Intelligent Design?

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

It is amazing how people can take the immense scope of human knowledge regarding evolution and disregard it in favor of the explanation: "some unexplainable force (maybe god) did it"...

It's amazing how people can take the immense scope of spiritual knowledge regarding a study in religion and spiritual books and the harmonizing in it, as well as the deep knowledge and wisdom contained within, and then disregard it in favor of the explanation: "We are the accidental creation of random chemical processes, which began in the ideal chemical soup, requiring billions of years to actually occur."

Originally Posted by JSmythe

the worst part is, my roommate is an ID'er!

Maybe you should study the arguments he gives IF he is well versed in it, and learn some valuable philosophical knowledge, even if it isn't "scientific" knowledge.

But if you really embrace scientism, there isn't a point I guess.

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The idea is that nothing else is needed except time. Once you have amino acids, you have life. How about, "We created organic compounds from non-organic material." That better?

That's an interesting statement...but I wonder why 'time' is given such a persuasive casual power....even time requires something to act upon it...otherwise, to use the saying, it's a waste of time, is it not?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by cleverest

That's an interesting statement...but I wonder why 'time' is given such a persuasive casual power....even time requires something to act upon it...otherwise, to use the saying, it's a waste of time, is it not?

It must have been magics LOLZ!

Okay, to be a bit more serious, there's not much of an extension between primitive life and amino acids. The organic material that was made from the experiment was closer to being considered than a virus, and even viruses are often considered susceptible to Natural Selection (though colloquially).

[AVengeance]

I think we can clearly see what time does. Look at a car. Does time turn a VW into a semi? No! It just corrodes, rusts, degrades. The metal, the plastic, the wood, it all slowly self-destructs. Time does not make things better without an outside intelligent force to roll the ball the right direction.

All we could ever prove by making "life in the lab" is that it takes intelligence to do it. And we aren't there, yet. Hell, there's not even a set scientific definition of what "life" is. Just because you can manufacture building blocks for so-called life doesn't mean anything more than if I put clay in my oven and make bricks. That doesn't mean shit- I still can't build a brick house, and I can't make the clay evolve into electric wires or pipes or a sofa, no matter how much time I allow to pass.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

"In the famous Miller-Urey experiment of the 1950s, researchers produced a rich soup of amino acids by running an electric current through flasks containing elements of a primitive Earth, thus showing how precursor chemicals could have formed here."

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

wtf? Do you people even understand the significance of amino acids?

Um, of course. But do you understand what you just read? "rich soup" "primitive earth"

It's so ambiguous, so undefined, and so vague that it could mean ANYTHING. None of what you wrote means anything scientifically.

In other words, what you wrote means "we ran electricity through some stuff and got some stuff found in nature". Yeah, great.

[Rouger2]

Wow! they say they have made amino acids. I don't believe it, why have there not been more experiments. Even if they did make amino acids, and it did not happen by itself as has already been stated how close is amino acids to developing by itself into a human brain. Oh I know billions of years did it.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I think we can clearly see what time does. Look at a car. Does time turn a VW into a semi? No! It just corrodes, rusts, degrades. The metal, the plastic, the wood, it all slowly self-destructs. Time does not make things better without an outside intelligent force to roll the ball the right direction.

Define better. What is needed to turn a VW into a semi? Energy flow. What is needed to turn coal into a diamond? Energy flow. What is needed to turn water into ice? Energy flow. What is needed to turn ice into water? Energy flow.

Fortunatly, Earth isn't a closed system. We have plenty of energy flow thanks to the sun. We ignore the energy flow part of the equation and focus on the intelligence part, because it is easier to see how intelligence can help direct the flow of energy to make useful stuff. Intelligence isn't required however.

Originally Posted by cleverest

Intelligence can clearly be seen to be the creative force for ALL examples of complexity that involve information. ALL.

Intelligence isn’t required for all creative forces that contain information. Off the top of my head, the ice sheets in Antarctica were formed without the help of any intelligence. They are completely natural. Yet scientists drill into them and get samples which give us information about what the climate was like thousands of years ago.
Also, earthquakes don’t require intelligence to occur. They are very complex, we don’t truly have a full grasp of everything that causes them. (this is a stretch but… ) They are constructive in that they relieve pressure that is built up between 2 plates. But the shock waves contain plenty of information. We can measure how strong an earthquake was, how long it lasted, where it was centralized…. Just by measuring the shock waves.
Finally, stars emit light which is very constructive in that it is required for photosynthesis. By measuring the light we can tell what the stars are composed of. That is a lot of information right there. No intelligence is needed for a star to shine, however.

I don’t think the “it takes intelligence to create information” argument holds any water. It just takes intelligence to understand the information present in a given system.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by cleverest

It's amazing how people can take the immense scope of spiritual knowledge regarding a study in religion and spiritual books and the harmonizing in it, as well as the deep knowledge and wisdom contained within, and then disregard it in favor of the explanation: "We are the accidental creation of random chemical processes, which began in the ideal chemical soup, requiring billions of years to actually occur."

The only thing more amazing than that is the ego of the religious person thinking that we were molded in celestial wax and created from dirt because we're so important to some invisible guy in the sky.

Maybe you should study the arguments he gives IF he is well versed in it, and learn some valuable philosophical knowledge, even if it isn't "scientific" knowledge.

But if you really embrace scientism, there isn't a point I guess.

It really depends on the flavor of ID. If we're talking about a Deist approach, where God is the creator of the universe, and then left everything to carry on by itself, then I'm cool with it. If we're inserting illogical reasons to describe scientific phenomenon, then I don't think there's anything even remotely intelligent that can be learned.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Some of you make recognize this from LAOT...

The Fine-Tuning Argument (by Richard Carrier)
The Christian fine-tuning argument is the argument that all of the physical constants were perfectly exactly arranged to allow life to exist.

Well, that's not entirely true. The physical constants were perfectly arranged to make a perfect black hole generator. Dr. Lee Smolin shows us that this universe is the best possible universe for maximizing the production of black holes. There's more black holes in this universe than any other hypothetical universe that could be generated by adjusting the values of this universe's physical constants or the number of subatomic particles. The number of subatomic particles and their properties are exactly what they need to be to maximize the production of black holes.

Think about it, 99.9999% of the universe is absolutely lethal to life; it's deadly radiation-filled vacuum. 99.9999% of all of the matter in the universe goes toward making black holes, not life-bearing worlds. For every life-bearing world, there's probably trillions of black holes. What would be the obvious conclusion? This universe was designed to make black holes, and it wasn't designed for us.

Smolin also shows us that a universe that was designed to make black holes would just happen to kick up life. If this is the only way to make an effective black hole generator, then it would happen to create tiny little itty bitty speck of life as a byproduct.

So even the Christian design argument would lead you to conclude that God built this universe for black holes, not for us. We're just an accidental byproduct.

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by Simius

Intelligence isn’t required for all creative forces that contain information. Off the top of my head, the ice sheets in Antarctica were formed without the help of any intelligence.

That's like arguing crystals are an example of a naturally created force...YES IT IS....I'm not arguing that...ice sheets, crystals, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowflakes, these are not example of complex information. These are examples of PATTERNS, they are unspecified and random, or they manage to be specified but are simple, they lack complexity.... (snowflakes), seemingly complex patterns are not even in the same ball part as complex information.

Examples of information - (DNA, Protein, Human inventions and written language) are considered to have specified complexity.

Excerpt "The sequence of nucleotides in DNA, or of amino acids in a protein, is not a repetitive order like a crystal. Instead it is like the letters in a written message. A message is not composed of a sequence of letters repeated over and over. It is not, in other words, the first kind of order. [which is 'simple']

Originally Posted by Simius

Finally, stars emit light which is very constructive in that it is required for photosynthesis. By measuring the light we can tell what the stars are composed of. That is a lot of information right there. No intelligence is needed for a star to shine, however.

I don't think you are understanding what is meant by 'information' in this theory....it's not just 'any old info on something we can acquire...'

Originally Posted by Simius

I don’t think the “it takes intelligence to create information” argument holds any water. It just takes intelligence to understand the information present in a given system.

True it takes intelligence to understand it. But since it takes that to understand anything, it's not a very good argument against it.


WAY TO SMALL OF CLIFFS: Natural patterns != Complex information (it's apples to oranges)

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The only thing more amazing than that is the ego of the religious person thinking that we were molded in celestial wax and created from dirt because we're so important to some invisible guy in the sky.

With great intelligence comes great and even "magical" ability.
1000 years ago people would have laughed you to scorn if you tried to explain television to them.

It's logical to assume that a being with such immense power and intelligence could create things and do so in a manner beyond our limited finite comprehension, and the method would be so "out of this world" that it would make us want to roll our eyes and laugh.

Sure I can't 'prove' any of that, so disregard it if you want, but I think it makes sense if we examine intelligence/invention/creation on the subjects/objects we do have a history of.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

It really depends on the flavor of ID. If we're talking about a Deist approach, where God is the creator of the universe, and then left everything to carry on by itself, then I'm cool with it. If we're inserting illogical reasons to describe scientific phenomenon, then I don't think there's anything even remotely intelligent that can be learned.

The Deist approach works fine, heck advanced aliens populating our planet in past ages gets the idea across exactly the same, it's merely the [higher] intelligence that matters... the theory/idea/philosophy doesn't rely on a Theist God even if that's some of the proponents agenda...

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Smolin also shows us that a universe that was designed to make black holes would just happen to kick up life. If this is the only way to make an effective black hole generator, then it would happen to create tiny little itty bitty speck of life as a byproduct.

Is this part just made up? Do you have any sources/links on this particular line of thought/study? (concerning life as a neccesary by-product of black holes).

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by cleverest

Is this part just made up? Do you have any sources/links on this particular line of thought/study? (concerning life as a neccesary by-product of black holes).

Not as a necessary byproduct of black holes, but as a necessary byproduct of the universe, whose sole purpose - if we were to say it has one - is to create black holes.

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Not as a necessary byproduct of black holes, but as a necessary byproduct of the universe, whose sole purpose - if we were to say it has one - is to create black holes.

I suppose black holes could be essential to the future of humanity or some such thing...who knows...perhaps we are just too primitive to utilize them right now?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Some of you make recognize this from LAOT...

The Fine-Tuning Argument (by Richard Carrier)
The Christian fine-tuning argument is the argument that all of the physical constants were perfectly exactly arranged to allow life to exist.

Well, that's not entirely true. The physical constants were perfectly arranged to make a perfect black hole generator. Dr. Lee Smolin shows us that this universe is the best possible universe for maximizing the production of black holes. There's more black holes in this universe than any other hypothetical universe that could be generated by adjusting the values of this universe's physical constants or the number of subatomic particles. The number of subatomic particles and their properties are exactly what they need to be to maximize the production of black holes.

Think about it, 99.9999% of the universe is absolutely lethal to life; it's deadly radiation-filled vacuum. 99.9999% of all of the matter in the universe goes toward making black holes, not life-bearing worlds. For every life-bearing world, there's probably trillions of black holes. What would be the obvious conclusion? This universe was designed to make black holes, and it wasn't designed for us.

Smolin also shows us that a universe that was designed to make black holes would just happen to kick up life. If this is the only way to make an effective black hole generator, then it would happen to create tiny little itty bitty speck of life as a byproduct.

So even the Christian design argument would lead you to conclude that God built this universe for black holes, not for us. We're just an accidental byproduct.

This would only solidify the influence of a greater power (ie God)...the mere fact that we can survive in such an unstable universe...that the world is so perfectly set where it is to allow us to live. The complexity of it all only adds to the prospect of an 'intelligent' hand.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by cleverest

It's amazing how people can take the immense scope of spiritual knowledge regarding a study in religion and spiritual books and the harmonizing in it, as well as the deep knowledge and wisdom contained within, and then disregard it in favor of the explanation: "We are the accidental creation of random chemical processes, which began in the ideal chemical soup, requiring billions of years to actually occur."

Originally Posted by cleverest

That's an interesting statement...but I wonder why 'time' is given such a persuasive casual power....even time requires something to act upon it...otherwise, to use the saying, it's a waste of time, is it not?

Just because we don't know the answer yet doesn't mean we should break out the ouija boards and tarot cards (or just guess outright). The difference between science and religion is that the former changes its explanations when new information is discovered, while the latter asserts certain things as absolute, forcing the believer to twist new information to fit within its existing structure, and if it cannot be, to reject it outright no matter how reasonable it might be. If belief in supernatural/superintelligent creators brings one comfort, that's fine, but it is not a replacement for origin studies nor a rational way of achieving enlightenment in general.

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Just because we don't know the answer yet doesn't mean we should break out the ouija boards and tarot cards (or just guess outright).

This argument works both ways, not that you would choose to awknowledge that. I said nothing of oiuja boards or tarot cards, of which I guess you are pretty ignorant of in the first place, to even make that statement. Put down the torch, you will find no straw men to burn here.

Originally Posted by R-Type

The difference between science and religion

This is where you fail to understand that the differences are essential to gaining valuable knowledge. Both exist and serve a positive (and negative) function for humanity. I can give examples illustrating both for you if you doubt that. Instead of bashing one in place of the other, how about seeking to grow by understanding both.

The argument that it must be science VS. religion is an old dusty argument that shows a real lack of study on both in my humble opinion and experience.

Originally Posted by R-Type

is that the former changes its explanations when new information is discovered, while the latter asserts certain things as absolute, forcing the believer to twist new information to fit within its existing structure, and if it cannot be, to reject it outright no matter how reasonable it might be.

Ideally speaking, but if you looked a little deeper in history you would see that science has changed many "absolutes" througout time, but again you are engaging in a VS. argument, such an argument seeks to displace something with something superior, thereby disregarding useful information and the knowledge that information brings a person who is open and less dogmatic in their philosophy then what scientism can yield us.

Originally Posted by R-Type

If belief in supernatural/superintelligent creators brings one comfort, that's fine, but it is not a replacement for origin studies nor a rational way of achieving enlightenment in general.

Down with the torch! No replacement discussion is in effect here! ALERT ALERT, poster engaging in a non-argument! The straw is not here!

Wew, that was close...but no seriously, in conclusion, if the present evidence fits the available facts, I go with it, because to do so is the most rational and logical to do, GIVEN THE MOST SOLID DATA/EVIDENCE HERE AND NOW. It's a choice that I can be content and satisfied with, and I don't have to wait a billion years to prove either. (if science speeds this up though to a pratical time-frame, let me know), but to each his own, until then I'll consider myself 'enlightened' enough.

SOME CLIFFS: while I'm against 'God of the gaps' argument to be substituted for a scientific argument, I'm equally against a 'Magical-billion-years of the gap' one as well. Let's try to keep the discussion as present/past tense as possible.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by cleverest

If the present evidence fits the available facts, I go with it, because to do so is the most rational and logical to do, GIVEN THE MOST SOLID DATA/EVIDENCE HERE AND NOW. It's a choice that I can be content and satisfied with, and I don't have to wait a billion years to prove either.

The issue at hand is there is no solid data or evidence. While you may be content, and that is fine, there really isn't any evidence.

The available facts are that:

* Complex things exist that we didn't create
* Intelligence can create complex things

The conclusion that people draw seems to be "another intelligence created the complex things" simply because nothing else "makes sense". This isn't evidence or even valid reasoning.

Just because we do not know something is no reason to "make up" stuff.