Intelligent design and extinctions

[stu]

Quote from yip1997:

I don't suggest or infer. Mass extinction alone doesn't have enough data to make any inference. Both intelligent design and unintelligent design are possible.

Where there is known to be intelligent design, it seems intrinsic to that design process does it not, that there is a specific avoidance of what would generally be considered as an unintelligent indiscriminate repeated extinction of design to acheive design.

You look again, and it is noticeable there is a constant repeated wholesale extinction of design at low, medium, high, and mass levels.
There is enough data there to make a strong start. There is a clear differentation between those two design processes.

Quote from yip1997:

It is possible that a natural design is an intelligent design.

A description commonly recognized as artificial design.
I think it fair to say, natural design is that which does not show and would not need any intelligent interaction, and which has characteristics allowing it to form and develop entirely by its own means.

Quote from yip1997:

There is an "intelligent" software system that can write software codes when a specification is given.

The system starts from random codes. The codes then reproduce and mutate in each iteration. Most of codes are destroyed in each iteration, and only those that fit the specification are allowed to reproduce and mutate. The final product is the software that fits the specification.

Is that system "intelligent"? We both have our own choices to decide if it is intelligent, and I don't offer an decision for you.

That sounds just like artificial intelligence.

Quote from yip1997:

Is the designer of that software system intelligent? I would think so because he doesn't have to write codes anymore.

Your point please? Are you proposing the universe has been artificially designed?

 

[stu]

Quote from I am...:

God could not create anything that is not perfect, or else He would not be perfect. If God is perfect and eternal, then by definition, anything He creates must be perfect and eternal.

Not even Stu can defy this logic.


Jesus

What logic ..where dude..??

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"Where there is known to be intelligent design, it seems intrinsic to that design process does it not, that there is a specific avoidance of what would generally be considered as an unintelligent indiscriminate repeated extinction of design to acheive design."

Each design has a purpose. Explain how it would be reasonable for a human being with a tiny little brain, limited senses, limited tools would be in a position to comprehend the purpose of a Designer of the entire Universe and all of life itself?

Can a child of two understand all the science we have of today? This example of a child of two being incapable of understanding something limited and not complete, i.e. science, is easy enough to understand, as a two year old child lacks the capacity and intellectual development necessary to understand fully even one single branch of science. Few fully developed adults actually understand even one single branch of science....so to assume that even the most fully developed human being could understand the purpose of a Designer's design would be limited to the level of development of the adult formulating that opinion.

Just as children complain that it is "not fair" what their parents do, they don't even have a true understanding of what "fair" actually is...

Now, if you think you are on an intellectual equivalent of one who could design and create all of life, who could understand the purpose of such an intelligence....well, then you really do have a God complex.

The story of a great novel is never understood by examining of a few pages of one chapter, especially when the reader is of a kindergarten level of reading and understanding of the human experience. At best the children look for pictures in the novel, or end up judging the book by the picture and whatever is on the cover...

You are as usually found, spending effort applying your own human level of understanding, a limited, a flawed, a two dimensional relativistic and self absorbed point of view to offer answers to questions of what a creator of the universe would have intended in the design of the universe.

Quote from stu:

Where there is known to be intelligent design, it seems intrinsic to that design process does it not, that there is a specific avoidance of what would generally be considered as an unintelligent indiscriminate repeated extinction of design to acheive design.

You look again, and it is noticeable there is a constant repeated wholesale extinction of design at low, medium, high, and mass levels.
There is enough data there to make a strong start. There is a clear differentation between those two design processes.

A description commonly recognized as artificial design.
I think it fair to say, natural design is that which does not show and would not need any intelligent interaction, and which has characteristics allowing it to form and develop entirely by its own means.
That sounds just like artificial intelligence.

Your point please? Are you proposing the universe has been artificially designed?

 

[yip1997]

Quote from stu:

That sounds just like artificial intelligence.
Yes. It is artificial intelligence that simulates the natural intelligence or the natural evolution.


Your point please? Are you proposing the universe has been artificially designed?

It is possible. I believe (no proof here) the natural evolution process has intelligence built-in.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Hansel H:

Some scientists, in particular those of the 'Rare Earth' school have worked ot the 'Anthropic Coincidences' probability to be > 10^(-120); that's a mighty slim chance derived from consideration of a needed chain of cosmological, chemical, and physical coincidences.

Other scientists suggest different, but more or less similarly unimaginable odds. None of these estimates can be taken as anything other than extremely rough approximations but it seems reasonable that if there was a moment before the Big Bang and before the parameters necessary for human existence were determined the odds against the eventual appearance of human life were at that moment unimaginably huge.

The probability at this moment of the Universe being compatible with human life is of course 1.0 .

The God probability, of course, is impossible to assess. It might be zero; it might not.

If there is God, God needn't be some cartoon character in the sky; the Universe itself may be God. God may be something related to our own mindstuff that is present throughout the Universe like salt is in the sea, etc., etc, etc...

There may be ways to use probablity in the God debate but I don't see how, given that the pro-God odds can't be assessed.

The simplest means of using "probability in the God debate" is to determine if it is within the realm of probability that life could have arisen by random chance and nothing more. If so, then there is no particularly good reason to infer God/ID, because there is a natural answer, for which there is direct (albeit admittedly slim) evidence.

As an example of something which is incredibly improbable and yet simultaneously demonstrable in the comfort of your own home, I give you: http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html

The above-referenced bit of (scientifically accurate) humor shows that organic life could have arisen by random chance, despite the seemingly incomprehensible odds against such an occurrence.

Doubtlessly, no one's mind will be swayed by the above -- but, it's a pretty powerful demonstration of how the seemingly impossible can and does occur.

 

[stu]

Quote from yip1997:

It is possible. I believe (no proof here) the natural evolution process has intelligence built-in.

Yes, but why do you believe that?
I am interested to hear because there appears no substantial reason or evidence anywhere, as to why a process of natural evolution should have intelligence built into its design process, thereby making it an artificial design process.

Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying you should not believe anything you want, but on the basis, "it is possible" , anything is possible, even in the face of all evidence, knowledge and understanding that a contrary is the case.
On those terms there is no meaningful conersation to be had. Is there?

 

[armoured saint]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"Where there is known to be intelligent design, it seems intrinsic to that design process does it not, that there is a specific avoidance of what would generally be considered as an unintelligent indiscriminate repeated extinction of design to acheive design."

Each design has a purpose. Explain how it would be reasonable for a human being with a tiny little brain, limited senses, limited tools would be in a position to comprehend the purpose of a Designer of the entire Universe and all of life itself?

Can a child of two understand all the science we have of today? This example of a child of two being incapable of understanding something limited and not complete, i.e. science, is easy enough to understand, as a two year old child lacks the capacity and intellectual development necessary to understand fully even one single branch of science. Few fully developed adults actually understand even one single branch of science....so to assume that even the most fully developed human being could understand the purpose of a Designer's design would be limited to the level of development of the adult formulating that opinion.

Just as children complain that it is "not fair" what their parents do, they don't even have a true understanding of what "fair" actually is...

Now, if you think you are on an intellectual equivalent of one who could design and create all of life, who could understand the purpose of such an intelligence....well, then you really do have a God complex.

The story of a great novel is never understood by examining of a few pages of one chapter, especially when the reader is of a kindergarten level of reading and understanding of the human experience. At best the children look for pictures in the novel, or end up judging the book by the picture and whatever is on the cover...

You are as usually found, spending effort applying your own human level of understanding, a limited, a flawed, a two dimensional relativistic and self absorbed point of view to offer answers to questions of what a creator of the universe would have intended in the design of the universe.

The flaw with your argument is you
assume that because we can't know
everything about The Designer we
can't know anything about It. We don't
have to understand everything about a
subject or thing to know SOMETHING
about it. Even a child can do arithmetic, and come up with a RIGHT answer.

Why should you assume that we cannot
know at least SOMETHING about the purpose
of the Designer?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You can never know the real intended purpose of a designer by examination of a design alone, especially when our own human mind itself would be a product of the design of a designer of the Universe.

A computer program cannot know who is the programmer, nor their reason, nor their purpose in writing the program...then again, neither can the computer itself know the computer programmer...

Knowing "something" about "something" doesn't reveal the truth of the whole...

My guess is the person who started this thread is having some issues with their personal faith, and is trying to deal with that problem on a purely "logical" level.

In the end he will either put his faith in his doubts which are a product of his own human mind, or he will put his faith in God to attempt to rise above the limits of his own human mind.

Quote from armoured saint:

The flaw with your argument is you
assume that because we can't know
everything about The Designer we
can't know anything about It. We don't
have to understand everything about a
subject or thing to know SOMETHING
about it. Even a child can do arithmetic, and come up with a RIGHT answer.

Why should you assume that we cannot
know at least SOMETHING about the purpose
of the Designer?

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"Where there is known to be intelligent design, it seems intrinsic to that design process does it not, that there is a specific avoidance of what would generally be considered as an unintelligent indiscriminate repeated extinction of design to acheive design."

Each design has a purpose. Explain how it would be reasonable for a human being with a tiny little brain, limited senses, limited tools would be in a position to comprehend the purpose of a Designer of the entire Universe and all of life itself?

Can a child of two understand all the science we have of today? This example of a child of two being incapable of understanding something limited and not complete, i.e. science, is easy enough to understand, as a two year old child lacks the capacity and intellectual development necessary to understand fully even one single branch of science. Few fully developed adults actually understand even one single branch of science....so to assume that even the most fully developed human being could understand the purpose of a Designer's design would be limited to the level of development of the adult formulating that opinion.


Just as children complain that it is "not fair" what their parents do, they don't even have a true understanding of what "fair" actually is...

Now, if you think you are on an intellectual equivalent of one who could design and create all of life, who could understand the purpose of such an intelligence....well, then you really do have a God complex.

The story of a great novel is never understood by examining of a few pages of one chapter, especially when the reader is of a kindergarten level of reading and understanding of the human experience. At best the children look for pictures in the novel, or end up judging the book by the picture and whatever is on the cover...

You are as usually found, spending effort applying your own human level of understanding, a limited, a flawed, a two dimensional relativistic and self absorbed point of view to offer answers to questions of what a creator of the universe would have intended in the design of the universe.

It does not take a genius to figure out that extinctions are evidence of POOR design, since if the now extinct species had been designed properly, they would have been able to survive and would not have been extinct in the first place.

It seems illogical that an intelligent designer would create something poorly designed. This so-called intelligent designer must be a hack, or, more likely, non-existent.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Evidence of extinctions are evidence of extinctions.

Period.

Why they happened may be due to poor design, but there are other possibilities.

When you watch a play, you see some characters come into the play in the first act, play their part, then leave not to return to the second act. Their part is "extinct" in the second and third acts of the play.

The playwright knows why he wrote their parts into extinction, and if the play accomplishes his goal perfectly, then the extinctions were perfect, not poorly designed.

No offense, but you really do need to expand your horizons, let go of the trappings of your religion that are incongruent with your relativistic logic, and simply have faith in God to guide you if you trust in Him.

Quote from smilingsynic:

It does not take a genius to figure out that extinctions are evidence of POOR design, since if the now extinct species had been designed properly, they would have been able to survive and would not have been extinct in the first place.

It seems illogical that an intelligent designer would create something poorly designed. This so-called intelligent designer must be a hack, or, more likely, non-existent.