Intelligent Design?

[R-Type]

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.

it does not 'self-destruct'. it changes form as entropy increases. Your example is an implied example of a closed system. in this case, you're right, life could never form this way. nor could anything else once everything balances out. Earth is not a closed system. How is life creation any different from star creation? It's not. The difference though is subjective. we understand (largely) how a star forms. Because it's explainable with our current understanding of physics and chemistry, it's easier to pass it off as unintelligent self organization. We're still figuring life chemistry out, and because it's of much greater emotional interest to us, it's far more difficult to stay objective.

Originally Posted by AVengeance

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.

this is true. we may find that there is no chemical barrier between 'life' and 'non-life.' ...that we are all aprt of the same thing.. who knows. The difference here is that science will (within human limitations) determine what the nature of it is eventually. ID simply makes gross assumptions.

..and btw, there's a lot of research going into genetic modifications of bacteria/yeasts that make them build specific compounds when given the right raw materials. Definitely cool stuff.

[Rouger2]

I don't care if most of you don't believe there was a creator. I myself have enough evidence to believe in one. From my knowlege and understanding of the world, life as complex as we are, could not have happen by itself no matter how many years it is suppose to have taken. My mind cannot cope with a billion years but science makes up for many of those years by the knowlege gained over the centuries and they cannot even make a one celled animal.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I don't care if most of you don't believe there was a creator. I myself have enough evidence to believe in one. From my knowlege and understanding of the world, life as complex as we are, could not have happen by itself no matter how many years it is suppose to have taken. My mind cannot cope with a billion years but science makes up for many of those years by the knowlege gained over the centuries and they cannot even make a one celled animal.

Is that to suggest that your faith is hinged on our inability to manufacture single-celled organisms? Do you believe in "God of the gaps"?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I don't care if most of you don't believe there was a creator. I myself have enough evidence to believe in one. From my knowlege and understanding of the world, life as complex as we are, could not have happen by itself no matter how many years it is suppose to have taken. My mind cannot cope with a billion years but science makes up for many of those years by the knowlege gained over the centuries and they cannot even make a one celled animal.

Lack of understanding does not mean you can simply make up an explanation, pat yourself on the back and call it reasonable.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Your example is an implied example of a closed system.

Do you know Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

[Rouger2]

I have enough information for my beliefs that their is a creator that is all I was saying. From what little experience and understanding that I have I believe that if we cannot make a simple one cell animal with all our knowledge and science how could we have developed from a warm bowl of mud soup to the complex being that we are. All I need is a little logic to know it could not have happened by itself. I have read that to duplicate our brain would take a computer 20 miles long. I know the billions years theory but, from what I know it is beyond belief to think that it happen by it's self, even over that many years. Now that is me speaking and that explanation might not work for you, but it does for me.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Lack of understanding does not mean you can simply make up an explanation, pat yourself on the back and call it reasonable.

In courts they convict people every day on circumstantantial evidense.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

In courts they convict people every day on circumstantantial evidense.

Another reason I am opposed to the jury system, and their lack of ability to understand the concept of 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'.

Circumstantial evidence shouldn't count as evidence

[Simius]

Originally Posted by cleverest

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']

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...'

Maybe I don't understand what information is. I am assuming information is like a list of names, or a list of the closing prices of the stock market for the past 50 years, or a list of the atmosphere's composition for the past 420,000 years, or the temperature of a star, a list of the elements in a star. I'm assuming it doesn't matter if it is written in English, Spanish, code or if it is in some natural language such as in the the wavelengths of a light ray. As long as the information can be decoded, it is information. The absorption lines in star's spectrum tell us not only which elements are present in a star, but what the temperature of the star is... at different temperatures different elements in the star will either absorb or emit light. The star's spectrum is like a really complex word representing a simple phrase such as "4800 degrees kelvin containing hydrogen helium etc..")

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

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

Our sun's spectrum has over 480 different absorption lines. (to keep my word analogy going, that is a fairly complex 480 letter word). Putting all those letters together to form a word tells us 2 very important pieces of information: what the temperature of the sun's surface is, what the surface is composed of. The spectrum a star emits isn't random, it is part of the natural process of how a star works, and inherently it contains information. IE "a natural process is clearly the creative force for an example of complexity that involves information"

If you have some other definition of information, please post it and I'll see if I can reword my star spectrum analogy to fit it.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Do you know Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

kekeke

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Do you know Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

Explain how that's relevant. Rather than explaining how your implication is wrong, I'm just going to ask you to justify your claim. That's easier anyway.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Non-relativistic quantum mechanics isn't causal, and that is one of the deficiencies that led to the development of quantum field theory, a theory that is manifestly causal. Quantum electrodynamics yields some of the most precise agreements between experiment and theory ever established in physics. The "hidden variable" theories in quantum mechanics that might save deterministic trajectories can be mathematically disproven via Bell's Theorem. Now using the logic [sic] inserted above regarding Theory of Relativity, I have just proven that there is no causality, i.e., there is no Creator.



Perhaps it would serve you guys best to actually understand the science that you want to discuss.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Explain how that's relevant. Rather than explaining how your implication is wrong, I'm just going to ask you to justify your claim. That's easier anyway.

I think R-type got it.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think R-type got it.

I'm under the impression that you're arguing since "everything is relative" (LOLZ RELATIVITY), then there's no such thing as a "closed system."

If that's the case, then read my post above.
If that's not the case, then feel free to elaborate your point.

[Rouger2]

Speaking of science I heard that there are some scientist that are coming over to the creationist belief because in a full solar eclipse the moon fits perfectly inside the sun and they believe this could never happen by itself so it had to have been manipulated by a creator.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Speaking of science I heard that there are some scientist that are coming over to the creationist belief because in a full solar eclipse the moon fits perfectly inside the sun and they believe this could never happen by itself so it had to have been manipulated by a creator.

I'm sure there are scientists who would come up with such a conclusion. But that has nothing to do with science.

Just out of curiousity, what is the purpose of having the moon fit perfectly inside the sun during a solar eclipse?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Speaking of science I heard that there are some scientist that are coming over to the creationist belief because in a full solar eclipse the moon fits perfectly inside the sun and they believe this could never happen by itself so it had to have been manipulated by a creator.

Then they are fucking idiots.

We know for a fact that the moon was much closer long ago and that it's moving further away about an inch a year.

Please do us a favor and link the source of that. I could use a good laugh.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Do you believe in "God of the gaps"?

God's powers have diminished GREATLY over the course of human history. He used to decide the weather!

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Simius

I'm sure there are scientists who would come up with such a conclusion. But that has nothing to do with science.

Just out of curiousity, what is the purpose of having the moon fit perfectly inside the sun during a solar eclipse?

Well I don't know of any purpose but since it covers the sun completely it makes for a good tourist attraction for the parts of the earth that turn dark in the middle of the day.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Then they are fucking idiots.

We know for a fact that the moon was much closer long ago and that it's moving further away about an inch a year.

Please do us a favor and link the source of that. I could use a good laugh.

No linked source just a television program I saw more than a year ago.