|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
That theory dovetails nicely with Spinozoan view of the world. He postulated that God is universe and that we are merely "ripple's on God's body." Alot of religions in this world believe in God being omnipresent and omniscient. Again those believes are supported by the latest studies of quanta. just to correct you here, There is a reason Spinoza was known as the perfect atheist. When Spinoza used the word "God" he was not referring to an intelligent entity. He used the word as being synonymous with nature, with reality, with existance. he, explicitly stated that it had no personality. So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand, so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close. - Pablo Neruda
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The entire branch of quantum physics has been established on nothing more then theories and a series of theoretical experiments, EPR paradox being the most famous one. So what about the QM involved in the construction of your monitor? Or of your P4 or Athlon? Are those theoretical expressions of QM? What about Cern and Fermilab? Last time I checked, experimental apparatus miles in diameter were not a requirement of a theoretical experiment.
Quantum physics, which you already approved to being observable, theorizes that every quanta in the universe knows the exact position, velocity, and the lifetime of every other quanta in the universe. This is simply false. I don't know where this idea comes from. This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-26-2005 09:18 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
By Rael, I think you've got it.
Intelligent Design is strictly Raelians trying to impose their religion (allbeit true) upon us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you of course realize that your position is fully exemplified by ragged's responses -- he is not looking for explanations further than god-did-it, and they are enough for him.
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
you of course realize that your position is fully exemplified by ragged's responses -- he is not looking for explanations further than god-did-it, and they are enough for him. Yes, but which god? Nominations must be accompanied by a written form of agreement, signed by the god in question. Correspondence will not be entered into.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6726 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
Evolutionists have "mechanics". Mutations happen as a result of copy errors in DNA. Natural Selection happens when something dies before it can reproduce. One thing that I can say about those of you subscribe to Evolution as the explanation of our existance - you have immense faith. Considering that 400 million years ago the planet was completely covered in ice in a run away ice age and even at the equator the ice on the oceans was 18 feet thick. The only life that survived was some algea that recieved just enough sunlight through the thick but unusally transparent equatorial ice. So in just 400 million years, life has successfully mutated from algea to humans who build space shuttles and Cray computers is quite amazing. Sure, saying that a devine creator was responsible for everything sounds highly simplistic compared to the endless explanation of the progression of evolution. But it is more plausible considering the mathmatical odds of so many beneficial mutations happening in a row and not being snowed under by all of the non beneficial mutations that happened along with them. Besides the shear number of beneficial mutations that is required to get from algea to an intellegent human being is uncalcuable. Consider that the 30,000 genes in a human alone are multifunctional and not singular in purpose, you still need the creation of raw information in the DNA to get from photosynthesis to the ability to visulize in 3D. The fact that each gene performs multiple functions in protein creation means that the DNA mechinism is highly structured and organized itself, the same as today's software is the result of intellegent design. Software mutation results in computer crashes, not new software applications being created. The complexity of DNA exceeds the most complex software application and the human brain is far more complex than any super computer. Nobody would ever say that computers came about by chance and mutation. The are intellegently designed. Edited for spelling This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 11-27-2005 04:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LizardBreath writes: One thing that I can say about those of you subscribe to Evolution as the explanation of our existance - you have immense faith. Nope. Science, with all its limitations, is based on what we can observe. Faith is based on what we can not observe. Two completely different things. (By the way, I don't "subscribe" to evolution or any other periodical.) People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6726 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
True that natural selection can be observed or at least the results of it. But it is still working within the realm of existing information and switching on and off different traits to best adapt to the stresses of the enviorment. To create or generate new information requires an influx of intelligence. The same as debugging a software program. Or altering it to serve a different purpose.
Even if you use HMTL as an example. It is capable of displaying a wide variety of web pages. But HTML was created. It doesn't mutate. Any new instruction must be written into the code so that there is an agreed upon context for the instruction. A mutated instruction would have no purpose, for even if you could have a mutated html code, the computer would not know what do do with it since it's context was not agreed upon. The same with DNA code. It is information that represents instruction on how to create a protein. But there is a working context that allows the DNA instruction to be excersised into whatever it is supposed to be. A mutation in the DNA means that you have new instruction but with no context since it is an exapmle of random information or bio-noise. So the best that can happen is is the existing context attempts to excersise the code and you get birth deformities and defects. Natural selection depends on an abundance of original source material with an agreed upon context to work with, to addapt an organism to the best of it's resources. Similiar to a piano. You play the keys in the best way to create the best music for the audience. You cannot create new keys or notes, just the ones that are there. And the song played outside of the sheet music results in noise, not new beneficial songs. I don't know if you are a musician, but if you are, grap some sheet music and start playing it. Now play it again but randomly hit some different notes. You do not get new, beneficial music. You get discord, noise and a lack of harmony and functionality in the music.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
None of that has anything to do with my point. My point is that science is not based on faith, it is based on observation.
Intelligent Design is not science because it is based solely on faith. It postulates a "designer" who specifically can not be observed. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6726 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
None of that has anything to do with my point. My point is that science is not based on faith, it is based on observation. I understand this. But we do not observe beneficial mutations. We only observe natural selection and assume that beneficial mutations are the mechanisms that got us from algea 400 million years ago to space shuttle designers today. What we observe in the mutation areana is natural mutation which appear as birth defects. ID says that mathmatically, this is impossible to beneficially mutate from algea to human. There is no enviormental stressor that would prompt algea to go anywhere except to more algea. If run away ice ages are common on this planet, it seems that the only life that can survive is sea algea. So after several of these ice ages, the algea that survived would be highly tuned to how to survive and any mutations would be sub minimal in effect on the host species definition. Making a warp jump from algea to humans would require far more than what the Earth's enviorment offers as far as mutational promptings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Two points here:
First, you have not listed any mechanics at all. You have just reiterated a poor understanding of biology and mathematics. Even if you were 100% correct in your assumptions, you STILL have nothing to offer in place of evolution. The whole point of this thread is to discover what the mechanics of ID are? What are they? Do you even know? You talking about ID being more likely than the highly improbably evolution? Let me ask you this: In a 100 mile race, who's going to win, the car the goes 1 mile an hour or the other car that lacks not only gas, wheels, an engine, but even an entire car?
Software mutation results in computer crashes, not new software applications being created. There is a British engineer (name escapes me, but I'll find it if I have to) who has been "breeding" circuits that are far more effecient than code written by computer experents. He gives a series of chips a task like "identify this muscical note without using the clock" and then cross breeds the successful programs. He's managed to develop chips that solve the problem with half as much code as even the best program can create. These circuits are evolving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
And the song played outside of the sheet music results in noise, not new beneficial songs. Tell that to Industrial Rock bands. What note is "Power Drill"? How do you show that on the sheet music? You may call it nose, but others call it music. Either way, what does any of this have to do with the fact that ID is completely without mechanics / theory / concept? Nothing. Deal with your lack of theory instead of making up bad analogies about evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But we do not observe beneficial mutations. I don't understand what makes you say something so demonstratably incorrect, especially after you've been shown, time and time again, confirmed observation of beneficial mutations. It's funny how, after your arguments get trashed and you run away for a few weeks, you pop right up again with some kind of amnesia that prevents you from remembering that we've refuted your points about a dozen times.
ID says that mathmatically, this is impossible to beneficially mutate from algea to human. ID is wrong. Mathematically, the genomes of every recorded organism are very narrowly clustered in a tiny region of sequence space, such that you can get to any functional genetic sequence by one single change to another functional sequence. There are no "gulfs", there's no "barrier to change" - mathematically, there's no path from one functional protein to any other that requires you to pass through an intermediate, non-functional stage. And that's the mathematical truth. Case closed, as far as I can tell, unless you have evidence of organisms that aren't constructed from genetics and proteins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3806 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Considering that 400 million years ago the planet was completely covered in ice in a run away ice age and even at the equator the ice on the oceans was 18 feet thick. The only life that survived was some algea that recieved just enough sunlight through the thick but unusally transparent equatorial ice. So in just 400 million years, life has successfully mutated from algea to humans who build space shuttles and Cray computers is quite amazing. There are a few things wrong with this argument. 1) The evidence points to two or more neoproterozoic iceages. One about 700 Ma, labeled the Sturtian. Another at around 600 Ma, called the Marinoan, or Varangian. There might have been two more, one before these two and one after. The Jury is still out about this. 2) Not all Geologists subscribe to there being a "snowball" earth. I believe that Joe Meert is one of those who believes the evidence is still lacking. (I only know this because it was on my Geology notes, imagine that ) 3) There are a few issues that still need to be resolved before we can safely conclude that there was indeed a "snowball" earth. One the existence of cap carbonates, which only form in tropical waters. Two, aragonite crystals on the seafloor, indicating abundant CO2 in the atmosphere. Three, evidence of multiple glaciation expansions on the Arabian Peninsula. If it was truly a "snowball" earth, then there wouldn't be a record of multiple glaciation expansions. Four, the ice would likely have been fractured by tidal forces. Finally, the "snowball" earth hypothesis needs to account for the survival of life in an ocean covered by ice. 4) Where do you get your information that the oceans 400 Ma, or even 700 Ma, were occupied only with algea? There is plenty of evidence that metazoans were around at those times. 5) Do you have any idea how LONG 400 Ma is? It defintly is long enough to account for the diversity of life we see today. 6) Oh yes, I almost forgot. That is what I would call a red herring.
But it is more plausible considering the mathmatical odds of so many beneficial mutations happening in a row and not being snowed under by all of the non beneficial mutations that happened along with them. After all your time here and all your posts you still don't understand how mutation works? You continue to repeat the same tired old mathematically inept excuse for an explanation for the incompleteness of evolution that your beginning to look incompetent, ignorant or both.
Besides the shear number of beneficial mutations that is required to get from algea to an intellegent human being is uncalcuable. I can only assume you meant "incalculable." Of course, you would still be wrong, even though the number of steps to get from one to the other may be extremely large. Just don't forget you're not throwing away every transition just because it don't look quite human yet.
Consider that the 30,000 genes in a human alone are multifunctional and not singular in purpose, you still need the creation of raw information in the DNA to get from photosynthesis to the ability to visulize in 3D. Have a few questions to ask here. You're telling me that we came from algea? Are you saying that no other eukaryotic cells exist? Can you tell the difference between a mitochondria and a chloroplast? Enough for now, I think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ragged Member (Idle past 3583 days) Posts: 47 From: Purgatory Joined: |
you of course realize that your position is fully exemplified by ragged's responses -- he is not looking for explanations further than god-did-it, and they are enough for him. No no no no. That is not what I'm saying at all. You have completely misread my posts.
Being religious doesn't automatically mean that you should deny all the science and only rely on God. By the same token, being a scientist doesn't necceserally make you an aethiest. This is my stence on that. ^^^
So Christians shouldn't take medicine? Shouldn't go to doctors? Only a very very small minority actually follows those rules. That's becuase most people are in the middle of the spectrum. Naturally few are on extreme ends.
Sam: How'd this rock get here? Bob: Um... a big flood? Sam: Maybe it just fell off that cliff over there. Bob: Sorry, too late, I already said flood. Sam: Yeah, but, aren't there rocks just like this up on the cliff. Bob: Man, sorry Sam, but I'm going to have to stone you to death for saying that. Question: How did we end up with Sea Otters? Answer: God did it. Question: How? Answer: With God Power. Question: Can you explain that better? Answer: Nope, why would we even bother to. That is simply ignorant, I doubte that most IDists are that way.
When Spinoza used the word "God" he was not referring to an intelligent entity. He used the word as being synonymous with nature, with reality, with existance. he, explicitly stated that it had no personality. Well if you are familiar with Spinoza's theories, you know that there are two parts to what he called "God". Nature Created, which is manifested in things that we can see and feel- Nature. And Nature Creating, the being that made the nature the way it is - God. Im qouting myself from another forum:
He says that not only is God omnipresent, omnipitent, and omniscinet, but that Universe is God. Everything that we percieve as existing is actually God. In his Treaties, God is eternal, he has always existed and will always exist. Things that we percieve as finit are simply changing state not coming to an end. Drawing from that. Since we are an inseperable part of the universe we are a part of God. Spinoza describes us as merely "ripples on God's body." Since we are intergral part of God it also means that God completly controls our lifes. It deprives us of any kind of choice whatsoever. Everything that we do is actually God doing it, but we simply happen to be a vehicle of his actions. Like me typing this post, and you reding it, God is me and He is you. Talk about a dual personality complex So, we have no ability to make a chioce. In my oppinion it isn't as bad as it sounds. We do not have any power to make a desicion, but we think that we do and that illusion is enough to keep us happy. According to Spinoza the only actual choice that we can make is to realize that we don't have a choice and that without God we would not exist. Spinoza also states that God is perfect. Infaulable. God has a perfect plan which he can not deviate from. If we agree that there is only one way to achieve perfection, then it would mean that God himself can not make a desicion. God can not creat something which should have been created before, he can not fix anything since nothing can ever be broken, that means that it is pointless to call out to God and ask him to improve your life, because if yout life is dovetails with the perfect plan, and therefor can not be changed, because any change would ruin the perfection. Spinoza's God does not offer much consolation, except for the fact that we are all a part of God. The reason I told you about Spinozian views is because they appear to have alot more in common with our modern cosmology then any other religion out there. Yes in a way it is like Atheism, or even Deism, since worshipping God is pointless.
Quantum physics, which you already approved to being observable, theorizes that every quanta in the universe knows the exact position, velocity, and the lifetime of every other quanta in the universe. This is simply false. I don't know where this idea comes from. Ok, it might have been a bit of an overkill. Maybe they don't know everything about each other, but
We can safely assume that all quanta in the Universe have interacted with each other at some point in time and that innumerable connections are formed. Quantum physics is the only theoretical bridge at the moment between religion and science. More and more physicists are proposing the idea that the Universe might be conscious. The Conscious Universe could explain many phenomena which are regarded as mysticism. There is now even a movie playing in cinemas about philosophical implications of quantum physics What the BLEEP do we know. I like the way Mr.Bodhi explains it. I'll respond to the rest of it a bit later.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024