Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

reply to post by EnPassant

That is just a cop out. You keep saying that complex forms need to be a product of lots of information but those examples prove you wrong.

No matter how many large examples of 3d digital representations you find and post it doesn't change the fact that complex forms can be produced from small amounts of information and that our method of visual reproduction does not compare to biological systems and, by the looks of it, is much more inefficient.

EnPassant
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

I'm talking about strictly quantifiable amounts of information. See my last post. (yes, I do program)


Edit; pi is not a compressable piece of information. Only pi defines pi. Any attempt to compress it will lose some of the information.

22/7 is a compression of pi but information is lost-

22/7 = 3.142857143 to 9 decimal places

pi = 3.141592653 to 9 places

information starts to get lost at the third decimal place

edit on 4-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

All of that is irrelevant since you are comparing the amount of code it takes to code Lara Croft to the amount of DNA it takes to create a human. DNA isn't binary, therefore you are comparing apples to oranges.

On top of that, DNA isn't even fully understood. We don't know all of its information storing properties and what it can and cannot do. Meanwhile, binary code is a human construct used to power and manipulate turing machines. We know the capabilities of what it can and cannot do. For instance it could never create a functional intelligence.

pstrron
Anyone that says that there IS NO God is speaking from the standpoint of ignorance. Such a statement is an absolute and requires 100% knowledge of everything to be valid.

That's actually not true. You do not need 100% knowlege of everything to prove something wrong. I can prove to you that there aren't 89 states in the U.S. without having 100% knowlege of everything. You only need pieces of knowlege to disprove peoples' ideas.

In any fashion, the argument is worthless. Saying that people need to prove God wrong to invalidate the idea is asinine, you have to prove God right if you're going to use God in pratical argument. The ownus or proof is on the believer. Of course, we cannot say at this point that there is zero possibility for a god or intelligent creator, but we can discount any argument that suppose a creator does exist, as they are not backed up by hard evidence.

We also do not need 100% knowledge to disprove that a religious text like The Bible is 100% true; it's not. We can prove that:

- The Nile never dried up

- Tyre was not overtaken by Nebuchanezzar

- The Earth is more than 6,000 years old

- Jesus did not have unearthly knowledge, or at least express it

Etcetera ad ridiculum.

By doing this, we can say that people who claim to have opinions that the Bible is 100% true are wrong, and that this "opinion" of theirs is simply fallacious -- it's not even really an opinion, it's just a false claim. We do not need to know everything about the entire universe to do this. You would need to inherit this circular reasoning to continue believing it:

EnPassant
Ok that's 3D but it is self similar, basic patterns being repeated, which means repeating the same code. What you need is a 3D human skull that can be rotated in any direction on screen.

I'm getting 48 Mb for a high quality one Here

edit on 5-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

You know, your argument fails if you notice that life on earth, as it progress it is more and more complex. There were many global cataclysmic events, and only strongest and most adoptive species survived. Some of them adopted new techniques to survive, like for example crocodile, who can spend long times between feedings and lower its hart rate. Today we know that we, humans, were also on edge of extinction more then once, and guess what - none of that was great flood - another fair tale from bible.

reply to post by SuperFrog

Evolution is a process that cannot ever be observed. Old bones are not a process. I stand by my statements. It has not and cannot be observed. I could go to a junk yard and find the same kind of "proof" that cars evolved.

Nothing even remotely close to evolution can be reproduced by scientific experiment so what you are left with is a belief in something unseen, or in other words faith. The scientific method has been thrown out the window in order to protect this new secular religion.

The scientific method was developed in order to separate science from mysticism and religion. If evolution were science it would have to fit the scientific method which it clearly does not.

At some point you just have to realize that some people are incapable of intelligent thought and logical deduction. It is impossible for some people to deny a lifetime of indoctrination. I think pride plays a role in this as well as fear of being ridiculed by others.

This is the case with most religious people.

reply to post by begoodbees


This is TERRIBLE reasoning. We have PLENTY of fossils showing evolution in action. Just because we cannot witness it firsthand doesn't mean we cannot collect the evidence for it and substantiate its veracity other ways.

You know we can prove criminals commit crimes without video evidence of them doing it too right?

begoodbees
At some point you just have to realize that some people are incapable of intelligent thought and logical deduction. It is impossible for some people to deny a lifetime of indoctrination. I think pride plays a role in this as well as fear of being ridiculed by others.

This is the case with most religious people.

edit on 5-1-2014 by begoodbees because: (no reason given)

Many people don't believe in God because they are indoctrinated. This is a false view of religion. Many people believe for far more complex and substantial reasons than this.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Information is information, it doesn't matter if it is binary, hexadecimal or ascii. The rules of information Theory apply across the board. This compares the genome to the amount of information on a cd.

TheRegal

pstrron
Anyone that says that there IS NO God is speaking from the standpoint of ignorance. Such a statement is an absolute and requires 100% knowledge of everything to be valid.

That's actually not true. You do not need 100% knowlege of everything to prove something wrong. I can prove to you that there aren't 89 states in the U.S. without having 100% knowlege of everything. You only need pieces of knowlege to disprove peoples' ideas.

In any fashion, the argument is worthless. Saying that people need to prove God wrong to invalidate the idea is asinine, you have to prove God right if you're going to use God in pratical argument. The ownus or proof is on the believer. Of course, we cannot say at this point that there is zero possibility for a god or intelligent creator, but we can discount any argument that suppose a creator does exist, as they are not backed up by hard evidence.

We also do not need 100% knowledge to disprove that a religious text like The Bible is 100% true; it's not. We can prove that:

- The Nile never dried up

- Tyre was not overtaken by Nebuchanezzar

- The Earth is more than 6,000 years old

- Jesus did not have unearthly knowledge, or at least express it

Etcetera ad ridiculum.

By doing this, we can say that people who claim to have opinions that the Bible is 100% true are wrong, and that this "opinion" of theirs is simply fallacious -- it's not even really an opinion, it's just a false claim. We do not need to know everything about the entire universe to do this. You would need to inherit this circular reasoning to continue believing it:

Well if everything you say is true, then could you please explain where we came from. I'd be interested in knowing what you think? And I'm talking before the big bang. How did the big bang happen? Because to think that everything just came from nothing makes no sense. I really need a better explaination than that

reply to post by spartacus699


Science doesn't work in absolute guesswork. If it doesn't know the answer, it doesn't make up whatever it pleases to fill in the gaps, like religion (I don't know? answer: God). It just leaves it undefined and tries to create experiments and tests to fill in the holes. Asking science to explain what happened before the Big Bang is quite impossible with our level of technology (and may remain impossible with any level of technology).

spartacus699
Well if everything you say is true, then could you please explain where we came from. I'd be interested in knowing what you think? And I'm talking before the big bang. How did the big bang happen? Because to think that everything just came from nothing makes no sense. I really need a better explaination than that

I can tell you in complete honesty that I don't know what happened before the Big Bang. I don't know a ridiculous amount of information that we may or may not discover surrounding origins -- nobody does.

I'll ask you this, though: if you aren't satisfied with the official story of origins, why don't you become a scientist and study it an try to find answers and disprove the official story? If you're totaly incapable of going on with life without knowing, then where the hell is your effort in figuring it out? Where's the motivation?

You're seriously going to settle for a 2,000 year old account? When people burned animals as sacrifices and thought that cheap parlour tricks were "miracles"? You must really have high standards for theory of origins.

A set of excuses from a group-think that you were likely born into is apparently good enough, but admitting that we don't know and trying to figure it out is just not good enough. I see how it is.

begoodbees
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Evolution is a process that cannot ever be observed. Old bones are not a process. I stand by my statements. It has not and cannot be observed. I could go to a junk yard and find the same kind of "proof" that cars evolved.

Nothing even remotely close to evolution can be reproduced by scientific experiment so what you are left with is a belief in something unseen, or in other words faith. The scientific method has been thrown out the window in order to protect this new secular religion.

The scientific method was developed in order to separate science from mysticism and religion. If evolution were science it would have to fit the scientific method which it clearly does not.

That is just empty talk and straw holding with dying grip...

If you read this topic, you would find load of evidence of evolution that was observed in labs. For example, E.coli long-term evolution (50,000 generations) - Overview of the E.coli long-term evolution experiment.

I am glad you got at least part of it correct, bones are not itself example of evolution, but bones of many species through time are teaching us of life progress and evolution of species. For example, tetrapods evolution shown here: The origin of tetrapods. It is interesting, that in fossils there are no tetrapods for a long time, even life flourished, then we saw first primitive examples and later more complex. See, people who study evolution see clear evidence how species have progress, every day there is more evidence to support what we all already know, and I am sure that your ignorant statement like this is just sign of frustration, as even church is turning back on ID and it is focusing on 'souls'. We already know how is that going to end as well, don't we?

Even with ignorance like this, let's try to reason for second. If there was no evolution, how do you explain all bones and fossils on earth. (we are using those fossils on daily bases in huge amounts, you know, fossil fuel) And when did dinosaurs live, how long ago, and how old is earth. Care to prove science wrong, start by answering those simple questions.

EnPassant
Many people don't believe in God because they are indoctrinated. This is a false view of religion. Many people believe for far more complex and substantial reasons than this.

You are turning this discussion around toward religion and its origins.

You might not know, but there was evolution even in religion. From earlier polytheistic religions to monotheistic religions, first one being in Egypt made by Akhenaten, to today's Abrahamic religions. From Proto-Indo-European religion to today Christianity and Islam with all those links and similar stories.

See, scientists do study religion and today in most of colleges you can take religion class, but not class where you will study verses from Bible, but class where you will learn all diversity in religion and its evolution through time.

Today we have no evidence for many stories from bible and accounts, including account about Abraham, Jesus. We know Muslim prophet Muhammad really existed, but story behind Islam is just copy/paste from earlier and/or upgraded story we already know existed and predates Islam. His private life is another controversy, from God telling him to marry very young girl to accounts written hundred of years after his death. (Hadith collection, that is written several generations after Muhammad's death or Ibn Kathir's collection written about 700 years after his death)

I took that class out of curiosity, as I never had any religious education and since then have read Bible and Qur'an. After reading it, I would have to agree with Penn and Teller Bull# - Bible. Please see it and let me know what you think....

spartacus699
And I'm talking before the big bang. How did the big bang happen? Because to think that everything just came from nothing makes no sense. I really need a better explaination than that

The Big Bang Theory does not postulate that 'everything came from nothing'.

spartacus699
Well if everything you say is true, then could you please explain where we came from. I'd be interested in knowing what you think? And I'm talking before the big bang. How did the big bang happen? Because to think that everything just came from nothing makes no sense. I really need a better explaination than that

You are aware that evolution has nothing to do with origin of universe or life itself?

About something from nothing, please see one of lead evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, having conversation with Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and cosmologist.



BTW, good joke about Moses in Krauss' introduction. You have to love scientists with sense of humor.