intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- ribit0
"Mindless natural processes do not produce information."
Mindless? There might not be a 'mind' involved, but natural processes can do some pretty neat stuff given the right parameters and a lot of time... and we aren't talking random processes here... A lot of people seem to forget that the random variation element is simply a catalyst in the process...not the process itself.
- unfittoprint0
I have a relationship with Charles Darwin which makes me seek to others to teach evolution.
unfit dixit.
- paraselene0
alright then. you kids have fun!
*waves to ribit and discipler too
**runs away super fast and gets in a taxicab
- Nairn0
Nairn, you're missing the key point. Science is demonstrating that there is no natural mechanism that can produce the engineered technology we see in these structures. And the information in DNA. It IS information. Mindless natural processes do not produce information.
> No, our interpretation derives meaning from data, which becomes 'information', you're showing your own ignorance there.
Let alone backup and error protection mechanisms. One would only avoid the design inference if they have an epistemological axe to grind.
> Give Science another couple of hundred years.
As for Jesus, there is compelling historical and manuscript evidence to suggest that he was exactly who he said he was...
> No, there's not - I will not consider scripture 'proof' - there's been, for far too long, too much vested interest in maintaining the sanctity of your mythos
- - -
Your sanctimony belies your own lack of research.Come back to me when you've developed insight into the complexity of proteins, the essential simplicity of amino acids and the propensity for many forms of simple matter to self-arrange. Then let your imagination spill into the Billions of years involved and Wonder at the possibility.. I've found this gives much credence to the potential of evolution developing what we see before us
- Nairn0
Nairn, i'm sensitive about my lazy eye.
discipler
(Sep 30 05, 07:13)I hope that was a poor joke.. if not, I didn't know about that and wouldn't mock anyone for such a thing (I am ginger-haired, after all - I know what it's like for people to point and laugh at me in the street :)
- discipler0
ribit, darwinian processes have no mechanism capable of producing information, namely information gaining mutations. Therefore, it is impossible for it to produce novel species. And this is demonstrated in the fossil record. Neither can darwinian processes produce irreducibly complex molecular life because it requires all components at once - something that natural selection would have prevented. Additionally, you have the sudden emergence of phyla in the fossil record and the metaphysical reality of human conscience to deal with.
- discipler0
Nairn, you thoroughly misunderstand DNA. Here's a primer for you:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
It is information, no matter how you slice it.
-----------------------------"Give Science another couple of hundred years."
Science has shown that in another couple of hundred years we have more complexity yeilded in biological systems... as we delve deeper. (side note: do you see how you express faith in what science confined to naturalistic philosophy will discover?). So complexity is only going to scream louder of design.
------------------------------
"No, there's not - I will not consider scripture 'proof' - there's been, for far too long, too much vested interest in maintaining the sanctity of your mythos."
What you errantly relegate to the dustbin of "mythos" is factual history more sound than the writings of any other historical documents and which split history and turned ordinary cowards into people willing to give their lives for what they believed. As a primer, do a study of:
Codex Siniaticus
Codex VaticanusAnd then invest some time in the science of textual criticism. Then we can have an intelligent discussion of the reliablity of the New Testament documents.
---------------------------
"Come back to me when you've developed insight into the complexity of proteins, the essential simplicity of amino acids and the propensity for many forms of simple matter to self-arrange. Then let your imagination spill into the Billions of years involved and Wonder at the possibility.. I've found this gives much credence to the potential of evolution developing what we see before us"See the link i posted here. And when you've realized that even TRILLIONs of years cannot produce irreducibly complex organisms and digitally coded information, come back and see me.
- ********0
It's all about the Gerin Oil:
- exador10
at the absolute heart of this debate is religious fundamentalists.
that simple little fact should make the entire debate crystal clear.
and here on NT, ID's one major proponent and defender is a guy that goes by the name 'discipler'
uh...
hello??
- arinya0
Haha this thread is tons funner with dis on ignore. It's llie Nairn is arguing with himself. Bwhaha!
- kelpie0
*points and laughs at the ginge
- gruntt0
*holds fist up with narin in gingerheaded solidarity.
- discipler0
exador, you may believe that fairy tale if you choose. But honest investigators will quickly realize that it's about new science threatening old science and the atheistic fundamentalists who hold so dearly to their materialistic philosophy and will do anything to keep it from being taken away in the scientific arena.
There are I.D. proponents who are agnostic, Jewish and Unitarian. So, stop perpetuating falsehood.
And I'm the only one here who defends this because you have here a discussion forum dominated by agnostics and materialists. I'd wager I'm one of maybe two Christians here.
- kelpie0
*swivels round
*points and laughs at the other ginge
- Nairn0
Fuck this, I'd rather spend the rest of my life trying to prove how the world does work, rather than disproving how it doesn't.
// One Love.
- ribit0
"ribit, darwinian processes have no mechanism capable of producing information"
sure they can... I'm not sure what you mean by "producing information" (making things up?), but natural evolutionary processes can produce ever more complex organisms with ever more complex informationn encoded and passed on to subsequent generations in the DNA.
I think people who say 'look how amazing these creatures are, surely they need a designer" are forgetting that part of what is so amazing about the creatures is that they are self-replicating, evolving creatures in their very definition... what I mean is that evolution doesnt sit outside the lifeforms and act on them.... but the very nature of the lifeforms (and why they have succeeded) is in their evolutionary nature...
- IRNlun60
"when science points infers design, it opens up doors to discuss WHO the designer might be. But again, that's for philosophers to discuss. I.D. only identifies the design.
discipler
(Sep 30 05, 07:13)"Again I'm being overly simplistic here but from what you said, the end result of ID is to open up the discussion of WHO the designer might be; A discussion to define the presumed designer by philosophical analysis.
- ********0
Haha this thread is tons funner with dis on ignore. It's llie Nairn is arguing with himself. Bwhaha!
arinya
------------------
I have to say I have increased my enjoyment of this forum one hundred fold by having Discipler on ignore for months now.The funny part is, even though he is on ignore, I know exactly what he's saying and know he will appear only in threads about ID, God, Religion or Satan. I have even developed a little Discipler inside my brain who speaks to me and says "Yes, but what about the micro-evolution!! Unexplainable without an Intelligent Designer!" or "The pre-Cambian era disproves the main thesis of evolutionary theory!" and "Of course, there were Witnesses! It says so in Scripture!! What more proof do you need!!"
Everyone should have an inner discipler - it's fun!!
- Nairn0
*Wonders why God would be so cruel as to make so few of us Ginger.
* Points and laughs at everyone else. Though, quite nervously.
- Nairn0
100!