Intelligent Designer? Not yet.

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Today we are delving deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the universe, with even more reasons to be blown away by it all. However, if we follow the evidence of how, time after time after time, we came to understand that what we considered 'God's hand in the works' turned out to be perfectly natural occurrences. Why stray from this chain of evidence now when, historically, it suggests that a supernatural being will be removed from all aspects of the universe. Again, let me point out that the historical evidence suggests this. It doesn't mean it's true. Not yet anyway.


That is one point of view, but once upon a time science called the cell a simple blob of protoplasm so the origin of life was considered not a big deal, perhaps as simple as a few quick chemical reactions away. When DNA was discovered, Crick once proclaimed how inconceivable it was to generate even a simple protein by chance, but rest assured it would be solved in a few short years. That was about 60 years ago.

Now what has been discovered in the era of micro-biology and the molecular machine paradigm is that science has only deepened the mystery and has not closed the gap in an explanation only widened it by many many magnitudes. The same holds true for the very fundamental level of reality in quantum physics and even nuero science in regards to consciousness.

What is being revealed is not the clean tidy materialistic view, but an even greater unimaginable mystery. The more we learn the more we realise how much we don't know is what I'm saying. I don't see the chain of evidence leading supporting materialism at all.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, this is my view.




posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Occam's Razor is not absolute and is not used by scientists as proof, at least not any that hold merit and have published works. It's the way we simplify things that we do not fully understand. Again, you are primarily referring to philosophy in your arguments, which is not an indicator of truth. If you are looking for the answer, it may be a good place to start, however. Philosophy in science is only used in the very early stages of a hypothesis. Testing and experimentation is required, however. Philosophy, on its own does not hold merit.
It's also used to form a conclusion. And philosophy definitely holds merit. If your argument is sound, and your premises are true, then the conclusion is true. In some cases, premises do not need to be verified experimentally. Example? The premise that we exist.
And I find it funny how you criticize Occam's razor in the article, while that represents the position that intelligence did not initiate the universe in that article. In other words, it was representing your position. The fact that you argued against yourself shows that you didn't even read the article. Maybe you should. You'd learn something. And until you do and address what's presented in there, there is no reason to continue this 'conversation'.


Originally posted by Barcs
And you seem to think that my worldview is strictly materialism, but it's not.
Really? Then tell me one thing that you believe does not fall in the materialistic perspective.


Originally posted by Barcs
I just think jumping to unjustified conclusions that can't be backed up by fact or data, but still calling them facts, is wrong. There are not facts in intelligent design. There is belief.
So I guess it's not a fact then, that something like language (aka code, descriptive and prescriptive information) has only been observed to arise from intelligence. And yeah.. There is belief everywhere, including in you. Even though you like to pretend that what you're saying is purely knowledge not and belief.


Originally posted by Barcs
You BELIEVE DNA is too complex to arise naturally.
No. Not 'complex'. DNA has properties that have only been observed to arise from intelligence and never have been observed to arise from purely physical properties.


Originally posted by Barcs
You BELIEVE that the cell is nanotechnology
Well, I don't like the way you put it. Nanotechnology is a name we came up with for things we designed. But, if cells did not have properties of chips or computers (it's actually the other way around, since it seems we designed chips based on cells), then how come we can connect man-made chips to cells and let them work together? How many times do people argue that we are biological computers? Isn't this what's used to say that we might not have free will blah blah? Basic input/output systems? But no, it's only appearance and it can't possibly ever be true that there is more to the nature of existence than we think. We're only computers when it fits the current paradigm of our world view. Otherwise we're just an accident.


Originally posted by Barcs
You BELIEVE that there must be a higher power because we can't explain everything right now
Nonsense. I believe there is a necessity for a fundamental basic intelligence in nature because it is a requirement for logical consistency. That is not the same as "we don't know, therefore higher power". You're trying to put me in the god of the gaps argument, while you yourself just used a similar argument, remember? All your 'higher power' nonsense is to portray me as religious, but that's not what this is about.


Originally posted by Barcs
You BELIEVE the universe appears to be ordered and arranged intelligently
I never said that. But, tell me this. If there is no intelligent arrangement in the universe, then how come we consider ourselves intelligent? Are we separate from the universe? If so, you must accept that something transcends nature and can not be reached by science since science limits itself to nature. If we do not transcend nature and we are subject to it, and nature can produce intelligence, then by default nature must contain and transcend intelligence. What could you possibly have to bring in against this? Especially since intelligence has only ever been observed to arise from other intelligence. For someone who propagates evidence, you sure try hard to work against it.


Originally posted by Barcs
You can't prove anything close to that.
Science does not 'prove' anything, because by default everything must be falsifiable. Proofs can come from two places. Philosophy and math. But apparently I'm not allowed to use philosophy.
edit on 12-12-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 





However, if we follow the evidence of how, time after time after time, we came to understand that what we considered 'God's hand in the works' turned out to be perfectly natural occurrences.

Why stray from this chain of evidence now when, historically, it suggests that a supernatural being will be removed from all aspects of the universe.






Time after time......




Observe this watch for a short time and it may appear to function without external influence...

The gears work together beautifully.



The watch keeps time




So does this




and this






You may see and understand some of the mechanisms, be it a watch or the universe.



Understanding how a mechanism works does not diminish the inventor of the mechanism.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Observe this watch for a short time and it may appear to function without external influence...

The gears work together beautifully.



That was my point with this image, all of those muddy objects with smooth sides and with some of them neatly stacked. This is nature's equivalent of the watch. It would be easy to ask who made these things and piled them up like that?



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Now what has been discovered in the era of micro-biology and the molecular machine paradigm is that science has only deepened the mystery and has not closed the gap in an explanation only widened it by many many magnitudes.

Not true at all. We know with rather high certainty how things went down. First autocatalytic RNA life. Then RNA & protein life. Then finally DNA -> RNA & Protein life about 3.7 billion years ago.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
may I put my point of view on this?? thanks


Originally posted by vasaga
...If there is no intelligent arrangement in the universe, then how come we consider ourselves intelligent? Are we separate from the universe? If so, you must accept that something transcends nature and can not be reached by science since science limits itself to nature. If we do not transcend nature and we are subject to it, and nature can produce intelligence, then by default nature must contain and transcend intelligence. What could you possibly have to bring in against this? Especially since intelligence has only ever been observed to arise from other intelligence. For someone who propagates evidence, you sure try hard to work against it.


Those are all very good arguments and I surely agree to this as a "whole thing",
so I'm asking myself, what the basic forces in the universe are doing, forces like magnetism, electrostatic potential and nuclear forces.
Are they intelligent? they do interferer is such way an observer could tell there is some intelligence behind.
they don't do random things, they follow rules.

If the property of something forces it to act this way and not the other, could this be the first step to intelligence?

What is intelligence, what makes things act intelligent ? On some level surely the knowledge of the past is required, choices it can make, but what is happening on a lowest level of something we call later intelligent ?

has an moving electromagnetic wave any knowledge of the past?
It does, it is not aware of it but it's property makes it intelligent from this point of view.
it has no choice for sure, it follows physical lows, but hey, this is surely the first Bit to intelligent actions.
Somebody will argue one or two properties is not enough to make things intelligent, no, but a collection of this properties does.

An electromagnetic wave can propagate only in a certain frame of time, it needs time to act.
Is time the main key to all this?
Time isn't the only basis, there also must be distance it can cross over, right?
Space and time, the universe we can observe must be that intelligence, the creator than.
Does the universe has a plan or is it just following the rules it creates?

To me it looks like there is no other choice then be "intelligent" as this is the property of the Universe.

coming back to the topic we talk about I say
life is unintended result of ruled based universe and it designed itself as it had no other choice.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I disagree completely, getting into the chemical details and problems with every step of what you describe is a long and arduous task but is well documented for anyone to investigate. There are sooo many obstacles in what you describe it's laughable. Engineered ribosome experiments have only shown how difficult it really is. RNA already has some genetic information but not nearly have enough to bridge the gaps. To believe the origin of life is all but solved is the height of scientism. I'm sorry to say.

Also to add, none of it has resolved the many circular causalities at all, none of it adresses the sequencing problem, aka information problem and none of it acounts for the arbitrary semiotic relationships or genetic code. None of it can account for even a single protein.

What I'm describing, semiotics and functional pre scriptive information is beyond chemistry anyway, so you miss the point. Chemistry is the means or the medium of information. Just as a witten letter is more than paper and ink and computers are more than electricity, wires and microchips. They all contain non physical entities such as abstract concepts.
edit on 13-12-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
I think when looking at the sophistication of the world, intelligent design makes more sense than development by chance. The evidence in favor of God is stronger than the evidence against.

Great post, will watch the vids when I have some time.

That's bronze age thinking.
If you can't explain it or understand it, or have no answers...
God must have done it!

Easy answers for everybody!

Now the hard part, show me this evidence, convince me.
I'm waiting....



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I disagree completely, getting into the chemical details and problems with every step of what you describe is a long and arduous task but is well documented for anyone to investigate.

I believe that abiotic pathways for the generation of all four ribonucleotides have already been discovered. Autocatalytic RNA molecule sets also already exist, and they form spontaneously from very short strands of RNA. Natural selection applies to them just like it applies to other life. From this to RNA & protein is indeed a long way, but evidence shows that the genetic code clearly evolved over a period of time, and first included only abiotic amino acids. Further still, even today, the most important functions of protein synthesis in the ribosomes are carried out by the two rRNA molecules, which translate the mRNA with the help of tRNAs. It's all about RNA.



There are sooo many obstacles in what you describe it's laughable.

Such as?



Engineered ribosome experiments have only shown how difficult it really is.

Link to the studies.



RNA already has some genetic information but not nearly have enough to bridge the gaps. To believe the origin of life is all but solved is the height of scientism. I'm sorry to say.

Your subjective opinion.



Also to add, none of it has resolved the many circular causalities at all, none of it adresses the sequencing problem, aka information problem and none of it acounts for the arbitrary semiotic relationships or genetic code. None of it can account for even a single protein.

What is the sequencing problem? What are the arbitrary semiotic relationships or genetic code? What exactly do you want to account for a single protein? I don't understand what you mean.
edit on 13-12-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
What is the sequencing problem? What are the arbitrary semiotic relationships or genetic code? What exactly do you want to account for a single protein? I don't understand what you mean.
edit on 13-12-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Are you really not aware of the problems? Nice story though there are plenty of those. I prefer to stay empirical.

coincidently, i only just read this one this afternoon. It's a good summary.
www.evolutionnews.org...

It's not just id and creationist even many materialists doubt the rna world as well, in fact if you accept the other tenants of evolutionary theory it is self refuting.
news.illinois.edu...

If you can't understand my point you don't know much at all about intelligent design is all i can say. One of us has failed. As I said, few people can comprehend it. I'm not trying to be rude.
I suspect I'm not very good at articulating it.
edit on 13-12-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
What I find troublesome about the theory of evolution is what might be its crowning achievement, the theory (if it may be properly regarded as such) of abiogenesis, that is, the scientific explanation of the formation of life from inorganic matter. On the surface of it, it seems extremely unlikely. Consider, for example, the hypercycle. It would seem, intuitively, that the formation of a single hypercycle by random processes would be an exceedingly rare event. To wit, there are no hypercycles around today. But science has an answer for this: The conditions are not quite right. Perhaps the presence of oxygen in our atmosphere these days precludes their formation. Fair enough. So why can't we produce a hypercycle under controlled conditions? Science has an answer for this as well: You see, it is very complicated and we do not quite understand all the details yet. So we have this very simple object, in terms of the complexity of higher organisms, that is actually prohibitively complex from a scientific standpoint, that is supposed to have been arrived at by a stochastic process. And how many of these hypercycles were necessary before it became statistically likely that one of them would accidentally self-replicate? And how many of these self-replicating hypercycles were necessary before it became statistically likely that its daughter hypercycles exhibited the same behavior? And so on.

There has been some statistical work done on abiogenesis. Although the attempts thus far have been relatively primitive, they tend to result in a vanishingly small probability of abiogenesis occurring via a stochastic process. Since abiogenesis is incomplete as a theory, in order to perform such an analysis, one is forced to make certain assumptions and to make estimates of certain parameters. It is at this point that the evolutionary biologist steps in and says, "Look here, we know, a priori, that abiogenesis is essentially a correct theory. Therefore, it must be the case that your assumptions and estimates are incorrect, which has mucked up your calculations, therefore, your results are meaningless." Admittedly, more work needs to be done in this area, for example, I am not aware of any statistical analysis that takes account of the chemical kinetics of autocatalysis. But it would seem that the sole criterion for such an analysis to be correct is that it tends to vindicate abiogenesis which, of course, begs the question.

It is as if we are to believe that if we take an aqueous solution of certain inorganic compounds, and expose it to certain conditions like perhaps an atmosphere with a high concentration of reducing agents like ammonia and methane, and an external energy source such as an electrical discharge or ultraviolet radiation, then all we have to do is wait long enough, say a hundred million years or maybe longer, and eventually (and with absolute certainty) the aqueous phase will be teeming with self-replicating organisms. Never mind that we do not know with any certainty what the necessary ingredients or conditions are. Never mind that we are therefore unable to reproduce this phenomenon. We are nevertheless convinced that the idea is right.

One of the popular criticisms leveled at intelligent design is that is cannot be considered a scientific theory because it does not admit falsifiability in the sense of Popper. Very well, then. I would ask, how, exactly, is the falsifiability of abiogenesis to be made manifest? What sort of analysis or experiment could one perform that, at least in principle, if not technologically feasible, would be capable of producing a result that would tend to indicate the theory is incorrect? On the other hand, it would not be the only example of an unfalsifiable, but otherwise scientific theory. The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics would be another.

The evolutionary biologist must have abiogenesis be the result of random processes. Anything else would imply that the game has been rigged by an intelligent agent, be it God, or ET, or what have you. And this, to the scientific mind, would be anathema because it flies in the face of the purported scientific modus operandi, that untestable hypotheses are to be discarded.

And, dear reader, you have my thanks for having indulged me so far, and I further beg your indulgence while I make a brief digression on science in general. The Enlightenment system of values led to the Modernist idea that science would one day solve all human problems. And while science has made great strides in, say, medicine, agriculture, etc., and given us nifty objects like the compact fluorescent light bulb, the Mercedes-Benz, the game console, and so forth, it has also given us more efficient means to exterminate one another in vast numbers. Forgive me if I regard science as a mixed blessing.

Peace be with you always.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by rhinoceros
What is the sequencing problem? What are the arbitrary semiotic relationships or genetic code? What exactly do you want to account for a single protein? I don't understand what you mean.
edit on 13-12-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Are you really not aware of the problems?

No. Please tell me, what is the "sequencing problem". It seems like Google doesn't know either. Be aware that in the context of molecular biology, the term sequencing strictly refers to the practices of sequencing DNA/RNA and proteins, i.e. the determination of the order of nucleotides in a DNA/RNA molecules or amino acids in polypeptides. I don't see how that is at all relevant to abiogenesis.
edit on 13-12-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


It is the arrangement of molecules that carries the message style information, the sequence of nucleotides.
The arrangement is not defined by chemistry there are no chemical bonds along the longitudal axis of dna. but it is this arrangement that carries the rich genetic information and allows evolution to happen.

This is but one aspect, semiosis goes hand in hand with this but is much more profound i think. How can a code not imply intent and purpose? it also requires knowledge and protocols to preserve and decode the message. An arbitrary relationship, semantics ultimately takes control of it's physical structure. The non physical is directing the physical via code.

This relationship preceeds evolution because it is the birth of evolution.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
edit on 13-12-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


It seems to me that you are arguing just to argue at this point. There's no reason whatsoever to break single points into several response lines, and it's clear you aren't addressing my points, you are instead marginalizing my position. You are also pigeon holing my beliefs into absolute atheist materialism which I have never claimed to believe.

My main point was that there isn't scientific evidence of intelligent design and that the evidence presented for it is subjective. I don't understand how any honest person could deny that. The scary part is that you guys refuse to admit that it's a belief. Why? You don't even understand the difference between science and philosophy and think that your thoughts are rational because of a subjective interpretation of the universe. You need to show evidence if you want to consider something as truth. Let's be realistic here. We all know that intelligent design is a cover for literal biblical creation. You can deny this all you want, but it's true 90% of the time. I admit that my beliefs are faith, why can't you?

I'll go through some of your other points tonight when I have a few moments to analyze it all. I'm a bit busy at work and can't dedicate my full mental strength for this at the moment.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Russell's teapot is an idiotic analogy that attempts to make a pro-atheistic argument out of lack of reproducible evidence; it was done to work in his favor. If something only occurs once it should not be revoked on those grounds. That's absorb.

Moreover, unless I state my evidence, you have no idea what evidence I use to define God – and I'm pretty sure I didn't state any said evidence; not in this thread at least.

Note: I meant the teapot analogy made by Bertrand Russell was idiotic, not you.

In response to the rest of your post, I would agree that consciousness is awareness, but I used the word consciousness with the same ambiguity that one uses the words nature or natural (to describe an action or thing with a substituted word that closely relates to said word.)

There is no word I know to better describe what I perceive energy consciousness to be. I could have called it memory, but memory tends to lead one to think of just stored information, and not information that is stored, read, self-processed, altered, etc. Conscious concepts better fit for me.

I would better explain it all to you, but it would take me too long, and probably wouldn't be to your benefit anyway. Good luck with the teapot tho.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Toadmund
 





That's bronze age thinking. If you can't explain it or understand it, or have no answers... God must have done it!


Not just bronze age thinking, it's every age.

There's plenty of indications that there is a coherence and intelligence to the structure of the universe. Inference or deduction is a viable method of thinking.

A lot of great scientists have thought the same thing. The majority of them, really.
edit on 12/13/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17


Not just bronze age thinking, it's every age.

Yes, that's true.


There's plenty of indications that there is a coherence and intelligence to the structure of the universe. Inference or deduction is a viable method of thinking.

It would also indicate that evolution happens and there are atomic forces at play that shape things the way they do, again, here is an example where you try to answer a question with 'god must have done it'.


A lot of great scientists have thought the same thing. The majority of them, really.

Scientist are people too and are just as capable to have their own beliefs. As a matter of fact their are priests that no longer believe in god, would that make them right in your eyes?



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


I'm tired of repeating myself. I give arguments, but all you do is say that there is no evidence, and then putting the whole biblical nonsense on me. Instead, I'll just leave this here..




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
It is the arrangement of molecules that carries the message style information, the sequence of nucleotides.
The arrangement is not defined by chemistry there are no chemical bonds along the longitudal axis of dna. but it is this arrangement that carries the rich genetic information and allows evolution to happen.

Goes to show that you know absolutely nothing about DNA. No chemical bonds, you think the sugar-phosphate backbone is held together by magic? Also, you failed to explain the "sequencing problem".


Originally posted by squiz
This is but one aspect, semiosis goes hand in hand with this but is much more profound i think. How can a code not imply intent and purpose? it also requires knowledge and protocols to preserve and decode the message. An arbitrary relationship, semantics ultimately takes control of it's physical structure. The non physical is directing the physical via code.

A code? Are you referring to the genetic code? It's not really a code, but a translation table. Observing the distribution of codons and abiotic and biotic amino acids in the translation table makes it rather obvious that the latter were incorporated to the code later, which makes sense, since their production requires pathways in which proteins are usually involved. It also makes it apparent, that the genetic code started so that only the first two nucleotides of the codons were meaningful.

If you really want to argue that the genetic code was designed, then go ahead and explain the logic why e.g. 6 codons encode Leucine and Serine each, but only 1 codons encodes for example Tryptophan (or two in many mitochondrial genomes). If we assume that the genetic code evolved over time, these observations suddenly make a lot of sense. It's the same with hipbones of whales and such.. but whatever. Applying rational thought seems to be so damn difficult for some people..
edit on 13-12-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
One more thing...


Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by vasaga
 
You don't even understand the difference between science and philosophy and think that your thoughts are rational because of a subjective interpretation of the universe. You need to show evidence if you want to consider something as truth.
That claim is so pot-kettle... This is for you, between 1:23 and 3:18, and listen carefully why philosophy is important, even to science.



Stop being so damned closed-minded.





top topics
 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join