intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- mrdobolina0
who do you believe is the intelligent designer, discipler?
be honest now...
- discipler0
liquid - we've already discussed why i post here. I don't begin the threads, i just contribute my (unpopular) viewpoint. It's not my fault that these issues involve philosophical and theological discussions. And there is a scriptural precedent for removing the obstacles to theism through intelligent discourse.
- discipler0
...even if much of the discourse in these discussions is not so intelligent.
- mrdobolina0
no answer to my question then...
also, you are the copy/paste king. why is it not ok for me to do the same?
- discipler0
dobs, no answer because I've answered that question of your's, countless times. You know the answer and you know why i've arrived at that conclusion.
And you'll be dissapointed to know that the only thing I've copy and pasted in this thread are hyperlinks. Don't be intimidated.
- mrdobolina0
intimidated? cmon.
- liquid0
discipler...I wont even get into it.... but I think you are wasting your breath... intelligent discourse is not going to help...not to mention they dont think what you are talking about is intelligent... they feel that most of what we have to say is based on emotion and not intellect....on faith and not fact... and in part...they are right...
but I encourage you to STOP POSTING IN JUST THESE threads...although for about a year now you have not done anything but the opposite...
if you want to waste your time here...be my guest...
- discipler0
wrong on both counts, liquid. Anyone with half a brain knows that I'm 1 of only 2 or 3 people in these threads who calmly lays out the data, sans emotion.
(cries and screams)
secondly, you don't read every thread obviously. Just the other day I contributed to a political thread. Just to make mrdobs happy, of course.
- pavlovs_dog0
i believe in the bigfoot.
dead serius.
- liquid0
wow politics and religion.... go figure....
- deep_throat0
anybody still juvenile enough to believe that there must be a single, cogent, concsience, moral, being to design life (though i think most of us are mature enough not to fall for that one) should take a look at the work of the mathmetician John Conway, and his game of life.
http://www.math.com/students/won…
It demonstrates how complexity can emerge out of the most chaotic "simplicity" in an infinite universe with inifite interrations and variations. to quote:
"[the life gam] is the study of how elaborate patterns and behaviors can emerge from very simple rules. It helps us understand, for example, how the petals on a rose or the stripes on a zebra can arise from a tissue of living cells growing together. It can even help us understand the diversity of life that has evolved on earth."
Theoretically, it is absolutely possible, to use the rules of Conways Life Game, to build a supercomputer, simply by the actions of cells dictated by the rule "if cell has three neigbours, die, if two replicate, if one die".
Theoretically if you had an infinite number of Life gameboards, whose size was inifintily big - then you can be guaranteed that one of them will be a supercomputer.
The concept is similar to an inifinite number of monkeys on an infnite number of typewriters producing the works of shakespeare.
In fact, some starting patterns for life the life game have been used to generate only prime numbers. A basic computer.
to quote again:
" A universal constructor can even be built. This is a pattern that can take a blueprint for some other Life pattern (or its own) and build that pattern. No one has built this yet, since it would be very large, but it has been shown to be possible. This means that Life patterns could exist that reproduce themselves. They could even modify their blueprints just as living things combine and mutate their genes. Who can say what would develop in a large enough universe of reproducing Life patterns?"
What intelligent desingers don't understand when they gawk at DNA or cells, is the boundlessness of our universe. amongst a see of universes,
it's another aesthetic way of looking at existent, that appreciates how quickly and naturally complex patterns emerges and flourish from the simplest of beginnings.
Who needs god anyway????
- ********0
- gruntt0
it's all about fucking, y'all.
- ********0
Girls, cars, money = evolution!!
- mrdobolina0
it's all about fucking, y'all.
(in effeminate southern accent)
gruntt
(Sep 30 05, 10:56)
- discipler0
If you want to talk mathematics and probabilites, your man is MIT mathematician, Dr. William Dembski. He demonstrates clearly how non cognizant materials do not and never have produced organic life spontaneously.
http://www.designinference.com/d…
http://www.designinference.com/d…
He demonstrates the impossible probabilities involved. It's important to note that science, even under the manipulation of intelligent entities, has never produced irreducibly complex organisms.
People can speculate on exotic theories of pansperma and multiverses as long as they want to. It only demonstrates the desperation that people will go to get away from the theistic implications of design. And these theories only end up pushing the issue of origins back a step and end in a infinite regression of causes (really effects).
Information (as in DNA) has only been produced by intelligent entities. The same goes for the molecular machines we see in irreducibly complex organisms. Once cannot escape the smell of design here.
- gruntt0
that goes without saying mrdob.
*scratches ball through the bottom of short cut denim nutters.
- mrdobolina0
hahahaa
- deep_throat0
discipler, you're dodging the question and dodging Conway's life game. open an applet in the link i gave you. Create a random pattern with your moust. Zoom out to 0, and click go. It's amazing watching this shit (even more stoned!). They look like a colony of ants sometimes, as other crazy psychos killing each other up.
And this is only based on the most simplest of simple rules.
The rules that exist in the universe are infinitly complex!
Multiverse, etc, might be a "desperate" attempt to get awy from theism by you - but once you read into scientists observance of string theory, light wave/particle duality and shit, it does, seem to point to the viability of some of these more perplexing theories.
remember science, by its definition is there to prove cause and effect, and this can, inevitably lead to some highly complex thiking (such as string theory etc.) it is not the job of science to say "shit, i dont know where these neutrinos are simply popping up from, i guess it must be God farting"
But seriously, play with the life game, its fun!
- deep_throat0
now disciplers gonna argu against quantum physics. this'll be fun.....