intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- discipler0
Tick doesn't have me on ignore. Don't be fooled. He's too interested in what i have to say. However he pretends to have me on ignore because me being an intelligent Christian does not fit into his philosophical / political paradigm. I'm rather hard to compartmentalize, which is what people like him, like to do.
- megatron51500
Just because you shout loudly, doesn't make your point valid.
discipler
(Sep 30 05, 12:46)How ironic, this seems to apply to you as well.
- deep_throat0
i'm not kuz, first of all..
anyway, you misunderstand artificial life models YET AGAIN!!
THe UNIVERSE HAS CLEAR RULES, these RULES are simulated in the abstract mathematical models to see if these rules produce patterns.
The Universe demonstrates an infinitely more complex system than the numebr games, what they are trying to show, which for some reason you can't understand, or refues to aknowledge is that if you have simple RULES (like the strenght of gravity, speed of life etc... (that may well be designed) then the system can get more and more complex to produce VIRTUALL ANYTHING YOU CAN IMAGINE IN THE REAL WORLD. This includes egg laying ants, and computers that produce prime number. The computer wasn't designed, a pattern was designed via trial and error. When that pattern was subjected to the laws of the universe, it EVOLVED into a computer after 6,000 hours.
Do you understand the link with evolution now?
- discipler0
Going back to what i said in my very first post here. This has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with science. And what it is now observing is Evolution's failure in having a sufficient mechanism to produce change on the genome scale. So, it's not an issue of God and evolution being mutually exclusive or not. It's an issue of the latest scientific findings demonstrating the fatal flaws of neo-darwinian evolution.
- deep_throat0
haha see discipler how you coompletely changed subject in your final post?
hehe,
we were talking about "infromation" and complexity from simplicity.
Whcih i had demonstrated, categorically, a universe such as ours, with rules can produced MAD COMPLEXITY from atoms and molecules even to the point of human life. This i think can be seen in LIfe which has a universe with much simpler rules and at an infinitly smaller scale, but you still get MAD COMPLEXITY based on those dots.
And yes, why the universe is so finally balanced to produce evolving life, that's another matter.
- discipler0
And where did the governing laws and rules come from? Who/what set them in place? Who/what drew up the plans to produce model which produced biological machines more complex than that which humans have produced? That's where your disconnect is. You merely push the issue of origins back a step, as I've said. I don't question the capability of order coming from chaos. We see this in the big bang! So, in that, we are in agreement. My point is twofold: A) You need an uncaused causal entity. and B) You need to recognize that SCIENCE is saying that Darwinian Evolution does not possess an effective mechanims to produce the degree of complexity we see.
- ********0
until man proves his "theories" as fact, big bang theory/ the theory of evolution, this discussion will last as long as we do.
veraicon
-----------------------
Yeah exactly. Science isn't about proving anything, if you people will remember your "What is science?" class from when you were in third grade. Science is about postulatinhg theories, based on observable and measurable evidence of physical phenomenon, with which we can make predictions about. As what we observe or measure changes we adjust the theory. We never are seeking "proof" or "truth" in science, just an increasingly more accurate way of making models that conform to what is observed. Scientists are quite comfortable in a world of doubt. Scientists seek out doubt. Seek out dark corner s to shine a flashlight into and without qualititive judgements about what they're "supposed" to find there."Truth" and "proof" are really all about the religious side of the question, and I'd like to say that until someone proves that their "religion" as fact and that one god or another is the supreme one (you know plenty of other religions out there) maybe the religiously faithful can stop butting into science and trying to tell us what it "means"
- mrdobolina0
again discipler, who is the creator in your eyes?
it has everything to do with religion. Just because I don't believe in god does not mean that I believe everything darwin had to say.
You, my friend, are the compartmentalizer.
- deep_throat0
"artificial life models are often intended to generate wholly new—and typically extremely simple—instances of lifelike phenomena. The simplest example of such a system is the so-called Game of Life devised by the British mathematician John Conway in the 1960s before the field of artificial life was conceived. Conway was trying to create a simple system that could generate complex self-organized structures.
The Game of Life is a two-state, two-dimensional cellular automaton. It takes place on a rectangular grid of cells, similar to a huge checkerboard. Time advances step by step. A cell's state at a given time is determined by the states of its eight neighboring cells according to the following simple "birth-death" rule: a "dead" cell becomes "alive" if and only if exactly three neighbors were just "alive," and a "living" cell "dies" if and only if fewer than two, or more than three, neighbors were just "alive." When all of the cells in the system are simultaneously updated again and again, a rich variety of complicated behavior is created and a complex zoo of dynamic structures can be identified and classified (blinkers, gliders, glider guns, logic switching circuits, etc.). It is even possible to construct a universal Turing machine in the Game of Life, by cunningly arranging the initial configuration of living cells. In such constructions, gliders perform a role of passing signals. Analyzing the computational potential of cellular automata on the basis of glider interactions has become a major direction in research. Like living systems, Conway's Game of Life exhibits a vivid hierarchy of dynamical self-organized structures."
- ********0
deep-throat:
- discipler0
What you need to realize is that the numeric model you have does not demonstrate simplicity to complexity in the realm of organic life. It's simply a numeric abstract. The notion of goo-to-you-via-the-zoo, or molecules to man is mythology and this is the point I'm driving at. Watch carefully: irreducibly complex organisms CANNOT be produced by evolutionary processes and irreducibly complex organisms are the building blocks of life. These machines need ALL of their components at once, which the mechanism of natural selection would prevent from happening. So, the point is that these complex machines were the product of intelligent design.
- -sputnik-0
hey discipler...if we all agree on the scientific facts, why isn't it our business what we decide the origin to be?
why does the school system, bush and people such as yourself have to force the God factor on us?
is it really your business?
- discipler0
hehe, and it begins with the cell already in place, deep-throat. Do you see now?
You can copy and paste as much as you like, but it doesn't change the reality of molecular machines and the requirement of a cognizant designer.
- ukit0
When struggling with the question of something from nothing, isn't it equally possible (and simpler, really) that there was no beginning at all? Maybe the concept of existence having a beginning and end is simply a product of our limited human imaginations.
- discipler0
you've got the wrong information, sputnik. Bush only wants I.D. to be explored alongside Darwinism. Which I am in favor of as well. Again, I.D. identifies design in biological systems. It does not make claim to who that designer is.
- discipler0
ukit, the eternal universe or "steady state" notion has been proven wrong. We call this proof, the big bang. Where all matter and energy came into being.
- ********0
It's all about the triangle.
- -sputnik-0
wrong:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp…
he wants it to be TAUGHT alongside darwinism. give me a break please, i can read.
- deep_throat0
as I've said. I don't question the capability of order coming from chaos. We see this in the big bang! So, in that, we are in agreement. My point is twofold: A) You need an uncaused causal entity
discipler
(Sep 30 05, 12:59)I think the majority of us here are agnostic to some degree, A universe where a being unleashed the forces that led to the big bang, that developed molecules that developed life etc. etc. etc. of its own accord is not entirely unconceivable (but then again, thats what people said about god creating eve out of adams rib at one point!)
what you argue as a christian zealot, is that all the living things in the whole universe down to the amoeba, were designed to be as they were either in some vague ID creature tweaking genetics over millions of years whenever he/she/it feels like it - or some god who did everything in 7 days.
What the more intelligent people are able to understand is that this is completely necessary. With the laws of universe in place at the big bang, and with the infinite size of the universe, and with the conditions on this planet, one of infinite planets, life could freely develop, have a bazillion permetations, evovlve from a cell to a human COMPLETELY through self-organisation with no need for tweaking.
Such self-organising principles are what is demonstrated in the life game, that is what i'm trying to demonstrate :)
