Intelligent Designer? Not yet.

Originally posted by vasaga

Stop being so damned closed-minded.

I'm not really sure what I should think of you. your arguments are cool... different.
so I will ask to the topic question. Intelligent Designer?

I don't want to argue, just comment on the videos you've posted

The first one, this with Robert Lanza...
you do recognize he is talking like a politic? saying all and nothing at all? just making stupid people some brainwash? Holding them to the believe they know nothing and never will.. ?

first he said
"what is so fundamental, lets make it black and white"
referring to scientists that space and time has no properties and is self exist.
- space has volume
- time propagates

"time and space can't be touch and felt", can't be... he said
- I see me growing older, if I drop something it takes some time till it hits the ground
- I can't touch space but can touch things occupying it

he makes an MSM thing -- statement, "it is a crazy idea"
explaining that if you wave your hand, and than take all out ( all includes the hand) there is nothing
- true, all out nothing is in
directly assuming time is the same as space
even giving an example, "you can't put time into a bottle of milk"
- this is just silly

after this he indicates space IS time

he tells us, looking at something creates space
- what if I close my eyes? does everything disappear ?
EM ( electromagnetic waves are not moving, we create that )
- this is what he is saying... muahahahaha

sorry... lets continue


all is just a construct
- construct where? if there is no space (space to construct ) and time ( time to construct )

he compares space and time to dreams
- how he comes to this conclusion I don't know

the brain is making all up
- doesn't brain occupied space and take time to process the information ?? apparently NOT

but he still "thinks" and tell us what we should think!!
he forces us to think about giving us HIS answers right away

now he tells us not to see it just black and white
-remember his first words, how he wanted us to distinguish between black and white before??
he says " it is juicy out there"
- whatever

he makes assumptions of infinity puting you on top of infinity and the probability to be on top of infinity is ZERO
- wow... how the heck something can be on something that has no end?
- how can you know where you are in time if time is infinite ?

he even said "probability in infinity is 0"
- NO, NO and NO... probability in infinity is infinite

he forces us denying all this and call it CRAZY
- oh well, you are crazy for me right now !!

he said in en infinity you can not be there, its silly, giving no explanations
- infinite means ALL POSSIBLE

than he gives some explanations to make us believe like there was no way to figure it out 200 years before and not with all the experiments we do right now...

but suddenly he admits there IS an Universe
- where??? if all is in my mind and all I see is just a construct... @%^#$#%@^&*$#^@*

he refers to the "Big bang" theory
- theory is theory, not have to be true, theory....

he tells us what would happen if things were different
- without any proof of that
claiming it is for sure, everything would be not there and referring to scientific terms trying tomaking it more believable

"observer creates universe", again
- so there was no universe before I was born, cool

he points out to science experiments, "we do new experiments" as explanation to what he is saying
refering to entangled photons explaining it the wrong way, "changing one entangled photon makes changes in the past time on the other" and also reverse, detected now changes what will happen after!!!!!
- he must have heard it somewhere but has no clue at all, just makes himself more important

quantum dynamics are the same as the big scale we live in...

refers again to experiments denying what he said befoer about the same experiment

he thinks science is on the wrong way and has an answer what science should do

- than again MSM propaganda !!!
turtles caring they shields
- so plebs can catch up

blah bla bla... hi"s coming to a conclusion
-
- you are a MSM dick ???

SECOND VIDEO

50000:1 chance, random goes into the direction it did
- calculate the infinity into that

scientist come to statistic, nothing ever works the same twice!!! but comparing to human behave
- EM wave acts the same all the time, NO?

this is the best
"interaction betwen intention and matter"
what goes on the mind, the picture of that is tightly coupled to experience of that (mind)
- hm... how does it comes ??? I imagine what I imagine ??? NO??

must be as he concludes mater and mind is the same and they are related
- sorry I can't hold it... I think of a beer... and here it is




MSM propaganda to hold people stupid !!!





BTW, I wanted to write some honest comments on that, so I will maybe tomorrow
It is late where I am. I'm not ever sure somebody cares...

Originally posted by rhinoceros
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".

Yes, I'm aware of the backbone, and you mistate my remark and again miss my point the SEQUENCE is not determined by chemical bonding. My source clarifies. You must have missed the part in the link that supports my claim. You can't comprehend that it is the order that defines the meaning? Perhaps I fail in explaining or perhaps you fail in understanding.

The sequence of bases in DNA operates as a true code in that it contains the information necessary to build a protein expressed in a four-letter alphabet of bases which is transcribed to mRNA and then translated to the twenty-amino-acid alphabet necessary to build the protein. Saying that it is a true code involves the idea that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences.

Turns out your wrong about me being wrong. You again miss the mark, I never said dna was magically held together. I used words directly from my source. It's one of the best simplest outlines I've found. All of it is accepted facts based on current understanding. There is no debate there. It's you who's posing as the expert. My argument is very simple it requires little knowledge of chemistry or biology, although it helps. My argument regards semiosis,

it trancends physical causes.

A code? Are you referring to the genetic code? It's not really a code, but a translation table.

Call it what you want, the fact of the matter is that it matches shannons communication model perfectly complete with checksums. See above, "operates as a true code". This has been accepted as truth for over 60 years. Switching words and denying the code are very common though.

The rest of your post is simply about evolution, what i'm talking about preceeds evolution. A simpler code is still a code. Scientism blinds you. What seems obvious to you is in fact one of the greatest mysteries in biology.

Here is a review of nearly all the propasals, the conclusions....

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made.

They further report,

Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: "why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?," that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.

Personally I don't think you are very honest here. Humility certainly is required to progress. And you've arlready begun to turn nasty. That's the reason I don't post here much.

You admit to not being able to fathom my argument, you can't debate something you don't understand. My fault or yours? I'd reccommend reading some of the literature.

Originally posted by squiz

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.

You are quite right in everything you wrote here, though I am not suggesting that the chain of evidence supports materialism. What I am suggesting is that time and time again science has taken other unimaginable mysteries and turned them into something natural. If we follow these discoveries (the earth is round, planets orbit the sun, volcanoes and hurricanes are not driven by gods...) why would we assume that the creation of life is something other than natural? We can say that we just don't know how the universe began, or how that first cell came to life, but can we deny the scientific trend to remove the supernatural from the natural?

reply to post by jiggerj


Ok, but it's just a matter of perspective see. Does consciousness trancends this physical reality? That is the key question, we can talk about god later. It certainly would answer some difficult questions. This idea has always been with us in all religions. It's my opinion science will eventually reveal it as truth. From my perspective it already has.

Originally posted by squiz
Turns out your wrong about me being wrong.

No. It's just that your link is wrong and you don't know any better. Not everything you read in the internet is true, you know. I can very much assure you that chemical bonds between sugars and phosphates hold the backbone ('longitudinal axis') together. I'd recommend that you get familiar with the very basics. Then we can discuss this further. I seriously doubt you comprehend the question concerning various numbers of codons encoding specific amino acids that I addressed to you in my previous post. I suppose that's the reason you just skipped it. Have a nice weekend.

Originally posted by KrzYma

I'm not really sure what I should think of you. your arguments are cool... different.

Thanks. I make up my own mind by thinking and don't follow groups or authorities. I never really agree 100% with what anyone is saying, including in those videos. I mean, it is weird regarding our brain being in space and time, and them supposedly being a construct of our minds for example. However, the issues of the current models, Lanza points out very well. But, think of this for a second. Color does not actually exist. All you have is different wavelengths of electromagnetism, and your brain translates it in what we experience as color. There's also the classical problem of atoms being 99.9999% empty 'space' while everything around us feels solid. Maybe understanding those, is the first step to understand that the perspective that the world is out there, is not really true.

Originally posted by KrzYma
so I will ask to the topic question. Intelligent Designer?

Absolutely necessary from my point of view, although, 'designer' is a stretch. The nature of the 'designer' is open to interpretation. Maybe intelligent self-replicator is a more accurate word. So it could be there is a conceptual God from where everything started (although I completely reject the religious idea of God), it could be that nature is intelligent and we are simply fractals of it (you should look up the concept of fractals if you don't know it), it could be that life creates the universe instead of the other way around, which is what Robert Lanza proposes and he calls biocentrism. He's not alone in that thinking btw.. Check this vid out, even though it's not a complete explanation, I'm sure you'll find it interesting. Feel free to watch the whole thing, but the most important part is from 15:50 to 26:40. Also, listen to what the guy says after 25:43, where he says that good science depends on whether you can rule out the theory or not. That's so hypocritical if you rule out a 'designer' but accept the multiverse concept, since both are concepts with pretty much the same amount of evidence for them.

Again, from 15:50 to 26:40

Originally posted by KrzYma
I don't want to argue, just comment on the videos you've posted

You're entitled to your opinion, and some points are valid, others I don't really agree with. But we don't have to agree on everything. That would kill the point of any of us being here.

reply to post by vasaga


thanks for the link,
I already have knowledge about meta-universe theory but I'm not really sure if making infinite possibilities is a nice idea to explain what they simply just don't know jet.
Infinite possibilities gives one no choice but to accept such a theory.

How this program was made makes me skeptic even more. I don't really like this propagandistic compositions of pictures, all mixed together giving no sense at all. Big assumptions underpin with blinking something just to make it more believable... ok, this is not the point, I know

I really like John H Conway, and all he said. But I don't agree with Max Tegmark and Martin Rees.
I love Leonard Susskind's lectures though

In my opinion the Big BANG theory stays as a theory, we definitely need something new, string theory is again just mathematics...
As long as we bound to this solar system, we can't even really be sure about C's constancy, in my opinion.
Scientists claim to know so much, they don't admit all we know right now about physical world is measured in a pretty close system. They calculus might work, they adjust it pretty well.

We are like fishes in aquarium measuring the room, if that can be possible at all

but hey, as long as all works on paper, that's fine to me

I say - Universe had no other chance as it designed itself

btw. I really don't see gravity as force rather than a property of space.

Originally posted by dusty1
Understanding how a mechanism works does not diminish the inventor of the mechanism.

Except when you take naturally occurring phenomena and claim it has an inventor or designer when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was designed. It's just a guess because you are in awe of the universe.

What is natural?

If man is natural and he uses natural elements, then isn't his technology natural as well?

By definition, natural means "not man made", so that wouldn't work. When you assume something is made by an external intelligence, you take a leap in logic because there's no evidence at all to suggest it.

reply to post by Barcs

Except when you take naturally occurring phenomena and claim it has an inventor or designer when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was designed. It's just a guess because you are in awe of the universe.

I think that's more a problem of comprehension that it is a problem of speculation. Just my personal opinion.

By definition, natural means "not man made", so that wouldn't work. When you assume something is made by an external intelligence, you take a leap in logic because there's no evidence at all to suggest it.

Without any form of intelligence to guide the formation of the universe and everything within in, entropy should have taken full advantage of the odds stacked against the very possibility of Earth existing right now. By all rights, we shouldn't even exist. Entropy operates on chaotic principles which take things apart as easily as it builds them. This planet should have disintegrated ages ago, and yet it's lasted long enough for a civilization of thinking, feeling creatures to build vehicles allowing them to LEAVE this little rock.

What are the chances of that? And you still think there isn't any kind of intelligence or law dictating the continued support of all possible forms of progressive existence? Have you looked at the numbers? Have you done the math and realized what a miracle we are?

That doesn't just happen, not when entropy is involved.

Originally posted by vasaga
It's right there in your face. Your failure to understand the point is a sign of your blindness.

I don't like to waste time. If there's a point you are trying to make with that, please make it.

Aren't they? Awareness is presumed to be generated by the brain, and information is presumed to be possible to arise from inanimate matter, or purely physical properties, even though there is no evidence for it.

The brain exists. There is no evidence to suggest consciousness or awareness comes from anywhere else. If you've got a working theory, I'd like to see it. That's occam's razor, because you don't take a leap in logic.

We have information science, but it's completely neglected when it comes to things like biology, where they constantly violate the rules of information science.

here we go again. Information science applies to man made digital information. It has nothing to do with biology. You seem to think IS holds more credibility than all other fields of science.

You're saying there are no taboos or limits in science?

Only in your mind. What might seem like a limit now, might not actually be a limit. It is our understanding that is currently limited. Science keeps expanding. Science can't experiment with things that are hypothetical.

You think I'm proposing intelligent design in the sense that some man with a beard we call God made the universe. That is not the case. Your whole reply is a full-blown strawman

My whole response is a strawman because you made an assumption about my post . I did not mention god or anything about a guy with a beard. I'm talking physical tangible evidence for ID. It doesn't exist. You are so quick to get defensive when anybody even hints at god or higher power, when we're just trying to say the same thing as you. Stop being so picky about what labels are used to describe your belief. It doesn't change the facts or the argument.

Ok. Tell me where the evidence is that you yourself are aware. Should I conclude you don't exist? Jokes aside, for there to be evidence, one has to look for it first, instead of dismissing things beforehand. Don't tell me that doesn't happen in science, because it does.

I can recognize myself in the mirror and as an individual. This can be tested and repeated and a is a good test to tell self awareness. I'll say it again. The only things science dismisses are things that are hypothetical or can't be proven to exist. Existence is the first step in any test. You can't experiment on something before you even know how to do it.

What part of 'philosophy is used in science' don't you understand? Every interpretation of any evidence is philosophy. Philosophy invented the scientific method in the first place. And detecting fallacies is possible because of philosophy. Tough luck that you don't like philosophy, but every time you accuse someone of a fallacy, you are using it.

Actually I enjoy philosophy, but it doesn't cut it when we're talking science and evidence. Just because philosophy is used to develop hypotheses, doesn't mean that it holds merit on its own. Please cite me a scientific experiment where the conclusion is assumed or based on philosophy rather than hard data and results.

If rational thought is required by philosophy, then I apologize, you were not philosophizing, you were guessing and expressing your faith.

What a pathetic low blow of an argument. I'm expressing problems with your views, not expressing my faith. But what else can be expected? You are known for doing this. Assigning all the baggage, being unable to have a proper conversation. Too busy pretending you already know what others think.

You've already put words in my mouth more than once. Assuming ID is true IS based on faith, as there is no scientific evidence behind it. You can't seem to grasp this. If you can't prove something exists, it is hypothetical. If something is hypothetical, you can't experiment with it.

Originally posted by Barcs

They ARE 2 different things.

No. Knowledge is a belief that conforms to so-called reality.

Knowledge is NOT a belief. It works and is applicable in the real world. ID is not. If we have knowledge on how to build a skyscraper, one would be logical to think they could build one with the proper tools and materials. Maybe this issue here is that you don't understand what constitutes as scientific knowledge and what constitutes as a belief.

Originally posted by vasaga
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'.

I told you I only read the first couple paragraphs. I didn't criticize Occam's razor, I stated the FACT that it doesn't prove anything conclusively. Show me a single conclusion in a peer reviewed science paper where occam's razor is used as proof. It doesn't happen besides in the development of hypotheses. Yes, if your argument is true and premises can be verified by facts and data, then it is a good argument. No Occams Razor isn't proof of that or anything else. The simplest explanation might usually be right, but not always. I don't see how you are applying it to ID, because that requires way more assumptions than anything else.

Originally posted by Barcs
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.

You haven't read my posts if that's what you think. I've willingly admitted I don't know the answer more than once. You are refusing to admit that ID is faith, and that's the issue. I don't care if code has only been observed to come from humans. It hasn't been observed to come from ANYONE ELSE, so again, in assuming ID, you take that leap of logic from human to higher intelligence, which has NEVER been observed, ever.

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.

Yes, complex. No part of DNA has ever been observed to arise from intelligence.

then how come we can connect man-made chips to cells and let them work together?

How come we can get in a spaceship and travel to the moon? It's called technology and scientific knowledge.

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.

There you go getting upset again because i used the phrase "higher power". It has nothing to do with religion. You keep jumping to this conclusion to paint me as some kind of religious hater. Please stop it. I never pigeon holed your beliefs, not once. I'm referring to facts. Sorry if my description of your intelligent designer refers to a higher power. I mean wouldn't your power have to be pretty damn high to create a universe or DNA/life?

Logical consistency? . Dude IT APPEARS like that TO YOU, so you believe it. It has nothing to do with LOGIC AT ALL. It is your belief. Admit it or at the very least admit that you don't know the answer either.

Originally posted by BarcsIf there is no intelligent arrangement in the universe, then how come we consider ourselves intelligent?

Please explain how either of those concepts are related or suggest ID.

Are we separate from the universe?

No, we live in the universe. We are part of it, obviously.

If so, you must accept that something transcends nature and can not be reached by science since science limits itself to nature.

What transcends nature? Can you prove it? Nope. You need absolute knowledge of the universe as I already said in regards to this. Science is limited to things that are proven to exist and tangible, at least for now.

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?

The fact that you can't prove whether or not humans have transcended nature and your statements are based on an IF. You are looking at things from a very limited point of view on planet earth which is .000000001% of the universe. Nature includes all of that, not just the earth environment.

Originally posted by vasaga
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.

Yes, I'm so close minded as an agnostic who doesn't claim to know the answer one way or another. You are being close minded because you are fighting so hard for something you don't even know exists. It's not complicated at all. I never said philosophy doesn't have a purpose, but it doesn't prove things empirically, unless the concepts you are comparing have already been proven. Funny the guy who admits he doesn't know is the close minded one, while the guy embracing all kinds of unproven guesses and suggesting they are truth without any evidence is being open minded.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
No. It's just that your link is wrong and you don't know any better. Not everything you read in the internet is true, you know. I can very much assure you that chemical bonds between sugars and phosphates hold the backbone ('longitudinal axis') together.

And that is what the link says. Except they distinctly refer to the backbones separately to the arbtrary longitudinal axis.

Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Once again you are having trouble comprehending. I never said a anything about what holds it together. I said the sequence was not determened by chemical bonding. THE SEQUENCE. This is what allows for the diverasity we see, because the sequence can be freely arranged. Wow! your eagerness to pick a fight may be affecting your judgment.

The information on that link was well known before the internet arrived, the site is hosted by the university of Georgia I think, it's used as a reference for teachers in over 80 countries. It's all perfectly accurate and basic. If you believe it is wrong it's you who needs some brushing up. Don't be so childish.

I'd recommend that you get familiar with the very basics. Then we can discuss this further. I seriously doubt you comprehend the question concerning various numbers of codons encoding specific amino acids that I addressed to you in my previous post. I suppose that's the reason you just skipped it.

Until you can comprehend simple sentences, yes we are going to have trouble.

The number of codons to amino acids does nothing to answer semiosis. It is semios. And no I have no idea what you are suggesting perhaps you failed to explain it? It answers my questions how? Evidence of evolution? Like I said that's not the point. I thought my other link with an extensive review of the subject might have answered it actually.

No amount of chemistry will answer my questions I'm afraid. This is being realised even by materialists such as Paul Davies. Although it sounds like he is coming to a realisation.

Information is a separate aspect to the universe.

www.evolutionnews.org...

I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.

Originally posted by vasaga
I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.

Agreed, there is nothing about science here, only egos and world views. And of course scientism and religion bashing.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by vasaga
I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.

Agreed, there is nothing about science here, only egos and world views. And of course scientism and religion bashing.

Agreed, there is nothing but sciency talk and that's the problem. ID has no interest in answering questions, no interest in collecting real data. ID is a political movement with a political goal.The goal is simply to confuse the public sufficiently to allow Christian Fundamentalism to hijack education.
Google the wedge strategy to see their aims. Google

reply to post by flyingfish


looks like this, if it is really true I can not tell, but all this videos are in fact just MSM propaganda, so... very likely it is

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by vasaga
I give up. When people are sheeping out, logic doesn't work.

Agreed, there is nothing about science here, only egos and world views. And of course scientism and religion bashing.

Agreed, there is nothing but sciency talk and that's the problem. ID has no interest in answering questions, no interest in collecting real data. ID is a political movement with a political goal.The goal is simply to confuse the public sufficiently to allow Christian Fundamentalism to hijack education.
Google the wedge strategy to see their aims. Google

edit on 14-12-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

Explain to me how something like biocentrism is christian fundamentalism.

Originally posted by squiz

www.evolutionnews.org...

Ah yes that's an unbiased source.

You guys really, REALLY don't want the theory of evolution to be correct do you....

Is it a world-wide scientific conspiricy? or global scientific Dishonesty? incompetency?

Or is it they just really hate your God/s?

reply to post by Barcs

Except when you take naturally occurring phenomena and claim it has an inventor or designer when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was designed

What would you accept as evidence of a designer?


Would you accept evidence

or

Except evidence?