It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

page: 20
8
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire

How embarrassingly self-belittling you are. Hoping to use ridicule to defeat and derail other's posts is the sign and mark of a most desperate and impoverished mind.
I do believe you set the trend. Here is the factual evidence to support this claim. post by elysiumfire

Others, who would support your belief cannot do so, for you taint it with unreasonable and illogical tirades of twisted nonsense...they see this, and conscientiously remain silent...it is to their benefit and my admiration of them that they do so.
Who mentioned others? Or support. I am replying to your post. That is it. I don't need anyone else or some kind of fear on losing the support of your imagined others. Dude, this is just pathetic.


However, because of the twisted manner in which you have warped the context of my posts, I shall here clarify the points you have sucked from their authenticity.
What is authentic about your post? The bias within. Certainly. I agree that I have twisted this to show it as being most obvious. Although I prefer the term Calling a spade a spade, as opposed to your accusation of twisting.


AA:

You admit that on observation nature presents a compelling argument that there is indeed a design but then relegate it to an inferred one.


I admit of no 'relegation' at all. I use the clause 'points to', and although there have been many instances where observation has presented (compelling) aspects of nature by which it has been misunderstood, science later clearly demonstrated that the observations were simply that of illusions...acceptances that the world was flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe are some such instances.
As you point out at the start of your post. The are two sides to this argument and

If evidences we use in each of our side of the debate are or have become, established facts in themselves, then both sides of the debate must respect them as so...we must recognize and respect that established facts are not open to debate
So, do you not agree then that people use the facts held within the complexity of nature as a compelling argument for ID as well as against it, or are you now saying that you do not agree with this?


Oft' times, observations only 'point to' (ie, infer) seeming truths, but which science later demonstrates to be flaws in the understanding of our own mis-perceivings. God, SI, ID, are in my humble opinion, further examples of such illusions arising from mis-perception.
As this is an observation of science, then this also applies to science. In that sciences observation on seemed truths that are later demonstrated to be flawed can also be flawed. We observe this too, do we not. Can you show me where science has corrected a false belief in a divine authority in this debate? That would be far better than this appeal to scientific authority.


My acknowledgement that I too can see the misperception of ID in nature, does not (and did not) necessarily mean that I accept it, because I don't...it is simply a layer of nature we have to get through in order to arrive at her reality.
Then why exclude any answer? It is possible that that a layer will reveal a designer! Why is it that we are not entitled to answer the question with a divine authority now? Some people arrive at evolution as an explanation and answer for the origins of for all life without the very first layer of abiogenesis being known! Where are your questions regarding the validity in truth of evolution if this layer has not been shown or understood?


AA:

I don't think there is any inference at all behind intelligent design based on the observed biological complxity, I believe it is a fact that the complexity observed is indeed based on intelligence.


Unfortunately, belief without hard empirical evidence does not cut it,
You mean you have hard empirical evidence of what created life and that there is no intelligence in life at all, anywhere? An amazing discovery indeed.

although you are rightly entitled to your belief.
Really. That is the whole point, but that is not what you are advocating.

I myself will not jump to error-filled conclusions simply because they may support my vindication in a (as yet) unsupportable belief.
My statement is totally supported. Look at nature. Are you observing "stupidity" in the aspects of nature? Because I see logic and intelligence when I look at the amazing aspects of nature, the way it overcomes obstacles, the way it survives, the mechanisms in nature that have spawned diversity and complexity, debates on its genesis and cause aside. But in and of itself nature is intelligent. DNA is an amazing system of information, storage and self correction, replication and transformation. I can see the intelligence in it. Are you saying that this is not the case. Are you saying that we as aspects of nature do not have intelligence(cheap shot invited of course.)


Of course, you do realise that your statement is nothing more than mere personal opinion, and as interesting a claim it may be, it does not move the debate forward in any way.
Of course you do realize the immense irony in your own statement.


AA:

I would call that pretty intelligent.


Fair enough, as opinions go, but I would call it change and adaptation and thus...evolutionary.
Is the system and process of evolution, the change and adaption simply lucky, random, stupid?


More opinion...
No. It is quite clear that you believe that we should not subscribe to a divine author based on what you believe.


AA:

Both are inferences based on the complexity observed in nature coupled with an ignorance of complete knowledge.


Agreed. I'm pleased that you see it my way, but that is both your's and mine opinion only.
Now you see my point. It is pointless then to claim that we are not entitled to arrive at a belief in a divine author. It only attacks one side of the debate and does not move it forward.


AA:

Entitlements! When were they yours to hand out.


Misconstruance of meaning and context. My use of the word 'entitlement' in no way allowed the assumption that I myself was in charge of entitlements, that is merely a misapplied idiosyncratic way of thinking on your part.
You pose the question, and you answer it emphatically. There is no misunderstanding. Your course for invigorating the debate is to challenge the keystone of one side of the debate to even be considered based on what you consider as factual evidence from a system(science) that you agree is ignorant of total knowledge.

are we entitled to claim a divine authorship to it? The simple response to this basic question is (if we are to be honest and respectful to the debate) a resounding 'NO'...we are not entitled to claim a divine authorship.

Now the excuses:

I stated '...are we entitled...', by which clarification of its comprehension asks...are we entitled to claim anything being a truth when there is no factual basis to support such claim?
But we are not talking about anything, you quite clearly set the tone and the topic using complexity in nature and a divine authorship. You are specific and so is your point. Moving the "clarification in comprehension" goal posts! Please.


I don't believe we are, and ought not to, lest we allow illusions into our perceptions, and misunderstandings into our knowledge.
Believe!, and of course this belief is backed by hard empirical evidence, as you require from others.


AA:

So your point appears only to chastise one side


Absolutely not! We must apply the same yardstick to both sides, and I do. An illusion in poorly misunderstood science is as equally damaging as an illusion in faith.
Where do you state this in the post. You don't. Even though you mention the debate having two distinct sides. I did it for you. Fairly and honestly. To late to concede the point now, but thank you anyway.


The rest of your post is mere hubris, and requires no response except its dismissal as irrelevant to the debate.

What was that you said earlier about more opinion.




[edit on 27/9/09 by atlasastro]




posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 



How is it an act of disregarding the natural process when I express a belief that those natural process have an intelligence behind them? Here read it again:


Ahhhh, OK! So what you are getting at is that the natural processes/forces of the universe wouldn't work without some supernatural intelligence moving each individual atom by hand in concert? Well, that take's care of a lot of things, not only that but now hopefully this SI can dismantle prisons as it's SI causing people to do bad things. Ah crap, SI is also causing me to argue against it. Man, that SI guy is one tricky little...


But how does one arrive at a conclusion at there being NO divine authority from merely explaining a complex aspect of nature that seems, to the observer, to have a design component in it?


You can't arrive at a conclusion and then make thing's fit to that conclusion! Just because one doesn't know how something works doesn't mean you can just claim it works by SI. If you don't know, then you don't know and need to find out. Not say you know and then try to make everything fit it. As stands, there is no evidence or proof of SI.

No one is saying SI is impossible, all we're saying is there is no evidence of SI initially. Nothing more than a conclusion that because we don't know then it must be SI/ID and then the run around to try and make it fit which is impossible because you need to show SI does indeed exist first before you can make everything fit it.

We say evolution is true because we observed certain things in nature happening that allowed for us to 'discover' the process going on. What we haven't discovered is how organic molecules combine to form life, but we do indeed know that organic molecules can be created in the lab and the deep recesses of space, so that isn't even in question because it has been observed. The only thing missing is the variables that allow for the processes that allow for life to occur.


Elysiumfire is in fact asking people to agree to having no entitlement to believe that a divine authorship maybe involved.


I read it differently myself, meaning you can't grant authorship to someone without proving they did the work or without themselves proving they did the work. If this were the case, then I grant authorship of the universe to the flying spaghetti monster. Now you must accept that this is the case and I don't have to prove it's the case. This is what your end of the argument sounds like to us.


Yet leaves the opposing side with the entitlement to claim there is in fact NO divine authorship.


Your misinterpreting IMHO. No one is giving authorship to something that hasn't been shown to exist initially to have the ability to receive that authorship. The fact that there is no evidence in any form, especially observed evidence is the reason we don't grant authorship to it! How can you legitimately grant authorship to something you don't even have evidence that exists? That defies logic!


That respect does not then include the acceptance of established fact as a support to feel entitled to believe in a divine authority as being responsible for the agreed fact that there is design via complexity pointing to authorship.


You may feel that way, but the case is that your side has no established fact to begin with. All the exists is a granted entitlement of authorship of something nor proven to exist as being the cause of everything else. That's a problem that needs to be fixed.

The agreeable middle ground should be evidences and proofs that allow for differing theories to come into being, no unobserved conclusions and then acts of desperation to make observations fit those conclusions with blatant disregard to prove the conclusion itself.

Your not being fair here.


So my question is, how is your ET hypothesis any more entitled then a belief in SI.


ET is not SI and ET can be found, it's a whole different ballgame. We have evidence that life and organic molecules are not impossible. We have no evidence in regards to SI, just a conclusion that it exists without proof.


So you know how life started? And it was without the divine. You have evidence of this then? You can explain and fully understand the process that have achieved this which lead you to conclude that no divine authorship is involved?


If your asking do we know what the variables required for the processes involved, then no, we don't know yet. But what your arguing is that those processes can't occur naturally without the hand of SI pushing them along. Creates to many problems and calls for something not proven to exist and claims that the laws of the universe can only work if SI wills it so.


Just as I can deem that your ET hypothesis is pointless and meaningless, yet it is obvious you mean it as a valid argument, and to point out your questions concerning a divine authorship, yet your claim is as empty as a claim that a divine being is outside of what we know, without proof or evidence!


The claim is less empty than the claim of SI. We do have evidence that life is possible and that organic molecules form out in space and on other bodies other than earth. You lack evidence of SI as divine authorship of life, you do nothing more than claim it so without showing it exists and is so. It's just rubbish, you can't claim something to exist without showing it to exist and then claim on top of that, that it has these super duper magical powers of creation without showing that to be true as well.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but to push opinions forward as fact requires proofs and evidences, not empty claims that lack such.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Hello everyone. I've been doing a bit more research. Check my profile page for recent links to materials that assist in the debate against evolution.

Has anyone thought about how much power the governments have gained (taken from) the people by accepting and pushing the ever evolving theory of evolution? I see it as a very big conspiracy to program the masses and take power from the people.

Indeed, through Darwinism, oppressive governments receive the impetus to accept their actions as being the "natural progression" of a "social evolutionary process" rather than a cruel, inhumane, brutal, tyrannical system of governing. Soldiers who are led to believe in Social Darwinism can appease their consciences with a "universal pardon" for their actions. How nice is that?

Countries that are overthrown are led to believe their invasion, loss of autonomy, and oppression is due to the natural processes of nature. War, famine, and death become viewed as inevitable consequences of natural laws.


That Darwinism has proven “disastrous theory” is indisputable.

“Karl Marx loved Darwinism,” writes Windchy. “To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution.”

“Darwin suits my purpose,” Marx wrote.

Darwin suited Adolf Hitler’s purposes, too.

“Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs’ advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire.”


Source is here for all you truthseekers: www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

Please sit back, grab a coffee, and enjoy this seven part video series on the legacy of Darwin and evolution:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
AA:

I do believe you set the trend. Here is the factual evidence to support this claim.


No. I can show that it was you that set the trend...

You are quite confused.
...I merely responded in kind to that statement.
I see both the reason and shape of your posting, and I would wager so do others reading the posts. Yours is not to debate, but to drive the discussion into circuitous redundancy in hope that the debate fades into futility. Well, I had thought to leave the thread alone, and maybe move on to other discussions, but have decided to pursue your irrationale with counterpoints of rationality...your stance warrants rebuttal and clarification. I believe even you are unsure of what you say.

AA:

Who mentioned others, or support?


Er...I did, remember me...I'm the one whom seems to have garnered your attention, and you have now garnered mine. So let us turn to another piece of your nonsense...

I don't need anyone else or some kind of fear on losing the support of your imagined others.


The others are not imagined, they have simply stopped posting. The debate was ambling along merrily until you turned up and turned it into a illogical-fest. Your posts give no room for their support, so it is well and good that you say you don't need anyone else, because you isolate yourself in the delivery of what you say.

AA:

Dude, this is just pathetic.


Well of course it would be, afterall...we are dealing with your jumbled mind.

AA:

What is authentic about your post? The bias within. Certainly. I agree that I have twisted this to show it as being most obvious.


I thank you for your admission of twisting context and meaning, this confession is now open for all to see. Am I bias? I certainly show a predilection towards the dynamics of evolutionary theory, and I don't hide it. I don't draw on God or SI to account for the inference of design in complex biological structures...so yes, I am bias, but not unreasonably so. I am more than willing to concede points where empirical evidence supports them.

AA:

So, do you not agree then that people use the facts held within the complexity of nature as a compelling argument for ID as well as against it, or are you now saying that you do not agree with this?


I agree that people use all sorts of facts to support their claims for one thing or another, but there is no empirical evidence that supports the argument for ID, there are only inferences that ID is inherent in nature's structures, and that is what I have stated all along. When I stated this...

Thus: I can agree that complexity in biological structures - from the microbial to the Blue Whale - 'point' to a seeming intelligent design attributable to the foundation of their existing...
...I was simply acknowledging the apparent inference of ID in nature, I certainly wasn't stating that I 'do' agree with it, because I don't. I think this should clarify the confusion in your apprehension of what I was stating succinctly. What I will concede to you is maybe I should have used the word 'could' rather than 'can'.

AA:

Can you show me where science has corrected a false belief in a divine authority in this debate?


Here's one...it is believed by some Christians that the earth was created (by a divine authority) only 6000+ years ago, but the scientific method has established that the earth is in fact 4.5 billion years old, give or take a millenium. So, what is a reasonable thinking man to accept, the hearsay of faith, or the facts uncovered by the scientific method? I know what I choose to accept.

AA:

Then why exclude any answer? It is possible that that a layer will reveal a designer!


I agree...I have to concede that, and if it does, supported by empirical evidence, then I will be only too happy to change my stance, but as of yet I need not do so.

AA:

Why is it that we are not entitled to answer the question with a divine authority now?


Simply because there is no empirical evidence. I do not state that one is not entitled to believe by their faith that ID purports to divine authority, but that they are not entitled to claim it as fact, because their is no evidence to support that it is fact. It is becoming rather tiresome to be going round in this circuitous reasoning when earlier statements announce these points...can we at least move forward now?

AA:

You mean you have hard empirical evidence of what created life and that there is no intelligence in life at all, anywhere? An amazing discovery indeed.


How the hell do you arrive at this line of questioning? From where are you dredging up these tangential questions...what the hell is your point?

AA:

My statement is totally supported...Are you saying that this is not the case.


Your statement is not supported at all. Your statement and the rest of the paragraph I have truncated in quotation is mere opinion about inference culled from your perception...I can certainly realise the irony in that.

AA:

Is the system and process of evolution, the change and adaption simply lucky, random, stupid?


It's all about the dynamics of interaction within the environment which are affective upon the autonomous replicating sequencing in the DNA. If the environment remains consistently stable, then external influences affecting the processes in DNA replication will be small. Conversely, if the environment undergoes rapid changes and is consistently unstable, then the processes in DNA replication will reflect that, even to the point of wiping out organisms whose DNA cannot adapt quick enough to the changes.
For instance, with regard to our human bodies, I would say (and this is opinion only) that in evolutionary terms we have reached a cul-de-sac. Our bodies are too structurally complex for further evolutionary adaptation. We will need to use our intelligence to overcome extremes in environmental changes.

Nothing further in your post requires or warrants a response.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
JM:

Has anyone thought about how much power the governments have gained (taken from) the people by accepting and pushing the ever evolving theory of evolution?


Hi John, yes I agree that the idea of evolution that Darwin postulated has most certainly been twisted and used against the masses in the form of social Darwinism, and definitely to distort social ideologies. The system and thinking behind eugenics is one such instance, there are a number of other instances too...along with those you highlight.

Thanks for the links, I will take a look at them as I need a break.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
atlasastro, thank you for joining the thread, I'm admiring your posts...

Guys thank you for settling down and being focused on CONTENT...

OT's focused on the NFL for a few days, I look forward to coming back and joining later....

OT



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Has anyone thought about how much power the governments have gained (taken from) the people by accepting and pushing the ever evolving theory of evolution? I see it as a very big conspiracy to program the masses and take power from the people.



Another great point from JM!

OT

PS: 'Dana Carvey' was right....



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Oh please, there was no point at all in that statement.

Every single person in any governmental capacity is now being called into question regardless of previous conditions prior to holding such capacities is now being called into some ill thought evolutionary conspiracy to undermine the goodness of gods creation?

All the scientists, paleontologists, geneticists, text book writers, doctors, marine biologists, etc. who DO believe in god and evolution, would have to be in on this conspiracy as well. Fancy that, a religious scientist conspires against their own religion!

Yes, us atheists have evil spies in all corners of the globe with some of them claiming to be religious! MuAhAhAhAhAa11!!one1!!!



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Oh please, there was no point at all in that statement.




which statement?



OT



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Did I mention 'people'?


OT



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
......Yes, us atheists have evil spies in all corners of the globe......



Which ones?



OT



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Ahhhh, OK! So what you are getting at is that the natural processes/forces of the universe wouldn't work without some supernatural intelligence moving each individual atom by hand in concert?
I do not say that at all, ever. Can point out where I said that. What I say is that I see intelligence in nature. I also say that we cannot rule out a divine authority as author simply by observing the complexity of nature. I also argue that people on one side of the debate are entitled to claim an authorship, given that people are free to claim there is no authorship by using the same observations in complexity of nature. Are you claiming that there is NO intelligence in nature? Because I claim there is intelligence in nature, that nature itself is intelligent. Do you have intelligence? Are you an aspect of Nature? Also of importance to your argument is this: how can you distance a process from nature? You claimed I was disregarding process of nature. Process of and in nature are nature themselves. If these process are governing the outcomes of nature, then can it not be argued that this is also intelligence within nature?



Well, that take's care of a lot of things,
Yes, it takes care of your assumptions.

not only that but now hopefully this SI can dismantle prisons as it's SI causing people to do bad things. Ah crap, SI is also causing me to argue against it. Man, that SI guy is one tricky little...
Yes, especially when this caricature is simply all in your head. And your head seems to be firmly up your own a......



But how does one arrive at a conclusion at there being NO divine authority from merely explaining a complex aspect of nature that seems, to the observer, to have a design component in it?


You can't arrive at a conclusion and then make thing's fit to that conclusion!
So you cannot rule out a divine authority from merely observing the complexity of life. Thank You. If you cannot rule it out, then people are entitled to argue, believe or accept that one is possible from observing that complexity.


Just because one doesn't know how something works doesn't mean you can just claim it works by SI.
We do not know how matter becomes from energy, we think the Higgs field and boson are responsible for the standard model. But how can they claim the Higgs field and boson is responsible if they can't show it or understand how it works?
LHC will help us here hopefully, next month I think. Anyway.
We claim life came from a primordial soup yet cannot show this or understand how it worked, we claim evolution started from that, but cannot show how it started to work from that first basic primordial soup. I accept evolution as a process via the observations on fossils etc in a time reversal of life over vast periods that show these changes and increases in diversity and complexity. Yet people claim that evolution is responsible for life. Yet it is merely describing a process, a trend, an observed trend and process. Is that the same as a cause? Is that understanding exactly how it works? Or is it just describing the observed effects of something we do not understand? Then can we truly claim evolution is fact? Or just the fact we observe a trend without knowledge of how it truly works or what was it's cause.

We don't know how gravity works. We cannot show what this force is, just observe its effects. This failure to understand how gravity works and what causes it, has formed the split between Quantum physics and General Relativity. This is why there is a weak and strong forces at quantum level and gravity in general relativity.
How can people claim that forces exist if they do not understand them? They are merely allocating a description or a name to forces unseen and incomprehensible, yet have an effect.
Is this what people do with SI? As the force responsible, when observing the effect of existence in our universe. I happen to think they are entitled to do that. They have merely put a name to an unseen force that they think causes the effect of complexity of life they observe.
Think of how many forces we do this with in nature. We do it all the time. We allow science to do this. All the time. Yet when people do it with SI? Tsk Tsk.

So, Yes they can, people can claim lots of things. And they do, people have used their beliefs and imagination in science for centuries to ponder what is in the unknown and unseen, then we have found ways to test these. So people can ponder and claim that there is an SI as a cause. It is up to them to prove the claim. Others will accept or reject these beliefs and claims based on that. So people can claim SI.


If you don't know, then you don't know and need to find out. Not say you know and then try to make everything fit it. As stands, there is no evidence or proof of SI.
This is your criteria. There are people who believe they know. As it stands, you personally have not seen enough evidence to accept SI. Others have enough evidence, some of that evidence they claim is the complexity of life.


No one is saying SI is impossible, all we're saying is there is no evidence of SI initially.
There are those that will site the complexity in nature as evidence. I accept that they do this. elysiumfire was arguing that this not be the case. I disagree. As I argue that both sides ague from ignorance when we include the complexity of nature as evidence. So both sides are entitled to their opinion based on that complexity.

Nothing more than a conclusion that because we don't know then it must be SI/ID and then the run around to try and make it fit which is impossible because you need to show SI does indeed exist first before you can make everything fit it.
People run around stating that there is evidence that there is no SI by pointing to evolution or other aspects of the universe that we truly do not unnderstand, etc. Which is why I point out that it should not exclude others from using it as evidence to support SI, as the argument was about the entitlement to claim divine authorship. Remember when I ask about the chastising of one side?


We say evolution is true because we observed certain things in nature happening that allowed for us to 'discover' the process going on.
Darwins Original theory presumes that life came from non-life. And that is was purely naturalistic and was one of undirected common decent.
How is this supported by observation?
Have we observed organic life come from the non-organic? No.
DNA(which Darwin was ignorant of), could that be considered as a directing influence now that we are understanding i more ? I could say yes.

What Darwin did do was inject a credible process to account for the variety of life we see now, and observe in fossil records. That of Natural Selection. Were by the process of genetic mutation over time would see beneficial mutations aid in survival and eventually over these vast periods of time these mutations would spawn entirely different species, with increasing complexity.
Did Darwin or anyone else observe this? No. It was a theory. Is this testable via the scientifc method? No.
What we do is accept the theory based on what we find in life, and we try and see if it fits the theory. Which is what we do with Evolution. Which is why the theory itself is not consider exactly the same now as Darwin's original. We now have theory within theory that argues against Darwin's original Idea of survival of the fittest. Theories like SET that argue co-operation was needed between early organisms in order to create more complex structures.
So we are in fact accepting a conclusion of evolution whilst running around trying to find things that prove it. I totally accept that. Again Darwin claims a slow progressive process, yet we see eras where massive bursts of life and diversity emerge.
If you accept evolution, then you accept that all life started without direction from inorganic material which self organized and then progressively over time via random mutation and natural selection created all life on earth.
Now, can you prove it? You would answer yes, of course. How? By running around and showing me all the parts you make fit.

You can't arrive at a conclusion and then make thing's fit to that conclusion!


.

What we haven't discovered is how organic molecules combine to form life, but we do indeed know that organic molecules can be created in the lab and the deep recesses of space, so that isn't even in question because it has been observed. The only thing missing is the variables that allow for the processes that allow for life to occur.
You need to read what you just wrote. You think this argues against SI? What organic molecules have we found in the deep recesses of space? When did we go to the deep recesses of space and recover these?
When you mention "variables", can one not ask that we entertain SI as a possible variable. I mean if you cannot rule it out by it being impossible, then as a variable it is possible.


I read it differently myself............ This is what your end of the argument sounds like to us.
I don't care what it sounds like.
This is what it is: PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO SUBSCRIBE TO A DIVINE AUTHORSHIP because you cannot prove it does not exist or is not responsible or rule it out based on the very same evidence they use to accept it with, which is the complexity of nature and life.
Flying Spaghetti is cool with me.


And just to get another angle in:
Are you superior to nature? If not, and there is intelligence in nature, is this not a SI that has authorship via processes in and of nature?
Can people not claim that this SI exist?
Have you heard scientists and engineers talk of an "Artificial Intelligence"? That implies a natural intelligence exists.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
.......
Have you heard scientists and engineers talk of an "Artificial Intelligence"? That implies a natural intelligence exists.



You know I've thought of that before...

Pretty sound logic, hey skeptics??

OT



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


You know I've thought of that before...

Pretty sound logic, hey skeptics??


What? What's the question?

We are the natural intelligence in the AI situation. That seems to be a complete image.

 



Also I haven't heard your response from the demonstration that organic chemistry - the stuff of abiogenesis - is found in space. It's one of the things that fills the not empty space out there.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


We claim life came from a primordial soup yet cannot show this or understand how it worked, we claim evolution started from that, but cannot show how it started to work from that first basic primordial soup.


Abiogenesis doesn't think this. The 'soup' thing was one of the first ideas in a time when evolution was first being considered by the scientific community.

Nowadays, there are some more solid ideas on the origin of life, namely that the first form wasn't actually alive. Viruses aren't alive, well aren't completely alive so we can already see that there are degrees of being alive. The current ideas suggest that the first form consisted of only some self-replicating amino acid enclosed in a lipid shell.

Because it's easier than typing:





This is your criteria. There are people who believe they know. As it stands, you personally have not seen enough evidence to accept SI. Others have enough evidence, some of that evidence they claim is the complexity of life.

The complexity is just evidence for evolution, which is not in turn evidence for a god. If I assume that a God exists and assume that it started life and assume it cares for it's creation, then yeah I can see how evidence would appear self-evident. But I don't make these assumptions.



Darwins Original theory presumes that life came from non-life. And that is was purely naturalistic and was one of undirected common decent.
How is this supported by observation?
Have we observed organic life come from the non-organic? No.
DNA(which Darwin was ignorant of), could that be considered as a directing influence now that we are understanding i more ? I could say yes.

Darwin's Ideas were incomplete as all are when they are first conceptualised. His theory dealt with change, On the Origin of Species doesn't talk about the origin of the original species, but that didn't change the observed evidence of this 'change' going on.

It's a bit like noticing that yesterday's whether determines today's whether, but that produces an infinite regression problem because there was a time when there was no whether. The person who made the first observation and had the first idea is asked about the origin and goes "I dunno.
But there it is all the same." Science learns long after he died that whether slowly formed in the primordial earth soon after the planet had formed in the early solar system.

I have no idea what determines daily whether and I'm betting that it's absurdly complicated, but still I think the analogy suits.


Did Darwin or anyone else observe this? No. It was a theory. Is this testable via the scientifc method? No.

Actually it was a hypothesis, an important distinction to make. He didn't talk about beneficial mutations because that would require knowledge of DNA. Clearly there was something that determined characteristics and scientists had known and done stuff on inheritance for sometime (punnet squares and such). He just suggested that new species came about because natural selection took one population and pressured it into one or more species that were significantly distinct from the older populations. Some variances were slight and acted just as diversity in a population, but he reckoned that these changes would compound overtime making individuals potentially to different to reproduce.

We had witnessed slight changes for a long time, and soon we discovered things like ring species which showed that too greater degree of variance made individuals unable to reproduce.

Then we found DNA and suddenly the mechanisms were unveiled with the origin of new variance with mutations.


The hypothesis became theory testable via the scientific method in time.


You need to read what you just wrote. You think this argues against SI? What organic molecules have we found in the deep recesses of space?
When it came to us. Organic Chemistry is found in the tails of comets and asteroids.


Perhaps the most powerful techniques for detection of individual molecules is radio astronomy which has resulted in the detection of over a hundred interstellar species, including radicals and ions, and organic (i.e., carbon) compounds, such as alcohols, acids, aldehydes, and ketones. One of the most abundant interstellar molecules, and among the easiest to detect with radio waves (due to its strong electric dipole moment) is CO (carbon monoxide). In fact, CO is such a common interstellar molecule that it is used to map out molecular regions
Wiki

We don't need to go to deep space to find it there as perplexing as that seems. We didn't go to the sun but we found helium there, before anywhere else infact.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Whoops. Double post.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire

No. I can show that it was you that set the trend...

You are quite confused.
...I merely responded in kind to that statement.

Yes that was a statement of fact. Whilst you reply was a personal attack.


I see both the reason and shape of your posting
Really. I don't think you do, I think you are inferring one though.

and I would wager so do others reading the posts. Yours is not to debate, but to drive the discussion into circuitous redundancy in hope that the debate fades into futility.
Your argument is based on futility, so if it is headed that way it is not my fault. If you want to gamble, go ahead. I don't play dice.
I have offered debate. Inspired by your confusing post.
When you mention others, please be specific and I will address them personally, but until then, you are merely injecting an imaginary audience in the hope of supporting your own opinion. Yet Again.

Well, ...... I believe even you are unsure of what you say.
Of course you are free and entitled to believe what you will. But have you peeled away the true nature of my posts as to find a true cause?


Er...I did, remember me...I'm the one whom seems to have garnered your attention, and you have now garnered mine. So let us turn to another piece of your nonsense...
Why would you mention others when I was simply replying to your post? Whatever dude.


The others are not imagined, they have simply stopped posting. The debate was ambling along merrily until you turned up and turned it into a illogical-fest.
Not only have you imagined that they would not support me, but now you are claiming that my posts have stopped them posting. Why even inject them into the discussion between you and I?If they have stopped posting.
You know when I posted that "You are confused". This is confirming that. This is not an insult, but you are not addressing anything but what you imagine was a merry discussion that was stopped when I posted a reply that apparently left no room for the support of those very people that stopped posting.
And you think my reasoning is jumbled? Well I admit I am being a facetious. But with good purpose.

Your posts give no room for their support, so it is well and good that you say you don't need anyone else, because you isolate yourself in the delivery of what you say.
Who cares what room there is for support. What don't you understand about me having a reply to you which has nothing to do with anyone else, their support or "room for that support" that you imagine is not there. I am arguing your points, not posting for support!


Well of course it would be, afterall...we are dealing with your jumbled mind.
Yes. After all I am the one who thinks that there are imaginary people, who won't give me their imaginary support because I did not leave imaginary room, and now they have imaginarily stopped posting.



I thank you for your admission of twisting context and meaning, this confession is now open for all to see. Am I bias? I certainly show a predilection towards the dynamics of evolutionary theory, and I don't hide it.
Good. I state that what you believe I twisted merely revealed that bias.

I don't draw on God or SI to account for the inference of design in complex biological structures...so yes, I am bias, but not unreasonably so.
But your bias certainly leads you to believe it is unreasonable to infer one. Is that correct. Is that why you feel people are not entitled to infer SI from the complexity of design given that your reason is established in what can be shown as fact, yet both sides are arguing from ignorance. In this case your ignorance is acceptable whilst others are not. Am I clear on that Bias?



What I will concede to you is maybe I should have used the word 'could' rather than 'can'.
As you are stating that the Idea behind your post is to set a middle ground for further debate, of course you could have. Do you really believe that a middle ground will be formed when you argue from a bias that is set to dismantle an entitlement that is at the very core of the debate. Seriously. This is your answer? What debate are you furthering?


Here's one...it is believed by some Christians that the earth was created (by a divine authority) only 6000+ years ago, ....... give or take a millenium. So, what is a reasonable thinking man to accept, the hearsay of faith, or the facts uncovered by the scientific method? I know what I choose to accept.
Does this make a belief in SI false in this debate? No. Because we are using complexity in nature. Your example merely corrects dogma and doctrine in christianity, not an SI claimed from an inference inspired by the complexity of life. I believe the debate is broader and more complex than any single religious description of what is SI. But I totally understand what you are saying in that regard. I agree that these belief may use complexity in design now to support their own beliefs. I believe they are entitled to do that.


I agree...I have to concede that, and if it does, supported by empirical evidence, then I will be only too happy to change my stance, but as of yet I need not do so.
Cool, because the debate is not about you. It is about a course that will move it forward. Not move it forward in your direction. So! Why exclude it from the debate, like you post inspires us to accept.


Simply because there is no empirical evidence. I do not state that one is not entitled to believe by their faith that ID purports to divine authority, but that they are not entitled to claim it as fact, because their is no evidence to support that it is fact. It is becoming rather tiresome to be going round in this circuitous reasoning when earlier statements announce these points...can we at least move forward now?
No. People are claiming that ID is evidence. That the complexity of nature is evidence. As both sides are arguing from ignorance in relation to the cause of the complexity of nature, both sides are equal. Complexity via evolution cannot show cause any more than complexity by ID show SI. If you want to move forward, telling people what they can and cannot infer from their own ignorance is rather futile. Your course of action to further this debate is futile, because you are asking people to accept your avenue of understanding at the expense of their own. It is glaringly obvious that this debate does not work that way. Which is why people like you are so entertaining.


Your statement is not supported at all. Your statement and the rest of the paragraph I have truncated in quotation is mere opinion about inference culled from your perception...I can certainly realise the irony in that.
Can you prove it is an inference or is it just your perception?



It's all about the dynamics of interaction within the environment which are affective upon the autonomous replicating sequencing in the DNA. If the environment remains consistently stable, then external influences affecting the processes in DNA replication will be small. Conversely, if the environment undergoes rapid changes and is consistently unstable, then the processes in DNA replication will reflect that, even to the point of wiping out organisms whose DNA cannot adapt quick enough to the changes.
How did DNA become autonomous. How did inorganic matter become autonomous organic DNA. Is this autonomy inferred to have occurred naturally. Or do you have evidence and observations of this. I hope you can see my point now, because this is how the debate will go forward. When we start to answer these questions and people won't have to infer from any side at all about Evolution as fact or SI as inference.


For instance, with regard to our human bodies, I would say (and this is opinion only) that in evolutionary terms we have reached a cul-de-sac. Our bodies are too structurally complex for further evolutionary adaptation. We will need to use our intelligence to overcome extremes in environmental changes.
Your statement is not supported at all. It is mere opinion about inference culled from your perception. I can see how confused you are from going in circles.


Nothing further in your post requires or warrants a response.

Really.

Well, I had thought to leave the thread alone, ........ I believe even you are unsure of what you say
I am pretty sure that you are confused. By bias. By a standard you claim you want set but which is impossible to set, perhaps even ridiculous in its very suggestion. By claims of what one side should be entitled to infer, when ignorance is present in both sides. All you are establishing is what a fact is as we perceive it based on a scientific system you admit is ignorant of total knowledge. In which case how can any one of us really be sure of what is actual fact, and then go about making any entitled opinion.

I doubt you are really are up for this debate anyway.
Instead of trying to rule one argument out. Prove your alternative if you have one. Then all debate will move forward. One way or another, as that is what those opposed to SI are asking ID'ers to do.
Until you can show a complete and valid explanation for the universe, debate will go on regardless of what you try and set as entitled fact or belief.
Show a complete argument that rules out SI. Because as long as people see it as being a possible answer to fill the void of ignorance, this debate will go on. The universe is a mighty big circle, and we have plenty a way to go, so wether you fill it with God of the Gaps, or Chance of the Gaps. We keep going around either way. Unless of course, you really know it all.

I guess you will not answer the last bit. Because you can't. No one can.


[edit on 28/9/09 by atlasastro]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 



I do not say that at all, ever. Can point out where I said that. What I say is that I see intelligence in nature.


Sounded like it to me.

LINK


S: (n) intelligence (the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience)


What's your definition of intelligence?

Now, I understand you think you see intelligence in nature, I just don't see how you come to that conclusion. What I see in nature is entirely different. I see natural forces at play interacting as how they should by how the given laws of physics dictates they should behave.


I also say that we cannot rule out a divine authority as author simply by observing the complexity of nature.


No one is ruling out the possibility, but on the other hand no one is accepting the possibility because there exists no evidence for it. It's not that hard of a stretch to understand that some people with ability to think with logic and reason aren't so jump on the bandwagon to accept a theory that first claims a conclusion and then tries to make everything fit that conclusion. It's not that hard to understand that in order to be taken seriously you have to show that this initial conclusion has been observed, then work out how it proceeded to effect the universe.


Are you claiming that there is NO intelligence in nature? Because I claim there is intelligence in nature, that nature itself is intelligent. Do you have intelligence? Are you an aspect of Nature?


By that argument, a rock is intelligent. A fig is intelligent. A piece of paper is intelligent. Anything that requires a complex set of processes is now intelligent. I do beg for your definition of intelligence and also your definition for the laws of physics and natural processes. It seems your definitions are different then everyone else.


Process of and in nature are nature themselves. If these process are governing the outcomes of nature, then can it not be argued that this is also intelligence within nature?


AH, I see... Your word playing here. Dirty tactics IMHO. Yes, we are born of nature, but that doesn't make the natural processes themselves inherently intelligent. Your missing or disregarding a whole subset of processes and variables that leads for intelligence to form by the natural processes of the universe. You can't claim that because we are intelligent then nature is intelligent also as this really does sound like your implying an intelligence behind nature allowing for these processes to occur. Either the processes are of natural processes or they are from SI.


So you cannot rule out a divine authority from merely observing the complexity of life. Thank You. If you cannot rule it out, then people are entitled to argue, believe or accept that one is possible from observing that complexity.


Observing complexity and deeming it comes from the gods is no different than disregarding the complexity of the earth's water cycle and deeming it rains because the rain gods heard our prayers. Your arguing an observation that hasn't actually been observed. The point is, I don't know how something works is not a valid argument for arguing a claimed conclusion.


We claim life came from a primordial soup yet cannot show this or understand how it worked, we claim evolution started from that, but cannot show how it started to work from that first basic primordial soup.


Used to claim, that's a key phrase. There are a ton of new theories that do show some promise. Like I said however, not knowing how a process occurs is not a valid argument against the process when it's shown that it can occur without SI doing the dirty work itself.


Yet people claim that evolution is responsible for life.


No they don't and the theory says nothing to the effect. The only people I hear saying this is the creationists or ignorant people who don't obviously know a lick about the theory.


Is that the same as a cause? Is that understanding exactly how it works? Or is it just describing the observed effects of something we do not understand?


Do you bring into question then the very processes involved that allow for the creation of organic molecules on our own planet, in labs, and out in the deep recesses of space? Organic molecules can and do form from non organic material, this is a fact, this has been observed, and this has been demonstrated. Yet, in order to say that those organic molecules are incapable of becoming self replicating precursors to life, we must then throw out everything we know about chemistry and biology. I mean, your really purposefully throwing out a lot of well known things just because of one tiny little detail and wanting to claim that one tiny detail is because of SI.


Then can we truly claim evolution is fact? Or just the fact we observe a trend without knowledge of how it truly works or what was it's cause.


Evolution has been observed and we do know how it works for the most part. We've only recently discovered it not that long ago, so I'm sorry if in our infancy of knowledge that we don't have snap of the finger answers to every possible question.


How can people claim that forces exist if they do not understand them? They are merely allocating a description or a name to forces unseen and incomprehensible, yet have an effect.


Ah, but see, these forces while not known how or fully understood on how they work, they are definitely observed and known to exist. Key phrase "Known to exist." SI doesn't enjoy this same level of recognition. It's claimed to exist, but is never observed to exist nor shown to exist. We're just told that because X is unknown it must be from the hand of SI.


Yet when people do it with SI? Tsk Tsk.


Why tsk tsk? I don't understand why it's difficult to comprehend that it's dirty science to claim something exists without at least observing it. We know gravity exists because we observe it, although we may not know how it works and might possibly have the wrong idea on how it works, but it is certainly observed. SI lacks any power of observational evidence of itself. IDism does nothing more than scramble around make everything fit into SI.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


[CONTINUATION]


So people can ponder and claim that there is an SI as a cause. It is up to them to prove the claim.


Exactly, it is up to them to prove SI is the cause. Not claim SI is the cause then scramble around to make observations appear to fit that claim. Prove the actuality of SI first.


Others have enough evidence, some of that evidence they claim is the complexity of life.


Sure, and some people claim personal experiences as well. I'm sorry, but the dogma of my religious belief is more right and righteous than the next persons religious belief is nothing more than hogwash and IMHO when looked at historically the one SI/god concept is newer than the poly SI/god concepts. All are equally invalid, historically of course.


There are those that will site the complexity in nature as evidence. I accept that they do this. elysiumfire was arguing that this not be the case. I disagree. As I argue that both sides ague from ignorance when we include the complexity of nature as evidence. So both sides are entitled to their opinion based on that complexity.


Right, we are all arguing from ignorance of how these processes occur. Yet, by belief in SI, we have to throw out a lot of well thought out and understood natural processes that are already known to exist without the bogeyman laying a single finger on them. Are theories are based on actual observations, the SI theory is not as SI has not been observed as an actuality of the universe.


Which is why I point out that it should not exclude others from using it as evidence to support SI, as the argument was about the entitlement to claim divine authorship. Remember when I ask about the chastising of one side?


I don't know is not a valid argument nor reason to jump on the gap of knowledge and lay claim to some ultimate answer for everything without that conclusion itself being shown to exist, defies logic.


Darwins Original theory presumes that life came from non-life. And that is was purely naturalistic and was one of undirected common decent.


So are you arguing that we should disregard the fact that he observed something occurring naturally, devised a theory on how it works etc. without modern technological advances to further probe that theory? Darwin may have been partially right and partially wrong at the same time, but he lacked a lot of knowledge that we currently have now. The fact that he noticed something that not many other people picked up on is just amazing. Yet, had this never been discovered and we never knew of it, you and I wouldn't be discussing this, we'd naively be discussing how great SI/god is for creating the universe for us. Not knowing how something works is not an argument against observing it to occur. SI itself has never been observed.


We now have theory within theory that argues against Darwin's original Idea of survival of the fittest.


That is because he lacked knowledge of different processes going on that we now know are going on. Your arguing that he's an idiot and wrong for devising the theory because he lacked modern knowledge and technology.


Now, can you prove it? You would answer yes, of course. How? By running around and showing me all the parts you make fit.


No, we show the parts that show evolutionary process, not the creation of life. Granted the two go hand in hand, but honestly the two processes are different. In order for life to evolve, life must first exist. What this means is that all those organic molecules must combine in the right combination that allows for certain traits known to life before they start making little fishy fins and such.


You can't arrive at a conclusion and then make thing's fit to that conclusion!


No one is doing that. We observe a natural process that occurs and then try to explain how that process works. You on the other hand claim SI exists without showing it to exist, but try to do so by pointing at other processes that exist and say "Seeeeee."


You need to read what you just wrote. You think this argues against SI? What organic molecules have we found in the deep recesses of space? When did we go to the deep recesses of space and recover these?
When you mention "variables", can one not ask that we entertain SI as a possible variable. I mean if you cannot rule it out by it being impossible, then as a variable it is possible.


Look it up if you haven't heard of it before, unless you are discounting that organic molecules have been discovered with spectrometry and wish to also discredit everything we know about that aspect of science as well.

Granted SI could be that missing variable, but then we also have to prove that variable exists (impossible and hasn't been done at all) and we also have to discount everything we know about biology and chemistry as being impossible for being that missing variable which would require an entire rewrite of the whole universe and everything we currently know on how it operates. Everything would by nature be wrong, all because of that one little variable.


Have you heard scientists and engineers talk of an "Artificial Intelligence"? That implies a natural intelligence exists.


Word play and misunderstanding of the two processes. They are eerily similar actually.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
AA;

Yes that was a statement of fact. Whilst you reply was a personal attack.


We could bat this back forth for eternity, but you have to accept that it was you who replied to a post of mine, and began it by calling me confused...if that is not personalising against a person I don't know what is. I merely responded in kind to your derogatory statement about me...someone you don't know from Adam. When you can accept this we can move on. If you don't like defensive offense...don't attack people. As sure as eggs are eggs, you'll receive a response in kind.

AA:

I don't think you do, I think you are inferring one though.


Not at all...it shines clear in your posts.

AA:

I have offered debate.


Absolute pish! You offer nothing in the way of debate except a belligerent contrariness of argument...you simply argue for argument's sake. There is nothing of substance or reasonableness in your contrary stance, but it does warrant rebuttal simply for its unreasonableness...and especially for your admission that you twist context and meaning and use its warping as justification for your contrary stance.

AA:

Well I admit I am being facetious. But with good purpose.


No...with twisting purpose, and you say you offer debate...not on such terms you don't, all you offer are wild tangential redundancies of logic. The fact that I am still engaging your nonsense says something of my patience.

AA:

But your bias certainly leads you to believe it is unreasonable to infer one. Is that correct.


Yet again you establish your lack of comprehension...

I do not state that one is not entitled to believe by their faith that ID purports to divine authority, but that they are not entitled to claim it as fact, because there is no evidence to support that it is fact.
...you actually quote this and yet you ask if my bias leads me to a belief that it is unreasonable to infer God or SI as accounting for what looks like ID in complex biological structures. The answer to your redundant question is already stated there in the quote for you to comprehend. Perhaps, it flew over your head (as usual)?

AA:

People are claiming that ID is evidence. That the complexity of nature is evidence.


People claim all sorts of evidences for things that are merely apparent and that have not been established as fact. The complexity of biological structures does not establish (as evidence) that ID is fact, it merely infers a presence of ID. We've already covered this point earlier, why are we back on it yet again! We need to move on...

AA:

As both sides are arguing from ignorance in relation to the cause of the complexity of nature, both sides are equal.


Actually, the fundamental sciences (physics and biology) understand quite well the reason why complexity occurs in nature...it's all about the equalising of energy input with energy output in structures. Complex structures require a level of energy input in order to maintain their stability, elsewise entropy breaks them down. Entropy is the reason why structures in nature became evermore complex, especially so for biological life, by maintaining an equilibrium in energy input and output, biological life is able to temporarily curcumnavigate the touch of entropy, but over time, the ability for cells to continue replicating as normal healthy cells becomes evermore decreased...the organism ages and dies.
Both sides are not equal in ignorance, the scientific method has uncovered the cause, what it is seeking to do now is to find a way to use the cause to its own purpose. Only one side remains in ignorance, and that is because it cannot let go of the medieval concept of God and supernatural intervention.

AA:

How did DNA become autonomous. How did inorganic matter become autonomous organic DNA.


For goodness sake...this is basic school biology. Atoms form into relations to form molecules, which in turn form into relations of chemical bondings to form gasses and solids and organic compounds that react to environmental influences such as light and heat. The organic compounds form into relations out of which arise the chemical molecules of amino acids that bring forth the protein molecules which are the main building blocks of the cell. The structure of the cell is modular, in that the cell is the sum of the parts that make it a whole cell. The various parts react to the presence or absence of other molecules in ways governed by their sensing mechanisms. They cannot act outside or beyond their reaction, which basically is a mechanism of bonding or non-bonding.
All complex biological structures are required to input 'new' molecules in material from the environment, they cannot use molecules already in their structure (unless it is able to hold reserves, see 'food'), thus for the complex human structure it intakes new molecules in the form of food, which is broken down into various forms of organic compounds that the cells can use to replicate themselves. It is a autonomous mechanism, occurring outside and beyond our conscious appreciation...there is no intelligence involved. It all occurs despite the attribute of intelligence in the human animal. I'm sure you will appreciate the very basic-ness of the description, but I think it gives an adequate explanation, enough at least to answer your question.

AA:

Show a complete argument that rules out SI.


I just did...give me a factual argument where SI is involved.

[edit on 28/9/09 by elysiumfire]




top topics



 
8
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join