the God term
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2013, 06:38 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 04:15 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 04:13 PM)childeye Wrote:  Sorry, just saying what I see.
But you're not seeing the whole picture, just the small points that to you point to a creator.
Please describe the big picture you are referring to as best you can..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 06:42 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 06:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 05:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I am responding to your value judgement that it looks intelligent.

Edit: You are correct - I conflated 'intelligent' with 'ethical'.

However, very little looks designed in the natural world. I stand by my statement that you are not inspecting the natural world closely enough.
I can appreciate your observation of me. I admit I do not pay much attention to these matters pertaining to evolution and no doubt you are better educated about it than myself. The problem is that seldom does science answer anything but rather only brings forth more questions. One thing is discovered and declared as fact and then another is discovered which disavows the first fact etc...

That is not an accurate view. Look at my signature.
We refine our knowledge, we build upon it. Our knowledge is not absolute, it is the result of our best efforts.

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
22-04-2013, 06:52 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 04:45 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Humans use codes and systems because they are limited in faculties, and a common, shared system for similar things makes the system easier to design and manage.

Saying that DNA being code-like implies an intelligent designer, means that you are placing a limitation on that designer by saying that they have some limitation that causes them to prefer the easier method (common DNA) over creating an optimally efficient design from scratch for each species. In other words, if you take commonalities in DNA as being indicative of intelligent design, you are also saying that the designer cannot be god.
I wish to preempt my response by first saying that I am not feigning stupidity so as to ignore what you said. Honestly I do not see how that makes any sense. I sense I am misunderstanding something here. It's as if you said the technique used to create everything from one big bang where a whole universe came into existence out of nowhere was not good enough to be God. But concerning the DNA. Why is the DNA technique too primitive for it to be the work of a Creator? What system of building blocks can you imagine that is better?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 06:56 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 06:52 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 04:45 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Humans use codes and systems because they are limited in faculties, and a common, shared system for similar things makes the system easier to design and manage.

Saying that DNA being code-like implies an intelligent designer, means that you are placing a limitation on that designer by saying that they have some limitation that causes them to prefer the easier method (common DNA) over creating an optimally efficient design from scratch for each species. In other words, if you take commonalities in DNA as being indicative of intelligent design, you are also saying that the designer cannot be god.
I wish to preempt my response by first saying that I am not feigning stupidity so as to ignore what you said. Honestly I do not see how that makes any sense. I sense I am misunderstanding something here. It's as if you said the technique used to create everything from one big bang where a whole universe came into existence out of nowhere was not good enough to be God. But concerning the DNA. Why is the DNA technique too primitive for it to be the work of a Creator? What system of building blocks can you imagine that is better?

Better in what way?

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
22-04-2013, 06:59 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 06:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 06:28 PM)childeye Wrote:  I can appreciate your observation of me. I admit I do not pay much attention to these matters pertaining to evolution and no doubt you are better educated about it than myself. The problem is that seldom does science answer anything but rather only brings forth more questions. One thing is discovered and declared as fact and then another is discovered which disavows the first fact etc...

That is not an accurate view. Look at my signature.
We refine our knowledge, we build upon it. Our knowledge is not absolute, it is the result of our best efforts.
I like your signature Chas. Yes that is well said particularly when speaking from a perspective of reverse engineering. I can see why my sincere sentiment would cause you to point to your signature. Still, we have essentially said the same thing from two differing perspectives. That such knowledge is not absolute. It's like quantum physics vs. relativity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 07:03 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 06:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 06:52 PM)childeye Wrote:  I wish to preempt my response by first saying that I am not feigning stupidity so as to ignore what you said. Honestly I do not see how that makes any sense. I sense I am misunderstanding something here. It's as if you said the technique used to create everything from one big bang where a whole universe came into existence out of nowhere was not good enough to be God. But concerning the DNA. Why is the DNA technique too primitive for it to be the work of a Creator? What system of building blocks can you imagine that is better?

Better in what way?
It seems that you should ask Phaedrus that question. If I were to guess, I think he is saying that God would not use random sequence to bring about order from Chaos, but I'm just guessing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 07:05 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 06:59 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 06:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is not an accurate view. Look at my signature.
We refine our knowledge, we build upon it. Our knowledge is not absolute, it is the result of our best efforts.
I like your signature Chas. Yes that is well said particularly when speaking from a perspective of reverse engineering. I can see why my sincere sentiment would cause you to point to your signature. Still, we have essentially said the same thing from two differing perspectives. That such knowledge is not absolute. It's like quantum physics vs. relativity.

Well, those are both quite accurate.

I don't think we're saying the same thing at all.

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
22-04-2013, 07:07 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 07:03 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 06:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  Better in what way?
It seems that you should ask Phaedrus that question. If I were to guess, I think he is saying that God would not use random sequence to bring about order from Chaos, but I'm just guessing.

Why not make each creation unique? If you have an omniscient and omni-powerful God why would he make a system that to work needs to evolve from proto-bacteria through million of years to produce his supposed Perfect Image?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 07:13 PM
RE: the God term
(22-04-2013 07:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(22-04-2013 07:03 PM)childeye Wrote:  It seems that you should ask Phaedrus that question. If I were to guess, I think he is saying that God would not use random sequence to bring about order from Chaos, but I'm just guessing.

Why not make each creation unique? If you have an omniscient and omni-powerful God why would he make a system that to work needs to evolve from proto-bacteria through million of years to produce his supposed Perfect Image?

Because he works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform? Consider

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
22-04-2013, 07:14 PM
RE: the God term
You might not get it if you've never programmed anything in your life.

There are two ways to go about designing a program: you can either highly optimize something to do one specific task, using a bare minimum of resources, resulting in a fast, efficient, low-memory program that does the job as fast as possible with the least resource use possible.

Or you can design something to be general purpose, modular, and extensible, to allow easier maintenance and upgrades. This results in a slower, higher memory usage program, but it's much easier to modify it to do something else.


If I were an infinitely powerful force or being, omnipotent and omniscient, why the hell would I care about making it easier to modify? I'm omnipotent, all tasks are trivial. If I want to design, say, a fern, I would design it using the least number of components, and set it up to be as efficient as possible, with no extraneous code. If anything, I would prepackage a number of handy beneficial mutations (rather than relying on errors in the code which may or may not be helpful), and I would allow the plant to switch between variations of a gene on its own, rather than waiting for sexual recombination so that its offspring may or may not have the beneficial mutation.

What do we see instead? We see that ferns have more chromosomes than humans! And millions of genes, many of which are redundant or could be combined. It shares code with numerous other organisms, even though they could have easily been optimized by any omnipotent being worth its salt. It looks more like a base program that has been extended and modified and repurposed hundreds or thousands of times, rather than a highly efficient, designed machine.


If organisms were designed, they sure look like they were designed by a group of Linux hackers; not god.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: