|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4819 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi jar,
jar writes: I know you think that but it is irrelevant and tells us nothing about what happened. Whether there was a designer or not simply doesn't matter, we still need to figure out how the designer did it. If the designer is not in control why do we have to figure out how the designer did it? I still don't understand if the universe has not always existed in some form how it could exist today. Unless it was caused to begin to exist by some unknown process out of non-existence Either the universe has always existed in some form. OR The universe began to exist out of non-existence. I still go with the idea that it has always existed in some form and was assemblied into the present form by some event. I believe that event is best explained by an intelligent designer. The concept that the universe began to exist by itself without cause, out of non-existence does not seem possible or logical.
jar writes: That is what science is examining. When we know maybe someone will tell you. All those ideas I can find to read about require existence to exist for the universe to begin to exist. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Jar writes: ........ we still need to figure out how the designer did it. The designer did it because the designer is both omnipotent and omni-scient, i.e. all/omni powerful and all/omni scient-ifically intelligent. Now, to be fair and balanced, that should require no more hard observable evidence than science's required perequisite for the alleged BB singularity. One is essentially no more faith based than the other. It's just that the hypothetical premises from which one interprets what is observed is different, according to ideology. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Either the universe has always existed in some form. OR The universe began to exist out of non-existence. Well, here's one possible alternative. This universe is the result of the destruction of a previous universe. The point is that we don't know what came before this universe, and in the absence of any evidence of what came before this universe, there's no basis to assign probabilities to any of the different possibilities. Another way to look at it is this: if time began when the universe began, there is no before. If there's no before, it's irrational to even ask the question what did the universe come from. It didn't come from anything, it didn't come from nothing. There was no before. Now, if it gives you comfort to suppose there was a creator, go right ahead and do that. But don't pretend that that supposition answers any questions. It doesn't. It's just to comfort you. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The designer did it because the designer is both omnipotent and omni-scient, i.e. all/omni powerful and all/omni scient-ifically intelligent.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I understand that you don't understand it and that you are satisfied with "the designer did it" as an explanation, but some of us understand that doesn't tell us how anything happened.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz writes: Jar writes: ........ we still need to figure out how the designer did it. The designer did it because the designer is both omnipotent and omni-scient, i.e. all/omni powerful and all/omni scient-ifically intelligent. Why the designer did it is irrelevant and unimportant to understand HOW it happened. Read what you quoted. Where in what I said do you find the question of "why"? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I have said more than once that the information in a molecule - any molecule - consists of the structure of the molecule. The sources that you quoted (some of them, anyway) understand that. You don't seem to, so you'd be better off forgeting about the whole information side of it and just thinking about the structure.
These folks say there is information, instructions contained in DNA that is required for replication. ICANT writes:
A grain of sand doesn't reproduce itself, so it doesn't need any information for that purpose. A grain of sand does contain information, of course. Are you saying a grain of sand contains information of how to reproduce itself? A salt crystal does contain all the information it needs to reproduce itself.
ICANT writes:
Of course. Its structure is information in the same sense that DNA's structure is information.
Can a grain of sand process information? ICANT writes:
What makes you think the new cells aren't produced by the old ones? I have billions of cells that die each day. Those billions of cells are replaced each day. The new ones are not created by the dying ones but they contain the same information. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
ICANT writes:
No, not "everybody."Ringo writes: You'd be better off forgetting about information entirely and trying to understand the chemistry. Why? Everybody else talks about it. I do not consider DNA to be information. Rather, I consider it part of a causal process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buzsaw.
Buzsaw writes: My position has consistently been that crafted evidence applies to designed whereas it does not to things effected naturally by environs and elements alone. I think I'll give you another chance to make that make sense before I try to respond to it. -----
Buzsaw writes: With few exceptions there is no gradient. Basically, you're saying that aliens can tell designed things from undesigned things, except in cases when they can't. This is no more helpful than anything else you have written so far. I'm asking you to deal with the cases where there are gradients. You have provided no way to tell when something is designed. Literally, none. So, when I come across those cases where it's hard to tell, I have no guidelines by which to determine whether something is or isn't designed. So, I conclude that a naive alien (i.e. one that has never seen Earth before) could not reliably determine what is intelligently designed and what isn't, as you claimed. I agree with you that designed things can often be recognized as designed, even intelligently designed, without much difficulty. But, without formalizing the criteria whereby we make this distinction, there is no guarantee that our way of identifying design will work on things outside of our own design tradition. So, please, formalize the criteria! Tell us what they are, and how we can identify them! -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes: Thus the information is separate from the media that it comes in. So, do you believe that I can produce two identical DNA molecules, one of which has a certain quantity of information, and the other of which has no information? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
All information requires a thought process. Not really. Random mutation and natural selection is one process by which nature creates genetic information with no need of intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Anglagard writes: Why the designer did it is irrelevant and unimportant to understand HOW it happened. Read what you quoted. Where in what I said do you find the question of "why"? My answer answers both the hows and whyfors. Reread it thoughtfully. A designer having all power and all knowledge is not limited in capability. How did he do it? That's already been answered previously in this thread. He assembled the elements from the earth or whatever realm he was working and via work created. Then he rested from his work. If you have enough energy, resources and knowledge you can do anything that you purpose to do. He did all that all of the kings men and the kings horses, so to speak, have been unable to do; things like creating usful life. You people think that what our best scientists over the decades with all of their apparatus and intelligence have failed to do, i.e. create useful life, natural means did via alleged biogenesis and evolution, evolution being achieved by natural selection and random mutation, both void of an intelligent designer. You are the people who appear to be exercising the greater faith, due to the enormity and progressive continuity of complex design effected over time which we observe. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You people think that what our best scientists over the decades with all of their apparatus and intelligence have failed to do, i.e. create useful life, natural means did via alleged biogenesis and evolution, evolution being achieved by natural selection and random mutation, both void of an intelligent designer. Yes. Evolution by natural selection and random mutation is more creative, and faster in doing so, than any known intelligence. That's why intelligent designers - like shipwrights, aeronautical engineers, and electricians - are using selection and mutation to design airplanes, hulls, and radios. We need no faith to come to these conclusions because the evidence is manifest and has been set plain in front of your face for seven years. When are you going to start paying attention to it? If, after all this time, you still don't understand it, maybe it's time to stop making the same old refuted pronouncements and start asking questions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz writes: Anglagard writes: Why the designer did it is irrelevant and unimportant to understand HOW it happened. Read what you quoted. Where in what I said do you find the question of "why"? My answer answers both the hows and whyfors. Reread it thoughtfully. A designer having all power and all knowledge is not limited in capability. How did he do it? That's already been answered previously in this thread. He assembled the elements from the earth or whatever realm he was working and via work created. Then he rested from his work. If you have enough energy, resources and knowledge you can do anything that you purpose to do. He did all that all of the kings men and the kings horses, so to speak, have been unable to do; things like creating usful life. You people think that what our best scientists over the decades with all of their apparatus and intelligence have failed to do, i.e. create useful life, natural means did via alleged biogenesis and evolution, evolution being achieved by natural selection and random mutation, both void of an intelligent designer. You are the people who appear to be exercising the greater faith, due to the enormity and progressive continuity of complex design effected over time which we observe. Can't even get the attribution right for the quote Buz? Read what you write because it is just utter nonsense. How did he assemble "the elements from the earth or whatever realm he was working and via work created"? Can't you see that tells us absolutely nothing; that it is no different then saying he made a mud figure and blew magic breath into it? Come on Buz. I'm sorry but your designer is just a pitiful joke, not even a very good one. How he do it Buz? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Buzsaw writes:
We haven't failed to create life any more than we've failed to put a man on Mars. We haven't tried to do it yet because we're still busy figuring out how to do it. You people think that what our best scientists over the decades with all of their apparatus and intelligence have failed to do, i.e. create useful life.... When we do it - and it seems quite likely that we will do it some day - it will be because we figured out how nature does it. And the same applies to any "designer" that you can postulate. Even if you do come up with empirical evidence that some "designer" created all of the life on earth, all that will show is that he figured out how nature does it. Edited by Ringo, : Added missing word "out". Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024