Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
Why do people always refer to it as "Intelligent Design" when 99% of life forms failed or became extinct? If I had that many mulligans I would be the #1 golfer in the world! And I don't even play golf...according to my buds...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 01:33 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 01:25 PM)Dirtnapper324 Wrote:  Why do people always refer to it as "Intelligent Design" when 99% of life forms failed or became extinct? If I had that many mulligans I would be the #1 golfer in the world! And I don't even play golf...according to my buds...

Intelligent design does not necessarily mean good design. Also good designs can become obsolete so the fact that 99% of species have gone extinct it not a good reason to dismiss intelligent design. Now I am not an advocate for ID the same way creationist are....I merely pointing out the flaw in this counter argument to creationists ID.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 01:40 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 01:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Now I am not an advocate for ID the same way creationist are....
What's the difference between you and them supposed to be?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 01:45 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 01:40 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 01:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Now I am not an advocate for ID the same way creationist are....
What's the difference between you and them supposed to be?

That beings like us are an invevitable consequence of a designed system. IDist believe we are designed, I believe the system in which we emerged was designed so that we would emerge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 01:55 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 01:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  That beings like us are an invevitable consequence of a designed system. IDist believe we are designed, I believe the system in which we emerged was designed so that we would emerge.
Designed by whom? God?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 02:04 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 02:10 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 01:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 01:40 PM)Vosur Wrote:  What's the difference between you and them supposed to be?

That beings like us are an inevitable consequence of a designed system. IDist believe we are designed, I believe the system in which we emerged was designed so that we would emerge.

The major problem with ID, or evolution started by god is that it's impossible to for see which direction evolution would take.

If evolution were guided then you'd have to concede that god some how manipulated environments to force evolution to take the course that would lead to us, or influenced the genetic mutations over the generations to force humanoids, or knew evolution would lead to us, and had a plan to intervene with our lives on earth at a particular time, in an isolated area of the earth.

Then you have another problem. What happened to all the souls of the almost human ancestors, human ancestors that were not modern human, and all the other extinct species of hominids? If you argue they didn't know of god or couldn't know of god and were saved due to ignorance, then why not keep human kind ignorant so that god could maximize the non-suffering of people for all eternity?

If you decide that all non-modern humans were merely animals with out souls, then at what point did god start attaching souls to us?

If it's possible that non-modern humans didn't have souls how do we know that we have souls? It might also be possible that god is waiting for something else to come along to give souls to instead of humans.

All these questions I had and eventually I had to sack the god idea. The god idea is a contradiction, patched up with mysteries, and miracles.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
26-03-2013, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 03:26 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 02:04 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 01:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  That beings like us are an inevitable consequence of a designed system. IDist believe we are designed, I believe the system in which we emerged was designed so that we would emerge.

The major problem with ID, or evolution started by god is that it's impossible to for see which direction evolution would take.

If evolution were guided then you'd have to concede that god some how manipulated environments to force evolution to take the course that would lead to us, or influenced the genetic mutations over the generations to force humanoids, or knew evolution would lead to us, and had a plan to intervene with our lives on earth at a particular time, in an isolated area of the earth.

Then you have another problem. What happened to all the souls of the almost human ancestors, human ancestors that were not modern human, and all the other extinct species of hominids? If you argue they didn't know of god or couldn't know of god and were saved due to ignorance, then why not keep human kind ignorant so that god could maximize the non-suffering of people for all eternity?

If you decide that all non-modern humans were merely animals with out souls, then at what point did god start attaching souls to us?

If it's possible that non-modern humans didn't have souls how do we know that we have souls? It might also be possible that god is waiting for something else to come along to give souls to instead of humans.

All these questions I had and eventually I had to sack the god idea. The god idea is a contradiction, patched up with mysteries, and miracles.

You can design an evolutionary system to produce any end product you wish. On YouTube there is a video where a someone uses descent with modification to evolve a picture of a face. I haven't figured out how to make a proper link to it with my Xoom though.

Search "genetic algorithms face" and it should come up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 04:15 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 03:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 02:04 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  The major problem with ID, or evolution started by god is that it's impossible to for see which direction evolution would take.

If evolution were guided then you'd have to concede that god some how manipulated environments to force evolution to take the course that would lead to us, or influenced the genetic mutations over the generations to force humanoids, or knew evolution would lead to us, and had a plan to intervene with our lives on earth at a particular time, in an isolated area of the earth.

Then you have another problem. What happened to all the souls of the almost human ancestors, human ancestors that were not modern human, and all the other extinct species of hominids? If you argue they didn't know of god or couldn't know of god and were saved due to ignorance, then why not keep human kind ignorant so that god could maximize the non-suffering of people for all eternity?

If you decide that all non-modern humans were merely animals with out souls, then at what point did god start attaching souls to us?

If it's possible that non-modern humans didn't have souls how do we know that we have souls? It might also be possible that god is waiting for something else to come along to give souls to instead of humans.

All these questions I had and eventually I had to sack the god idea. The god idea is a contradiction, patched up with mysteries, and miracles.

You can design an evolutionary system to produce any end product you wish. On YouTube there is a video where a someone uses descent with modification to evolve a picture of a face. I haven't figured out how to make a proper link to it with my Xoom though.

Search "genetic algorithms face" and it should come up.
If you produce an end product with a picture of a face you already have to thing you are trying to recreate in existence. Which would mean that god would have a template world, that he'd run a genetic algorithm to come to the same conclusion. In other words it's a terrible way to copy and paste.

However other applications for genetic algorithms are to solve problems. They are used to optimize computer code, beat megaman, or engineering applications. In other words it's used to gain answers, and sometimes as a demonstration reproduce photos.

Anyways at least you accept evolution.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 04:13 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
It seems to me the "design" argument is saying we are the ultimate design, that we are still not evolving. Whether direct( normal creationist) or indirect( your version). I'm pretty sure we are still evolving, and we don't know what we will look like in a 100,000 years. Or if we will survive that long. So if God started the ball rolling and we die off, what was the point? I think cutting to the chase, creationist believe everything was designed for us (directly/indirectly), athiest believe we are just part of the whole. Cosmic dust ultimately. I'm not saying I know what you believe, but in general. The rest is just for argument sake on details. This is just my take on it, I don't profess to have the best handle on the issue. I'm here to learn more, or less (sometimes).. Smartass
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 04:28 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 01:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 01:25 PM)Dirtnapper324 Wrote:  Why do people always refer to it as "Intelligent Design" when 99% of life forms failed or became extinct? If I had that many mulligans I would be the #1 golfer in the world! And I don't even play golf...according to my buds...

Intelligent design does not necessarily mean good design. Also good designs can become obsolete so the fact that 99% of species have gone extinct it not a good reason to dismiss intelligent design. Now I am not an advocate for ID the same way creationist are....I merely pointing out the flaw in this counter argument to creationists ID.
Yeah, sure. that's a good point. However, its only a good point when looking at a Deistic God. When looking in scope of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim Deity(Yahweh) it falls flat on its face. For instance, God, if he so choosed, could have made a better designed animal. He didn't, which indicates two things, both of them not good for the Deity in question. Either he couldn't make a better animal which could have stood the test of time, or he didn't want to. In the former case, that makes god a incompetent being, and in the latter case, it makes God wasteful and cruel. that fact that he could have created humans via creation (Not evolution) and saved BILLIONS of organisms painful, excruciating, and pitiful extinction is a question that eludes us. Why didn't he?

Intelligent Design was only formulated to conform to the theory of evolution (With some stark differences.), but it falls down in terms of practicality and efficiency. Sure, you can say God didn't design them to last, but why would he be inclined to design them in the first place unless they were either important (Which is actually nonsense since nothing is of consequence to an omnipotent being) or they served a function which needed that animal to be alive (Another nonsensical idea, because an omnipotent God could fulfill the function with out the need of the evolution, modification, and eventual extinction of that organism.)

Essentially, what you are left with are two choices for your Deity

An Incompetent one, or a Wasteful one.

Thumbsup Good work, God.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: