intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- mrdobolina0
well, I have heard discipler say that things decay and cegrade over time they dont get "better" for lack of a better word.
but technology and things like that seem to get more advanced all the time, doesnt that contradict his point?
- deep_throat0
actually mr dobs, look at the simple mathematical set-up of the life game
http://www.math.com/students/won…
things become more and more complex and keep going for inifnity! and that is by pure chance and randomness!!
see, somethings are just not to observed using the second law of thermodynamics.
- mrdobolina0
makes sense to me, I dont know ID is just a backhanded way of religion infiltrating public schools IMO.
- deep_throat0
ofcourse it is dobs!
*loads the bong, takes a hit, watches the life game, then passes bong to mrdobolina
- deep_throat0
*hears discipler in the distance frantically searchin evangellical websites in reply to the life game.
- mrdobolina0
haha, who are you deep throat? you obviously arent new.
- deep_throat0
i am a fella who got banned yesterday, had all my accounts removed, had my ip blocked and have managed to get back in
but shhhh, if you figure out who i am, tell no one.! ;)
*clue - sensitive god damn americans!!!! ;)
- discipler0
Conway's life game is one of many number generating engines that have no basis in reality. The issue we are discussing is how does nothingness produce something? How does no matter, produce matter? Life at it's core may be made up of strings of energy, or some other particle, but this is an effect. It is matter. Einstein's general relativity demonstrates that matter and energy are synonymous and both ultimately require a cause. Number generators begin with a material premise. They only push the issue of origins back a step. Again, go and read Dembski's treatments which I linked.
- mrdobolina0
any one of disciplers posts could be interchanged with any other one and this thread would continue to grow.
- discipler0
it's amazing how much i have to repeat myself.
- deep_throat0
exactly discipler, they do only push the issue of orignis back a step.
how come this universe that we exist in, in the inifitiy of universes that exist out there, how is this universe so finely balanced, that even if one number is misplaced, then reality as we know it, does not exist? but you see what is happening is that god is being pushed further and further back, to the point, and i really want to stress this, that he is no longer necessary for the spontaneous existence of life.
you misunderstand the life game as a theoretical model. It is very informative if you take a look at it.
Yes it is only a model, but it can shown that these pictures on a computer can make astounding patterns. Moreover they can create a WORKABLE COMPUTER! Just by drawin a pattern and pressing GO.
This universe has rules that determine the speed of life, the power of gravity, attractiveness of electrons.
What Conway's life game shows is that with these simple rules, press GO, and the whole complexity of life, the whole process by which the universe becomes conscious of itself becomes fathomable.
Wow!!!!
- deep_throat0
it's amazing how much i have to repeat myself.
discipler
(Sep 30 05, 11:46)yes ,because most people are trying to progress the argument whilst your playing loop the loop games
- deep_throat0
i shud add addendum to my last but one post
*i mean speadd of light where i said speed of life
**the life game is merely there to demonstrate, categorically, that mad complexity can occur out of nowhere, to the point that even humanbeings can recognise things - like ants, a computer that generates prime numbers etc...
- discipler0
1. There is no infinity of universes. This is not even a theory, it's an exotic notion to avoid the design inference. It's properly called the "multiverse" idea.
2. Our planet and the relevant laws are physics are perfectly fine-tuned to support organic life. This supports the notion that there is a designer behind it.
3. I can't believe you actually said that about going farther and farther back. This is called an infinite regression of causes and yes, they will continue going back until you arrive at an uncaused-first-cause. Again, points to an eternal causal entity.
4. Physicists have concluded that the game of life does not resemble what we know about life at the sub atomic level. 1. The game of life generator had an intelligent entity as it's author. 2. No one has produced a working computer in the real world by drawing a pattern and pressing "go" in the real world and if they did, they would be the intelligent causal entity.
So, if I follow Conway's reasoning, I'm required to have a designer draw up and establish the rules and then press the go button. So, thanks for helping illustrate my point.
- discipler0
and no, "mad complexity" has never been demonstrated to spontaneously happen out of "nowhere". There is always an intelligent entity at it's source. Laws and matter do not generate themselves from nothing. Certainly anyone can see the logic there.
Someone designed the computer that generates random numbers.
- ********0
imo, it's never a step backwards taking a look at other alternatives. No matter what you might be talking about.
If that were the case we'd still be going by the 'flat world'.
- discipler0
good point, jazX. And by the way, there was never a time that "religious" people believed in a flat earth. That's an urban myth of sorts.
- ********0
right, you knew what I meant.
- megatron51500
wow politics and religion.... go figure....
liquid
(Sep 30 05, 10:24)I couldn't agree more. Remember, when arguing one's "opinions," other people may not have the same "opinion" and you'll get nowhere, or everyone will get mad.
I'm atheist, and you know what, I usually save myself a lot of pointless arguing by not discussing politics and religion.
- deep_throat0
discipler why is it so HARD for you to understand what is going on here?
The rules that Conway, yes CREATED are infinitly more simple than the rules of the Universe. The rules of the universe deal with gravity, chemical reactions etc. etc....
What Conway tried to show is that with any SYTEM with RULES (such as ours) can appear chaotic when you press GO (hypothetically speaking) yet still end up producing MAD COMPLEXITY.
How those rules have arisen, yes you can feasibly place god there - but god seems to be on a slippery slope and the cliff is getting shorter and shorter.
What i'm trying to demonstrate to you, that a seemingly random act (i me moving my mouse over the life game board) can produce MAD COMPLEXITY, This puts to rest your theory that the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution, as we see patterns emerging on the life game board, to the point that some of them look like organisms behaving in a certain way, emerging simply from dots on the board. Macroevolution?
Perhaps. It must be remembered that it is subjective human experience seeing these patterns, but then so it is when you say crazy shit like "super-computer complexity of dna".