A great point for Intelligent design! And I'm an atheist.

I'm in the middle of watching a debate between Hitchins and William Dembski. Hitchins vs Dembski To be honest I didn't expect much from Dembski, and then 'POW!' he says something so profound that I can't find a way around it.

I have to use my own words because I'm too tired to write verbatim what he said.

When the people at SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) search for radio waves they can easily tell if the waves are occurring naturally or if there is an intelligent pattern. A few well placed blips on the screen and the scientists will scream "It's an intelligent communication!"

Yet, when we atheists look at the VAST amount of information buried in our DNA, we call it natural. Just guessing here, but that information (in our DNA) would probably be tantamount to a few thousand pages of radio waves with a pattern.

Have to admit it, I'm totally stumped.

reply to post by jiggerj


I'm lost. Are you trying to say that DNA amounts to information of a designer of DNA?

I'm not sure of DNA being proof of intelligent design but in nature there are far too many coincidences that lead to us being able to be alive that does beg the question. One thing that has always intrigued me and yes I know there is an explaination for it, is how the moon rotates at EXACTLY the same speed as the earth so it always seems static to us. There is loads of stuff out there just like that.

reply to post by jiggerj


We all, on planet earth, communicate to each other.

Gee whiz, does the use of language or the discovery of radio waves and the invention of the radio prove the existence of God? If the ability to communicate proved the existence of God the debate would have been over a long time ago.

The DNA argument is an old one. If understanding DNA was all it took to believe in a God there would be no atheist scientists.

A concise and coherent communication from outer space, however could prove that we are not alone and alien life may exist. But it still wouldn't prove that whoever sent the message was God.

Very true. When things are highly complex & structured on the micro-scale, it's simply a part of nature & the progression of evolution. Yet when we observe so much else, complexity and structure are signs of intelligent design. All that we create as humans and have a connection with (architecture, electronics, tools, etc) are byproducts of intelligent design; I honestly think intelligent design in inherent in nature & existence. That doesn't mean it's X deity who designed anything. Simply putting it out there that to dismiss intelligent design is as narrow-minded as a any other dogma asserting their truths.

reply to post by jiggerj


Just wondering, don't many secular scientists and skeptics view Seti like they would view prayer ?

Snf

It's also worth pointing out that we observe intelligent waves at our own wavelength and spectrum. In the micro world, the territory for what is considered intelligent is much faster than we perceive. In the macro universe, where things are larger, the wavelength of intelligence is much longer and broader. The old presupposition that the map is not the territory is a profound commentary on the fact that many scientists are now recognizing that ALL energy is intelligent and full of information. We tend to miss this at the domain of human intelligence due to the nature of frame / reference and perception of the wave being collapsed in slices.

Compare this to the information that transits between my typing and the storage on the networks at ATS. You can look at the data hub and miss my post. This doesn't mean both are not necessary for the transaction of information. If you were a native from the jungle that reads English, you might be able to read the post but entirely miss what a data network is all about. To the native, it is just a building. For sure, the native will never notice the wifi signal that you and I know to be there, yet we have only faith to believe in what is not seen. Understanding allows for faith to emerge and what is evident to be obvious without being sensed.

Originally posted by jiggerj
I'm in the middle of watching a debate between Hitchins and William Dembski. Hitchins vs Dembski To be honest I didn't expect much from Dembski, and then 'POW!' he says something so profound that I can't find a way around it.

I have to use my own words because I'm too tired to write verbatim what he said.

When the people at SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) search for radio waves they can easily tell if the waves are occurring naturally or if there is an intelligent pattern. A few well placed blips on the screen and the scientists will scream "It's an intelligent communication!"

Yet, when we atheists look at the VAST amount of information buried in our DNA, we call it natural. Just guessing here, but that information (in our DNA) would probably be tantamount to a few thousand pages of radio waves with a pattern.

Have to admit it, I'm totally stumped.

reply to post by trysts

I'm lost. Are you trying to say that DNA amounts to information of a designer of DNA?

DNA by itself is just a molecule. Its not merely its presence that amounts to a designer, but the way its been arranged and coded.

Think of the DNA as "ink" that we use to write with.
An ink splatter on a wall does not point towards an intelligence.
However, the same ink used to compose a poem with a meaning points towards an intelligence.


@ OP.
I had heard of the SETI thing before.
Scientists were looking for certain patterns in signals to demonstrate that intelligent life existed outside the earth.

Originally posted by michael1983l
I'm not sure of DNA being proof of intelligent design but in nature there are far too many coincidences that lead to us being able to be alive that does beg the question. One thing that has always intrigued me and yes I know there is an explaination for it, is how the moon rotates at EXACTLY the same speed as the earth so it always seems static to us. There is loads of stuff out there just like that.

The moon-earth-sun relationship does point to intelligent design in a very big way, but not for the reason you mentioned which is called "tidal locking" and is a phenomenon that has occurred with numerous other moons in our own solar system ie: there the moon turns just enough so that it always shows the same face to the host planet.

If I get the time, I'll come back and make a post demonstrating how it works. This (earth-moon-sun relationship) and DNA both make a very powerful case for intelligent design, what I call superintelligent design because it involves a first/last cause from the very moment of creation, until now, which is ridiculously, mind-bogglingly complex considering what's needed to make life possible here on earth.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by trysts

 

I'm lost. Are you trying to say that DNA amounts to information of a designer of DNA?

DNA by itself is just a molecule. Its not merely its presence that amounts to a designer, but the way its been arranged and coded.

Think of the DNA as "ink" that we use to write with.
An ink splatter on a wall does not point towards an intelligence.
However, the same ink used to compose a poem with a meaning points towards an intelligence.


@ OP.
I had heard of the SETI thing before.
Scientists were looking for certain patterns in signals to demonstrate that intelligent life existed outside the earth.

The ideas of intelligence, meaning, and design are people-made, not god-made.

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I'm lost. Are you trying to say that DNA amounts to information of a designer of DNA?

Well, even scientists call it 'information'. If you've ever seen illustrations of what goes on in our cells then you've seen what can only be considered Machines working to create chromosomes and proteins. Don't get me wrong, I'm still holding out for a natural explanation, because I will never leap to the conclusion that a god did it. Maybe aliens seeded this world. Maybe life exploded from another planet and fell here. I dunno. But, I can certainly see how believers can connect the design in our DNA with a designer.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by jiggerj

 

We all, on planet earth, communicate to each other.

Gee whiz, does the use of language or the discovery of radio waves and the invention of the radio prove the existence of God? If the ability to communicate proved the existence of God the debate would have been over a long time ago.

The DNA argument is an old one. If understanding DNA was all it took to believe in a God there would be no atheist scientists.

A concise and coherent communication from outer space, however could prove that we are not alone and alien life may exist. But it still wouldn't prove that whoever sent the message was God.

Not claiming god here, as in a perfect being living in paradise. But, a creator of SOME kind may not be impossible.

reply to post by trysts

The ideas of intelligence, meaning, and design are people-made

It does not negate the fact that there is a difference between random gibberish and meaningful composition.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I'm lost. Are you trying to say that DNA amounts to information of a designer of DNA?

Well, even scientists call it 'information'. If you've ever seen illustrations of what goes on in our cells then you've seen what can only be considered Machines working to create chromosomes and proteins. Don't get me wrong, I'm still holding out for a natural explanation, because I will never leap to the conclusion that a god did it. Maybe aliens seeded this world. Maybe life exploded from another planet and fell here. I dunno. But, I can certainly see how believers can connect the design in our DNA with a designer.

Yes. Philosophy has had it's advocates for a designer for quite some time. A leaf from a tree is something that people point to as designed, and it's just as complicated as the make-up of a strand of DNA(which of course is also contained in the leaf). You seem to be puzzling with the cosmological implication of a god/designer, jiggerj. It's my favorite "proof" of gods. I lose excitement for the theory(and it's implications), because of the fact that my wonderment of the universe does not concede a designer of the universe. Just like my amazement of a design does not tell anything about a designer, but rather informs me about my own mind.

a simple confirmation of intelligent design is mimicry in nature,
a butterfly having owl eyes on its wings.
Random mutation and natural selection dont explain it. As other species of butterfly dont have it
.
A larva making sound like queen .ant and fooling the ants to care for it.
Camoflage in general, why only chameleon developed ability to change colour while a tiger had to do with strips.
Intelligent design is visible to the one who cares to look.

Originally posted by logical7
a simple confirmation of intelligent design is mimicry in nature,
a butterfly having owl eyes on its wings.
Random mutation and natural selection dont explain it. As other species of butterfly dont have it
.
A larva making sound like queen .ant and fooling the ants to care for it.
Camoflage in general, why only chameleon developed ability to change colour while a tiger had to do with strips.
Intelligent design is visible to the one who cares to look.

What you describe there is evolution not intelligent design. Those changes happen slowly over time as the weakest of a species are consumed and the strongest survive and reproduce passing on their DNA which contains slight mutilations in that have helped it survive.

reply to post by michael1983l


read what i wrote, mutation and natural selection cant explain it.
How one specie gets owl eyes but other dont? When both had equal chance to develop owl eyes, and owl eyes cant suddenly appear to help survival and appearing slowly over generations also doesnt have survival value.

reply to post by logical7


What is most effective for one species at surviving may not necesarily be the most effective for another, it depends on what predators are around in its enviroment. They say that evolution exploded like an arms race when the first species with the ability to see came into existance.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by logical7

 

What is most effective for one species at surviving may not necesarily be the most effective for another, it depends on what predators are around in its enviroment. They say that evolution exploded like an arms race when the first species with the ability to see came into existance.

you gave me an interesting question, can a sense just come into existence? Then there should be organisms that could only hear or see or smell too at least at some earlier time.

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by logical7

 

What is most effective for one species at surviving may not necesarily be the most effective for another, it depends on what predators are around in its enviroment. They say that evolution exploded like an arms race when the first species with the ability to see came into existance.

you gave me an interesting question, can a sense just come into existence? Then there should be organisms that could only hear or see or smell too at least at some earlier time.

I don't know how it worked, it is pretty difficult to comprehend actually. I suspect that it took thousands of years for it to gradually come into existance. Not so much overnight. I am not ruling out inteligent design, I just do not think that evolution can provide the answer to this. If it was intelligent design, why not just start off with all the differing species right from the off rather than making them slowly come into existance over hundreds of thoasands of years?