When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

Hi Ringo, No he is the designer of things that help him to carry on a conversation and make his existence a little more bearable. You do have a reading comphrension problem don't you?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."

Repeating the debunked and discredited is also a tendency with you fellows.

quote:

---

Since you know that information has to begin to exist in a mind

---

You have an expert (at least one) telling you that this is not true yet you seem unable to acknowledge it and keep repeating the same wrong statement as if repetition will somehow make it correct.Things were being 'built' long before any human (or animal) brain came to exist and will continue after we are gone. It is a fundamental property of any life we know about - it decreases local entropy by using energy (it creates limited order out of otherwise disorder). it organises, in simple terms. To do that requires information - whether an amoeba or a human.
In fact, as has been said, non-biological systems also interact in ways which can be classed as information flow, but I'm going to stick to life because it so clearly illustrates your central fallacy and is not really open to much doubt.

The laws of chemistry. Nucelotide bases engage in specific Watson-Crick pairing. It's no more a function of "information", really, than any other site or configuration-specific chemical reaction. For instance, if you react toluene with chlorine, you'll get a mixture of 2-chloromethyl benzene and 4-chloromethyl bezene, but you'll get no detectable 3-chloromethyl benzene. Not because toluene contains "information" about where nucleophilic groups should be added, but because the structure of the molecule and the laws of physics dictate that's what will happen.When you drop a stone it doesn't plummet to the ground because it has "information" telling it to do so. It falls because of the laws of physics. Why? The natural world contains mindless processes that are able to create information, such as random mutation and natural selection.

Hi Biker, Since there is no theory for the existence at singularity anything concerning what existed there is a guess or someone's imagination. Actually I have read it and have been told by one of our resident cosmologist Son Goku that was the themperature that existed at the point the universe began to expand.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."

Yet more misrepresentation. That may well be what Son Goku said but it is unrelated to what YOU said.YOU said... Can you really not see the difference and the error you made?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yes. Though I would point out that changing a parameter is not changing the code. Even if I write the program, this does not give me magical powers to influence the output of a random number generator and make its output non-random. Yes; that's one of the trivial differences between a simulation and reality. However, it can output information that was not fed into it, otherwise there would be no point in writing a computer program.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I didn't say they were. I said that information doesn't require thought. I'm saying what I said: There is no "message" in DNA chemistry. There is no "communication". There is only chemistry. You're just confusing yourself by trying to understand chemistry in terms of information and messages. As I've said many times, that information is contained in the structure of the molecule. Try to understand that instead of asking over and over and over again if I really really mean it. Once again, the structure of a molecule determines its behaviour. You said yourself that the mRNA "goes outside the nucleus to get the ribsome". How can it "get the ribosome" without being in the same place? Because you quoted scientists as saying that. You misunderstood them but you seemed to be suggesting that you got the idea from them. I'm the one who keeps trying to tell you to forget about information and try to understand chemistry. I'm trying to tell you what scientists have concluded - and I'm sure that somebody else on the thread will correct me if I step out of line about what scientists have concluded. It isn't me that disagrees with the scientists. It's you.And the really ludicrous part of it is that you quote scientists who use the word "information" as if to suggest that they agree with you. You seem to be suggesting that they disagree with their own conclusions. I don't know any such thing. Information doesn't have to exist in a mind. You're the one jumping through hoops, insisting that 2 + 2 = 5.You don't understand the first thing about chemistry and yet you insist that chemistry requires a mind. Nothing you have quoted from your own sources suggests anything except purely natural, chemical, mechanical processes. Scientists do understand those processes, which is why we have all the drugs and other useful and dangerous chemicals that we use every day.Your argument is from ignorance. You don't understand how it works, you ferociously refuse to understand how it works, so you conclude that only God could do it.You're wrong. Almost everything you've posted in the entire thread is wrong. And it all boils down to your refusal to learn anything.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

That's a real gem. Coming from you, that has to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen on EvC.Edited by Ringo, : Spellering.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Hi DC85, If you believe evolution creates information please present your argumentation with source materials. Then where did the information come from that a mind can interpet? And what does that have to do with information.Information being: The dictionary definition (computer science case in particular) will suffice: "Processed, stored or transmitted data." I thought I answered the question asked. I have never said anything about a complex Universe.I have never said a designer was required to create a universe.You are perfectly within your rights to ask any question you have on your mind. Any question is reasonable.You may not get an answer.I have asked a lot of questions on this site that has never been answered.I just have the deep down feeling that for an entity to create this universe that entity would have to be very intelligent whether we consider this universe complex or not.There are so many laws in effect to keep this universe running like a fine watch which would take an engineering feat a little better that what mankind can produce.When I think about sitting here at my computer spinning around at almost a thousand miles an hour while traveling around the sun at the average speed of 66,615.948 miles per hour which is traveling around the Milky Way at about 486,000 miles per hour
I get goose bumps. I am traveling at over 553,615 miles per hour. I have no sensation of traveling at that speed, that is awsome.Therefore I believe an intelligent designer created this universe and put all the laws in place for it to function.The only other choice I have is that it happened by accident or chance which is just too hard to swallow.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."

Hi crash, Well no random mutation will only alter existing information. It does not create new information.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

Hi Biker,
Since there is no theory for the existence at singularity anything concerning what existed there is a guess or someone's imagination.

---

LOL...so an expert in fundamental physics as well as information processing eh? Sort-of right if you are using the word theory correctly - which is probably accident but let's not worry about that. There are plenty of hypotheses but no data to support or, more importantly, refute them for the simple reason that we don't think you CAN get data out of a BH. Roger Penrose actually gave a name to the problem - Cosmic Censorship.
The hypothesis (weak) states that no singularity can be visible from spacetime coord hypothetical=future null infinity.In words you will understand better - all singularities are invisible to any observer at any spacetime co-ordinate -> infinity.
If Penrose is correct then we will never get direct evidence from the singularity, though we may be able to infer/deduce more indirectly.

quote:

---

Actually I have read it and have been told by one of our resident cosmologist Son Goku that was the themperature that existed at the point the universe began to expand.

---

Red herring fallacy I'm afraid. Different times, different properties. We know fine well what the temperatures of the early universe must have been - we don't know if the term has meaning with regard to any initial naked singularity.

quote:

---

I just have the deep down feeling that for an entity to create this universe that entity would have to be very intelligent whether we consider this universe complex or not.

---

No, I think not. You have the deep faith of the true creationist and the same imperviousness to fact.
Why not address the contradictions in your own beliefs before trying to learn some science.
You have not addressed the issue of who created this intelligence. Surely it didn't just pop out of nowhere - complex systems certainly don't do that - they have to be 'built' or evolved. So this designer must, too, have evolved, which means someone created HIS spacetime , and so you cycle endlessly round and round, getting nowhere, adding nothing but complication to what we already know.
In other words, Occam's Razor declares this to be an entirely redundant hypothesis of no merit.

quote:

---

There are so many laws in effect to keep this universe running like a fine watch which would take an engineering feat a little better that what mankind can produce.

---

You overestimate our abilities considerably.Yes, I was wondering when your creationist sources would raise the fine-tuning issue. I could just give you the standard resonse - the anthropic principle. Clearly we are hear to observe. That fact means that the universe must be stable enough for life to have evolved which means that the physical constants MUST be what they are so rather than improbable it is actually a dead cert.
Not a very satisfying answer is it?
Others include the evolutionary hypothesis from Lee Smolin which I like a lot.
The whole issue is, I'm afraid, another red herring. It offers no evidence for a designer because, as we have seen, it merely puts the same problems back one stage. How come the designer evolved in a stable universe? Same question...Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Hi Dr, Do you really believe such a thing exists?If you do why not try this random mutation generator here.It is a barrel of fun.You can mutate at the rate of one mutation at the time or more. Could you give a simple example?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."

Ahh So it's this argument. "Universe has the perfect balance for things as we know it to exist so that might be proof of a creator"Yet another absurdity.... Why? Because that only shows that things exist the way they do BECAUSE the Universe exists the way it does. If the Universe was a different way then things would exist a different way.The fatal flaw in your logic is that you assume the things in and the laws within the Universe were created to be in it rather then the product of the nature of the Universe. Your talking about DNA correct? Let me Understand you Stars can form because of natural processes but DNA cannot.Even though we observe changes in DNA from population to population and generation to generation from the very natural process of imperfect copies of imperfect copies replicating imperfectly.... That would be evolution in a nutshell Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Now who told you this? Have you studied microbiology?