Intelligent Design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2016, 01:56 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 05:16 AM)Ace Wrote:  what your saying is just a fancy way of saying "god did it"
I'm not saying "God did it" even in a read-between-the-lines way. I'm saying that something intelligent, be it aliens or whatever you want to call it, may have had a part in the origin of life.
Quote:that which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence and any argument otherwise is rendered null and void without objection
and how are we supposed to discredit something that has never had any credibility in the first place?
I already stated what I claim as evidence. This is the part where you explain why it isn't actually valid evidence. That's how you discredit something.
Quote:you have yet to explain why complexity requires a designer nor provide any methodology for finding out whether its true
I really don't feel like explaining the whole "DNA is code" things again, so please read some other comments I posted.
Quote:again, why is humanity not being able to replicate it proof of a 'designer' ?
I never said "proof", I said "possibility". I'm not an evangelical Christian trying to act smart. I'm a guy who thinks it's POSSIBLE that there was intelligent life besides us and before us who may have had part in creating us ("us" in a liberal, starting evolution on its course sort of way).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 02:00 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 01:37 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Single-celled organisms still have an impressive amount of complexity to them.

Single-celled organisms are, from the available evidence, the result of an evolutionary process from simpler forms.

Quote:As I've stated in other posts, DNA is a type of code which even the simplest cells have.

That requires that you assume intentional design in order to infer intentional design. It is like saying that the riverbed is a code because it instructs the river which way to flow.

Quote:When we look at computer code we know it has an intelligent source because it means something.

No, we know it has an intelligent agent behind it because there are no natural processes that result in computer code and because we have direct evidence of intelligent agents producing computer code.

Quote:In the same way, DNA means something and is decoded by other components of the cell, which then gives it instructions on how to create proteins and such.

Only when you insist on describing chemical interactions in anthropomorphic terms. It makes it easier to grasp the process but it is metaphorical.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 02:07 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 01:37 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  When we look at computer code we know it has an intelligent source because it means something. In the same way, DNA means something and is decoded by other components of the cell, which then gives it instructions on how to create proteins and such. So if computer code is intelligently designed, it seems reasonable to think that DNA could have some intelligent influence, even if it was just someone setting evolution on its course.

I'm going to ask again (since you didn't answer the first time):

Under your definition of intelligence, does a genetic algorithm count as an intelligent designer of computer code?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 02:11 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 07:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You believe that complexity only arises from complexity then?

If complex organisms prove, to you, that a designer (or seeder or whatever) must exist, do simple organisms and systems disprove it? What would disprove your proof if not simplicity?
Since this deals with the origins of life, what would disprove it is any proof of how life originated on Earth. We have quite a lot of evidence tracing life back as it evolved, but we don't yet know where it initially came from or how. So until some archaeological find can demonstrate that the planet actually was in a state for things to arise naturally without a designer, ID seems perfectly valid to me.

Although, there are other things which can sap its credibility without disproving it. As you said, if it could be shown that organisms could be simpler and simpler to the point where they're barely more than chemicals, then simple evolution is adequate without something needed to start it on its course. This is what many scientists are currently in the process of doing in fact, studying the possibilities of chemical evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 02:14 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 01:56 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 05:16 AM)Ace Wrote:  what your saying is just a fancy way of saying "god did it"
I'm not saying "God did it" even in a read-between-the-lines way. I'm saying that something intelligent, be it aliens or whatever you want to call it, may have had a part in the origin of life.

Where did that intelligence come from? By what process did it arise?

Once again, you are just pushing off the explanation one layer further out and not actually providing any kind of answer.

Quote:
Quote:that which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence and any argument otherwise is rendered null and void without objection
and how are we supposed to discredit something that has never had any credibility in the first place?
I already stated what I claim as evidence. This is the part where you explain why it isn't actually valid evidence. That's how you discredit something.

Complexity does not require intelligence, therefore complexity does not imply intelligence.

Quote:
Quote:you have yet to explain why complexity requires a designer nor provide any methodology for finding out whether its true
I really don't feel like explaining the whole "DNA is code" things again, so please read some other comments I posted.
Quote:again, why is humanity not being able to replicate it proof of a 'designer' ?
I never said "proof", I said "possibility". I'm not an evangelical Christian trying to act smart. I'm a guy who thinks it's POSSIBLE that there was intelligent life besides us and before us who may have had part in creating us ("us" in a liberal, starting evolution on its course sort of way).

It is possible in the way that anything else without evidence is possible. Without evidence it is possibility not worth giving serious consideration.

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
22-02-2016, 02:21 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 02:07 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'm going to ask again (since you didn't answer the first time):

Under your definition of intelligence, does a genetic algorithm count as an intelligent designer of computer code?
Ah, sorry. Your post on the first page was way long, so I didn't wind up reading it. I would say no, not for this purpose. Whoever started/wrote the genetic algorithm perhaps, but the algorithm itself wouldn't be considered intelligent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 02:23 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 02:11 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Since this deals with the origins of life, what would disprove it is any proof of how life originated on Earth. We have quite a lot of evidence tracing life back as it evolved, but we don't yet know where it initially came from or how. So until some archaeological find can demonstrate that the planet actually was in a state for things to arise naturally without a designer, ID seems perfectly valid to me.

This is another non sequitur. "We don't know how" is not evidence for intelligent design. It is not even evidence that intelligent design is a possible explanation.

Unknowns are not evidence of anything.

Besides that, you really need to do some research. We know that the prehistoric Earth's conditions were conducive to the formation of organic compounds. The Miller-Urey experiment, and many more recent examples, are proof of this.

Your "evidence" is not evidence and your characterization of the information we have is incorrect. Your argument fails on both levels.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
22-02-2016, 02:33 PM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2016 03:03 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 02:11 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 07:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You believe that complexity only arises from complexity then?

If complex organisms prove, to you, that a designer (or seeder or whatever) must exist, do simple organisms and systems disprove it? What would disprove your proof if not simplicity?
Since this deals with the origins of life, what would disprove it is any proof of how life originated on Earth. We have quite a lot of evidence tracing life back as it evolved, but we don't yet know where it initially came from or how. So until some archaeological find can demonstrate that the planet actually was in a state for things to arise naturally without a designer, ID seems perfectly valid to me.

Although, there are other things which can sap its credibility without disproving it. As you said, if it could be shown that organisms could be simpler and simpler to the point where they're barely more than chemicals, then simple evolution is adequate without something needed to start it on its course. This is what many scientists are currently in the process of doing in fact, studying the possibilities of chemical evolution.

First paragraph = argument from ignorance (you're also ignoring everything science has learned regarding the history of life in order to make such claims. Including the TESTABLE hypotheses regarding the abiotic origin of life and the cell symbiont theory)

Second paragraph = just plain ignorance of what life is when it comes to the simplest and most basal forms of it. Including those things (like viruses) that ride the line between life and non-living chemical.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
22-02-2016, 02:34 PM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2016 03:07 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 02:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 02:11 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Since this deals with the origins of life, what would disprove it is any proof of how life originated on Earth. We have quite a lot of evidence tracing life back as it evolved, but we don't yet know where it initially came from or how. So until some archaeological find can demonstrate that the planet actually was in a state for things to arise naturally without a designer, ID seems perfectly valid to me.

Although, there are other things which can sap its credibility without disproving it. As you said, if it could be shown that organisms could be simpler and simpler to the point where they're barely more than chemicals, then simple evolution is adequate without something needed to start it on its course. This is what many scientists are currently in the process of doing in fact, studying the possibilities of chemical evolution.

First paragraph = argument from ignorance

Second paragraph = just plain ignorance of what life is when it comes to the simplest and most basal forms of it. Including those things (like viruses) that ride the line between life and non-living chemical.

But once again I ask, if you think complexity demonstrates that an intelligence exists, does simplicity disprove it? (I should be clear, simple organisms DO exist)

Can complexity only come from complexity?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
22-02-2016, 03:42 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 01:56 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  I never said "proof", I said "possibility". I'm not an evangelical Christian trying to act smart. I'm a guy who thinks it's POSSIBLE that there was intelligent life besides us and before us who may have had part in creating us ("us" in a liberal, starting evolution on its course sort of way).
Ok, but it is pretty meaningless to acknowledge what is possible. It is possible that life on Earth was created by sentient lampshades from Proxima Centauri. It is possible that it leaked in from Dimension X. It is possible that Slartibartfast from Hitchiker's Guide is a real character who designed us.

Anything is possible and I acknowledge that anything is possible. However what is likely is another matter entirely. What is useful to discuss is another matter entirely.

Personally I stick to what has evidence to suggest that it is remotely probable. While sheer speculation such as you are engaging in is fun, and may scratch some itch you have to cater to what seems intuitive to you because you can't get your mind around the complexity of itself ... it is still just speculation.

I am entirely open to the Earth being seeded by an alien civilization or some less intentional transpermia scenario, at such time as there is evidence in support of the idea. In the meantime it is, at best, interesting speculation, and at worst, inviting the worst angels of our nature, that is, inviting us to engage in confirmation bias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: