|
Author
|
Topic: How does Complexity demonstrate Design
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
|
Message 91 of 321 (116889)
06-20-2004 3:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by bob_gray
06-20-2004 3:20 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
bob_gray98 Well in the quote you put forth can find definitions for the words used in it. Absolutistic function does not exist anywhere I can find it. I guess we poor slobs must be content to use language for the purposes of communication rather than for the confusion of we mere mortals by the expansive,superincumbent, genius of those who are clearly our betters. We are not worthy!! LOLOLOL
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by bob_gray, posted 06-20-2004 3:20 PM | | bob_gray has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 93 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 1:24 AM | | sidelined has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 92 of 321 (116993)
06-21-2004 1:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by sidelined
06-20-2004 12:14 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
sidelined writes: What the hell is "absolutistic function"? Is that a lack of understanding you are showing or are you just having fun again? Really, I would like to know. Enlighten me. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by sidelined, posted 06-20-2004 12:14 PM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by sidelined, posted 06-21-2004 1:36 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 93 of 321 (116996)
06-21-2004 1:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by sidelined
06-20-2004 3:34 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
sidelined writes: We are not worthy!! Considering your inability to understand language that a second year college student would find routine, I would have to agree.....you are not worthy! Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by sidelined, posted 06-20-2004 3:34 PM | | sidelined has not replied |
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
|
|
Message 94 of 321 (116999)
06-21-2004 1:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 1:18 AM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
DarkStar
Is that a lack of understanding you are showing or are you just having fun again? Really, I would like to know. Enlighten me. I am having fun as well as asking you to explain the meaning of absolutistic function since I,in my denseness, cannot find the word anywhere.Therefore,I humbly beseech thee to give the origin of the phrase you have used here and enlighten myself and others as to the meaning of said phrase.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 1:18 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 95 of 321 (117001)
06-21-2004 1:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 1:24 AM
|
|
DS, this is just stupid. What a second-year college student - or anyone else with sense, for that matter - would find routine is the realization that the purpose of language is to communicate, not to obfuscate. But between your purple prose and your deep emnity towards readable color schemes, it's obvious to the most casual observer that your interest lies only in self-aggrandizement, not in rational discourse. You can adopt readable prose and start writing clearly - and elucidate when asked, like the rest of us - or you can look forward to being relegated to the sidelines of debate. (Er, no pun intended, Sidelined.) There's considerably more interesting people than you to talk to here. You won't be missed. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-21-2004 12:40 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 1:24 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 96 of 321 (117003)
06-21-2004 1:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by MrHambre
06-14-2004 4:56 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
MrHambre writes: So what's your perception? It would be great for intelligent design creationists DarkStar inserts: which I have never claimed to be. if we could all assume that an intelligent designer would intend for there to be a world full of mass extinctions, birth defects, excruciating and incurable diseases, and so on. However, since you want to believe there's a designer anyway, DarkStar inserts: Again, something I have never said. I have acknowledged the patterns, designs, and intelligent designs evident in nature and throughout the universe based solely upon personal observation and investigation. you have to concoct an explanation that makes use of the "sin factor" DarkStar inserts: Another premise that I have not laid claim to but only referenced as an explanation proffered by creationists as to the reason for conditions that currently exist. and other convenient but unscientific details.
Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by MrHambre, posted 06-14-2004 4:56 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2004 10:26 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 97 of 321 (117013)
06-21-2004 2:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 1:24 AM
|
|
A short break
I think you've had enough time. Now it is time for a short (a day or so?) break from posting to this forum.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 1:24 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 98 of 321 (117142)
06-21-2004 1:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by DarkStar
06-14-2004 4:32 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
quote:
Define for me, if you would, your understanding of natural selection, its absolutistic function, and how the absense of same would affect any environmental entity
—Darkstar
Natural selection is caused by limited resources. Whenever there are limited resources (ie food), those organisms that are able to get the most of the resource will tend to have more offspring. If the ability to better take advantage of those limited resources is a heritable trait, then subsequent generations will also have this advantage. Over time, those variants will become a majority within the population. Will every beneficial trait spread through the population? Nope. Will every bad trait be breed out of the population? Nope. However, natural selection does cause these things, but not in an absolute way. Just like any process, there are exceptions but the overall trend is very apparent.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by DarkStar, posted 06-14-2004 4:32 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 99 by AdminNosy, posted 06-21-2004 2:20 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 99 of 321 (117154)
06-21-2004 2:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by Loudmouth
06-21-2004 1:56 PM
|
|
Getting back
DS may be able to get back to you later today or tomorrow. He's taking a break to think about how to respond more appropriately. I hope you don't mind the interruption.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by Loudmouth, posted 06-21-2004 1:56 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 100 by AdminNosy, posted 06-21-2004 8:59 PM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 100 of 321 (117309)
06-21-2004 8:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by AdminNosy
06-21-2004 2:20 PM
|
|
Welcome DS back
I don't see any sign that DarkStar has tried to change. But this suspension was just a warning. DS, you will have to support what you say rather than repeating assertions. You will have to respect the others here. Your next suspention will cover all the major topics and be a bit longer.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by AdminNosy, posted 06-21-2004 2:20 PM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 101 of 321 (117343)
06-21-2004 10:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by DarkStar
06-21-2004 1:47 AM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
Dark Star: I am curious ... If you are not a proponent of Intelligent Design (ID), why do you post on a topic about ID? It seems like someone totally uninterested in fishing writing a letter to a fishing magazine about how to make baskets -- irrelevant. Or confused?
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
Rebel AAmerican .Zen [Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by DarkStar, posted 06-21-2004 1:47 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
almeyda
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 102 of 321 (117382)
06-22-2004 12:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by DC85
06-09-2004 5:59 PM
|
|
quote:
I Can't get this Logic "Because it is Complex it must have Designed"
Its far more logical to believe God did it then it happened on its own. All observations in the present show things like DNA and even the simplest cell are far to complex to arise from some premeval pond.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by DC85, posted 06-09-2004 5:59 PM | | DC85 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 103 by jar, posted 06-22-2004 12:49 AM | | almeyda has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 103 of 321 (117386)
06-22-2004 12:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 102 by almeyda
06-22-2004 12:40 AM
|
|
Actually, DNA is very, very simple and almost crystal like. There are four bases. Just four. They can only connect in limited pairs, A to T, G to C. The AT pair and the GC pair are the same length. The beauty of what Watson and Crick discovered is its simplicity. Once you see it, the Double Helix appears as understandable as why salt forms cubes. It simply has to be that way.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 102 by almeyda, posted 06-22-2004 12:40 AM | | almeyda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 116 by almeyda, posted 06-22-2004 10:58 PM | | jar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 104 of 321 (117393)
06-22-2004 1:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
06-21-2004 10:26 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
Dark Star:
I am curious ... If you are not a proponent of Intelligent Design (ID), why do you post on a topic about ID? Now I am curious. Are all posters in this forum proponents of ID? When creationists post, they are usually posting in reference to the theory of intelligent design, or ID. I tend to post on observations of intelligent design, or id. There is a difference. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2004 10:26 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 110 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2004 4:42 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 105 of 321 (117405)
06-22-2004 1:59 AM
|
|
|
Methinks it is Like a Weasel
The observation that things in nature change has been considered and theories proposed as explanations throughout recorded history. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc. all proposed theories to explain the flowing or liquid quality of a changing nature.1 Naturalistic and evolutionary ideas appeared early on in recorded human history. However, not until Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published his On the Origin of Species in 1859 did a purely naturalistic process become generally accepted by scientists and even society... Obviously Darwin was correct in his observations that living creatures do in fact change over time. He then proposed a theory to explain these changes. He theorized that the small changes he observed in nature could add up over generations to produce larger, and still larger changes to the point of evolution between species. He in fact proposed that all living things, including humans, evolved from a single common ancestor and that all life continues to evolve... This is a great theory. It sounds reasonable. It does in fact explain some interesting observations and it makes some predictions that can be tested... The small changes are testable, but the larger changes are not because they are theorized to take many thousands or even millions of years to occur. This is far too long to be observed or tested for, even in many lifetimes. Can it then be said that large-scale evolution is not observable or directly testable and therefore not a true science? Well, no not at this point... In fact, it seems like the only reason that it was not accepted without any qualms whatsoever is because it clashed with the prevailing understanding of origins in the religious communities of the day... This is a common human reaction in the face of an unanswerable challenge to a cherished idea. However, just because no effective challenge could be given during Darwin’s day does not mean that a theory should not continue to be tested and questioned. Only by testing and retesting do theories grow and improve. We are now in the age of genetics where these small changes noted by Darwin can be analyzed on the sub-cellular/molecular level... The Theory of Evolution claims not only that life has evolved in the past, but that it continues to evolve. Its claim to the past is one thing, but its claim to the present and to the future is quite another. If this claim to the present and the future is to be born up scientifically, then this theory is going to have to be subjected to tests that give evidence to this present evolutionary activity... To do this, not only do changes that are informationally unique have to be demonstrated, but the extent to which these changes can add up must be tested. For example, by appealing to genetic recombination alone, it is impossible to turn a dog into a cat or a monkey into a man regardless of the selection pressure applied... The Theory of Evolution is in serious crisis because of this very problem despite much effort by many great minds to explain it away. One valiant attempt was made by the famous British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. In his 1986 book called The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins described an experiment of his that showed how evolution is supposed to work... The theory of evolution is based on natural selection and natural selection selects based only on sequence function. If two genetic sequences are both non-functional or if they both have the same function, then natural selection cannot select between them. In other words, nature is blind to their genetic differences if they both have the same function. If Dawkins had wished to mirror the type of selection proposed by the theory of evolution, he would have based his computer model on functional phrase selection... If we still do not really know how many genes we have in our genome, even after having sequenced the entire human genome, how can we be so sure that our genes evolved from lower organisms? How do we know that we are between 94% and 99% the same as chimps? And, even if we are, who is to say that our similarities were the result of common descent over some other possibility? If the differences can be explained by the theory of common descent, well and good. However, there seem to be differences between various genes and gene functions that cannot be explained as a result of common descent. The problem is that these small differences might turn out to be rather huge. Even a single gene difference can be gigantic depending on how isolated it is in functional sequencing from the available genetic realestate of a given gene pool. ...An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.22 Has Design Theory come full circle? Many, even among the most respected of scientific minds, seem to be giving it more than another look.
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/...ksitislikeaweasel.html Question: For those of you who have read, or are familiar with the book by Richard Dawkins, does the blind watchmaker's watch ever stand a chance of actually working or must we at some point realize that it could never properly function and we must therefore turn elsewhere for a functioning timepiece, i.e., a new and more viable theory on the origin of life that can also explain the enormous complexity inherent in life forms which we have already observed? Could hardcore evolutionists abandon their long held beliefs in favor of a more rational explanation of the scientific data? Could hardcore creationists accept any concept other than god as the explanation for life? Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
™ Version 4.2
