1221 replies to this topic

[DAMABO]

Indeed, saltation is discredited for quite a time.
I 'm still impatiently waiting for a definition of a program (and life), a computer, and why this would imply that our universe is a computer. furthermore, such a definition should also imply that not all universes are a computer - since we have agreed that outside 'everything' cannot exist something (the creator of the literal computers).

[shadowhawk]

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.

By the way, most ID advocates also believe in natural selection. This is not rocket science!
I quoted them at the first of this thread. Hope you read the real definition of ID. I'll put up a few sources later. We have already argued this elsewhere.

[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.

By the way, most ID advocates also believe in natural selection. This is not rocket science!
I quoted them at the first of this thread. Hope you read the real definition of ID. I'll put up a few sources later. We have already argued this elsewhere.

So do you believe in ID or not?

[shadowhawk]

'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.

You are joking? Science And now a brain is evidence that mindless matter did it!

[DAMABO]

... quite obviously it is. what does it exist of? precisely the same components that exist in the 'mindless' world around us.

[shadowhawk]

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.

Great Point Regarding DNA and RNA.

[shadowhawk]

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.

Great points. The only thing I hope is not true, is your last statement.

[shadowhawk]

....
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?

B is based on observation and presupposes noting. In your observations of codes do you know of any that were not designed? Interesting subject that we may attempt to apply the methods of science. Some want to make it a “science says,” conclusion without doing the scientific work.

Code is an information theory issue. We have discusses laws elsewhere. But here we are discussing DNA code. Here is an ID source on code as language and another whether this a evidence for God.

http://www.metacafe....perry_marshall/

http://www.cosmicfin...ove-god-exists/
http://www.mythofjunkdna.com/

I agree that Cod cannot do what God cannot do but this is not our topic. God does what God wants to and that will is timeless.

[shadowhawk]

... quite obviously it is. what does it exist of? precisely the same components that exist in the 'mindless' world around us.

Using the computer analogy we have been using, is all a computer is, is the elements around us?

[shadowhawk]

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.

By the way, most ID advocates also believe in natural selection. This is not rocket science!
I quoted them at the first of this thread. Hope you read the real definition of ID. I'll put up a few sources later. We have already argued this elsewhere.

So do you believe in ID or not?

Why, so you can engage in a pissing contest if I do? If I don't then you don't know jack.
Well I can find parts of ID I agree with. So the answer is yes, and no.

[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.

By the way, most ID advocates also believe in natural selection. This is not rocket science!
I quoted them at the first of this thread. Hope you read the real definition of ID. I'll put up a few sources later. We have already argued this elsewhere.

So do you believe in ID or not?

Why, so you can engage in a pissing contest if I do? If I don't then you don't know jack.
Well I can find parts of ID I agree with. So the answer is yes, and no.

So what part do you agree with?

[shadowhawk]

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.

By the way, most ID advocates also believe in natural selection. This is not rocket science!
I quoted them at the first of this thread. Hope you read the real definition of ID. I'll put up a few sources later. We have already argued this elsewhere.

So do you believe in ID or not?

Why, so you can engage in a pissing contest if I do? If I don't then you don't know jack.
Well I can find parts of ID I agree with. So the answer is yes, and no.

So what part do you agree with?

Not interested in a pissing contest. If you are, find someone else.

Here is my definition of the theory of evolution. Do you agree with it?

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design

Here are some ID sources.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

http://www.arn.org/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

http://winteryknight...lligent-design/

http://www.youtube.c...coveryInstitute

http://www.discovery.org/

What ID is.

http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

[platypus]

Intelligent design cannot explain the stupid design choices made in the design of many organisms including humans. An intelligent designer could immediately improve the layout of things.

Or is the idea that an "intelligence" only works at the cellular level?

[Turnbuckle]

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design


What ID is.

http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

The equation doesn't make sense to me. And it doesn't jibe with the link about ID. According to the link, ID "refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature."

So, even though they say it's a theory, it isn't. It's a research program. And that is presumably to find the hand of god in the process. So now my question is, in your opinion, have they found it, and if so, where have they found it?

Because a research program doesn't rise to the level of a theory and thus has no claim to be taught in schools along with evolution.

[platypus]

The equation doesn't make sense to me. And it doesn't jibe with the link about ID. According to the link, ID "refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature."

So, even though they say it's a theory, it isn't. It's a research program. And that is presumably to find the hand of god in the process. So now my question is, in your opinion, have they found it, and if so, where have they found it?

Because a research program doesn't rise to the level of a theory and thus has no claim to be taught in schools along with evolution.

It's not a science but cretinism in disguise. The bolded passage reveals their unscientific & biased basis. These guys have been rejected repeatedly in the last 150 years. It's quite sad actually.

[Turnbuckle]

The equation doesn't make sense to me. And it doesn't jibe with the link about ID. According to the link, ID "refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature."

So, even though they say it's a theory, it isn't. It's a research program. And that is presumably to find the hand of god in the process. So now my question is, in your opinion, have they found it, and if so, where have they found it?

Because a research program doesn't rise to the level of a theory and thus has no claim to be taught in schools along with evolution.

It's not a science but cretinism in disguise. The bolded passage reveals their unscientific & biased basis. These guys have been rejected repeatedly in the last 150 years. It's quite sad actually.

I agree. There is no science there. This is just part of the wedge stragety. The link shadowhawk provided is part of the "Center for Science and Culture."

This is what Wikipedia has to say about it--

By accomplishing this goal the ultimate goal as stated by the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the "overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies" and reinstating the idea that humans are made in the image of God, thereby reforming American culture to reflect conservative Christian values, will be achieved.

http://en.wikipedia..../Wedge_strategy

It's intellectually dishonest but appeals to evangelical politicians in Southern states who can use it to pretend that ID has some basis other than in religion.

[DAMABO]

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


"B is based on observation and presupposes noting. In your observations of codes do you know of any that were not designed? Interesting subject that we may attempt to apply the methods of science. Some want to make it a “science says,” conclusion without doing the scientific work."

B is not based on observation at all. Why even suppose DNA is a 'code' ? can you define 'code'? I might as well say 'everything' is a code, since everything 'contains information' - which you seem to think the criterion for a code is. is everything then necessarily designed? we have no evidence for this.
give the exhaustive list of examples of 'codes' that are designed, and tell us why DNA should fall under that category - and notice that analogy, as maxwatt has pointed out, does not even need to imply, because of some shared characteristics.
of course, if you would give a definition of 'code' that implies 'being designed', then you would have no evidence that DNA falls under that category.

and if you think the letters A,C,T,G and the terms 'codon' etc mean that it is a code - it is just because we have named it this way. do you think these letters have any reality in them? these letters were chosen by us, not by nature.

Edited by DAMABO, 18 October 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Intelligent design cannot explain the stupid design choices made in the design of many organisms including humans. An intelligent designer could immediately improve the layout of things.

Or is the idea that an "intelligence" only works at the cellular level?

So we have one vote that says the observer has not seen any intelligent design. He could do it better. Have you done this before? Did you just use random choices or ID in making your design? How about junk DNA?

[shadowhawk]

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design


What ID is.

http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

The equation doesn't make sense to me. And it doesn't jibe with the link about ID. According to the link, ID "refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature."

So, even though they say it's a theory, it isn't. It's a research program. And that is presumably to find the hand of god in the process. So now my question is, in your opinion, have they found it, and if so, where have they found it?

Because a research program doesn't rise to the level of a theory and thus has no claim to be taught in schools along with evolution.

You missed entirely what I said. I was describing evolution and you are right, it doesn’t link exactly with ID. Read the equation again. Do you agree with it? Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design.

Second, they (IDers) say it is a theory and you claim it isn’t. Who is right? You can’t use research to test out a theory in your view? Show me where that is part of science. It isn’t a theory if it needs research?

They claim ID is a theory, who gives you the right to say otherwise and deny them the right of research.. I didn’t see anything that warrants your presumptions, do you? They say nothing about "the hand of God." Show me. Some ID proponents are Atheists.

Based on your erroneous presumptions you want to censor it and keep it out of schools?. Richard Dawkins believes in E.T. aliens, he is an atheist scientist. Should he be censored? Some atheists have said ID should be taught in school. I can give you examples if you need.

[shadowhawk]

The equation doesn't make sense to me. And it doesn't jibe with the link about ID. According to the link, ID "refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature."

So, even though they say it's a theory, it isn't. It's a research program. And that is presumably to find the hand of god in the process. So now my question is, in your opinion, have they found it, and if so, where have they found it?

Because a research program doesn't rise to the level of a theory and thus has no claim to be taught in schools along with evolution.

It's not a science but cretinism in disguise. The bolded passage reveals their unscientific & biased basis. These guys have been rejected repeatedly in the last 150 years. It's quite sad actually.

Same old name calling I have heard from you. Nothing here and I am not interested..

[Turnbuckle]

You missed entirely what I said. I was describing evolution and you are right, it doesn’t link exactly with ID. Read the equation again. Do you agree with it? Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design.

No, it's not an equation that makes sense. It doesn't even make sense if you replace the equals with an arrow.

Second, they (IDers) say it is a theory and you claim it isn’t. Who is right? You can’t use research to test out a theory in your view? Show me where that is part of science. It isn’t a theory if it needs research?

They say its all sorts of things. They first say it's a research program, then they say it's a theory. Fact is, it isn't anything but a fraud. Where are their experiments published? What are the results? There aren't any.

They claim ID is a theory, who gives you the right to say otherwise and deny them the right of research.. I didn't see anything that warrants your presumptions, do you? They say nothing about "the hand of God." Show me. Some ID proponents are Atheists.

Oh I'm not denying them to right to say whatever they want or research whatever they want. It's a free country. As for the hand of God, that is my own phrase and its a good one. You can use it if you like. But their real motivation was exposed as part of a plan--the plan I linked to above. The wedge strategy.

Based on your erroneous presumptions you want to censor it and keep it out of schools?. Richard Dawkins believes in E.T. aliens, he is an atheist scientist. Should he be censored? Some atheists have said ID should be taught in school. I can give you examples if you need.

Yes, I don't want this in schools, and the government is not going to allow it either. It's mixing church and state, and you know it. Don't try to pretend you don't.

[Deep Blue]

Is Intelligent Design science or is it purely religion?

Intelligent Design is not science. It is a form of Creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. Those at the Discovery Institute, a conservative religious organization, believe that a Christian god was the designer of the world.

Intelligent Design seeks to redefine science in a way that invokes supernatural explanations. As wikipedia states:

"The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws."

I would advise that you read the article on Wikipedia on Intelligent Design. It contains information that will help you understand why Intelligent Design is incorrect and unscientific.

Edited by Deep Blue, 18 October 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Is Intelligent Design science or is it purely religion?

Intelligent Design is not science. It is a form of Creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. Those at the Discovery Institute, a conservative religious organization, believe that a Christian god was the designer of the world.

Intelligent Design seeks to redefine science in a way that invokes supernatural explanations. As wikipedia states:

"The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws."

I would advise that you read the article on Wikipedia on Intelligent Design. It contains information that will help you understand why Intelligent Design is incorrect and unscientific.

I talked to a Proponent of ID recently about the Wikipedia article because I found so many errors in it. I was told that they had repeatedly corrected it but it just got changed back as soon as the next anti-ID person came by. As you know wikipedia is a mixed bag where anyone can write anything. It is not the last word on anything. This post obviously uses it as its source. It is not a form of creation. There are many beside the Discovery Institute. Some are not theists. It is not Christian. Define Science! Science is a process not a position. ID does not seek to redefine science. Proof.

Science is limited and cannot deal with the supernatural advise you to go to the source when dealing with ID. Here are the sources I posted earlier.

Here is my definition of the theory of evolution. Do you agree with it?

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design

Here are some ID sources.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

http://www.arn.org/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

http://winteryknight...lligent-design/

http://www.youtube.c...coveryInstitute

http://www.discovery.org/

What ID is.

http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 October 2012 - 12:02 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Please learn how to use the quotes

Shadpwhawk::You missed entirely what I said. I was describing evolution and you are right, it doesn’t link exactly with ID. Read the equation again. Do you agree with it? Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design.

Turnbuckle: No, it's not an equation that makes sense. It doesn't even make sense if you replace the equals with an arrow.

Oh you caught a typo but you didn’t tell me why you don’t think Evolution does not make sense. What is wrong with it?

Shadowhawk: Second, they (IDers) say it is a theory and you claim it isn’t. Who is right? You can’t use research to test out a theory in your view? Show me where that is part of science. It isn’t a theory if it needs research?

Turnbuckle: They say its all sorts of things. They first say it's a research program, then they say it's a theory. Fact is, it isn't anything but a fraud. Where are their experiments published? What are the results? There aren't any.

Now you are starting name calling again without a drop of evidence. Here is one source of double blind studies. By the way, have you ever read a book written by an ID proponent?http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/new-peer-reviewed-paper-in-nature-falsifies-darwinian-junk-dna-prediction/



http://dennisdjones....ience-journals/
Want more?

How can you make such statements when you have never looked. It smacks of prejudice.

Shadowhawk: They claim ID is a theory, who gives you the right to say otherwise and deny them the right of research.. I didn't see anything that warrants your presumptions, do you? They say nothing about "the hand of God." Show me. Some ID proponents are Atheists.

Turnbuckle: Oh I'm not denying them to right to say whatever they want or research whatever they want. It's a free country. As for the hand of God, that is my own phrase and it’s a good one. You can use it if you like. But their real motivation was exposed as part of a plan--the plan I linked to above. The wedge strategy.

The Wedge truth is about Naturalism. Its point is how naturalism not science is the driving force in many discussions. The book, which I have read was written about two decades ago by a professor of law at the University of California. Have you read it?
http://www.amazon.co...=wedge, johnson

I have no problem with you using “The Hand of God. Mu problem is with the ,misrepresentation you made.

Shadowhawk: Based on your erroneous presumptions you want to censor it and keep it out of schools?. Richard Dawkins believes in E.T. aliens, he is an atheist scientist. Should he be censored? Some atheists have said ID should be taught in school. I can give you examples if you need.

Turnbuckle: Yes, I don't want this in schools, and the government is not going to allow it either. It's mixing church and state, and you know it. Don't try to pretend you don't.

for someone who doesn’t even understand Evolution and can’t recognize its description, you sure are ready to deny people their freedom of speech based on your misrepresentations.. But this is off topic.

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 October 2012 - 01:41 AM.

[maxwatt]

If ID were to be believed, God is must be fond of Rube Goldberg type arrangements.

You don't need ID to believe in god, nor to explain biology or evolution. If I were designing a universe, I'd make it self-starting so once set in motion it would keep "ticking" by its own internal logic. This would leave the creator free to do other things. Evolution seems a pretty good mechanism for a deity to have used to populate his or her creation. Problem is it's such a good mechanism you don't need to invoke "God" to explain the results.

If one is studying biological systems, intelligent design adds nothing except satisfying an urge to believe in an omnipotent being behind it all.

[Turnbuckle]

Oh you caught a typo but you didn’t tell me why you don’t think Evolution does not make sense. What is wrong with it?

No, there was no typo. I was merely pointing out in a nice way that you probably don't know what an equation is, just as the ID people have no idea what science is. If you want to explain your equation, have at it, but I don't expect you to, because it doesn't mean anything.

And nice try saying that I think evolution doesn't make sense. Either you are really disingenuous, or have poor comprehension, or both.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 19 October 2012 - 11:26 AM.

[DAMABO]

indeed, Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
is no equation, since there are no quantifiable parameters anywhere except for time. and adding time will just result into some number - not relating in any way to a quantification of design.
furthermore, mutation is not 'random', although it may approximate randomness.

Edited by DAMABO, 19 October 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[DAMABO]

let's see if your equation could work. assume that random mutation and natural selection are quantifiable, but for instance that they are 0. if we set time at 1 000 000 s, then design=1 000 000 s. Think this is an equation? where's the problem? you have no units for any of the variables, except for time, which certainly means that you have no way to convert the units from the left to the one on the right, especially not via a simple addition.

[Turnbuckle]

Oh you caught a typo but you didn’t tell me why you don’t think Evolution does not make sense. What is wrong with it?

No, there was no typo. I was merely pointing out in a nice way that you probably don't know what an equation is, just as the ID people have no idea what science is. If you want to explain your equation, have at it, but I don't expect you to, because it doesn't mean anything.

And nice try saying that I think evolution doesn't make sense. Either you are really disingenuous, or have poor comprehension, or both.

On rereading your comment I'll admit I missed the double negative. Of course, though, you also "don't think evolution does not make sense," because you yourself said you belived in it. At least, you said you believed in "natural selection," and I don't know how you can fancy one and not the other.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 19 October 2012 - 12:39 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

let's see if your equation could work. assume that random mutation and natural selection are quantifiable, but for instance that they are 0. if we set time at 1 000 000 s, then design=1 000 000 s. Think this is an equation? where's the problem? you have no units for any of the variables, except for time, which certainly means that you have no way to convert the units from the left to the one on the right, especially not via a simple addition.

You can't do a dimensional analysis on Hawk's equation because it is religious, not scientific. It's on the order of: God = love.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 19 October 2012 - 12:47 PM.