Intelligent Design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2016, 03:02 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 02:58 AM)Banjo Wrote:  In other words: "I cannot back anything I say by using evidence. My guesswork and hope are enough!"

You're a fucking idiot.

That's me being an Aussie you dumb motherfucker.
Thank you, may I have another?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 03:07 AM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2016 03:16 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 02:48 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
Peebothuhul Wrote:Hello. Smile

What I think you've failed to note, BlackEyedGhost, is that your initial opening post and subsequent messages are little more than opinion(s).

In my mind, ID as a possibility is a fact. I realize numerous people disagree with me, but I've yet to encounter convincing evidence which proves life could not have been started by an intelligent source.

*Nods* You're quite welcome to the space inside your head. Yes

Great, you have yet to find anything which you think disagrees with what you think within your own head. Thumbsup

Of course, perhaps the next step is actually trying to see if what you're thinking within your own head might.. y'know, some how actually match up with reality? Consider

(22-02-2016 02:48 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
Peebothuhul Wrote:I and others have asked you to expand upon, or give hints to,

(a) What you actually mean by 'Intelligent design'.

As you seem to be bouncing between evolution and abiogenesis.
I'm referring to the original source of life on Earth, which could be thought of as abiogenesis. I realize my original example wasn't great since the human brain is derived after evoution, but even the simplest single-cell organisms have a great deal of complexity, so the complexity argument remains.

And viruses, which are even smaller/simpler than single celled organisms are also complex. A sedimentary rock is also complex. The functioning nuclear physics inside a star is also complex.

Complexity=/=Design.

Unless... you're also saying that what ever initially designed the possible RNA precursor also designed stars and sedimentary rocks etc while it was doing its designing thing?

(22-02-2016 02:48 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
Peebothuhul Wrote:(b) Any sort of way/mechanism/idea/concept for how one might even begin to work out if something found in nature were 'designed' or not. Or, to put it another way. What you consider constitutes 'design' as it might appear should we come across such.
I addressed this a bit in another post when I talked about how genetic code is like computer code. When we read computer code we automatically know it's man-made (intelligently designed), but when we look at genetic code, it's not uncommon for people to completely reject the possibility that it had any sort of intelligent influence, which seems like a double-standard without further evidence.

No

This is not explaining anything. Just saying "Oh this is like that and so they're both like each other..."

Is not an explanation for the 'how' they got that way.

When I look at a computer code... I just see numbers. I don't see anything. No program, no information. Just 1100011111001010010100101 numbers. (On a technical note, I'm pretty sure the computer code is itself a layer over the circuit gates of the electrons which are flowing through the 'On'/'Off' system of the computer,

So, there's another layer of complexity under the complexity of the example you're resenting. Consider

Similarly, when I look at representations of DNA, I just see chemicals.

*Yes, I read your quoting of Professor Dawkins. I also understand that the context in which he's writing those words are not in a technical sense but in a 'common' word usage.

There's a difference between 'Colloquial' and 'Professional'.

(22-02-2016 02:48 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
Peebothuhul Wrote:So far just saying "I think 'X' is really likely and that's as far as I'm going to talk about 'X'." is... pretty pointless.

I actually think the Harry Potter books are highly over rated and there have been other contemporary fantasy stories written by other artists which both explore far more interesting ideas within their fantasy, such as how the characters actually function, learn etc with such fantastic elements within their reality. (A lot of the books by 'Jeniffer Fallon' I would offer as an example)
Thanks for that unnecessary bit of ... whatever that was.

Yes, what you're again failing to see is:

You are making a claim. If all you want is "Feels good" Thumbsup

Great and we'll move on.

Just saying "It is so!" doesn't make for a very long or interesting conversation.

How do you know it is so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Peebothuhul's post
22-02-2016, 03:14 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 03:02 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 02:58 AM)Banjo Wrote:  In other words: "I cannot back anything I say by using evidence. My guesswork and hope are enough!"

You're a fucking idiot.

That's me being an Aussie you dumb motherfucker.
Thank you, may I have another?

I've spent too many hours dealing with drunks in pubs to bother with people like you who come here without an argument.

You have nothing to offer. Just the same old boring idiocy all of us have seen so often before.

Do you have any evidence? I mean real, testable evidence? Or just your own opinions? You know what they say about opinions?

Same story with ideas.

"Ideas are a dime a dozen."
Jack Kerouac.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 03:19 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 03:07 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No

This is not explaining anything. Just saying "Oh this is like that and so they're both like each other..."

Is not an explanation for the 'how' they got that way.

When I look at a computer code... I just see numbers. I don't see anything. No program, no information. Just 1100011111001010010100101 numbers. (On a technical note, I'm pretty sure the computer code is itself a layer over the circuit gates of the electrons which are flowing through the 'On'/'Off' system of the computer,

So, there's another layer of complexity under the complexity of the example you're resenting. Consider

Similarly, when I look at representations of DNA, I just see chemicals.
You're making a good point terribly here. The similarity between DNA and computer code may seem like a link which implies an intelligent source, but it doesn't actually do much to delve into where the things came from. When dealing with where life came from, it's more useful to look at things such as the fossil record, which shows us how organisms have changed over time and could give us hints as to how it may have started even further back. This is why so many people will look at life and say it wasn't intelligently created, because we know from the fossil record that things have increased in complexity without intelligent intervention. That's the point you tried and failed to make (I hope).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 03:25 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 03:19 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 03:07 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No

This is not explaining anything. Just saying "Oh this is like that and so they're both like each other..."

Is not an explanation for the 'how' they got that way.

When I look at a computer code... I just see numbers. I don't see anything. No program, no information. Just 1100011111001010010100101 numbers. (On a technical note, I'm pretty sure the computer code is itself a layer over the circuit gates of the electrons which are flowing through the 'On'/'Off' system of the computer,

So, there's another layer of complexity under the complexity of the example you're resenting. Consider

Similarly, when I look at representations of DNA, I just see chemicals.
You're making a good point terribly here. The similarity between DNA and computer code may seem like a link which implies an intelligent source, but it doesn't actually do much to delve into where the things came from. When dealing with where life came from, it's more useful to look at things such as the fossil record, which shows us how organisms have changed over time and could give us hints as to how it may have started even further back. This is why so many people will look at life and say it wasn't intelligently created, because we know from the fossil record that things have increased in complexity without intelligent intervention. That's the point you tried and failed to make (I hope).


SHOW US YOUR PROOF!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 03:26 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 03:19 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 03:07 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No

This is not explaining anything. Just saying "Oh this is like that and so they're both like each other..."

Is not an explanation for the 'how' they got that way.

When I look at a computer code... I just see numbers. I don't see anything. No program, no information. Just 1100011111001010010100101 numbers. (On a technical note, I'm pretty sure the computer code is itself a layer over the circuit gates of the electrons which are flowing through the 'On'/'Off' system of the computer,

So, there's another layer of complexity under the complexity of the example you're resenting. Consider

Similarly, when I look at representations of DNA, I just see chemicals.
You're making a good point terribly here. The similarity between DNA and computer code may seem like a link which implies an intelligent source, but it doesn't actually do much to delve into where the things came from. When dealing with where life came from, it's more useful to look at things such as the fossil record, which shows us how organisms have changed over time and could give us hints as to how it may have started even further back. This is why so many people will look at life and say it wasn't intelligently created, because we know from the fossil record that things have increased in complexity without intelligent intervention. That's the point you tried and failed to make (I hope).

No I know what I'm thinking, thank'e.

What I'd like is for yourself to offer an answer to those questions that people have posed to yourself.

How might we tell if something in nature is designed?

Just saying " 'X' is really complicated therefore it's designed." isn't quite enough.

Since, we can agree, that sedimentary rocks are complicated. Stellar phenomena are complicated.

What possible test might there be, what kind of thought experiment might people do, to possibly get an inkling that something within the reality of nature is designed?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 03:31 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
Quote:The evidence I claim supports this stance is the complexity of life forms as we know

We all know that the hallmark of a good design is simplicity. Every idiot can design something complex, its the good designers that are able to design someting with the same features but less complexity.

Then, according to you, if the complexity of life forms is "proof" of anything, its "proof" of bad designers, because of all the unnecessary complexity and unsuitable parts in biological systems on this planet.

So here you go: Life on earth was -possibly- designed by stupid designers. In fact, so stupid that their own design can recognize this.
.....
...
..
.
Now what?

Apart from this:
How can you accept ID and evolution both to be true? If "intelligent creators" just created the first single cells as a starting point, then the human brain certianly cant be directly attributed to the creators after 4bio years of random mutation and natural selection.
So why did you bring the human brain into the discussion at all?
By your standard, single cells are the result of some awesome (more or less) intelligent designers, but the human brain is still the result of evolution, and far more awesome than single cells. So Evolution is more awesome than those (more or less) intelligent designers.

Quote:I addressed this a bit in another post when I talked about how genetic code is like computer code. When we read computer code we automatically know it's man-made (intelligently designed) ....
Wrong, we dont "automatically know". How do you "automatically know" anything?
We recognize design by contrast with nature. If you postulate that nature in return is the result of design, then you are blurring the picture. Then you just cant make any difference anymore between nature and design. Then the PC on which i am typing this, could as well be the result of evolution.

Computer code/random code:
I easily can create bunch of 0s and 1s with a random number generator. When you look at this meaningless mess of 1s and 0s, how can you know i designed that random number generator? How can you figure out its random at all?

Copy/paste of code:
We humans make sure our (man made) computer code is being copied without (random) errors, thats what CRC checks are good for. Clearly superior to random mutation which fails in 99,999% of all cases.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
22-02-2016, 03:31 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
If it's mandatory for all of existence to be dependent on a "designer" due to it's complexity - then how did the "designer" pop into existence?

Like a hall of mirrors, the designer would be dependent on a designer to design the designer, who in turn, would have to have a designer who ect, ect..................


...

Simplified version - that the universe just is, as it is and your little brain needs a simple way of coping with something so much larger than you.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like onlinebiker's post
22-02-2016, 03:32 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 03:26 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 03:19 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  You're making a good point terribly here. The similarity between DNA and computer code may seem like a link which implies an intelligent source, but it doesn't actually do much to delve into where the things came from. When dealing with where life came from, it's more useful to look at things such as the fossil record, which shows us how organisms have changed over time and could give us hints as to how it may have started even further back. This is why so many people will look at life and say it wasn't intelligently created, because we know from the fossil record that things have increased in complexity without intelligent intervention. That's the point you tried and failed to make (I hope).

No I know what I'm thinking, thank'e.

What I'd like is for yourself to offer an answer to those questions that people have posed to yourself.

How might we tell if something in nature is designed?

Just saying " 'X' is really complicated therefore it's designed." isn't quite enough.

Since, we can agree, that sedimentary rocks are complicated. Stellar phenomena are complicated.

What possible test might there be, what kind of thought experiment might people do, to possibly get an inkling that something within the reality of nature is designed?


These arguments are so old, so long ago debunked, that it is hard for one to take anything said seriously.

Black whatever. Do you have any proof to support your claims that can be tested in the modern scientific fashion?

That's how the world works now. For example, recently I was in hospital for a long time. Never once did the medical staff crowd around me and pray.

When they x rayed my skull I said to the professor "Hey I look like a chimpanzee!" Her response was to turn to me and answer "Of course you do!"

Now, do you have anything other than hot air?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
22-02-2016, 03:37 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 03:26 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No I know what I'm thinking, thank'e.
Ok, I guess it was just you making a bad point.
Quote:What I'd like is for yourself to offer an answer to those questions that people have posed to yourself.

How might we tell if something in nature is designed?

Just saying " 'X' is really complicated therefore it's designed." isn't quite enough.

Since, we can agree, that sedimentary rocks are complicated. Stellar phenomena are complicated.

What possible test might there be, what kind of thought experiment might people do, to possibly get an inkling that something within the reality of nature is designed?
Typically we know things are designed because we've seen them (or similar things) be designed, but that doesn't work well for the origin of life, which we can't observe directly. Although, there are scientists trying to design living things and they're already able to create some rather intricate things using protean folding.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: