-- even if it's by injecting itself into host DNA, it can evolve. Each organism (carrier of DNA) will die, but it's DNA will live on... and that's all that is necessary for evolution to occur. Evolution happens on the DNA level-- humans observe it on the organism level. The DNA builds organisms that either live long enough to reproduce or don't. Those that do, pass on the DNA that helped them do so to their offspring.
As explained, no matter how you slice it, life DID come from non-life... even if your god "magicked" it. However, a god doesn't seem necessary, and if one exists he seems inordinately slow, wasteful, and cruel given all that we've come to understand about life. The atoms that make up life are abundant in the universe and the precursor materials for life come together pretty easily. It takes eons, however, to get bigger "complex" stuff like dinosaurs... and us.
I think that if there was a god, he's got a lot of explaining to do as to why he made life like tuberculosis and Ebola and tape worms and other icky stuff, don't you think? Why poop, death, suffering, extinction, sex, struggle, and way more gametes than necessary when he can poof life into and out of existence at will? Why material-life at all? Why not all heaven all the time for all critters that he created?
From a scientific perspective, there's a lot more problems in your god-poofed-life-from-non-life version of abiogenesis than there is for the scientific version. Of course, if you keep yourself as ignorant as you sound like you are regarding evolution, then you may be able to continue to convince yourself that your goddidit explanation makes much more sense. And if you think your salvation depends on your believing such a story, then I support your continued confusion on the topic, and I hope you'll forgive my attempts at educating you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 07-20-2010 10:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 7:43 AM articulett has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 33 of 702 (569226)
07-21-2010 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Granny Magda
07-20-2010 11:06 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
I see, so you actually have a book that proves the exact lineage of man, from bacteria all the way until Richard Feynman? Well, that's really great Granny-why not just share the name of that book, so that everyone on this website can know that that exact puzzle is solved-and we can put the whole issue to rest. What is that book that unlocked all the secrets of the universe and revealed so much authority to you? Surely you can't be so selfish as to want to hide that empirical evidence all for yourself, could you?
I mean, its not like you would just make up that you know the path of humanity from flecks of sand to Feynman-right? Because that would be fucking stupid to make that claim. And you are not fucking stupid are you?
Or perhaps its just that you are so brain-washed by your own believes, that you are only capable of repeating the same ritualistic mantra so famous for people of your mindset-"Just read a book, just read a book, I am a fucking stupid evolutionary robot, just read a book..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 07-20-2010 11:06 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 3:12 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 48 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2010 5:26 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 702 (569227)
07-21-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 3:03 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
I see, so you actually have a book that proves the exact lineage of man, from bacteria all the way until Richard Feynman?
As GM did not say or imply this in any way, I think we can safely assume that she hasn't.
I mean, its not like you would just make up that you know the path of humanity from flecks of sand to Feynman-right?
No, of course not. This is why GM never said any such thing.
Because that would be fucking stupid to make that claim. And you are not fucking stupid are you?
No, of course not. In this GM differs from the imaginary people whom you made up in your head.
Or perhaps its just that you are so brain-washed by your own believes, that you are only capable of repeating the same ritualistic mantra so famous for people of your mindset-"Just read a book, just read a book, I am a fucking stupid evolutionary robot, just read a book..."
If you are tired of people pointing out your gross and contemptible ignorance, and the obvious remedy for it, then the solution to this is in your own hands. Apply the remedy. Cure your ignorance. Learn something about the subject you're discussing.
Instead you get all cross and call people "fucking stupid robots" just because they can all see what's wrong with you and what you need to do to cure it. Really, this is your problem, not theirs.
If you were suffering from bubonic plague, would you throw a temper tantrum every time someone advocated the use of antibiotics?
Perhaps you would. And the consequences thereof would very nearly serve you right.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:03 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


Message 35 of 702 (569228)
07-21-2010 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 2:45 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Even if there is no empirical evidence for this, and even if it does nothing to explain the precise fine tuning necessary for the stars and the planets and for life to exist.
If the universe is "fine-tuned for life", why does the only life in the universe appear to live on a single planet surrounding a dismally typical star in a boringly average galaxy?
I mean, by these standards a fork is fine-tuned for eating soup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 2:45 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:31 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:33 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 84 by ICdesign, posted 07-21-2010 5:43 PM crashfrog has replied

articulett
Member (Idle past 3372 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


(1)
Message 36 of 702 (569229)
07-21-2010 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 2:45 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Bolderdash
We can test naturalistic explanations, refine our knowledge, and find out more. With magical explanations, we cannot do that. Any "supernatural" explanation is akin to a "magical" explanation. There's no way to tease it out from a myth or a story or a misperception.
There's an infinity of magical explanations for any given phenomenon-- an infinity of wrong explanations. There is no method to tell a true magical explanation from a false one. There is no way to find out more or to refine and hone our knowledge. The truth doesn't have to be "believed in" to be the truth.
There is an infinity of beliefs, but there is only one objective truth, --and so far, science is the only verifiable method we have for finding out that truth. I'm talking about the truth that is the same for everybody no matter what they believe-- like the fact that our sun is another star or that our earth is round and spinning though it seems flat and static.
We KNOW humans makes stuff up to explain that which they don't understand, and we know they are easily fooled. We know humans make up religions. We know lots of mentally ill people have thought they were gods or sons of gods or prophets. We know that humans imagine themselves much more important and central to the universe than they are. We know that humans have been wrong about so many things and that science has a hard time finding the right answers when humans feel saved or special for believing the wrong ones (See: Galileo).
So until someone comes up with some evidence we can measure or test or refine or hone regarding whatever supernatural things they believe in, we've got to treat all magical beliefs the way religious people treat all the magical beliefs they don't believe in. Saying that an invisible undetectable guy poofed things into existence is NOT a testable theory. Science would not have gotten far if scientists were content with that for an explanation.
If there were evidence that consciousness could exist without a material brain, then I'm sure vast numbers of scientists would be eager to refine and hone that information for their own benefit. I know I would. But until there's evidence that invisible beings can exist, it's really hard for me to care what you or any other true believer claims such entities did. The brainwashing that worked to convince your faith-added mind, won't work on me. You have to already be indoctrinated for that stuff to sound like it's a meaningful argument for the biblical god or whatever it is you believe in. If entities (gods, demons, angels, souls, ghosts, succubi, etc.) are not detectable by scientific means, then I doubt they'd be detectable by any other means either. That makes them indistinguishable from mythological or nonexistent beings as far as the evidence is concerned. The nice thing about science, is that there are no "divine truths" that only special people with the right "faith" can access through revelation or other suspect means. Scientists don't claim to have access to "divine truths" like gurus and priests do.
It's not the people who believed in faith-healing that came up with cures for malaria, broken bones, diabetes, etc. When you believe the wrong thing, it can get in the way of finding out the truth.
So that is why the scientific method is scientific and appeals to magic are not. You can believe whatever you want, but until you have evidence, you are in the same boat as believers in Greek Myths or Scientologists or Mormons...
Facts count more than faith in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 2:45 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:48 AM articulett has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 702 (569230)
07-21-2010 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 2:45 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Well, is it perfectly acceptable to assume that something is derived from purely materialistic, or naturalistic causes simply because that is a default position?
Yes.
Even if there is no empirical evidence for this ...
But, of course, there is. That's why it's the default position.
And this is considered scientific?
That depends who's doing the considering. Scientists consider it scientific. Halfwitted religious bigots who don't know science from a hole in the ground consider it unscientific.
Me, I tend to agree with people who know about science about science, but hey, that's just the way I roll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 2:45 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 8:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 38 of 702 (569231)
07-21-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
07-21-2010 3:14 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Perhaps because that is the way it was designed?
What's your explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 3:14 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 3:45 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 39 of 702 (569232)
07-21-2010 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
07-21-2010 3:14 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Perhaps because that is the way it was designed?
What's your explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 3:14 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


(1)
Message 40 of 702 (569235)
07-21-2010 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 3:31 AM


Re: When its intelligent
What's your explanation?
Life is a highly unlikely phenomenon in a universe not designed for it, barely suitable for it, and at best - unwittingly hostile to it.
I think the more you reflect on how the domain of life is the thinnest possible shell on a tiny planet, with instant death both above and below, it becomes stunningly obvious how this universe isn't a divinely-designed playground for divinely-designed playmates, it's a highly transient and fragile phenomenon - and very much the result of chance. And amazing, for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:31 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 41 of 702 (569236)
07-21-2010 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by articulett
07-21-2010 3:15 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Well, its a good speech. When you actually HAVE facts to back up the extraordinary claims made by evolutionists it will be so much more convincing.
Of course, you can always just claim like Dr. A and Granny that the facts are all in a magic book, and then just run away from the responsibility of proving that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by articulett, posted 07-21-2010 3:15 AM articulett has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 3:49 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 3:58 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 4:00 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 47 by Parasomnium, posted 07-21-2010 4:43 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 10:01 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 42 of 702 (569237)
07-21-2010 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 3:48 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Bolder-dash writes:
Of course, you can always just claim like Dr. A and Granny that the facts are all in a magic book, and then just run away from the responsibility of proving that.
They never claimed that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:48 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 4:01 AM Huntard has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 702 (569238)
07-21-2010 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 3:48 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Well, its a good speech. When you actually HAVE facts to back up the extraordinary claims made by evolutionists it will be so much more convincing.
Wee have facts enough to convince biologists, who are familiar with the facts. But we will never have facts enough to convince someone who is disgustingly ignorant of the facts and who throws silly tantrums when it's suggested to him that he might learn something about the facts.
Of course, you can always just claim like Dr. A and Granny that the facts are all in a magic book, and then just run away from the responsibility of proving that.
You know, if you told fewer really stupid lies, people would be less inclined to think of you as a really stupid liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:48 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


Message 44 of 702 (569239)
07-21-2010 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 3:48 AM


Re: When its intelligent
When you actually HAVE facts to back up the extraordinary claims made by evolutionists it will be so much more convincing.
Well, we do have the facts. We have a continuous morphological pattern of development of species in the fossil record, which is consistent with the stratigraphy, which is in turn consistent with the genetic phylogenies. We have observations of natural selection resulting in new species. We have genetic programming experiments that produce surprising complexity by selection and mutation from highly simple precursors. We have microbiology experiments that do the same thing with living creatures.
We have ample evidence for all of the elements of evolution. If you don't believe me, that's fine, examples can be produced if you ask for them. But what would they prove to you? You don't know anything about evolution. You don't know anything about science, or how to draw conclusions from evidence. You have a completely wrong idea of what the theory even is. To you, evolution is a religion. Somehow you've got it in your head that evolution is how atheists practice religion.
It's not. It's how scientists practice science. All you know is name-calling. Why would anyone spend their precious time trying to prove anything to you, when it's obvious you'll just spit all over their work?
Why not start asking questions instead of making pronouncements? Instead of telling us how dumb all scientists must be, why not ask yourself what it is about the theory of evolution that is so convincing it even convinced the Pope?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:48 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by tsig, posted 07-21-2010 4:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 702 (569240)
07-21-2010 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Huntard
07-21-2010 3:49 AM


Re: When its intelligent
They never claimed that.
Well of course not. That goes without saying.
I sometimes wonder whether people like Bolder-dash tell lies in the hope of actually deceiving someone, or whether it is merely a compulsion akin to Tourette's syndrome.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 3:49 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 4:09 AM Dr Adequate 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