Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 8:22 PM
39 online now:
14174dm, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (3 members, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,599 Year: 3,636/19,786 Month: 631/1,087 Week: 221/212 Day: 36/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Intelligent (maybe), but far from perfect
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 91 (218589)
06-22-2005 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MattS
08-07-2003 3:08 PM


the design contains corruption
The obvious response to the OP is that the design contains corruption.

The question is why, and that maybe something science cannot assess right now fully.

Theologically, the Bible explains why, the Fall of Man's consciousness via sin which affected the rest of the universe in a sort of weird way.

I tend to see some aspects of quantum physics involving consciousness interacting seemingly with matter to be indicative of a mechanism for direct effects via changes in consciousness, but we will see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MattS, posted 08-07-2003 3:08 PM MattS has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 47 of 91 (218590)
06-22-2005 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Jack
08-20-2003 11:55 AM


So, ProphecyExclaimed, you are telling us that every lifeform was, in fact, designed twice. Once for the 'perfect' version and then again for the 'imperfect' version, yes? That life has been designed to be flawed? Correct?

To say designed twice is clearly not what he is saying, but that the universe was indeed subject to corruption is not denied by most theists, evolutionist or creationist.

Life was designed with the capability to be flawed, yes. To say why it was designed is a theological question.

What is not debatable is that seeming "flaws" exist, at least from our perspective, and what should not be debatable but is, is the fact of ID. The universe clearly contains an embedded design, and matter and physical things essentially consist of information, an energy pattern.

To think this pattern contains no mind or intelligence behind it is unreasonable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Jack, posted 08-20-2003 11:55 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Thor, posted 06-22-2005 3:43 AM randman has responded
 Message 55 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 08-15-2005 8:30 AM randman has responded

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 3988 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 48 of 91 (218594)
06-22-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
06-22-2005 3:11 AM


To think this pattern contains no mind or intelligence behind it is unreasonable.

That's a rather bold statement. Why is it unreasonable?

I do not believe there is any mind or intelligence behind any of it, nor do I see any particular reason why there should be.

Does that make me an unreasonable person?


On the 7th day, God was arrested.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 06-22-2005 3:11 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 06-22-2005 3:52 AM Thor has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 49 of 91 (218596)
06-22-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Thor
06-22-2005 3:43 AM


maybe misguided
Information and design comes from where?

Btw, this essentially must include the question of the origin of matter and the universe because even evolutionists must admit there is design (just look at convergent evolution), but argue the design is a result of physical properties and laws and then later biological systems and thier interactions.

But it still goes back to where did the design come from?

Is it reasonable to think something can come from nothing?

And if something appears, that is an effect. What is the cause that predates it? A basic principle is cause and effect, and another basic principle is that things are created from similar things.

We create design out of the design existing in our intelligence. That real world experience indicates intelligence is necessary to create new information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Thor, posted 06-22-2005 3:43 AM Thor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Thor, posted 06-22-2005 6:17 AM randman has responded

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 3988 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 50 of 91 (218608)
06-22-2005 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
06-22-2005 3:52 AM


Re: maybe misguided
Misguided, I like that one. It does explain a lot. So, where would be the correct place to be 'guided'?

Information and design comes from where?

What is information? That is, what do you define as information? Design, now that is a human trait. It is an ability of the human brain to produce a means of achieving a certain task. So where is the task that life (or the universe itself if you want to go that far) was designed for? It's a pretty big piece of work to not have a clear purpose for its design.

But it still goes back to where did the design come from?

No, I don't reckon it does. You're saying that it has to come from somewhere, and I simply don't buy that. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that matter and energy have always existed, it didn't come from anywhere. As for design, well, attention to the most basic concepts of chemistry make much more sense to me. Particles within atoms, atoms and molecules actually react with each other, and they manage to do this without human intervention. Now, I think you'd have to agree that the universe is rather large. There is all kinds of combinations of particles and energy (which as I said, may have always been there) and all kinds of conditions in which they exist. Considering the size of the universe, I find it quite outrageous to think that atoms could NOT interract and form a complex, self replicating structure which continued to interract with it's surroundings and grow into life as we know it, if the conditions were right for it. This outer spiral arm of this unremarkable galaxy out of billions is one place where the conditions happened to be right.

Is it reasonable to think something can come from nothing?

Is it reasonable to think that we have been created and designed by some omnipotent intelligence that we've never seen? And by your general argument, if this designer had that kind of intelligence then it cannot have come out of nothing either. Something must have designed/created it too. Then, the designer of the designer can't have come from nothing, and so on...

I do not now, nor ever have, claimed that something came from nothing, which is quite different to saying that an intelligent designer is behind it all. Even if there were, then this designer would have to have come into existence at some point (something from nothing?), or alternately have always existed. Is there a reason why that can be true for a designer but not for matter and energy?

Remember, design is purely a human idea. Nature doesn't necessarily care about what we think.

By the way, calling me misguided because I don't suscribe to your unsubtantiated view comes across to me as the height of arrogance. In view of which, if I were you I'd be more careful before using the term 'unreasonable'.


On the 7th day, God was arrested.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 06-22-2005 3:52 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 06-22-2005 3:31 PM Thor has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 51 of 91 (218705)
06-22-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Thor
06-22-2005 6:17 AM


Re: maybe misguided
I think you are missing my point. There is scientific evidence in quantum physics that matter is a secondary trait to fundamental existence.

Matter does not self-exist, but a probability pattern exists which tends to manifest as matter, and thus chemistry, biology, etc,...

But the probability pattern is not inherently physical that we know of, although maybe physical is a poor term. It exists, and so is real, but appears to exist beyond normal observed limits of space-time.

For example, this probability pattern shows non-local or superluminal characteristics that defy normal parameters. We don't know if there is superluminal transference of information in entangled particles, atoms, and potentially macro-scopic objects, or if there is a hidden structure within the universe that enables this non-locality or inseparability, or maybe really it's all the same thing but from different persespectives.

What we do know is that the probability pattern (the design) is fundamental and predates physical form in a single state.

Now, I guess we can argue whether such information patterns, probability patterns, are self-existent, contain consciousness?, or are generated by something else, but imo, the self-existent angle is not very logical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Thor, posted 06-22-2005 6:17 AM Thor has not yet responded

  
Mr. Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 91 (227232)
07-29-2005 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MattS
08-07-2003 3:08 PM


Re:
Ok, one reason that we have all of these imperfections is becuase God has purposly put them on us because of our evil deeds. God may have designed us with certain flaws that would only effect us in the event that God was forced to punish us for our sins(we have all sinned, that's for sure!). Another is that God could simply be evil(I DO NOT believe that He is evil).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MattS, posted 08-07-2003 3:08 PM MattS has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AdminNosy, posted 07-29-2005 1:12 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 53 of 91 (227234)
07-29-2005 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 1:10 AM


Not on topic
This doesn't seem to have any particular connection to the topic here.

Be much, much more careful or you will start to lose posting privileges.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 1:10 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 54 of 91 (229792)
08-04-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MattS
08-07-2003 3:08 PM


Why did God get it wrong?
MattS writes:

I can go on, but you get the idea. If ID is true, then we might want to rename it SID (somewhat intelligent design), or maybe IFITD (I'll finish it tomorrow design). Maybe we are prototypes - if so I can't wait to see what the final product will look like.

Anybody with even a passing knowledge of what God (if he exists) is supposed to be like, would know that words like: omnipotent,omniescent, eternal, transcedent, immutable, unique apply to him. If he did create all this then such words would only go a limited way in quantifying him (if he existed). In other words God (if he exists) is BIG. Much bigger than the human imagination could ever hope to get a handle on. Bigger in every way: creativity, knowledge, wisdom, means, ability, skill,resourcefulness,foresight etc. He is possibly similar in his ways(if he exists - I'll stop saying this now and assume you'll place it in yourself when necessary)when he created as to us when we create things. The most obvious of these similarities would, I imagine, be purpose. That's the first reason that anyone creates anything, for a purpose.

Similar is not the same as 'same' though. If God, then in order to know why he did what he did we would have to know something about him and his ways. We would never however,get to know all his ways - for that to happen we would have to be as all-knowing as he is. We would have to be God ourselves. And to date, a created thing has never been of the same order as the thing that created it.

It seems obvious then, that the less we know about God the less we can hope to understand why he did what he did. If we don't know God at all then we couldn't suppose to know anything at all about why he did what he did. If we don't know God (at all), his purpose will not make any sense to us because we have no grasp (at all) about what his version of sense is. It is safe to suppose they differ significantly, as different as we are in every way from him. Needless to say, when it comes to whose sense carries the most weight then it will be his. Like, are YOU going to debate God?

There's no point in examining his creation with a view to establishing one way or the other, whether what he did was perfect or not. To do that you'd have to know what his idea of perfect is - in order to measure his creation against it. Similarily, there is (logically) no way to decide for/against a creator based on perceived imperfections in his design.

If you had to take a educated guess, then I suppose it is safe to assume the being who designed a heart,lung or kidney is capable of making sure they are able to withstand the attack of diseases - or to make sure the diseases don't exist in the first place. But chose, for whatever reasons not to do so.

If someone really wanted to know then the best person to ask is obviously him (if he existed)

This message has been edited by iano, 05-Aug-2005 12:59 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MattS, posted 08-07-2003 3:08 PM MattS has not yet responded

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 91 (233349)
08-15-2005 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
06-22-2005 3:11 AM


Life was designed with the capability to be flawed, yes.

Perhaps you might tell us how so many organisms have so many flaws... yet the flaws still work pretty well? Well enough that creationists tend to defend these things as not being flawed at all?

How does The Fall (TM) -- to which I'm sure you're alluding -- invert a retina? Re-route a nerve (the recurrent laryngeal)? How did bat lungs get corrupted from their bird-like original state into the inefficient mammalian form they now have?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 06-22-2005 3:11 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 08-15-2005 1:02 PM Darwin's Terrier has responded
 Message 61 by Jazzns, posted 08-16-2005 2:09 PM Darwin's Terrier has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 91 (233417)
08-15-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Darwin's Terrier
08-15-2005 8:30 AM


via deeper physics
In order to explain how I think it happened, I'd have to get into physics and perspectives on reality, which Ned has tried to ban me for.

Suffice to say, what we think of as physical reality consists first as a potential for form, QM, and takes on specific form subsequent to events. The earth in space-time is essentially a streak, not a ball, sort of like a large pole.

Imo, it is likely that pole can be affected and cause a vibration so that a different potential reality of it manifests, and thus past, present and future are all affected at once.

To get more into it, we'd probably have to open a new thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 08-15-2005 8:30 AM Darwin's Terrier has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ramoss, posted 08-15-2005 4:11 PM randman has responded
 Message 59 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 08-16-2005 12:57 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 63 by deerbreh, posted 08-16-2005 2:43 PM randman has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 57 of 91 (233475)
08-15-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
08-15-2005 1:02 PM


Re: via deeper physics
YOu seem to be projecting intelligence onto qm.. but, as far as I have seen, there is nothing to your assertions but unsubstantiated claims.

How do you test for your claims about how QM connects with conciousness?
HOw do you test ID in qm?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 08-15-2005 1:02 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 08-15-2005 4:17 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2977 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 91 (233479)
08-15-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ramoss
08-15-2005 4:11 PM


Re: via deeper physics
Ramos, it's a different thread topic. I can't get into it here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ramoss, posted 08-15-2005 4:11 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 91 (233680)
08-16-2005 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
08-15-2005 1:02 PM


Re: via deeper physics
And that is supposed to be some sort of answer? The Fall inverted vertebrate retinas via... *excuse me*... quantum fucking mechanics?!

Seriously, I have to ask... are you taking the piss?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 08-15-2005 1:02 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 08-16-2005 1:06 PM Darwin's Terrier has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 91 (233681)
08-16-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Darwin's Terrier
08-16-2005 12:57 PM


Re: via deeper physics
The problem is that Randman sees quantum mechanics not as an approximate description of the behavior of very small things, but as a scientific basis for magic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 08-16-2005 12:57 PM Darwin's Terrier has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 08-18-2005 4:54 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019