1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

But can natural selection explain everything. The ID people argue “no.”

And that was the question above. What things?

Again, you claim no intelligence is involved. My question to you (I don't want to put words in your mouth), Is natural selection enough to explain the eye?

Absolutely. No intelligence is needed. If you think there is, point it out.

You didn't answer my question. I BELIEVE TWO WAY INTELLIGENCE is required for such conversations. We have an eye and I asked you if natural selection was enough to explain its existence since the article you cited was not clear. What is your proof for the claim no intelligence is required? This is my second question to your new claim.

[DAMABO]

The arguments I have made go like this:

A. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition)

B. All codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)

First of all, can you define a code?
Second, DNA itself is not a code. It is what we make of it.


Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions: (More?)

a) Humans designed DNA impossible obviously, although we can mold it to our advantage
b) Aliens designed DNA possibly
c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously likely - although you are misusing terminology such as 'randomly'. nature is not random. it is a system based determinate laws.
d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates
information as said, everything is information. everything can be encoded into information. DNA, only by our inference, is a code. nature does not think of that. Nature just goes the way of free energy. substances bond by determinate rules.
e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God. superintelligence ok. God, I'm not sure what you mean with this.

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans.
(b)
could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. I'm not sure what you mean with 'back in time'
© may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific
explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable
process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck. luck has nothing to do with it. nature follows laws.
(d) could
be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone
observes a naturally occurring code. as said, DNA, according to you is a code. guess what, we have observed a code. But you dismiss it as not naturally occurring code because ' All codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)'. Then where do you expect any one to form a testable hypothesis, if any code we find will be automatically dismissed as not naturally occurring?

So the only systematic
explanation that remains is (e) a theological one. which means what? the following god presented to us (by conversational history): personal, immaterial, eternal?
Sorry, there are explanations that are much more likely than this. especially the 'immaterial' is lightly ridiculous, known that you will dismiss the idea that 'there should be some separate physical law that creates information' because it should be unsystematic. Not that I agree that there is (or should be ) such a law, au contraire, the more unsystematic thing is to invoke 'immateriality' - a property of which qualities are unclear, untested, untestable, and which has the property that we can use it to correct any error in reasoning we make.

So, in italics my opinions.

[Turnbuckle]

a) Humans designed DNA
b) Aliens designed DNA
c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates
information
e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (b)
could well be true but only pushes the question back in time.
© may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific
explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable
process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck. (d) could
be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone
observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic
explanation that remains is (e) a theological one.

What a facile argument! Is this really the depth of your thinking?

As for (e), how did God get here? Did he evolve, or was he too created by a god of even greater intelligence?

And getting back to the eye, if it wasn't the product of evolution, how come all the intermediate stages have been found? Did God just create humans with eyes and then create false evidence for the evolution of eyes when it wasn't necessary? And why did he reuse 98% of the DNA to make humans and chimpanzees if there was no evolution? More deception?

There is no intelligence in ID, and no integrity. It's just a devious attempt to insert religion into schools.

[shadowhawk]

furthermore, once you postulate that a designer is necessary to create such a program, then you will have to postulate an infinite number of such programs and designers, if I reason correctly.
let's dissect this thought: the universe is a computer, which runs a program. computers, from your own experience, cannot arise from themselves, they must be created by a designer (a leap of faith here, but let's go along with this thought). then where did this creator come from? out of nothing? no, most likely he will have been shaped by a long history of events, called evolution. According to you, life is a program, so again, the larger universe comprising this being and its subprogram, must be a giant computer. hence someone must have created it. and so on.
In short, even if the universe is a computer, there is no designer needed. If you start postulating some Uncaused Causer, well then anything is possible.
I think you're also confusing the abstract terminology 'program' and 'computer' with our daily life concepts. We know that these are created of course. program, in the sense that you have suggested that the universe 'has to be a program', only means that there are specific determinate laws from which one cannot escape. These laws may or may not have been ordained by some superintelligence.

You are incorrect claiming I am postulating an infinite regress, I don’t believe such a regress is possible but that is off topic.

I never claimed the universe was a computer. Straw man.

Your entire logic is flawed and off topic.

[DAMABO]

maxwatt: yes your analysis is quite correct, I believe. analogy often holds, but as often it holds not. interesting way of investigation of course.
I was at some point going to say that induction=analogy, but then you have cleared it up. edit: I'm not so sure anymore you're correct on the difference between analogy and induction. you're saying that it induction is temporal, and analogy is not? Induction is also used in non-temporal contexts. the standard proof via induction usually goes by: if property x goes for n=1, then - if the implication x goes for k => x goes for k+1 is valid - then, it is valid for all n. maybe PM me, since we are slightly digressing.

shadowhawk, before you 'strawman' me, that was not directed to you, that was to xEva.

Edited by DAMABO, 16 October 2012 - 10:21 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

But can natural selection explain everything. The ID people argue “no.”

And that was the question above. What things?

Again, you claim no intelligence is involved. My question to you (I don't want to put words in your mouth), Is natural selection enough to explain the eye?

Absolutely. No intelligence is needed. If you think there is, point it out.

You didn't answer my question. I BELIEVE TWO WAY INTELLIGENCE is required for such conversations. We have an eye and I asked you if natural selection was enough to explain its existence since the article you cited was not clear. What is your proof for the claim no intelligence is required? This is my second question to your new claim.

Of course it's the result of natural selection. All the evidence points to it, so if you have some alternative suggestion, the ball is in your court to make a case. You haven't done it and you can't do it.

[xEva]

No no. the universe is the whole thing. if somebody can program it, it cannot be the whole thing.

I use the analogy of the Internet with our universe. I really do believe that the Internet will one day be huge and that it will be populated by intelligent beings. The Internet, either young like today, or evolved like in 1000+ years, constitutes "the whole thing". It is a world in itself. Just like ours. It is the whole thing for the creatures living in it. They cannot exist outside of it, just like we cannot exist outside of our world.

furthermore, once you postulate that a designer is necessary to create such a program, then you will have to postulate an infinite number of such programs and designers, if I reason correctly.

Yes, you reason correctly. But then please take into account how different our world is from the digital world. So different that, just like in a biblical story, no digital creature can see the face of God (us) and we (God) cannot enter physically the world we created. And so on and so forth. I can give many parallels between us and the Net and God(s) and our world. The point is that each world created is vastly different in its actual implementation, yet certain idea runs through them all... Have you considered these differences between each world, just by looking at our concrete examples, before insisting on knowing other questions?

let's dissect this thought: the universe is a computer, which runs a program. computers, from your own experience, cannot arise from themselves, they must be created by a designer (a leap of faith here, but let's go along with this thought). then where did this creator come from? out of nothing?

Well, what does our universe come from, according to mainstream science? It's a random fluctuation of (+) balancing (-) that came of nothing. If you find this explanation more satisfactory, perhaps it's a matter of taste.

no, most likely he will have been shaped by a long history of events, called evolution. According to you, life is a program, so again, the larger universe comprising this being and its subprogram, must be a giant computer. hence someone must have created it. and so on.
In short, even if the universe is a computer, there is no designer needed. If you start postulating some Uncaused Causer, well then anything is possible.
I think you're also confusing the abstract terminology 'program' and 'computer' with our daily life concepts. We know that these are created of course. program, in the sense that you have suggested that the universe 'has to be a program', only means that there are specific determinate laws from which one cannot escape. These laws may or may not have been ordained by some superintelligence.

Evolution does not deny programming. To the contrary. Evolution is best implemented via programming (to which DNA attests).

And no, I am not confusing the abstract terminology 'program' and 'computer' with our daily life concepts. I mean it literally. This is what makes sense to me on all levels. Life is the desire for the novelty of experience. Its evolution is the evolution of worlds, i.e. the novel places where these experiences can be had.

Edited by xEva, 16 October 2012 - 10:38 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Turnbuckle: What a facile argument! Is this really the depth of your thinking?

So now you have turned to calling names That is all you’ve got!.

As for (e), how did God get here? Did he evolve, or was he too created by a god of even greater intelligence?

Your bigotry has taken you completely off topic.

And getting back to the eye, if it wasn't the product of evolution, how come all the intermediate stages have been found? Did God just create humans with eyes and then create false evidence for the evolution of eyes when it wasn't necessary? And why did he reuse 98% of the DNA to make humans and chimpanzees if there was no evolution? More deception?

You are just making empty pronouncements. There is no evidence here. Actually you are out of date with this Junk DNA argument but I won’t try and educate you. Just check the papers during this last month. And now you are accusing me of deceiving you. I guess you are used to treating theists this way. Ho Hummm

There is no intelligence in ID, and no integrity. It's just a devious attempt to insert religion into schools.

More name calling and all this without one drop of evidence. What a drag. Not interested.

[DAMABO]

xEva, why I find the (+) , (-) thing more attractive is that it doesn't need an intelligence to exist a priori. Intelligences existing in the very beginning- if we can correctly speak of it this way - seems contradictive with the principle that most intelligences have been formed because of a long history of chemical metamorphoses. also, the universe did not came out of 'nothing'.
Evolution does not deny programming, I haven't said that :-). That was my main tenet - being programmed or not does not matter in terms of not being designed, in terms of evolving solely by the laws of physics, since we have the same given laws of physics that we have verified.
On the last one, if you believe in an a priori deity then it is feasible for a literal interpretation of computer (being designed for someones own purposes)- but it makes the assumption which one attempted to prove here.

Edited by DAMABO, 16 October 2012 - 10:56 PM.

[shadowhawk]

But can natural selection explain everything. The ID people argue “no.”

And that was the question above. What things?

Again, you claim no intelligence is involved. My question to you (I don't want to put words in your mouth), Is natural selection enough to explain the eye?

Absolutely. No intelligence is needed. If you think there is, point it out.

You didn't answer my question. I BELIEVE TWO WAY INTELLIGENCE is required for such conversations. We have an eye and I asked you if natural selection was enough to explain its existence since the article you cited was not clear. What is your proof for the claim no intelligence is required? This is my second question to your new claim.

Of course it's the result of natural selection. All the evidence points to it, so if you have some alternative suggestion, the ball is in your court to make a case. You haven't done it and you can't do it.

I have repeatedly said I believe in Natural Selection. Does that make me an evolutionist? I think I may be relatng to someone with a thought disorder. Just saying..strange.

[DAMABO]

"But then please take into account how different our world is from the digital world." How is it? You just said you interpreted our world=the digital world. What you probably mean is that 'God' is outside this digital world we live in, so it has to operate with some different rules ?

[shadowhawk]

xEva, why I find the (+) , (-) thing more attractive is that it doesn't need an intelligence to exist a priori. Intelligences existing in the very beginning- if we can correctly speak of it this way - seems contradictive with the principle that most intelligences have been formed because of a long history of chemical metamorphoses.
Evolution does not deny programming, I haven't said that :-). That was my main tenet - being programmed or not does not matter in terms of not being designed, in terms of evolving solely by the laws of physics, since we have the same given laws of physics that we have verified.
On the last one, if you believe in an a priori deity then it is feasible for a literal interpretation of computer (being designed for someones own purposes)- but it makes the assumption which one attempted to prove here.

Not addressed to me but there is no evidence for this claim that mindless matter produced intelligence.

[Turnbuckle]

More name calling and all this without one drop of evidence. What a drag. Not interested.

Where is your evidence, hawk? Where is the evidence that ID relies on? You can't produce any because there isn't any. Just empty arguments based on the most facile thinking. Fact is, ID is a corrupt religious strategy for manipulating the political landscape. It pretends to be science when all it has is magic and superstition. So if you want to pretend to be scientific, produce an argument for it backed by evidence. If you've come here to convince anyone in magic, you haven't done it.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 16 October 2012 - 10:57 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

I have repeatedly said I believe in Natural Selection. Does that make me an evolutionist? I think I may be relatng to someone with a thought disorder. Just saying..strange.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood. You came across as a proponent of ID.

[DAMABO]

'there is no evidence for this claim that mindless matter produced intelligence.'
unless you like science. there is every evidence to this. have you ever heard of the brain? clearly it is composed of 'mindless' matter (we might as well say 'mindful' matter). try to decompose your brain. you will see that its constituents will fit in to the mindless matter pretty nicely.

[shadowhawk]

More name calling and all this without one drop of evidence. What a drag. Not interested.

Where is your evidence, hawk? Where is the evidence that ID relies on? You can't produce any because there isn't any. Just empty arguments based on the most facile thinking. Fact is, ID is a corrupt religious strategy for manipulating the political landscape. It pretends to be science when all it has is magic and superstition. So if you want to pretend to be scientific, produce an argument for it backed by evidence. If you've come here to convince anyone in magic, you haven't done it.

Ho hummm

[shadowhawk]

[copy} DAMABO: explanation that remains is (e) a theological one. which means what? the following god presented to us (by conversational history): personal, immaterial, eternal?
Sorry, there are explanations that are much more likely than this. especially the 'immaterial' is lightly ridiculous, known that you will dismiss the idea that 'there should be some separate physical law that creates information' because it should be unsystematic. Not that I agree that there is (or should be ) such a law, au contraire, the more unsystematic thing is to invoke 'immateriality' - a property of which qualities are unclear, unteste [/qote]

Not really, you made a choice. So everything has to be material to you? Can you think of any non physical things that exist??

[xEva]

xEva, why I find the (+) , (-) thing more attractive is that it doesn't need an intelligence to exist a priori. Intelligences existing in the very beginning- if we can correctly speak of it this way - seems contradictive with the principle that most intelligences have been formed because of a long history of chemical metamorphoses. also, the universe did not came out of 'nothing'.

The trouble is, a (+)(-) fluctuation cannot give rise to a nucleus with DNA. I am telling you this as "an authority in the field" (computer science). That has to be designed. Just like in our virtual reality games, the totality of hardware and software must be present and reach a high level of development before even a primitive digital creature can be implemented. This means that a cell nucleus can emerge only within a context of highly developed technology.

If life is a program --and it is-- then the universe is the computer. Literally. It cannot be otherwise. To understand how it was made and by whom, you examine how the Internet was made and by whom and what for and how it is used now the most (entertainment). That's why it makes sense that we are made in the image of God(s), as our digital creatures are made in our image.

Evolution does not deny programming, I haven't said that :-). That was my main tenet - being programmed or not does not matter in terms of not being designed...

This opinion can be based only on ignorance of what programming is and what it implies. You don't seem to have a good grasp of these concepts and what they mean in reality.

"But then please take into account how different our world is from the digital world" -- How is it? You just said you interpreted our world=the digital world. What you probably mean is that 'God' is outside this digital world we live in, so it has to operate with some different rules ?

What I mean is that the whole organization of space itself, the space that houses the universe, is vastly different. It is the structure and the properties of space that dictate the physical laws of the universe it houses.

What do we know about the space we live in? Not much, at this point. We have even less inkling of how it may feel to exist in a digital world, even though we have a good idea about the hardware and software underlying its existence. And by the way, the hardware part will undoubtedly change in the future. But it will be the same world that already exists today, only more developed and evolved.

Edited by xEva, 16 October 2012 - 11:21 PM.

[Elus]

Off topic. This is not science but a theory which may or may not be true. Where is your proof and why do you say there is no intelligence behind it? You are making claims for which you have a burden of proof.

1. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is an intelligent designer.


2. You have no proof of an intelligent designer.

3. Scientists admit they are not entirely sure how life originated, but they have posed some plausible explanations.

4. We do, however, have proof that RNA can self replicate.

5. It is plausible that nucleotides in the primordial soup linked up by chance to form the first RNA strand.

Conclusion: Scientists do not know for sure how life originated, but have an educated guess to suggest RNA played a role. Scientists admit to not knowing everything. Intelligent design supporters propose that they know the answer to the question of life's origin (God did it), but do not have any proof.

Scientists admit their ignorance.
ID Proponents do not admit their ignorance. They say there was a designer but offer no proof.

This difference between religious people and scientists highlights an important point. Humility in the face of ignorance. Rather than arrogantly claiming to know something, scientists are humble enough to say that they do not know.

Edited by Elus, 16 October 2012 - 11:44 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

With regard to ID as a strategy for inserting religious teaching into schools, this is an interesting Wikipedia article on the "Wedge strategy"--

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[2] The strategy also aims to affirm God's reality.[3] Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values...

[xEva]

4. We do, however, have proof that RNA can self replicate.

5. It is plausible that nucleotides in the primordial soup linked up by chance to form the first RNA strand.

Conclusion: Scientists do not know for sure how life originated, but have an educated guess to suggest RNA played a role. Scientists admit to not knowing everything. Intelligent design supporters propose that they know the answer to the question of life's origin (God did it), but do not have any proof.

The self-replicating RNA does nothing for emergence of DNA. The self-replicating RNA seemed like "a proof" when people thought that viruses were a proto-life, from which other forms of life eventually emerged. But of course, just like with the computer viruses, which emerged only when complex systems already were in place and frequently exchanged information, the biological viruses could arise only when cells they could infect in order to accomplish their own replication already existed.
So, self-replicating RNA does not cut it. Sorry.

The other thing that does not cut it, on the other end of the debate, is the intelligent designer, i.e. singular. Just like no single man was responsible for the creation of the Net (aside from Al Gore, lol) no single designer could ever make our world. I say there was/is intelligent beings, not unlike us, who have created this world with the sole aim of having fun, to upload their minds into it and get lost in it forever.

So, it's not intelligent designer, it's intelligent (mostly) designers, which are us, uploaded The relay continues.. What say you?

[Elus]

4. We do, however, have proof that RNA can self replicate.

5. It is plausible that nucleotides in the primordial soup linked up by chance to form the first RNA strand.

Conclusion: Scientists do not know for sure how life originated, but have an educated guess to suggest RNA played a role. Scientists admit to not knowing everything. Intelligent design supporters propose that they know the answer to the question of life's origin (God did it), but do not have any proof.

The self-replicating RNA does nothing for emergence of DNA. The self-replicating RNA seemed like "a proof" when people thought that viruses were a proto-life, from which other forms of life eventually emerged. But of course, just like with the computer viruses, which emerged only when complex systems already were in place and frequently exchanged information, the biological viruses could arise only when cells they could infect in order to accomplish their own replication already existed.
So, self-replicating RNA does not cut it. Sorry.

The other thing that does not cut it, on the other end of the debate, is the intelligent designer, i.e. singular. Just like no single man was responsible for the creation of the Net (aside from Al Gore, lol) no single designer could ever make our world. I say there was/is intelligent beings, not unlike us, who have created this world with the sole aim of having fun, to upload their minds into it and get lost in it forever.

So, it's not intelligent designer, it's intelligent (mostly) designers, which are us, uploaded The relay continues.. What say you?

If RNA arises, then a mutation from uracil to thymine isn't that much of a stretch either. DNA confers far greater chemical stability to the replication system, leaving RNA as a protein synthesis template based on DNA.

However, the greater mystery is how exactly proteins came about from the RNA. Again, I don't pretend to know. After all, it's one of science's greatest mysteries, so I don't expect we should have an answer yet.

I don't think there is evidence that intelligent beings (aliens?) created us, though. Even if aliens did create us, that still leaves us with the question of what their origins were.

Edited by Elus, 17 October 2012 - 12:07 AM.

[xEva]

Elus,

the real mystery is not just proteins but how DNA is read and copied and checked for errors and corrected, etc. That such a machine, even in its most primitive form, could just happen randomly is the most absurd notion there is.

Just get over it. Once you do, everything else automatically falls in its right place.

I don't think there is evidence that intelligent beings (aliens?) created us, though. Even if aliens did create us, that still leaves us with the question of what their origins were.

Are you an alien to a 'man' you run in a virtual reality game? The terms you use show that you perhaps cannot relate to the notion of being outside our world. And by world I mean universe. Of course, we cannot exist outside our universe. Just like no digital creature of ours can exist outside a computer. But aliens? I'm not sure that would be the right term for our designers. Cause, you see, the alien aliens, i.e. the creatures from other planets of our world, are just like us in this sense.

[DAMABO]

xEva, why I find the (+) , (-) thing more attractive is that it doesn't need an intelligence to exist a priori. Intelligences existing in the very beginning- if we can correctly speak of it this way - seems contradictive with the principle that most intelligences have been formed because of a long history of chemical metamorphoses. also, the universe did not came out of 'nothing'.

The trouble is, a (+)(-) fluctuation cannot give rise to a nucleus with DNA. I am telling you this as "an authority in the field" (computer science). That has to be designed. Just like in our virtual reality games, the totality of hardware and software must be present and reach a high level of development before even a primitive digital creature can be implemented. This means that a cell nucleus can emerge only within a context of highly developed technology.

Most likely, your analysis is premature. The god of the gaps has existed for a long time, and he's getting narrower. Can you be more specific, as to why this cannot happen? Furthermore, it is unclear whether you are talking 'in' the program, or 'outside' the program. Or are you suggesting that the programmer intervenes in the program.

If life is a program --and it is-- then the universe is the computer. Literally. It cannot be otherwise. I can think of a few other ways... What do we know of the physical world. That it has certain laws. Does the presence of laws imply that it is a computer. If the presence of laws would imply that it is a program, then, given your program=> computer implication, the presence of laws would also imply that something is a computer. Is this necessarily valid? I want some more elaboration before I subscribe to this view. (Personally, I do think there are simulations of realities being done, but not that the entire thing is a simulation/program) can you perhaps define program and computer. giving a clear definition often helps. if not, we don't know where we stand.

To understand how it was made and by whom, you examine how the Internet was made and by whom and what for and how it is used now the most (entertainment). That's why it makes sense that we are made in the image of God(s), as our digital creatures are made in our image.

Evolution does not deny programming, I haven't said that :-). That was my main tenet - being programmed or not does not matter in terms of not being designed...

This opinion can be based only on ignorance of what programming is and what it implies. You don't seem to have a good grasp of these concepts and what they mean in reality.

no argument at all, you just say I'm ignorant and so on.
what I mean is not that a program does not require a programmer. What I mean is that in a program, the same laws will still apply, as when we were not in a program - since we have in both cases established the physical laws we have. This entails, and this is how it is relevant to the ID discussion, that evolution must still, within this 'universe minus God', account for strange things like the eye.

"But then please take into account how different our world is from the digital world" -- How is it? You just said you interpreted our world=the digital world. What you probably mean is that 'God' is outside this digital world we live in, so it has to operate with some different rules ?

What I mean is that the whole organization of space itself, the space that houses the universe, is vastly different. It is the structure and the properties of space that dictate the physical laws of the universe it houses.

What do we know about the space we live in? Not much, at this point. We have even less inkling of how it may feel to exist in a digital world, even though we have a good idea about the hardware and software underlying its existence. And by the way, the hardware part will undoubtedly change in the future. But it will be the same world that already exists today, only more developed and evolved.

I'm not sure what you're saying. If universe=computer, then space itself houses the computer. what lesson, in your opinion, should we learn from this?

"Are you an alien to a 'man' you run in a virtual reality game? The terms you use show that you perhaps cannot relate to the notion of being outside our world. And by world I mean universe."

nothing exists outside the universe, by definition, since the universe is all that exists. that is why this show cannot go, unless you admit that even the largest computer (in the literal sense: being designed and all) is smaller than the whole universe.

"That such a machine, even in its most primitive form, could just happen randomly is the most absurd notion there is."
Nothing happens 'randomly'. Nature has its determinate rules.

Edited by DAMABO, 17 October 2012 - 12:27 AM.

[xEva]

DAMABO,

I claim irreconcilable differences in our views, lol. This precludes me from continuing our discussion (which was not helped by the fact that, having made 141 posts on this board, you still have not figured out how to use quotes).

nothing exists outside the universe, by definition, since the universe is all that exists.

Whose definition that is? Cause if you go by the mainstream science, depending on the theory you pick, yes there are universes outside ours, including a scheme in which universes exists one within another, like a set of Russian Dolls. That's the model I like the most, cause it resonates well with my 'world evolving within another world' model.

that is why this show cannot go, unless you admit that even the largest computer (in the literal sense: being designed and all) is smaller than the whole universe.

"That such a machine, even in its most primitive form, could just happen randomly is the most absurd notion there is."
Nothing happens 'randomly'. Nature has its determinate rules.

Just as I said above. Bye!

[Elus]

Elus,

the real mystery is not just proteins but how DNA is read and copied and checked for errors and corrected, etc. That such a machine, even in its most primitive form, could just happen randomly is the most absurd notion there is.

Just get over it. Once you do, everything else automatically falls in its right place.

I think you may be a little confused. DNA error checking did not evolve until later. You have to remember that evolution happens slowly, step by step. You also have to keep in mind that these steps happened on a billion year timescale. RNA can copy itself. Because of imperfect copying, mutations can happen that allow greater function to develop. I do think that such a mechanism, in its most primitive form can happen extremely rarely. Then again, with trillions of planets, and billions of years of time, I can see how such an event could come to pass.

However, don't conflate this explanation with an assertion of certainty. I already said, we don't know the whole story yet. The RNA hypothesis is one idea, but there may be better ones in the future. Just because we don't know the whole story now does not give us a right to make up stories in the present and say, with certainty, "This is the truth!"

Are you an alien to a 'man' you run in a virtual reality game? The terms you use show that you perhaps cannot relate to the notion of being outside our world. And by world I mean universe. Of course, we cannot exist outside our universe. Just like no digital creature of ours can exist outside a computer. But aliens? I'm not sure that would be the right term for our designers. Cause, you see, the alien aliens, i.e. the creatures from other planets of our world, are just like us in this sense.

Terminology aside, there is no convincing evidence that we live inside a simulated world.

Edited by Elus, 17 October 2012 - 02:03 AM.

[DAMABO]

xEva: there are in fact no irreconcilable views here.
what this discussion has been about is on the one hand a confusion of terms.
instances of such confusions: 1.If you are using the term 'multiverse' for everything that exists, then I posit (nearly) the same as you: that some universes may be computers, in the literal sense.
2. what is a program, what is a computer? define it. only then can we validate why it should be necessarily so that this universe is a computer. do you also mean that every universe is a computer? (in that case, I disagree by saying that 'computer != multiverse'.)
on the other hand, the reasoning 'we do not yet what has caused this => god has done this' has resulted into a large list of failures over time. Most likely, as Elus says, over a large amount of time, in a large amount of planets, in a large amount etc..

Edited by DAMABO, 17 October 2012 - 02:10 AM.

[xEva]

That such a machine, even in its most primitive form, could just happen randomly is the most absurd notion there is.

Just get over it. Once you do, everything else automatically falls in its right place.

I think you may be a little confused. DNA error checking did not evolve until later. You have to remember that evolution happens slowly, step by step. ...

No, Elus, it's you who is confused. It does not matter how many billions of years on how many planets, you still won't make the most primitive form of a working, functional DNA. It is impossible in principle, because the causation in an information system, which is life, requires a top-down approach. The scheme you promote is bottom-up.

And by the way, evolution does not happen slowly but in sudden leaps. That it happened slowly was an old, long ago outdated notion. You gotta keep up with the latest science.

But I agree with AgeVivo that this discussion leads nowhere.

[maxwatt]

....
Show me the code such as DNA which came naturally without intelligence. We occur in nature, are you saying there is no ID? Obviously ID occurs in nature. Codes are communication tools which control things and tell them what to do, They are a sign of a Intelligent programer. Hence our interest is raised. I have dismissed no code that I know of. Read mu previous posts on this topic.

The arguments I have made go like this:

A. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition)

B. All codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)

Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions: (More?)
....

I have a problem with B, in that it presupposes that which it attempts to prove.

If by "code" you mean a deductive pattern, then there are many such that seem not to have been created, but to simply be the way the universe must work, by inherent logic.

Let me try to clarify: let us assume an omnipotent being exists. Can we imagine it within his power to design a world where one plus one equals three? Not really, but then even such an omnipotent being seems bound by a higher power of a sort.
Given the apparent existence of laws which even an omnipotent one must obey, one can ask: is the "code" in DNA really evidence of design, or is it the logical extension of basic laws (or principles) by which the universe must work? -- even without assuming an omnipotent being, as even an omnipotent being must follow the laws of logic? The next step would be to ask why do we need posit an omnipotent being, when logical necessity inherent in the universe can explain the phenomenon?

[Elus]

No, Elus, it's you who is confused. It does not matter how many billions of years on how many planets, you still won't make the most primitive form of a working, functional DNA. It is impossible in principle, because the causation in an information system, which is life, requires a top-down approach. The scheme you promote is bottom-up.

It does not require a top-down approach; you are mistaken in assuming it does. Given the right conditions (elements in an aqueous environment, and sufficient energy to overcome the activation energy for a chemical reaction to occur) molecules can react to produce more complex molecules. Over the course of billions of years, it is plausible that such circumstances gave rise to primitive, self-replicating RNA.

And by the way, evolution does not happen slowly but in sudden leaps. That it happened slowly was an old, long ago outdated notion. You gotta keep up with the latest science.

But I agree with AgeVivo that this discussion leads nowhere.

Evolution does not happen in sudden leaps. Saltation has been discredited and is not part of modern evolutionary theory (such leaps rarely happen, and are not the norm). Mutations must first occur, and then subsequently be passed onto the next generation. Part of Darwin's inspiration for evolution by natural selection was geologic gradualism, which made Darwin aware that evolution happens gradually, over millions/billions of years, as the geologic landscape also changes.

Edited by Elus, 17 October 2012 - 04:03 AM.