How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2014, 03:01 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(01-10-2014 11:47 AM)Impulse Wrote:  The video shows exactly how 2 of the 4 RNA nucleobases could have formed through completely natural processes in exactly the conditions we would expect to have existed before any life developed on Earth. Yes, technically, we have to assume the other 2 nucleobases did as well for now, but do you honestly believe after watching the video that we aren't going to prove that too eventually? Once that's proven, about the only other thing that needs to be proven is the RNA world hypothesis. So whether we are close depends on ones definition of "a lot". Considering how much it has taken for us to identify RNA and DNA, develop some understanding of what they do, identify their components, etc., what's left on this subject doesn't sound like "a lot" by comparison to me.

How is this accomplishment in the lab any different than say Fred Hoyle demonstrating how carbon is created in stars? A wood shoe is the product of intellect. You do not prove that wood shoes are the product of a natural process by showing wood is produced by trees.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(01-10-2014 03:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  You just went full circular.

Your conclusion simply does not follow.
It does not matter at all if intellects can or do create life or create intellects or anything else. The first intellect arises by natural causes, the rest is of no importance. If, instead, it requires intellect to do that, then there is an infinite regress.

If we only observe intellects coming into existence via evolution, then we have good reason to believe that any particular intellect we might come across also came into existence via evolution. However if we observe intellects coming into existence by some other means, we no longer have a reason to believe that any particular intellect(including the first one) came into existence via evolution.

You are just making an assumption that the first intellect came into existence via a natural cause. You are just making an assumption that there was a first intellect. Your counter argument becomes, the first intellect must have come into existence naturally, therefore the first intellect came into existence naturally.

Your reasoning is circular. Mine isn't because I don't say anything about the first intellect(or even if there was/is one) other than I have no good reason to believe it came into existence naturally. Maybe it did come into existence naturally, maybe it didn't, maybe there is no first intellect. Maybe intellect is fundamental to reality and has always existed.....I just don't know. However I do know I can't say it necessarily evolved because not all intellects evolved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 03:28 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2014 03:42 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(01-10-2014 03:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 03:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  You just went full circular.

Your conclusion simply does not follow.
It does not matter at all if intellects can or do create life or create intellects or anything else. The first intellect arises by natural causes, the rest is of no importance. If, instead, it requires intellect to do that, then there is an infinite regress.

If we only observe intellects coming into existence via evolution, then we have good reason to believe that any particular intellect we might come across also came into existence via evolution. However if we observe intellects coming into existence by some other means, we no longer have a reason to believe that any particular intellect(including the first one) came into existence via evolution.

You are just making an assumption that the first intellect came into existence via a natural cause. You are just making an assumption that there was a first intellect. Your counter argument becomes, the first intellect must have come into existence naturally, therefore the first intellect came into existence naturally.

Your reasoning is circular. Mine isn't because I don't say anything about the first intellect(or even if there was/is one) other than I have no good reason to believe it came into existence naturally. Maybe it did come into existence naturally, maybe it didn't, maybe there is no first intellect. Maybe intellect is fundamental to reality and has always existed.....I just don't know. However I do know I can't say it necessarily evolved because not all intellects evolved.

You also can say you might win the mega-millions lotto next month.
There is not a shred of evidence that any intellect was ever once caused to exist by any means other than being formed by natural means, which are the product of evolution. Now you're apparently equating (or have you switched to) your incorrect causation of a "new lineage of life" with an "intellect".
You seem to be unable to keep your own arguments straight.
Facepalm

psssst ... your desperation is showing

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(01-10-2014 03:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 03:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  You just went full circular.

Your conclusion simply does not follow.
It does not matter at all if intellects can or do create life or create intellects or anything else. The first intellect arises by natural causes, the rest is of no importance. If, instead, it requires intellect to do that, then there is an infinite regress.

If we only observe intellects coming into existence via evolution, then we have good reason to believe that any particular intellect we might come across also came into existence via evolution. However if we observe intellects coming into existence by some other means, we no longer have a reason to believe that any particular intellect(including the first one) came into existence via evolution.

You are just making an assumption that the first intellect came into existence via a natural cause. You are just making an assumption that there was a first intellect. Your counter argument becomes, the first intellect must have come into existence naturally, therefore the first intellect came into existence naturally.

Your reasoning is circular. Mine isn't because I don't say anything about the first intellect(or even if there was/is one) other than I have no good reason to believe it came into existence naturally. Maybe it did come into existence naturally, maybe it didn't, maybe there is no first intellect. Maybe intellect is fundamental to reality and has always existed.....I just don't know. However I do know I can't say it necessarily evolved because not all intellects evolved.

What evidence do you have for "intellect is fundamental to reality and has always existed"?

If it didn't come into existence naturally, where did it come from?
Without offering an answer to that, you have nothing to offer - you explain nothing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-10-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(01-10-2014 03:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  How is this accomplishment in the lab any different than say Fred Hoyle demonstrating how carbon is created in stars? A wood shoe is the product of intellect. You do not prove that wood shoes are the product of a natural process by showing wood is produced by trees.
Your analogy is flawed. The correct analogy would be showing that a part of the shoe itself, not its materials, came into existence naturally (which of course is ridiculous, but I'm following the example you used) and, from that, suggesting that the entire shoe likely came into existence naturally as well. And yes, that would be a more sensible hypothesis based on the evidence at that point than suggesting the other part was created by intellect.

Edit:
Keep in mind, we're talking about a time when there was no life around on Earth at all and asking where the first life form came from. So, to suggest only one half was created by intellect when there was no life around is ludicrous, especially when you know the other half came into existence naturally.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
01-10-2014, 03:50 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(01-10-2014 03:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 11:47 AM)Impulse Wrote:  The video shows exactly how 2 of the 4 RNA nucleobases could have formed through completely natural processes in exactly the conditions we would expect to have existed before any life developed on Earth. Yes, technically, we have to assume the other 2 nucleobases did as well for now, but do you honestly believe after watching the video that we aren't going to prove that too eventually? Once that's proven, about the only other thing that needs to be proven is the RNA world hypothesis. So whether we are close depends on ones definition of "a lot". Considering how much it has taken for us to identify RNA and DNA, develop some understanding of what they do, identify their components, etc., what's left on this subject doesn't sound like "a lot" by comparison to me.

How is this accomplishment in the lab any different than say Fred Hoyle demonstrating how carbon is created in stars? A wood shoe is the product of intellect. You do not prove that wood shoes are the product of a natural process by showing wood is produced by trees.

You have insisted on pushing your hypothesis based on this one experiment where humans tinkered with genetic material, and an existing biological medium, but you need to prove it with quite a bit more data. The assertion from A to B holds no water. Good try though.

Man tinkers all of the time with products of nature, but it does not mean that all of nature has been tinkered with by some mystical mind. It appears that your need for this to be true is so strong that it makes you look desperate. You mocked us skeptics as not honestly thinking it through, but that is what you need to do yourself. Follow the evidence, dont jump to over-arching conclusions, and remember, we will consider all possibilities for any argument you present as long as the evidence is solid.

Again - A for effort but, no dice.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
01-10-2014, 03:56 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2014 04:00 PM by Stevil.)
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(01-10-2014 02:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  How do I define life? I am not an expert in biology. I don't believe there is a clear consensus on what life is among the experts. I don't believe such a consensus is necessary in consideration of the argument I put forth because the bar is actually quite low. If we were to observe self replicating molecules coming into existence via a natural process and then evolving, that in my opinion, is tantamount to observing the inception of life.
Take bacteria for example.
These systems are a bunch of molecules which have been proven to evolve.
If your counter argument is that bacteria are more than just a bunch of molecules then we need to ask what do you mean why you say "life". Do you think there is a spark of life above and beyond the known physical forces of gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear?

If we able to reconstruct all the atoms and energy in exactly the same configuration as is present in a bacterium would you expect this bacterium to be alive, to replicate in the same that a natural bacterium system operates? Or do you think we would be missing a crucial element (perhaps a non material element)?

(01-10-2014 02:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What aspects of life require intelligent design? For this argument.....only its inception.
I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "inception of life". By my understanding life is a label that we put on systems which meet certain criteria e.g. ability to metabolism, self healing, reproduction etc. Each of these biological markers have vague boundaries. I would expect through the process of evolution each of these have evolved and not necessarily at the same time. For example virus replicate but aren't generally regarded as living. I would expect that near the beginning of the Earth's history we had chemical compounds which haphazardly began to replicate albeit inefficiently and overtime some of these replicating structures got better and better at their ability to replicate, making them more abundant etc. I would think that these first replicating structures wouldn't be considered as "life" but as time went on they would have developed the ability of motion which would have given them an advantage and then that would have developed into an ability to direct their motion which would have improved their ability to thrive. Over time certain other abilities have come about and much of those we call life.
So the point I am trying to make is that I don't think there was an almost instantaneous event from non life to first life. I think it was likely a process played out over a long period of time.

(01-10-2014 02:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  How do you have intelligence prior to the first life? This question hints at the best counter argument to my argument. That counter argument is this: We only observe intellects coming into existence via the natural process of evolution therefore life must naturally arise first before there can be an intellect which can create it synthetically.

This is a very strong counter argument. We don't see intellects capable of creating life emerging other than by a natural processes(i.e. evolution). This gives us good reason to believe that only natural processes can give rise to such intellects. I think as long as these circumstances exist this is a good reason to reject my argument. I don't see these circumstances lasting much longer though. Intellects are creating intellects(IBM's Watson is a good example). Its only a matter of time before an intellect creates an intellect that is capable of creating life.
So here comes into question the definition of "intelligence".

But something you are not considering is the importance of substance or materiality. When us humans build something e.g. a house, we don't use our intelligence and think a house into existence. We have to put bits of wood together, we have to bond them, the build process requires interaction with the physical world. Our intelligence isn't anything without the underlying mechanism of our functioning physical brain. Our brain is useless without the ability to control our bodies. Even a computer system (deemed intelligent) needs a brain (CPU) and physical mechanism to actually do things, to store data to disk, to display things on a screen, to move a robotic arm to build a car.
If you are considering an intelligence prior to existence, then what mechanism has this intelligence got in order to think, in order to manipulate the physical world?
Without this mechanism, how can it create life and evolving structures?

Even without intelligence a programmed machine can create a car. But without a physical mechanism we have not shown that an intelligence can create, build or manipulate even a grain of sand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(01-10-2014 02:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-09-2014 10:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How would you define life?
What aspect of life requires intelligent design?

How do you have intelligence prior to the first life?
I am not an expert in biology.

Exactly and the ones that are say you are fucking wrong, so shut the fuck up. They didn't do what your claiming they did and even if they did your position is still the least probable. Too bad so sad for you, now go back into exile and take your whack-a-do views with you.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
01-10-2014, 06:41 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(01-10-2014 03:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  What evidence do you have for "intellect is fundamental to reality and has always existed"?

If it didn't come into existence naturally, where did it come from?
Without offering an answer to that, you have nothing to offer - you explain nothing.

I said, "maybe intellect is fundamental to reality and has always existed"(not sure why you left that "maybe" out....its a little underhanded don't you think?). I did not assert that intellect is fundamental to reality so there is no need for me to provide evidence.

You asserted that even if intellects can create other intellects, there must be some first intellect that came into existence via some natural process. What is your evidence for this? Without offering an answer to that, you have offered nothing to this discussion....you have explained nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2014, 06:43 PM
RE: How do you tell if something is designed by an intellect or not?
(01-10-2014 06:01 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 02:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I am not an expert in biology.

Exactly and the ones that are say you are fucking wrong, so shut the fuck up. They didn't do what your claiming they did and even if they did your position is still the least probable. Too bad so sad for you, now go back into exile and take your whack-a-do views with you.

Your name should be Whiskeyeatsdicks.....cause all the experts say you're a cocksucker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: