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.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 45
18
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by Barcs
The computer DID NOT go through genetic mutations and eventually give birth to a new type of computer. Apples to moon rocks. Sorry you aren't going to convince anybody that technology and life are the same or even similar.


I'd say humans are to technology as god is to evolution
That's fairly similar in my opinion


Switch god to genetic mutations or natural selection and you might be on to something. If not, well it's just a guess.

Analogies aren't used to prove things are similar. They are used to show a similar relationships. If I say "book is to page as hard drive is to sector", that doesn't mean that books are the same as hard drives.


edit on 24-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


For now we can just equate god to genetic mutations and natural selection...
So, without god, there would be no evolution.
Without evolution, there would be no humans.
Without humans, there would be no technology.
Get the jist?




posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Intelligent design is all around us. It's found all over nature.

Are you aware of how many of our technologies are derived from design in nature? Allow me to illustrate:

Perhaps you've heard of biomimetics?

The brain: inspired the first computers, for crunching numbers. Not even todays most powerful supercomputers can simulate the brain. But we're making some progress. Computer scientists are looking to make the leap from basic computation to thinking. Artificial Intelligence...

Viruses: they can measure only a few nanometers in length and are able to seek out specific kinds of cells somehow before replicating. Doctors are looking to create nano particles that mimic this ability to develop more efficient and effective ways to combat cancer and other diseases.

Geckos and Burrs: there's Gecko Tape, a material that uses nanoscopic hairs to cling to sheer surfaces. This would inevitably allow humans to walk on walls and maybe even ceilings. Velcro was inspired by the functioning of burrs, which are tiny barbs found on plants that attach itself to passing creatures.

Cataglyphis: these are ants that don't rely on pheromone trails to navigate through its environment. Scientists think that they use a combination of visual piloting, path integration and systematic search to get around. A better understanding of this could be used to build robots with the same capabilities. Ants as a whole are incredibly interesting and intelligent insects.

Birds and Humpback Whales: well this one is obvious. Wing design for flight. A group of scientists published a study of the pectoral fins on a humpback whale, specifically the tubercles which are found on these fins which allow for much more efficiency moving through fluid environments. Their tests showed that flippers with these tubercles provided for almost 10% more lift compared with ones without them. We may very soon see plane wings that incorporate this feature. Currently, there are windmill fins are utilizing this design technology.

www.howstuffworks.com...=0

This is just scratching the surface... check out some more here:
ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

Using the genius of nature in architecture: (this one is awesome)
www.ted.com...

The answers are in nature. Don't mean to sound all hippie here, but it's very obvious. Nature is the physical manifestation of logic and intelligence.

It's literally all around us. But we're supposed to believe that all of the information that the natural world is flooding our consciousness with is completely derived from completely random processes? I'm not so sure we should dimiss it that way...

Out of evolution sprung massive amounts of intelligence. It's present, like consciousness, in all living things. This would lend credence to the idea that evolution, as a process itself, is rooted in intelligence. That the underlying force is itself intelligent/conscious in some way.

I don't see why we can't have both ID and evolution.
edit on 24-6-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Not to mention the incredible complexity of cells, which somehow just 'run themselves'. Could this be consciousness at work? I think so.

This video gives me goosebumps.




posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Intelligent design is all around us. It's found all over nature.

Are you aware of how many of our technologies are derived from design in nature?


Yes I am aware, but it is completely irrelevant. How does humans mimicking nature to use in technology, indicate that it was originally designed? I don't follow your logic.

ID is not found in nature. It seems like there is confusion by what is meant by Intelligent Design. It does not mean designed by human intelligence or 'able to be copied'. This thread is about an intelligent first cause. If you're just saying that intelligence is an underlying feature or property of nature, then I can dig that. We are all the universe, the universe is god, god is intelligence/consciousness. After reading the rest of your post, it does seem like that's what you're getting at. I'm not trying to argue that ID is false, or that intelligence beyond us does not exist. I'm merely demonstrating that this comparison to human technology is fallacious.


But we're supposed to believe that all of the information that the natural world is flooding our consciousness with is completely derived from completely random processes? I'm not so sure we should dimiss it that way...
I don't think we're supposed to believe anything. I'm happy acknowledging it for the mystery it is. If it's natural and unguided, I'm cool with that. If it's designed and guided, I'm cool with that but it raises more questions. I'm not trying to dismiss ID, I'm trying to find objective evidence for it that goes beyond logical fallacies and assumptions. I'm really arguing that thus far nothing suggests that a designer is necessary as the thread title suggests. Possible, yes. Necessary, no.


I don't see why we can't have both ID and evolution.


I couldn't agree more. Evolution vs creation is a farce. They don't negate each other in the least.
edit on 24-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


It's quite incredible, really, when you look at all that goes on inside a microscopic cell. Everything has a purpose. It's a world of its own. We're not talking about some simple system here. It's highly complex.

The universe is so immense and complex it blows up my brain just trying to wrap my mind around it.

Yet the coolest thing about it all is that it's immense on even the tiniest of scales. Much as your video shows.

edit on 24-6-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Intelligent design is all around us. It's found all over nature.

Are you aware of how many of our technologies are derived from design in nature?


Yes I am aware, but it is completely irrelevant. How does humans mimicking nature to use in technology, indicate that it was originally designed? I don't follow your logic.


Completely irrelevant? I don't see how. I'm referring to the "mimicking" of the designs found in nature to implement into our own design of technologies. It's to show the inherent intelligence found within the design of nature.


ID is not found in nature.


Well, this is the crux of the debate, and that is certainly an opinion on the matter.


It seems like there is confusion by what is meant by Intelligent Design. It does not mean designed by human intelligence or 'able to be copied'. This thread is about an intelligent first cause.


Yes, I understand what it means/doesn't mean. It seems that ID has taken on a religious connotation that has the scientific community all up in a tizzy. However the critics of intelligent cause keep shouting from the roof tops that it's not science unless we can observe the evidence. That essentially there's no way to show evidence for an intelligent cause. I completely disagree with this notion; the evidence for it can be found in nature itself.

The point trying to be made here is that there is intelligent design within the framework of nature. We as intelligent humans recognize it to the point that many of our own most innovative designs and technologies are specifically derived from the inner workings of the natural world. That which the universe created. This can not be understated.

There is a river of intelligence and consciousness flowing through it all and the evidence for it is right in front of our own eyes.


If you're just saying that intelligence is an underlying feature or property of nature, then I can dig that. We are all the universe, the universe is god, god is intelligence/consciousness. After reading the rest of your post, it does seem like that's what you're getting at. I'm not trying to argue that ID is false, or that intelligence beyond us does not exist. I'm merely demonstrating that this comparison to human technology is fallacious.


I definitely misinterpreted all of your posts in this thread because it certainly seemed to me that you have been arguing that ID is false. If that's because you're arguing that there isn't a God behind the controls of it all then I can understand. I will say that that is not my view either. We can say there is an intelligent cause without injecting a human type God into it. But I also understand that the term Intelligent Design has been associated with creationist/ religious beliefs. This is a bit unfortunate because I think it scares away the scientific community and perhaps robs a very important subject of some legitimate study.


I'm not trying to dismiss ID, I'm trying to find objective evidence for it that goes beyond logical fallacies and assumptions. I'm really arguing that thus far nothing suggests that a designer is necessary as the thread title suggests. Possible, yes. Necessary, no.


Well I think the objective evidence for intelligent design/cause is right in front of us, as I've been saying. Now, what is behind it all is certainly a great question. I do not know the answer to that nor could I even begin to wager a guess without sounding a bit off kilter. But I think it's easy to take the natural world and its precise design and systematic function for granted. The universe is a highly complex and ordered system. How can this spring out of complete randomness?

I truly think that a unified field of consciousness (intelligence/information) is the one force underlying it all. We are tapping into this somehow. All matter does in some way. I understand how this may sound to some but you just have to look at the world around you...


I couldn't agree more. Evolution vs creation is a farce. They don't negate each other in the least.


And I couldn't agree more.

edit on 24-6-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
But I think it's easy to take the natural world and its precise design and systematic function for granted. The universe is a highly complex and ordered system. How can this spring out of complete randomness?


This I think is the most important aspect. It is impossible to deny the freaky specialness of the universe. We have zoomed into the smallest fundamental bits of what the universe is, and it is subatomic particles. Tiny bits of energy, a finite amount of types of these. Thats what everything in the universe is (besides radiation I guess which would be an aspect of these and maybe some other things too). If everything that exists in the universe is only combinations of subatomic particles, how can anything in the universe exist other then combinations of subatomic particles. Is there an objective perspective, a frame rate of time, to view the universe, and would that be as viewing it as subatomic particles? The universe has to have a special and advanced quality, for subatomic particles to have the potential to do all the things we know they can. You start with nearly an infinite number of subatomic particles, we assume something has to happen, but why and how can this happen, why and how is this possible, for bits of energy (whatever that is and however that is) to interact to create only all that we know is possible? Near infinite amounts of subatomic particles, and the status quo are galaxies, composed of stars and planets with life, why? Its amazing that in time, a single star can exist, let alone the gaggilion that have, its amazing a flower and ameoba can exist, let alone Newton and Da vinci and you and me. Such a large vast universe, why is it so similar, the pattern of galaxies and stars and planets, why didnt all the subatomic particles make all different sorts of things, why didnt some clump together and make random and chaotic objects, why such limited order for the entire system? There are answers, there is an exact history of events that have led to this moment in time, somethings got some explaining to do.

Back to intelligent design. The mechanisms of your body are intelligently created. The eyeball and visual system and brain and consciousness and memories, are intelligent inventions. I can be considered a bearer of intelligence, but I could not create an eyeball and brain. It would be more impressive if I could by making random movements and motions and chemical reactions to create these things, I would be considered a magician or god. Nature is a genius, an artist, an engineer, creative, inventive, original, unique, sophisticated. The question is, is there more or a different nature beyond this universe. The question is does every intelligence that ever has come into existence and ever will, owe its existence to the same unspoken for, unintentional, un ultimately controlled nature. Is anything absolute? Could god be a democracy of intelligence's, a dictator ship, anarchy? Is every bit quantity of energy equally along for the ride by the roll of a di? Is reality infinity exploring eternity? Hypothetically can any substance be or be made immortal? Can anything ever be created without using subatomic particles? Can we escape, nature and reality...for real? Can god be a machine? Can nature be a machine? If you had to compare the fundamental nature to one thing what would it be? A machine follows laws, and has connected parts, and does work to achieve a goal. But this universe is weird, it has different phases of material, based on how fast the material is vibrating and other physical variables, It has many different parts even though they all started in the same place, as the same fundamental essence, the only reason there is any difference among them were their relative difference from one another and the relative velocity they were traveling in reference to one another. Chemical reactions take place, and there is a hierarchy of order bottom up and top down. So this is a weird type of machine. You know how we have styles and innovations and progressions and ancient and old fashioned technologies and techniques. How could the universe be compared regarding its 'style', its techniques? With any evolution its always about perspective and relativity. The cavemen were pretty advanced compared to the monkeys, the Europeans were pretty advanced (technologically) compared to the natives, and we feel we are pretty advanced compared to all of em, and in 50 years, they will be more advanced then us, and 100, and 150... in 1000 years, we may as well be monkeys to them. So the style of the universe, maybe there were older versions, if energy cant be created or destroyed and the past is infinite, universe 0.001, universe 1.0, universe 5.7, universe SG5000, universe 999pro.. Maybe in 1000 universes from now, this universe will be seen as ancient and outdated, maybe it has come a far way from its begginings



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 





But I also understand that the term Intelligent Design has been associated with creationist/ religious beliefs.


Then you must be aware of the background to ID, the Wedge Strategy and the dishonesty it all implies.
ID is a religion...
The proponents of intelligent design have been peddling religion in a thinly veiled disguise.All one needs to do is look at, Of Pandas and People and how it evolved.
Here is a LINK

The bait and switch revised draft of their book to replace "creationists" with "design-proponents." is just one of the dishonest tactics that proves it's religious apologetics in disguise.
To date, intelligent design has been addressed primarily through public relations and propaganda (i.e., the Discovery Institute) rather than through science.




This is a bit unfortunate because I think it scares away the scientific community and perhaps robs a very important subject of some legitimate study.


Not true...
The Templeton Foundation solicited grant proposals to research "Intelligent Design," and funded quite a few of them. The results were very disappointing.
LINK


We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements.


As you can see legitimate study was tried and abandoned nearly a decade ago.
All but the most gullible can see that ID is a religion with a dishonest hope of fooling someone.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Science must rely on the scientific method, begining with data and working through a viable hypotheses, testing of the hypotheses, and seeing it all the way to theory for the single best explanation that explains all the relevant data, survives rigorous testing, and allows successful predictions to be made. The Science must pass in peer-reviewed scientific journals and appropriate symposia.

ID is the exact opposite...It starts with an preconceived idea and seeks anything that can support that idea, much of which we are seeing in this thread, from tautology through to personal Incredulity, all the while ignoring anything that contradicts that idea.
Throughout this thread we see blatant misrepresentation, denial, and populism. It is obvious that efforts are aimed at lay, religious or gullible audiences using PR techniques in a conspiracy forum
. All this hot air has no merit it lacks scientific rigor.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


The "MAN" God is a personification of what you can have a personal relationship with. If consciousness IS, then don't you think you could inter-mingle your own consciousness with it, some how, some way?

As for what did God perceive before our knowledge of the "universe" began... that's probably something we'll never grasp in this life time
that's the sad beauty behind it. But it sure is fun as hell to ponder about day by day, and it will probably never stop me from thinking about it. Ignorance could be bliss, but I think scaring myself over complex metaphysics is much more fun



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Completely irrelevant? I don't see how. I'm referring to the "mimicking" of the designs found in nature to implement into our own design of technologies. It's to show the inherent intelligence found within the design of nature.

But it DOESN'T show that intelligence is found within the design. It shows that humans can use THEIR intelligence to copy certain aspects nature. We can't do this with everything. You can't make that assumption without a big leap in logic. Copying something doesn't objectively show that it was originally designed.



ID is not found in nature.


Well, this is the crux of the debate, and that is certainly an opinion on the matter.

It's not an opinion. Nothing in the entire universe has been objectively determined to have been a product of ID. Not a single thing. People take guesses do to complexity, and equivocate humans design with ID, but that's not objective evidence.


I completely disagree with this notion; the evidence for it can be found in nature itself.

The point trying to be made here is that there is intelligent design within the framework of nature. We as intelligent humans recognize it to the point that many of our own most innovative designs and technologies are specifically derived from the inner workings of the natural world. That which the universe created. This can not be understated.

There is a river of intelligence and consciousness flowing through it all and the evidence for it is right in front of our own eyes.

How is that objective? You can't just say "oh the evidence is all around us". That's a cop out. You need to show specific evidence and logically connect it to a Intelligent Design. "It appears like it" or "it's so complex" are not objective reasons. They are opinions about something we don't fully understand right now.


I definitely misinterpreted all of your posts in this thread because it certainly seemed to me that you have been arguing that ID is false.

I haven't said anything like that. I've argued that there is no objective evidence in favor of it and pick out logical flaws in people's arguments. There's a big difference. Lack of evidence does not prove something doesn't exist. It just gets old when people keep trying to convince others of it as if it is a factual conclusion. It's not, it's faith based.
edit on 25-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
You start with nearly an infinite number of subatomic particles, we assume something has to happen, but why and how can this happen, why and how is this possible, for bits of energy (whatever that is and however that is) to interact to create only all that we know is possible? Near infinite amounts of subatomic particles, and the status quo are galaxies, composed of stars and planets with life, why? Its amazing that in time, a single star can exist, let alone the gaggilion that have, its amazing a flower and ameoba can exist, let alone Newton and Da vinci and you and me. Such a large vast universe, why is it so similar, the pattern of galaxies and stars and planets, why didnt all the subatomic particles make all different sorts of things, why didnt some clump together and make random and chaotic objects, why such limited order for the entire system? There are answers, there is an exact history of events that have led to this moment in time, somethings got some explaining to do.

So you are essentially asking why to a bunch of unknown factors in the universe. Why does everything have to have a 'why' answer? Why assume ID as a result?



Back to intelligent design. The mechanisms of your body are intelligently created.

No, they are not.


The eyeball and visual system and brain and consciousness and memories, are intelligent inventions.

No, they are not.


It would be more impressive if I could by making random movements and motions and chemical reactions to create these things, I would be considered a magician or god.


Part of me thinks you didn't even read my response to you on the previous page. Not everything is random. The processes are very specific ones. People only use the word random because it's unguided or natural, and do so to suggest unlikelihood. You DO utilize chemical reactions to do everything your body does.


Nature is a genius, an artist, an engineer, creative, inventive, original, unique, sophisticated.

No, it's not. Creativity and engineering has absolutely squat to do with life on earth, outside of human society. There is nothing creative about a random mutation. There is nothing inventive about the climate of earth changing and forcing life to adapt or die.+


A machine follows laws, and has connected parts, and does work to achieve a goal.

No it doesn't. A machine is an inanimate object, it cannot follow laws or achieve a goal. Goals are created by humans, who manufacture the technology. And of course as I already explained, evolution does not have a goal.


Chemical reactions take place, and there is a hierarchy of order bottom up and top down.

Please explain this chemical hierarchy you are referring to.


How could the universe be compared regarding its 'style', its techniques? With any evolution its always about perspective and relativity. The cavemen were pretty advanced compared to the monkeys, the Europeans were pretty advanced (technologically) compared to the natives, and we feel we are pretty advanced compared to all of em, and in 50 years, they will be more advanced then us, and 100, and 150... in 1000 years, we may as well be monkeys to them.

But there's no guarantee that that in 1000 years or even a million that there will be a smarter species than human. I've tried to explain this to you in several posts, but you don't seem to understand it. Evolution does NOT have a goal. Increasing complexity or intelligence IS NOT required by evolution. Evolution does not necessarily make things better. Quite often it makes things worse and they go extinct as a result. The technology comparison is completely invalid.
edit on 25-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Here's some more reasoning about invalid technology comparison.

We'll stick with the early linear example of the automobile. It started out relatively simple, and each newer model improved on the previous one and increased complexity until you have what we have today. To you that is the same as evolution. The problem is, evolution is not linear, nor does it function in that way. It does not always improve on previous models, sometimes it gets worse.

It's more like this. You have thousands of different kinds of automobiles that are made all over the planet, some of which are drastically different. The manufacturers in Europe stop improving their models for hundreds of thousands of years, while the manufacturers in America keep improving. Not only do the European models not improve, they actually start to get worse. Features are taken away when new models are released. Then you go over to Australia and see that the cars there haven't changed in billions of years and nobody has complained. Then you look in Africa and the rate of change goes through the roof, whereas the models get much different but don't have any substantial improvements to set them apart from the rest. That would be a valid comparison to evolution. But of course we know technology is not like that. It all comes from human beings, who look to improve with every new model that comes out and make a profit. Technology is designed for a specific purpose with specific goals in mind. There are no random changes or differences between models, they are all accounted for.

It's a 100% illogical comparison. They aren't even remotely related no matter how many times you ask why or ponder about an intelligent force in the universe.
edit on 25-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Lol technology is exactly like that. There are cars made 50 years ago that are higher quality then some made today. (The same can be said for other things mass produced for cheaply)

I dont know much about DNA, but ive heard there are millions or billions of base pairs (A,T,G,C) right? All species have a differing number im sure. If I had a billion attempts writing down sequences of A,T,G, and C would I be writing the DNA for new functioning species? I understand the dna alone is useless it needs a body to interact with, and so just putting this novel DNA into random animals wouldnt do much, if anything it would just cause a bunch of mutations right.

Intelligence doesnt always progress for the 'better' either, the concept of their being a better is kinda a 'for better or worse, subjective, non absolute thing'. So human culture and progression like natural evolution is kinda an exploration into the unknown and possible.

The existence of an eyeball and brain is intelligent. That is a good idea. An intelligent one. If you invented these things you would be proud. It took humans a while to invent the video camera, and this is kinda like the eye, but nature went a step further in creating an awareness, that can view the live stream of video data, internally, can memorize this information, and use it in unique ways. This is a very intelligent invention. Especially to make this by accident. If I could create millions of complex living beings by accident you would think very highly of me.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Barcs
 


Lol technology is exactly like that. There are cars made 50 years ago that are higher quality then some made today. (The same can be said for other things mass produced for cheaply)

I dont know much about DNA, but ive heard there are millions or billions of base pairs (A,T,G,C) right? All species have a differing number im sure. If I had a billion attempts writing down sequences of A,T,G, and C would I be writing the DNA for new functioning species? I understand the dna alone is useless it needs a body to interact with, and so just putting this novel DNA into random animals wouldnt do much, if anything it would just cause a bunch of mutations right.

Intelligence doesnt always progress for the 'better' either, the concept of their being a better is kinda a 'for better or worse, subjective, non absolute thing'. So human culture and progression like natural evolution is kinda an exploration into the unknown and possible.

The existence of an eyeball and brain is intelligent. That is a good idea. An intelligent one. If you invented these things you would be proud. It took humans a while to invent the video camera, and this is kinda like the eye, but nature went a step further in creating an awareness, that can view the live stream of video data, internally, can memorize this information, and use it in unique ways. This is a very intelligent invention. Especially to make this by accident. If I could create millions of complex living beings by accident you would think very highly of me.


Your mistaken necessity for intelligence Heres what i mean we can make cameras far better then they human eye we see only a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Wouldn't us being able to see in infrared useful for example but its not neccesary thats the way nature works. You gain the skills you need to survive bat has a brain but cant see eyes are useless to them in a dark cave so they developed sonar. Its a good idea doesnt mean intelligence did it. As far as DNA about 30 percent of your DNA is shared with every species on the planet. Each species adapted there DNA to help them survive in there niche.

Every species will develop traits useful to there survival if not they wouldn't be here.When there traits become useless there species goes extinct and there DNA doesnt get passed on. So no surprise only good ideas get passed on to the next generation things contrary to survival die. Now you can put random DNA in cells and they can survive just fine. Heres one for you ever wonder why humans have to have vitamin c in there diet yet dogs don't? The reason is the DNA that dogs have to produce vitamin c works they make there own, ours however was damaged its there but a random mutation made it useless. So we have DNA in are system that used to make vitamin c this defect is not crucial to our survival because it can be supplemented. If it was crucial our entire species would be dead (provided you arent on a long sea journey and get scurvy).



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Ok I wouldnt deny any of that. Isnt the existence of adaptable life forms a more intelligent idea then if there existed one life form and it wasnt adaptable?

about the DNA question, I was more wondering if I could just create a billion, different strands of DNA, randomly picking the DNA protein letters, and create brand new creatures? Or you are saying all DNA is based off of the same original DNA sequence, and so that is like the source code or framework, and so it must have sequences in common with that, in order to create a new specie, but if we did find the DNA common denominator, after that we can just write random orders, and create new species?

Me mistaking intelligence for necessity? I can then just say; Humans do not possess intelligence, you are mistaking all the things they do is really out of necessity. You think its not necessary for humans to do what they do, try and stop them all, you will see they are a powerful force of nature.

How can it be said there are no goals are purposes for what the universe has created when; The only thing that could ever matter or mean anything is awareness, and the universe has made a ton of this. If you have used logic, have you concluded that there is most likely definitely life on other planets? Have you come across the numbers of planets that potentially exist in the universe? Are you aware of what is capable on this one? How can it be said the goal of the universe (was no goal) was not to create awareness, when awareness is the only thing that could ever have inherent value, the only thing that can ever matter. (for example, if all that existed eternally were rocks, who cares, noones there to care, nothing matters,etc. If awareness created a super computer but then that awareness died off, and the super computer was just going at it for eternity, but it wasnt aware, in a sense similar to the concept of the fact that we are aware, then what would it matter, it might as well be dirt, it might as well not exist, it doesnt think there fore it isnt, to itself)
edit on 26-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


The problem I have with ID is with it's main premise, that evolution is wrong. I don't agree with that particular assumption. There's too much scientific evidence supporting it. So I can see why proponents of ID are brandished as creationists in that respect. I now realize that my even mentioning ID in my posts may have put me in that group.

I will say that I do agree with some of what ID is trying to show, mainly that design does exist within nature and that there is some kind of intelligent cause. However I don't agree that it should exclude evolution, or that it must be God behind it all. I don't consider myself religious in any way, and therefore won't be injecting god into any of my beliefs about how the universe came to be-- unless of course I see it for myself.

To me evolution is an intelligent process. I think there is an intelligent/conscious force or field underlying all natural processes. And I think that we and the rest of the natural world around us are the physical manifestations of this.


edit on 26-6-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


The majority of intelligent ID proponents would never deny evolution. It is those who wish to slander ID proponents who bring up evolution. It is a complete misnomer. The term 'evolution' in its most simple and general definition relates to change over time. In fact the most general and simplest definition of 'time' would be 'change', the flow of change. Energy changes over time, energy changing is time. A system of energy that has no noticeable change over time can be said to have no evolution (i.e. if the universe was eternally one bundle of non moving, non changing energy, there could be nothing to point to about this system in regards to an aspect of it evolving...however energy changes,so within time, energy or the universe evolves. Everything we create will (in that definition of the word) evolve over time (change). Just because biology figured out a way to reverse entropy to create novel expressions of mechanisms and being, and complex ways in which to have some type of control over evolution doesnt mean there is no method to the madness of the universe. Control in the sense that biology as a whole has not failed, it has succeeded at creating trillions of different living organisms that moment at moment are successful at adapting to change and continuing theirs and their offspring's existence.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I think you make great points. And I should've stated more specifically that proponents of ID challenge evolution as it relates to the Neo-Darwinistic view- that it's governed solely by natural selection and that genetic variation in populations arises by chance through random and meaningless mutations- or even mistakes in DNA replication. Come on, really? Safe to say that I would tend to completely disagree with that notion. In fact, it's quite implausible.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I think you make great points. And I should've stated more specifically that proponents of ID challenge evolution as it relates to the Neo-Darwinistic view- that it's governed solely by natural selection and that genetic variation in populations arises by chance through random and meaningless mutations- or even mistakes in DNA replication. Come on, really? Safe to say that I would tend to completely disagree with that notion. In fact, it's quite implausible.



Really you think so? So let me see if i understand this you think its impossible for random variations through evolution to create useful changes to a species even though we have shown that to be the case. However your willing to believe with no proof that some intelligent entity set all this in motion with absolutely no proof what so ever. Id say thats a major logic failure this tells me this is a belief you have and has no basis in fact what so ever,If you wish to believe some magical entity created the universe so be it but please answer me 2 questions where did they come from? And finally how were they created did it occur naturally?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join