|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member} | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Is this really your argument? Who organized the genetic code? It is a code, therefore requires an intelligence to organize amongst millions of potential choices -it is not a purely chemical arrangement that transfers coded messages from one part of a cell to another to make specific arrangements of amino acids into proteins that fold into specific shapes that do specific jobs that coordinate functions that work together to achieve a purpose.Who organized the message?? Only intelligence can put together a code. My evidence starts with the fact that there is NO evidence for a Designer But there is -the presence of the code is evidence for a codemaker.
Also note that the Designer would have been responsable for non-complex things as well, so then non-complexity would ALSO equal design. Repetitive patterns follow the laws of nature and yes, the designer would have had to organize the laws - the designer would also be the lawmaker.
Also the fact that the Designer would be complex and by your definition also requires design, im sure you've heard that position before. If the designer is outside of time and caused time and matter to come into existence then He is not bounded by time nor composed of physical matter.At some point something has to be self-existing.You can't really believe that everything came from absolutely nothing? That to me is thoroughly illogical default position. There must be an original cause. At the very least, there are two possibilities, everything came from nothing or something caused everything. The organization and complexity of life points to the latter as a more logical default position. Certainly excluding it from possibility simply because you have not seen the original cause is biased philisophical reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Only intelligence can put together a code. And your evidence for this is what?
At some point something has to be self-existing. You mean like a Universe sans a god.
You can't really believe that everything came from absolutely nothing? There is evidence, real evidence, that this is a possibility but we do not know for certain, yet. Unless you want to posit that Quantum Field Theory and the copious evidence of virtual particles is mass delusion on the part of all physicists on the planet. You believe your brand of god came from absolutely nothing. Why not a Universe? But this incrudulity you voice is not evidence of ID so we'll ignore it. So your evidence for ID so far is one unsupported assetion. Anything else? Edited by AZPaul3, : I'm a people. I don't need a reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hello, Beretta.
Beretta writes: At some point something has to be self-existing. How can you say that it has to be a Designer that is self-existing, though? As Onifre said, if there is something out there that can be self-existing, your argument that the genetic code could not be self-existing falls apart, because it is based completely on the idea that self-existence is not possible for something like that. And, you have admitted that self-existence is possible for at least some things. Now, you're trying to set up a boundary between God and the genetic code, saying that the one can self-exist, while the other can't. But, this boundary is not supported by any of your arguments. You now have to defend your placement of the boundary: why can some things be self-existing, while others cannot? Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
Who organized the genetic code? It is a code, therefore requires an intelligence to organize amongst millions of potential choices -it is not a purely chemical arrangement that transfers coded messages from one part of a cell to another to make specific arrangements of amino acids into proteins that fold into specific shapes that do specific jobs that coordinate functions that work together to achieve a purpose. Who organized the message?? Only intelligence can put together a code. Any string of nucleotides constitutes a code, a code that can be translated once the mechanisms to do such translation (ribosomes, etc.) evolve. Over billions of years, the strings of nucleotides that code for functional proteins are the ones that survive, and thus, after billions of years, the only code existing is the one that produces life on this planet. Supposing we did all come from the primordial soup, don't you think different types of DNA, those coding for blobs of goo (conglomerates of protein without structure) and those that coded for useful proteins would be abundant? The DNA we have isn't the only type of DNA to exist, past or present.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
At some point something has to be self-existing. Sure, but what makes you think that God is the self existing thing? This is just an assertion without any evidence, like saying, well, the answer to something has to be "rainbows under calculators", and therefore, that is the answer to life, the universe and everything. Come on man, try and be logical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: I eagerly await your scientific evidence showing that no other combination of atmospheric layers could support any life, not just the types of life on this planet.
quote: I eagerly await your scientific evidence showing that no other distance from the sun, moon or "other solar bodies" could support any life.
quote: I eagerly await your scientific evidence showing that no other temperature of a star could support any life.
quote: I eagerly await your scientific evidence showing that no other chemical and "material" combination could support any life.
quote: I eagerly await your scientific evidence that no other level of planetary gravitational force could support any life. [Omitting the rest as not even remotely related to science.] Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Who organized the genetic code? It is a code, therefore requires an intelligence to organize amongst millions of potential choices -it is not a purely chemical arrangement that transfers coded messages from one part of a cell to another to make specific arrangements of amino acids into proteins that fold into specific shapes that do specific jobs that coordinate functions that work together to achieve a purpose. Who organized the message?? Only intelligence can put together a code. You are behind the times; science has caught up with that argument, and flat-earthed it. Here is an on-line lecture that provides the details:
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of. I believe this directly answers your challenge, "Who organized the message?? Only intelligence can put together a code." But, like the other creationists I have provided this information to, the only answer I likely will receive from you is denial. You have to deny it! It undermines your entire argument by showing that Unintelligent Non-design Suffices. Another "gap" has squeezed closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
If the designer is outside of time and caused time and matter to come into existence then He is not bounded by time nor composed of physical matter.At some point something has to be self-existing. Ahhh...but now you are speaking of something existing before existence that is not bound by our physical laws. It's own existence is something which we can never possibly comprehend because it doesn't exist in our own knowable universe. I see your problem with presenting evidence for this so-called designer. The problem is that you can learn nothing of the designer itself if the designer is not bound to the same laws which govern our universe. You can deduce nothing concrete about this designer because the first rule abut this designer is that there are no rules...for it at least. Therefore, nothing at all that we discover about the natural world can be attributed to the designer in any meaningful way because how can we possibly fathom its meaning? And that's when we get into theology...god is mysterious and all of that crap. Well...that's a bore, isn't it? Why even bother to try to learn if it is given that we can't possibly fathom the mystery?
You can't really believe that everything came from absolutely nothing? That to me is thoroughly illogical default position. But you believe that the thing(s) which "created" all of this everything came from nothing (or always existed...um...before time, I mean)? This thing which is so mind-boggingly powerful that it created this immense, mind-boggling universe came from nothing (or always existed...um...before time, I mean)? If you're shooting for the "it is soooooo complex and wonderful and way too big for me to begin to comprehend that is has to have been designed" argument but then you are proposing a being that has to have created it and, thus, must be even more complex and wonderful and big and offering nothing to explain that, then it is one big fail.
There must be an original cause. At the very least, there are two possibilities, everything came from nothing or something caused everything. Indeed. But what caused that something? Do you not see it yet? The inherent flaw in the designer argument?
The organization and complexity of life points to the latter as a more logical default position. Certainly excluding it from possibility simply because you have not seen the original cause is biased philisophical reasoning. Why does it point to the latter? That is what you have failed to argue throughout many threads. Why? People can assert things all day long (and many others will believe them!) but until you follow the evidence all the way down and can explain how or why to at least some rational extent, then it is not an argument worth listening to and definitely not worth teaching in a classroom. Even more importantly, how could the designer argument possibly advance our knowledge of life and the universe? For example, let's say that every science class in the world now admits ID. What now? What will be taught? How will it be different from what is now taught except to say "OK kids this is what happened and (insert ID mascot here) did it." See...I don't think that is all you guys really want taught, which is why you cannot come up with any positive evidence for design. If that was it, then it could be taught at home, but this is a battle for souls, not truth. Otherwise, you would have creation scientists scrambling to find out the truth like all the other scientists. But all you have are lies and PR and armies of internet avengers equipped with the lies and half-truths and exaggerations and strawmen that we see day in and day out. If you wish to prove any of this wrong, please, please come forward with some positive evidence for any form of ID. We are all still waiting. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Mathematical computer models .... Something like Dawkins absurd computer modelling ...programmed with intelligence and with a predetermined aim?
non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired It does seem inspired doesn't it -but of course, it can't be - we have already decided that.
It undermines your entire argument by showing that Unintelligent Non-design Suffices. Predetermined cause and therefore non-design suffices -begging the question....
Another "gap" has squeezed closed For your sake it's a pity some of those yawning fossil gaps don't close a bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Beretta writes: You can't really believe that everything came from absolutely nothing? Still arguing from personal incredulity, I see. It isn't a matter of what we believe or don't believe. It's a matter of accepting that which we have evidence for, and of saying, "We don't yet know," or maybe, "We have some ideas, but we don't really know yet," about the rest. Science does not make claims about things for which there is insufficient evidence. And if you've made anything abundantly clear in this thread, there is no evidence for the designer. Through most of your messages in this thread you never mention the designer. Many requested repeatedly that you provide evidence of the designer, and for the most part all you did was criticize evolution. One would think that a rational person would at this point say, "Okay, okay, I'll go off and find some evidence." You remind me of salesmen. Only a small subset of the salesmen in any industry can work for the companies that have the top products. All the rest have to push the product they have, no matter how bad it is. That's what you're doing with ID, but obviously, no one is buying. You offer the familiar ID argument that science is wrong in not considering the supernatural, but if there are so many advantages to including mechanisms with no evidence then IDists should simply take this approach and produce better results than traditional science. Once they produce advances unachievable by traditional science then scientists will beat a path to their door and the supernatural will become a part of science. It is pathetically obvious, despite continual protests to the contrary, that ID is religious apologetics. If ID were really science then there would be IDists out there actually producing real science. Instead, the main product of ID is arguments for why ID should be included in school curriculums. Exacerbating this problem is that most grass roots ID proponents like yourself can't seem to keep God and ID separate. As much as the Discovery Institute argues that ID is not religion, they seem to have very little influence over supporters who can't get into ID discussions without mentioning God. It is the wishful thinking of creationists everywhere that their religion in its current form is the one, right and true religion, and as a big bonus that it is valid science, too. But all the world's religions can't be correct, and science has this little requirement about accurately describing the real world. When IDists become sincere about being science then presumably they will actually begin doing science. But as long as all their energies are focused on school boards, textbook publishers, websites and discussion boards instead of on science the conclusion that ID is religion is inescapable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Beretta writes: For your sake it's a pity some of those yawning fossil gaps don't close a bit. Could you stop just making stuff up and at least pretend to address the topic? You've got just four messages left to offer some scientific evidence for ID. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
It's own existence is something which we can never possibly comprehend because it doesn't exist in our own knowable universe It doesn't really matter how deep our comprehension could be -like gravity, we don't see the creator or creative intelligence but we can see it's effects - like biological complexity.
I see your problem with presenting evidence for this so-called designer. One doesn't need to get into the theology to know that a creative intelligence may have created what exists. Science can easily limit itself to the investigation of that possibility and leave the rest (who the creator may be) to theology. We should at least allow for the possibility if we're going to be objective truth seekers.
Therefore, nothing at all that we discover about the natural world can be attributed to the designer in any meaningful way because how can we possibly fathom its meaning? Why can't it be attributed to a designer? How can we investigate anything properly if we decide, before the investigation, that there definately wasn't one? It's an irrational presupposition.
This thing which is so mind-boggingly powerful that it created this immense, mind-boggling universe came from nothing Immense... mind boggling universe.....that should already tell you something about your presuppositions -either it came from nothing or from something. Why arbitrarily cut off one line of reasoning?
But what caused that something? Do you not see it yet? The inherent flaw in the designer argument? How about an eternal principle -beyond the laws that exist -not bound by time which was created along with matter. If time and matter are inextricably bound together then what made the matter is outside of time and therefore has no beginning itself, no time.
That is what you have failed to argue throughout many threads. Why? People can assert things all day long (and many others will believe them!) but until you follow the evidence all the way down and can explain how or why to at least some rational extent, then it is not an argument worth listening to and definitely not worth teaching in a classroom. So your intelligent unbiased alternative is to teach what may be a lie as fact until such time as the intelligent creator introduces himself to you personally? You can't falsify something that is an overriding assumption.So is it science?
Even more importantly, how could the designer argument possibly advance our knowledge of life and the universe? We carry on with science in the meantime which doesn't require an assumption of historical origins in any case. Biology, physics, chemistry everything can be and is investigated apart from evolution in the absence of proof one way or the other of how everything came to exist.Why the preoccupation with ramming naturalism down unsuspecting throats with no alternative even allowed to be considered? Do you imagine that cellular phones and television wouldn't exist in the absence of evolutionary theory? How does 'evolution' advance our knowledge of life and the universe? Especially in the light of the fact that it is possibly untrue?
For example, let's say that every science class in the world now admits ID. What now? What will be taught? How will it be different from what is now taught except to say "OK kids this is what happened and (insert ID mascot here) did it." Teach the science and leave the philosophy out. If you want to mention evolution, then be so kind as to allow the evidence against it to be taught so that everybody becomes aware of the fact that our origins cannot be proven, only theorized about.
See...I don't think that is all you guys really want taught, which is why you cannot come up with any positive evidence for design. If that was it, then it could be taught at home, but this is a battle for souls, not truth. Perhaps it is a battle for souls but it is also ultimately about the truth.Where did we come from? -what are we doing here? You are a random accident hanging around biding your time and trying to survive until you die -sooner or later. How can anyone honestly teach such things in the absence of evidence that it is so.How about "well kids, you may be a random accident brought about by mutation and natural selection or you may be a creation of an intelligence beyond our understanding but in the meantime since we can't prove either, lets just teach you physics, chemistry and biology etc. so that you can contribute to the advancement of technology etc. since that is what science can teach honestly." What will be taught? Biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics....but not origins or if we do, we should teach both possibilities since people do need to have options about where they came from to consider in the absence of absolute proof of either OR teach evolution and the evidence against it if you don't want to include ID specifically but don't deceive little children about what can be known. Teach actual science and don't inflict philisophical reasoning apon them in the name of science.
But all you have are lies and PR and armies of internet avengers equipped with the lies and half-truths and exaggerations and strawmen that we see day in and day out. You really have been bulldozed with evo propoganda.
We are all still waiting. No you aren't -no matter what I say you hear nothing and default back to what you have already decided is true.Nonetheless, we argue on.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Beretta writes: You can't really believe that everything came from absolutely nothing? That to me is thoroughly illogical default position. There must be an original cause. Beretta writes: ...that should already tell you something about your presuppositions -either it came from nothing or from something. Why arbitrarily cut off one line of reasoning? Why indeed? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Subbie, your points relative to other possibilities supportive of life might make some sense in and of themselves individually but collectively all requirements listed must be in place simultaneously for life to exist, no matter what the system is.
The likelihood of any system supportive of life having all of the requirements needful relative to all aspects of the system simultaneously would likely be impossible outside of ID. 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 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: I eagerly await your scientific evidence showing that no other combination of "requirements" could support life of any kind. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024