intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- Nairn0
Well said deep_throat.. that's, I think, what I'd been trying convey.
I just got too angry.
Infinity's a fucking big place.
- Nairn0
oh, and Discipler -
spend a few days on magic mushrooms and see how long you hold on to your cherished notions of some deific Creator.The universe is more beautiful than you can ever imagine.
- deep_throat0
exactly Nairn. He fails to understand that idea when he goes on about "DNA is so complex it must be egineered! cos all egineering in the world is designed! i.e god!"
His failure is his lack of conceptual understanding. I mean, you can use the same argue as that to say "the earth must be designed, cos look how well the days and nights and years function!"
but then astronomers have studied formation of planets in the outser galaxy and just seems like gravity doing what gravity does. and nothing more. plus the strength of the sun that happens to be next to you, and the make-up of the material floating around in your area
- deep_throat0
oh, and Discipler -
spend a few days on magic mushrooms and see how long you hold on to your cherished notions of some deific Creator.The universe is more beautiful than you can ever imagine.
Nairn
(Oct 2 05, 10:34)haha nairn i was just about to say when he went on about "how can human conscience have evolved?". Clearly he's never done psychoactive drugs - it's not that amazing.
ps, nairn, i tried to scroe some shrooms yesterday - all the shope have closed down!! so how does one now? u still shipping?
- discipler0
I fully understand what Conway's "game" does. As I stated it's one of many Universal Turing Machines. And I agree with you that it does simulate simplicity to complexity within the constraints of a computer program. Steven Hawking has produced these programs as well as numerous others.
It is only an "evolution system" as you call it, in that it, through repeating patterns, can show how hypothetical simplicity represented in dots can move to hypothetical complexity. And my point, which seems to get you terribly befuddled, is that this hypothetical model has no bearing in the realm of organic biochemistry. Factual discovery has demonstrated this.
So, I don't take issue with you that the program does what it says it does - within the program. Nature does not display this model, however. And you have a fallacious presupposition that there is some multiverse model to the universe that keeps spitting out patterns like Conway's program. Again, please read chapter 4 in Dembski's - No Free Lunch.
So, as you say, I am perfectly able to "just appreciate, the concept, that from a few dots [in a hypothetical programmed scenario], all sorts of mad shit can happen."
- discipler0
haha, you guys have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. lol. It's getting sillier and sillier in this thread. Talk about over stepping one's bounds. Wow.
I'll humor you, because i have the time... no one says "DNA is so complex it must be engineered". (again you like inserting words in other people's mouths). DNA must have been engineered, in a nutshell, because it is information and because it is irreducibly complex. (Always good to actually study these things before blabbing about what they are ;)). DNA is a powerhouse of information storage and backup more intricate than a supercomputer. And every example of information we have is the result of an intelligent entity. Non-cognizant, non-matter, does not produce information. So, the inference to a designer is logical. So, you lack the conceptual and fundamental understanding.
And...
"in the outser galaxy and just seems like gravity doing what gravity does. and nothing more. plus the strength of the sun that happens to be next to you, and the make-up of the material floating around in your area"
...I'm speechless (but terribly amused).
- discipler0
and hallucinogens are not required for me to gasp in the wonder of what an infinite designer has generated. I can simply look up at the night sky, or observe the colors on a butterfly, or consider the variety of color in the forest's leaves, or contemplate the metaphysical realities of the consciousness, first-person perspective, selfless love and artistic expression (all of which could never have emerged from purely physical / material processes).
And to top it all off, to go beyond the science and consider the philosophical implications of a designer who relentlessly loves his creation and desires a relationship with it.
*sigh at the beauty and wonder
- deep_throat0
so discipler, you no longer believe that it is pure fantasy and nonsense to say that order and complexity do not have to be designed they can simply "occur"? and, therefore, you have given up your oft stated and stupid argument that second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution? cos your entire beginning argument in this thread seemed to be saying that, and now your saying "but only in the case of biochemsitry" lol
(by the way, your attempt to dismiss Conway's game as
"hypothetical" is pretty ridiculously since this is something you can observe with your eyes. If you think Artificial Life systems are only of hypothetical importance, then you might as well dismiss all the computer programmes used to develop drugs (which has application in biochemistry) and test planes - cos they use "hypothetical" models. hehe).
- deep_throat0
greedo, when you peer inside the cell, or a strand of DNA... you see engineered design and digital information. 1. Every example of engineered design and information we observe, has a cognizant designer as it's author. So it's a logical inference to apply it to molecular life.
discipler
(Sep 30 05, 06:02)DID YOU NOT JUST SAY THAT????
- deep_throat0
and i have been reading up on the irreducibly complex notion, and find it to be highly fallacious and misleading.
- pavlovs_dog0
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
- pavlovs_dog0
irreducibly complexity is bullshit.
- deep_throat0
oh and some informatiojn on the formation of planets you seem to be having difficulty with :)
- deep_throat0
yes pavlovs_dog, irreducible complexity as an ID/Creationist arguments, is such gigantic bullshit, it's not even funny!
but it looks like that's disciplers bag these days!
- pavlovs_dog0
the world is flat per the bible?
- discipler0
nope. what you're STILL missing is that Conway's universal turing machine demonstrates the need for a programmer and that design most certainly cannot simply "occur" in irreducibly complex biological systems. It cannot and does not. And I'm still not sure why you keep bringing up thermodynamics which simply, in essence demonstrates that everything is moving towards decay and disorder - energy wears down. This is a law, by the way, not a theory. So, I suppose it even more demonstrates that Conway's model is only truly effective as what it is - a hypothetical computer program.
Dots on a screen can be observed with one's eyes. Irreducibly complexity in biological systems or the building blocks of organic life, cannot be observed to generate themselves from non-matter. hehe
- pavlovs_dog0
lol at the effort you put into this
- pavlovs_dog0
and...
irreducible complexity is bullshit.
- discipler0
You resort to beligerance and repeating the same things over and over as though that somehow makes it true. If you want to know why irreducible complexity is fact, read how the critics are wrong:
http://www.designinference.com/d…
http://search.x21ad.net/arn.zhtm…
This is why I.D. continues to grow despite the attacks of critics.
And where do you suppose the matter and energy came from to produce stars and supernova and such?
A real thinker, you are.
- pavlovs_dog0
irreducible complexity is bullshit.