intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- discipler0
and AGAIN, on DNA: :)
- deep_throat0
nope. what you're STILL missing is that Conway's universal turing machine demonstrates the need for a programmer a
---------------------------
omg, you've been trying to look up websties on conway for two days now, and THIS is all you can come up with????The ONE single programming rule required in Conway's game is one that dictates whether a dots lives or dies. the universe is FULL of such ruels - about whether a star lives or dies, or whether life lives or dies. From such simple rules complexity occurred. It matters not that Conway "programmed" his game so he can observe how different rules function, interact, and grow into complexity.
"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
discipler
(Oct 2 05, 11:01)"Of course they can't! That's the whole point! I'll say this slowly:
THe life game is a model that that helps to observe what a simple rule based system will do if time is speeded up to an observable degree. Just to observe what the patterns do.
Man, you really have difficulty holding abstract thought in your head. No wonder you're a total jesus boy.
- pavlovs_dog0
" You resort to beligerance and repeating the same things over and over as though that somehow makes it true "
:)
you, this thread, both LOLz...
- deep_throat0
well i've finally come to the conclusion there is really no point engaging with such a warped mind.
*exit stage left
- pavlovs_dog0
hes a good kid.
please don't feed him tho...
- ukit0
Discipler, what your whole argument boils down to is this:
1) Because we don't understand everything about life, evolution, and the origin of life, i.e., becuase there are gaps in our knowledge
then...
2) There's no other explanantion than that God must have created everything
Pretty ridiculous on the face of it, really. The whole theory that there is any kind of intelligence at all governing the entire universe is so patently silly, it could only come from the point of view of someone who was already looking for it as an answer because (gasp) they want God to be real.
- pavlovs_dog0
please dont feed the creationists
- ukit0
If anyone really wants an overview of this "debate," check out this audio:
http://www.onpointradio.org/show…
This ID guy is clearly such as crackpot, it's pretty funny actually...
- discipler0
No, if anyone wants a true overview of this debate, go to:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
LOTS, of interviews there. Both video and audio.
ukit, that interview was a joke and doesn't provide an overview of this multifaceted issue. Why they chose Gilder to speak against Dawkins is anyone's guess.
- ukit0
So you agree that Gilder is a crackpot?
- noop0
god...
shut up...
no one cares...
- discipler0
No ukit, that's not what my argument boils down to. Did you read my posts throughout this thread? No, this is closer to what you might boil down mine (and countless other scientists') argument to:
1. For a multitude of reasons, including but not limited to: Irreducible Complexity in biological machines, digitally coded information in DNA - the core of life, the Big Bang and it's relevant implications, the lack of evidence of species to species evolution in the fossil record, the inability of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection + unguided mutation to produce novel information, the impossible precision to the fine tuning of the physical laws governing our planet and our position in our solar system, etc..., the metaphysical reality of the human conscience and all of it's expression, and other factors...
we can conclude...
2. Intelligence was required in the design and implementation of the universe and organic life.
- trobutta0
ahaha
omg
so hilarious to see discipler shredding through the people's republic of newstoday with NO worthy opponents. You people represent ignorance so well!
- discipler0
I don't necessarily say he's a crackpot, Gilder is just a clueless old boffoon who couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag.
What i'm saying is, if you truly want accurate information and a truly accurate overview of what REALLY is the science of this issue, don't think that you are going to get it from a single radio interview. Go to the official sites with board members who are the leading scientists in this issue and read the technical papers. This is what i have done and I've done it for both sides of the issue.
- ukit0
I understand your argument, I just don't think it holds water. And neither do the vast majority of scientists who aren't paid off by fundamentalist religious organizations.
- discipler0
ukit, do you sleep well at night knowing that you put up such dishonest straw man arguments?
The organizations that represent ID are not funded by groups with the rhetoric you use. And if you truly understand my argument but still disagree with it, then you are intellectually dishonest. I can conclude you do not understand every facet of the ID position, or you would reach a different conclusion. And "the vast majority of scientists" are still unaware of the science behind I.D. because the major discoveries in support of it are only now being published in periodicals which are peer reviewed, etc... So, sit back and watch my friend. Watch what happens when honest scientists who do not have an epistemological axe to grind and who are scholastically and intellectually honest, conclude.
- ukit0
Let's look at the proponents of these two viewpoints. On one hand we have: the entire scientific community, which has no political agenda and has given us everything from cures for disease to space travel. On the other side is this Discovery Institute you keep referring to which:
-was founded by a Reagan administration official, Bruce Chapman
-is heavily backed by California multimillionaire Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., who is aligned with Christian Reconstructionism a movement that seeks to overturn democracy and replace it with Christian theocracy
-is not taken seriously by the vast majority of thinkers in the real scientific community
Discipler, you're not a scientist, are you? Why would you presume to know more about the origins of life than people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings, who have given us real contributions to society through their work?
- Tad_Cautious0
can anyone explain how i dreamt my future two years later (including the exact red couch, my current girlfriend in that exact apartment)
... also how i was able to save my brother from losing his life 5 minutes before out of nowhere getting in a terrible car accident?
- discipler0
ukit, let's look at the actual situation now. Since you've painted a fairy tale scenario. You see, if you google enough, you'll find plenty of sites with skewed information designed to misrepresent and thus discredit. And this demonstrates how threated the Darwinian fundamentalists are by the growing ID movement.
1. Discovery institute is one of many organizations promoting ID. You also have ARN, http://www.iscid.org/, and a host of blogs and research centers by various other independant scientists. Again, this argument demonstrates dodging the real issue - the science.
2. You ignore what i just posted. It is NEW science and is just now gaining exposure in peer reviewed publications and is just now being organized into a curriculum. So, more and more scientists are taking it seriously as they, and this is key, as they become EDUCATED about it.
3. Dawkins and Hawkings have an epistemological axe to grind. They are philosophical atheists and Dawkins especially is on a crusade to stop the spread of ID. Why? Again, because of his religious bias.
Additionally, you have the dizzyingly brilliant minds of William Dembski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, etc... who are equal intellectually with Dawkins (as if that mattered when you factored in philosophical bias).
- discipler0
and the only contribution that Dawkins has made is shattering the hope of many who he has convinced that the physical world is all that there is by deifying Darwin and filtering all the evidence thru a purely materialistic lens. He is an "only naturalistic exlpanation" guy, instead of being an "best possible explanation" guy.
On the other side you have people like Behe who have actually discovered and coined Irreducible Complexity in biological machines. Pretty huge discovery.