You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from traderNik:
D2.0, I noticed that your response to this was 'Got a million years?'. Just wanted you to know that we tried to make the Disgusting Troll (aka ZZZzzzzzzz) understand this point last year in the long ID thread he 'hosted'. In it, he asserts that the apparently finite human life span is proof that humans will not evolve. We patiently tried to explain to him that a million years is a long time and the life span of our distant progeny may be measured in centuries. Indeed, life spans have changing rapidly, in epochal terms, and many biogeneticists believe that there is no reason that humans shouldn't double their current life spans within a few thousand years.
Not sure how much experience you have with this creature ZZZ. He is ET's most hated member, a lying hypocrite whose pathetic life is consumed by his efforts to troll anonymous internet boards. He is an alcoholic currently in relapse. His marriage apparently failed due to his drinking. He has suggested that the children of other ET members be threatened with pedophilic rape (this was suggested as a good joke). He has been banned three times from this site, but remains because of the page views he generates. He lies through his teeth and contradicts himself with no hesitation if he believes he can get a rise out of his prey. He is despised equally by those on the right and on the left. For a great explanation of this pathetic loser, please see this post
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...302784&highlight=troll+zoologists#post1302784
It would be a mistake to expect anything resembling an intellectual exchange with this idiot. He will simply ignore those arguments which he cannot refute, and will accuse you of 'ad hominem, red herring or INOC (??)' if you attempt to point out the gaps in his logic. If you really back him into a corner, he will start to respond to your posts by cutting and pasting your text and then posting it as his response, or in extreme cases, he will post pictures of pink rabbits sniffing their fingers. I have driven driven the Disgusting Troll to these extremes a few times - good luck if you attempt to own him for kicks.
Thanks for the heads-up. Nice to have a confirmation of initial thoughts. New policy has been ratified.
TraderNik,
Arguments should be judged on their merits regardless of the source. If you can't do that then get off this thread.
Arguments should be judged on their merits regardless of the source. If you can't do that then get off this thread.
So much for the "ignore" crapola.
In answer to your foolish question, they make artificial plants that appear to have random leaves...
Interior designers place rocks and plants to appear just like nature in a home.
All by design.
So if itty bitty brained human beings can make things appear "natural" it ain't much of a stretch at all to think a designer of the entire universe can make natural happenings appear both designed and not designed at the same time...
It is just programming, for which it is not necessary to know the programmer to understand that a program is running...
Programmed randomness is still a program, by design.
In answer to your foolish question, they make artificial plants that appear to have random leaves...
Interior designers place rocks and plants to appear just like nature in a home.
All by design.
So if itty bitty brained human beings can make things appear "natural" it ain't much of a stretch at all to think a designer of the entire universe can make natural happenings appear both designed and not designed at the same time...
It is just programming, for which it is not necessary to know the programmer to understand that a program is running...
Programmed randomness is still a program, by design.
Quote from D2.0:
They can make a living cell? Or a plant?
Links please.
Quote from D2.0:
Jesus, this shouldn't be too hard for you, all things considered, but could you provide some proof of your assertions in that post above?
TIA.
Suicide is the biggest problem in the world that the world is in total denial of.
More people die from suicide than are killed by all of the wars and all of the crime in the world combined.
As I've explained, the origin of the world is akin to shooting yourself in the head with a shotgun.
This was done as you felt guilt as a result of the idea that you - God's treasure - could separate yourself from Him...depriving Him of His kingdom.
This set up a false premise for which you feared reprisal. This set up all kinds of responses...defenses...attacks.
So the world is about depression and attack.
The thinking mechanism that helped you make this world does not want you to examine what makes this world turn: unconscious guilt.
After all, it went to great length to hide it by inventing a "subconscious" to hide it in! It's motive is its own longevity...to make time last forever.
So the real motive for depression and suicide is not examined: unconscious guilt.
As just one example, more firefighters die from suicide than are ever killed in fires.
Nobody wants to talk about it.
If someone is depressed, the system will put them on drugs and never look at the reasons.
The world is a kind of "drug", giving you just enough distractions to keep you from looking at what's underneath: attack and depression.
That is why I said, as recorded in the "Gospel of Thomas":
"I stood in the world and found them all drunk, and I did not find an of them thirsty. They came into the world empty, and they seek to leave the world empty. But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, they will open their eyes."
And because the world is based on attack, I said in another place (G of T):
"Congratulations to those who know where the rebels are going to attack. They can get going, collect their Divine resources, and be prepared before the rebels arrive."
And,
"Congratulations to the person who has forgiven and has found life".
The "rebels" always attack from the direction of "guilt". In this world, guilt is found north, south, east and west.
But innocence is found within.
Find your Divine resources and not one trace of guilt will remain in your unconscious mind. At that point, you will break the cycle of birth and death.
Jesus
Quote from D2.0:
Jesus, this shouldn't be too hard for you, all things considered, but could you provide some proof of your assertions in that post above?
TIA.
Regarding the topic at hand, and my comments on migration, you will get the most benefit by studying the scientific concept of "panspermia".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
But remember: I am describing how the dream functions. Yet it is still a dream, and it does not exist. This is just so you can wake up.
In the universe of form, the seeds of life hobnob between far-flung celestial locations. RNA and DNA were actually seeded, or imported from beyond your solar system. It existed in other places simultaneously.
Again, don't let this be an excuse to take your eye off the ball.
It's about forgiveness, so you can wake up.
Jesus
I agree and I'm not aware of any ID scientist that equates any chemical process to an engine. What they equate to an engine are things the peer-reviewed literature refers to as "molecular machines". In an article entitled, The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines, Bruce Alberts, then president of the National Academy of Sciences stated:Quote from D2.0:
For instance, a certain chemical process "looks like" an engine.
The engine is not a wholly compatible frame of reference to the biological chemical process.
He is referring to examples like these for the F-ATP synthase:The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . .Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts ..
and for the flagellumWith parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1-ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is."
Science News vol 151, p173
and so"the flagellum resembles a machine designed by humans."
Cell 93, 17-20
These are not analogies, these systems are machines. In fact, some labs have already attached the flagellar motor to nonbiological surfaces and fed them ATP and they worked as if thats what they naturally did.we need to think almost in engineering terms about transmission shafts, mounting plates and bushings.
Trend in Genetics, 6/91
As one nanotech article put it in scientific american:
We can begin to answer these intriguing questions by asking a more ordinary one: What is a machine? Of the many definitions, I choose to take a machine to be "a device for performing a task." Going further, a machine has a design; it is constructed following some process; it uses power; it operates according to information built into it when it is fabricated. Although machines are commonly considered to be the products of human design and intention, why shouldn't a complex molecular system that performs a function also be considered a machine...Issues of teleology aside, and accepting this broad definition, nanoscale machines already do exist, in the form of the functional molecular components of living cells--such as molecules of protein or RNA, aggregates of molecules, and organelles ("little organs")--in enormous variety and sophistication. The broad question of whether nanoscale machines exist is thus one that was answered in the affirmative by biologists many years ago.
I make no necessary claims that anything must be designed but design is the prima facie interpretation when confronted with a machine. Polanyi, argued in 1967 that âmachines are irreducible to physics and chemistryâ.
Michael Polanyi once wrote:
Under the sub-heading "The machinery of life"
an article in Physics Today says:
One can view life as carbon-based nanotechnology or one can view life as something strung together by an irrational tinkerer.
Neither view can be absolutely proven, so for now all that matters is which perspective will help us better understand biotic reality. Time will tell.
Life itself is machine-dependent.If all men were exterminated, this would not effect the laws of inanimate nature. But the production of machines would stop, and not until men arose once again could machines be formed once more.
Under the sub-heading "The machinery of life"
an article in Physics Today says:
Molecular machines are the basis of life. DNA, a long molecule that encodes the blueprints to create an organism, may be life's information storage medium, but it needs a bevy of machines to read and translate that information into action. The cell's nanometer-scale machines are mostly protein molecules, although a few are made from RNA, and they are capable of surprisingly complex manipulations. They perform almost all the important active tasks in the cell: metabolism, reproduction, response to changes in the environment, and so forth. They are incredibly sophisticated, and they, not their manmade counterparts, represent the pinnacle of nanotechnology.
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-5/p38.html
One can view life as carbon-based nanotechnology or one can view life as something strung together by an irrational tinkerer.
Neither view can be absolutely proven, so for now all that matters is which perspective will help us better understand biotic reality. Time will tell.
If you ask me what would cause me to merely suspect design I would point to certain aspects of biotic reality that look much more like products of advanced bioengineering and nanotechnology than the tinkering of a blind watchmaker. "Much of what we call biology is really nanotechnology ," says Michael J. Heller, a professor of bioengineering.quote for D2.0:
So I ask you, how do you know what constitues evidence of design and what doesn't?
This of course is not the same as absolute proof of design but I'm not aware of any design theorist that claims they have absolute proof of design. What they have are good reasons to suspect design and they are investigating further to determine if additional data strengthens or weakens their initial suspicion. Nowhere does the supernatural enter the picture. There is nothing supernatural about bioengineering and nanotechnology.
Metaphorical language does not make for evidence of design.
Here's what I mean by that.
Take the word "tree."
We know what a tree is. It's a plant that has certain distinct characteristics from other types of plants.
We sometimes metaphorically use the word when speaking of genealogy.
"Family tree."
Obviously, a family tree is not a species of tree. But the language was used because metaphorically, one's lineage "branches" off like the branches of an Oak.
But no one confuses a family tree with actual trees. At least I hope not.
Likewise, because a chemical process "behaves" like an engine, does not make it one. It's just a chemical process. Why is it not an engine? Because the concept of an engine was not derived from observing some natural chemical process and then mimicing it. Just ask Thomas Savery and Thomas Newcomen. Inventors of the steam engine way back in the 1600's. And Watt who improved on the design. None of them looked at some natural process that resembled what you might think of today as having the qualities of an engine and then said, "eureka!"
Nope. Not evidence of design. Unfortunately. It's just evidence of a type of chemical process which when investigated further turns out to be necessarily common in biological organisms.
From any rational point of view, the way our engines work (mechanical-man made) and the way these chemical processes that have been metaphorically described work is purely incidental.
So for all it's worth, this is what you are proposing:
(A)If our man made engines work a certain way because they are a product of design, (B)then anything that resembles our man made engines, even if only in principle, must necessarily be a product of design.
Veddy bad logic my friend. That's called fallacy of composition. Among others like undistributive middle, anecdotal fallacy, etc.
So I reiterate: Do you have any objective criteria for determining what would constitute evidence of design and by necessity, what wouldn't?
Keep in mind, you need to take care to avoid criteria that may lead to circular evidence and by extension, circular reasoning.
Anyway, I'm asking you because I can't conceptualize what objective criteria would consist of. I can think up a bunch of subjective criteria. Not that it hasn't been done before.
Good luck. Best wishes. I'll be keeping an eye out for it. This could be a real breakthrough in the field of Intelligent Design Theory.
Just think, I'll can quietly take credit for provoking you towards discovering all that good stuff. Thought makes me giddy.
Here's what I mean by that.
Take the word "tree."
We know what a tree is. It's a plant that has certain distinct characteristics from other types of plants.
We sometimes metaphorically use the word when speaking of genealogy.
"Family tree."
Obviously, a family tree is not a species of tree. But the language was used because metaphorically, one's lineage "branches" off like the branches of an Oak.
But no one confuses a family tree with actual trees. At least I hope not.
Likewise, because a chemical process "behaves" like an engine, does not make it one. It's just a chemical process. Why is it not an engine? Because the concept of an engine was not derived from observing some natural chemical process and then mimicing it. Just ask Thomas Savery and Thomas Newcomen. Inventors of the steam engine way back in the 1600's. And Watt who improved on the design. None of them looked at some natural process that resembled what you might think of today as having the qualities of an engine and then said, "eureka!"
Nope. Not evidence of design. Unfortunately. It's just evidence of a type of chemical process which when investigated further turns out to be necessarily common in biological organisms.
From any rational point of view, the way our engines work (mechanical-man made) and the way these chemical processes that have been metaphorically described work is purely incidental.
So for all it's worth, this is what you are proposing:
(A)If our man made engines work a certain way because they are a product of design, (B)then anything that resembles our man made engines, even if only in principle, must necessarily be a product of design.
Veddy bad logic my friend. That's called fallacy of composition. Among others like undistributive middle, anecdotal fallacy, etc.
So I reiterate: Do you have any objective criteria for determining what would constitute evidence of design and by necessity, what wouldn't?
Keep in mind, you need to take care to avoid criteria that may lead to circular evidence and by extension, circular reasoning.
Anyway, I'm asking you because I can't conceptualize what objective criteria would consist of. I can think up a bunch of subjective criteria. Not that it hasn't been done before.
Good luck. Best wishes. I'll be keeping an eye out for it. This could be a real breakthrough in the field of Intelligent Design Theory.
Just think, I'll can quietly take credit for provoking you towards discovering all that good stuff. Thought makes me giddy.