RE: The Contradiction:

RE: The Contradiction: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/3/2008 11:33:23 PM)
quote: Would you accept that living entities are static? No, I just no that 'morph' isn't a particularly scientific term. quote: No jhud, you presume it requires intelligence to exist but after it begins to mutate and undergo selection, we don't know if the original entity required intelligence or not . There is no way to ascertain that unless we can go back to the day the the original living "artefact" emerged. What we see today has no where near the properties of its first ancestor. We know what the basic of life consist of because all life shares the essential elements of the genome and molecular machinery - and they couldn't arise unguided, unless you have extraordinary evidence to the contrary. And contradicting yourself by saying, "we don't know if the original entity required intelligence or not ", and "What we see today has no where near the properties of its first ancestor. " isn't helping your argument either - either you know or you don't, you can't have it both ways - though I would bet on the latter.

essentialsaltes -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 12:10:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud But to say that our understanding of information driven systems and their requirements can tell us nothing about the requirements of life is utter nonsense and indicative of a lack of knowledge about the make-up of modern information systems as well as the genetics and molecular machinery that are integral to the function of a cell. I daresay the development of the modern computer bears no resemblance to either the ID or the evolutionary picture of how life evolves. quote: You are confusing 'appearance', which is a product of intelligent interpretation, with attributes, which are objective. The genome by no acccount 'resembles' an information system, it is an information system. Modern biologists know this. At a certain level of abstraction, DNA 'codes' for amino acids, but at the level of chemistry, it's just molecules bumping into each other. To perform its function, there is no need for either an intelligent codewriter or an intelligent codereader. quote: quote: It begs the question to automatically sweep life into the designed category with a 'must' statement. Rather, we should look for the evidence. Where are the toolmarks? Where is the designer's logo? Where is the material evidence? What differentiates the theory of evolution on its own from the theory of evolution-with-designer? You are of course speaking exactly like the derisive terresrialists of my analogy - which tells me I was right on the mark. Your views are Victorian, try spending some time in the 21st century where we know something about the requirements of information systems. My questions have been answered with slurs. Very well.

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 8:52:47 AM)
quote: I daresay the development of the modern computer bears no resemblance to either the ID or the evolutionary picture of how life evolves. Actually, we aren’t particularly talking about how life ‘evolves’, but how it came to exist – and the requirements for information system driven machinery are the same whether such systems are DNA based or silicon based. quote: At a certain level of abstraction, DNA 'codes' for amino acids, but at the level of chemistry, it's just molecules bumping into each other. To perform its function, there is no need for either an intelligent codewriter or an intelligent codereader. No, Not to ‘a certain level of abstraction’ – that is what DNA does – it expresses strings of information that are encoded, stored, translated and transcribed. Saying they are ‘molecules bumping into each other’ is like saying these posts are simply ‘electrons traveling across wires’. quote: My questions have been answered with slurs. Very well. Actually, it was an answer to a slur that was predicted. But your primary approach seems to be to deny, deny, deny. We can painstakingly walk through what the cell is and does and in the end you will either understand or continue in your denials – either way it will appear you don’t know what you are talking about. Can I suggest an alternate route, a more interesting discussion whereby you accept the nature of the cell and discuss how it is that nature produced a sophisticated information system driven nano-machine factory?

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 9:38:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Can I suggest an alternate route, a more interesting discussion whereby you accept the nature of the cell and discuss how it is that nature produced a sophisticated information system driven nano-machine factory? Don't you mean "information driven system"? If you create a phrase and then fail to put the words in the right order consistantly, how do we know that you know what you are talking about? Anyway....if you are so impressed with with flagellum and reject evolution as an explanation, how can you call on evolution to explain the biggest information driven machine of all, the Eco-system? Or are you implying that each flora and fauna species had to be pieced together all at one time like the flagellum? And then would that mean that our eco system is irreducibly complex?

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 9:46:51 AM)
quote: Don't you mean "information driven system"? If you create a phrase and then fail to put the words in the right order consistantly, how do we know that you know what you are talking about? No, I mean information system driven. It’s not my fault you don’t know what this means. quote: Anyway....if you are so impressed with with flagellum and reject evolution as an explanation, how can you call on evolution to explain the biggest information driven machine of all, the Eco-system? Or are you implying that each flora and fauna species had to be pieced together all at one time like the flagellum? And then would that mean that our eco system is irreducibly complex? Actually, the ‘eco-system’ as it is, is the product of the interaction of billions, if not trillions of individual information system driven machines acting within an environment over time, an environment that the machines themselves helped produce. And according to evolution this is the product of a single original information driven machine, the origin of which we are concerned with here.

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 10:21:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Don't you mean "information driven system"? If you create a phrase and then fail to put the words in the right order consistantly, how do we know that you know what you are talking about? No, I mean information system driven. It’s not my fault you don’t know what this means. Oh but I want to learn. Is it the same as information driven system? quote: quote: Anyway....if you are so impressed with with flagellum and reject evolution as an explanation, how can you call on evolution to explain the biggest information driven machine of all, the Eco-system? Or are you implying that each flora and fauna species had to be pieced together all at one time like the flagellum? And then would that mean that our eco system is irreducibly complex? Actually, the ‘eco-system’ as it is, is the product of the interaction of billions, if not trillions of individual information system driven machines acting within an environment over time, an environment that the machines themselves helped produce. So, the machines stay the same but the environment continues to change because of outside influences such as solar flares? Remember, dry barren areas of our planet were once tropical zones where dinosaurs flourished, according to the fossil record. Did these zones change because the information driven machines changed course? And how would that occur?

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 10:39:55 AM)
quote: Oh but I want to learn. Is it the same as information driven system? No. quote: So, the machines stay the same but the environment continues to change because of outside influences such as solar flares? Remember, dry barren areas of our planet were once tropical zones where dinosaurs flourished, according to the fossil record. Did these zones change because the information driven machines changed course? And how would that occur? Do you actually read anything I write, or just prepare posts ahead of time in anticipation of what you think I might say? I cannot continue to go back an define each post for you everytime I write something. Read again, post again, with the specific words that I wrote. I said nothing having to do with, "outside influences such as solar flares". If you don't understand something I wrote, ask me what a particular set of words mean, don't define them first in your own mind and then react to them. I said, "the ‘eco-system’ as it is, is the product of the interaction of billions, if not trillions of individual information system driven machines acting within an environment over time, an environment that the machines themselves helped produce." From an evolutionary perspective, one would start with a single ancestor which would then replicate, respirate, eliminate, process whatever substance it might use for food, and as the organisms expire, they contribute material to the environment in which they live. Multiply this process time billions of organisms over long periods of time and they begin to not only exist in the environment, but also produce the environment. Eventually in large part they are the environment. So they are actually creating the ecosystem in which they exist – and in life’s history this seems to have unfolded in a very orderly manner, a manner suggesting an overall plan, not the random interaction of billions of mutations reacting to billions of incidental modifications to the environment.

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 11:40:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Oh but I want to learn. Is it the same as information driven system? No. Oh. Because I have never heard you use that term before yesterday. That's why I asked. quote: quote: So, the machines stay the same but the environment continues to change because of outside influences such as solar flares? Remember, dry barren areas of our planet were once tropical zones where dinosaurs flourished, according to the fossil record. Did these zones change because the information driven machines changed course? And how would that occur? Do you actually read anything I write, or just prepare posts ahead of time in anticipation of what you think I might say? I'll take that as an "I don't know". quote: I cannot continue to go back an define each post for you everytime I write something. Read again, post again, with the specific words that I wrote. I said nothing having to do with, "outside influences such as solar flares". Yes but the environment changes from influences outside of the biological reference you make. This means that those wonderful little nano machines you speak so fondly of require adjustments. That means the they cannot be the same machine they were billions of years ago. quote: If you don't understand something I wrote, ask me what a particular set of words mean, don't define them first in your own mind and then react to them. Hey, I'm only human. quote: I said, "the ‘eco-system’ as it is, is the product of the interaction of billions, if not trillions of individual information system driven machines acting within an environment over time, an environment that the machines themselves helped produce." Yes, but which environment? When dinosaurs roamed the earth? during the Cambrian era? Today's environments? Which? quote: From an evolutionary perspective, one would start with a single ancestor which would then replicate, respirate, eliminate, process whatever substance it might use for food, and as the organisms expire, they contribute material to the environment in which they live. Multiply this process time billions of organisms over long periods of time and they begin to not only exist in the environment, but also produce the environment. Eventually in large part they are the environment. So they are actually creating the ecosystem in which they exist – and in life’s history this seems to have unfolded in a very orderly manner, a manner suggesting an overall plan, not the random interaction of billions of mutations reacting to billions of incidental modifications to the environment. That just isn't true. Earth is susceptable to temperature changes from various degrees of solar output that cannot consistantly be supported by these ancient machines...they had to have changed significantly to remain viable. Thats why there were once jungles in Midwest America and now they are gone.

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 12:07:24 PM)
quote: Oh. Because I have never heard you use that term before yesterday. That's why I asked. Well a brief search indicates I used it in over 50 posts this last year alone. quote: I'll take that as an "I don't know". I’ll take that as someone who didn’t read the remainder of the post before answering. Again. quote: Yes but the environment changes from influences outside of the biological reference you make. This means that those wonderful little nano machines you speak so fondly of require adjustments. That means the they cannot be the same machine they were billions of years ago. The machinery is the same, what the machinery does can change depending on the circumstances. quote: Yes, but which environment? When dinosaurs roamed the earth? during the Cambrian era? Today's environments? Which? The environment that is produced by life itself. Again, read what I wrote. It appears the changes in the environment are products in many cases of what came before – anaerobic microorganisms laid the foundation for aerobic ones which laid the foundation for various sorts of plants and animals which laid the foundations for other organism which came later which ultimately allowed humans to exist here on earth. And in each successive set of environments there is complex combinatorial interdependencies which require mutualism and cooperation. Instead of ‘selfish genes’ seeking to survive at the cost of others, we see an orderly and interdependent construction of a intricate web of organisms which is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating. quote: That just isn't true. Earth is susceptable to temperature changes from various degrees of solar output that cannot consistently be supported by these ancient machines...they had to have changed significantly to remain viable. Thats why there were once jungles in Midwest America and now they are gone. What’s not true? Again, read what I wrote – I said that the environments that exist now depend on the environments that came before; the fact that there are solar flares and warmer climates in various parts of the world doesn’t negate this fact. Those jungles themselves are composed of cellular machinery, planted in soil that is the product of the useful decay of other organisms in an atmosphere that is largely the product of the respiration of organisms that preceded them. It's all intertwined.

essentialsaltes -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 12:47:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I daresay the development of the modern computer bears no resemblance to either the ID or the evolutionary picture of how life evolves. Actually, we aren’t particularly talking about how life ‘evolves’, but how it came to exist – and the requirements for information system driven machinery are the same whether such systems are DNA based or silicon based. I daresay the origin of the modern computer bears no resemblance to the origin of life. quote: quote: My questions have been answered with slurs. Very well. Actually, it was an answer to a slur that was predicted. I'll answer yours if you answer mine. What material evidence differentiates the theory of evolution on its own from the theory of evolution-with-designer? quote: Can I suggest an alternate route, a more interesting discussion whereby you accept the nature of the cell and discuss how it is that nature produced a sophisticated information system driven nano-machine factory? Cells are amazing little biochemical factories. Even with intelligence, we can't produce one de novo. There is no established scientific theory regarding abiogenesis. There are several interesting scientific hypotheses that illuminate particular steps along the way from chemistry to biology. At some point, these might be strung together into a complete theory of how life might arise. Our understanding will no doubt improve over time, but a definite answer to how our-kind-of-life actually arose may well be forever elusive without the use of a time machine. Which is a long-winded way of saying, "I don't know."

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 12:57:35 PM)
quote: I daresay the origin of the modern computer bears no resemblance to the origin of life. How do you know? quote: I'll answer yours if you answer mine. What material evidence differentiates the theory of evolution on its own from the theory of evolution-with-designer? It really has nothing at this juncture to do with evolution. Evolution requires a working information system driven replicating machine. Evolution cannot produce such a machine. quote: Cells are amazing little biochemical factories. Even with intelligence, we can't produce one de novo. There is no established scientific theory regarding abiogenesis. There are several interesting scientific hypotheses that illuminate particular steps along the way from chemistry to biology. At some point, these might be strung together into a complete theory of how life might arise. Our understanding will no doubt improve over time, but a definite answer to how our-kind-of-life actually arose may well be forever elusive without the use of a time machine. Which is a long-winded way of saying, "I don't know." Well I appreciate the honesty – but that being the case, there is no particular reason not to consider intelligence as a cause, particularly as intelligence is the only known cause when considering the origin of machines, biological or otherwise.

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 1:33:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well I appreciate the honesty – but that being the case, there is no particular reason not to consider intelligence as a cause, particularly as intelligence is the only known cause when considering the origin of machines, biological or otherwise. However, that is an presumption since you believe an intelligent designer is possible because there is no evidence to the contrary. That's also why I believe in the Giant gila monster in the bowels of the earth making earthquakes when it stirs around down there. But, neither is science.

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 1:42:30 PM)
quote: However, that is an presumption since you believe an intelligent designer is possible because there is no evidence to the contrary. Actually, I think everyone, even atheists, believe an intelligent designer is possible (indeed, presumably a few post to this forum), but that is irrelevant to the fact that intelligence might be neccesary in some cases. Either is true or it isn't - you seem to believe it never is. quote: That's also why I believe in the Giant gila monster in the bowels of the earth making earthquakes when it stirs around down there. But, neither is science. The problem with your logic here, what little of it that there is, is that Gila Monsters are neither neccesary to explain earthquakes, nor are there any particular indicators by which we might discern Gila Monsters as a cause from other natural causes. Indeed, your thought process regarding intelligence as a cause is rather like a person, who when they find a large-ish poisonous lizard chewing on their foot, denies that such a creature could even exist, and so the pain that they feel, and the infection that follows must have some other cause not attributable to said lizard.

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 1:52:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Yes but the environment changes from influences outside of the biological reference you make. This means that those wonderful little nano machines you speak so fondly of require adjustments. That means the they cannot be the same machine they were billions of years ago. The machinery is the same, what the machinery does can change depending on the circumstances. You lost me there. Can you give me an example of Irreducibly complex machinery changing its function without changing its properties? quote: quote: Yes, but which environment? When dinosaurs roamed the earth? during the Cambrian era? Today's environments? Which? The environment that is produced by life itself. Again, read what I wrote. Yes, but, environments change due to outside influences and organisms must adapt or die. So, if the environment determines selection, how can life create the environment? quote: ... in each successive set of environments there is complex combinatorial interdependencies which require mutualism and cooperation. That doesn't explain how these interdependent organisms adapt to new environments without changing their properties, especially when plagued by mutations every generation. It's truly a miracle.

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 1:59:34 PM)
quote: You lost me there. Can you give me an example of Irreducibly complex machinery changing its function without changing its properties? I think you are working on one. quote: Yes, but, environments change due to outside influences and organisms must adapt or die. So, if the environment determines selection, how can life create the environment? I’m not denying environments change, but on the whole, the way they change, and the way life has responded, seems to be orderly and directed. quote: That doesn't explain how these interdependent organisms adapt to new environments without changing their properties, especially when plagued by mutations every generation. It's truly a miracle. Well, that would be the point – such changes would require design.

essentialsaltes -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 2:15:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: What material evidence differentiates the theory of evolution on its own from the theory of evolution-with-designer? It really has nothing at this juncture to do with evolution. Evolution requires a working information system driven replicating machine. Evolution cannot produce such a machine. Are you conceding that, for the appropriate explanatory domain, ID is materially indistinguishable from evolution? quote: quote: Which is a long-winded way of saying, "I don't know." Well I appreciate the honesty – but that being the case, there is no particular reason not to consider intelligence as a cause, particularly as intelligence is the only known cause when considering the origin of machines, biological or otherwise. I'm not sure "Intelligence" can be a cause. But yes, I suppose an Intelligent agent or agents could be the cause of life-on-earth. (through a regress, at some point it would appear that there would either have to be an intelligent agent that is not alive, or an unintelligent cause of life.) However, without evidence or explanatory power, I don't see how this philosophical premise could graduate to become a scientific one. What material evidence or predictions differentiate natural abiogenesis from intelligently manipulated abiogenesis?

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 2:33:15 PM)
quote: Are you conceding that, for the appropriate explanatory domain, ID is materially indistinguishable from evolution? No, simply that before one can even begin to discuss what evolution can and cannot do, one must have a working information system driven self-replicating machine. quote: 'm not sure "Intelligence" can be a cause. But yes, I suppose an Intelligent agent or agents could be the cause of life-on-earth. (through a regress, at some point it would appear that there would either have to be an intelligent agent that is not alive, or an unintelligent cause of life.) However, without evidence or explanatory power, I don't see how this philosophical premise could graduate to become a scientific one. What material evidence or predictions differentiate natural abiogenesis from intelligently manipulated abiogenesis? Science is really the study of causes - and if we accept intelligence as a cause, and accept that intelligently designed structures and systems have discernible attributes (something science already does for non-biological structures and systems) there is no reason why the intelligently caused origin of life wouldn't be scientifically investigatable.

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 11:03:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: However, that is an presumption since you believe an intelligent designer is possible because there is no evidence to the contrary. Actually, I think everyone, even atheists, believe an intelligent designer is possible (indeed, presumably a few post to this forum), but that is irrelevant to the fact that intelligence might be neccesary in some cases. Either is true or it isn't - you seem to believe it never is. I absolutely believe there is a higher intelligence that surrounds us. But, I don't dictate how that higher intelligence is associated with life on this planet. Science is about learning, not proping up personal biases. quote: ....Gila Monsters are neither neccesary to explain earthquakes, So, yer saying that the tectonic plates just move on their own? quote: . nor are there any particular indicators by which we might discern Gila Monsters as a cause from other natural causes. What? Sure there are. There is evidence all around us that those gila monsters exist in the bowels of the earth. There are buried fossils and earthquakes and erupting volcanoes. Do you think these things just happen? Can't you read the evidence that it is a gila monster within the earth. Now, granted, it may not be a gila monster exactly. But it is not my goal to say who the monster is, I just want to use that evidence to teach that there could be a giant monster in the bowels of the earth and it should be taught alongside geology.

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/4/2008 11:44:56 PM)
quote: I absolutely believe there is a higher intelligence that surrounds us. But, I don't dictate how that higher intelligence is associated with life on this planet. Science is about learning, not proping up personal biases. Certainly, this is why ID relies on evidence. quote: What? Sure there are. There is evidence all around us that those gila monsters exist in the bowels of the earth. There are buried fossils and earthquakes and erupting volcanoes. Do you think these things just happen? Can't you read the evidence that it is a gila monster within the earth. Now, granted, it may not be a gila monster exactly. But it is not my goal to say who the monster is, I just want to use that evidence to teach that there could be a giant monster in the bowels of the earth and it should be taught alongside geology. Any materialist worth their stripes knows that earthquakes and volcanoes evolve from rock slides and geysers.

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 12:33:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: You lost me there. Can you give me an example of Irreducibly complex machinery changing its function without changing its properties? I think you are working on one. In other words, you cannot. You can't admit it when you don't have an answer, can you? It's a weakness that is sure to hinder your future discussions.

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 12:36:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Would you accept that living entities are static? No, I just no that 'morph' isn't a particularly scientific term. You mean you just "know" (not "no")that morph isn't a particularly scientific term. How about metamorphosis?

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 12:38:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I absolutely believe there is a higher intelligence that surrounds us. But, I don't dictate how that higher intelligence is associated with life on this planet. Science is about learning, not proping up personal biases. Certainly, this is why ID relies on evidence. It's a shame there is none to support the hypothesis of an elf like creature you call the ID. quote: What? Sure there are. There is evidence all around us that those gila monsters exist in the bowels of the earth. There are buried fossils and earthquakes and erupting volcanoes. Do you think these things just happen? Can't you read the evidence that it is a gila monster within the earth. Now, granted, it may not be a gila monster exactly. But it is not my goal to say who the monster is, I just want to use that evidence to teach that there could be a giant monster in the bowels of the earth and it should be taught alongside geology. Any materialist worth their stripes knows that earthquakes and volcanoes evolve from rock slides and geysers. Don't be so obtuse. What causes the rock slides and geysers. duhh

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 12:40:51 AM)
quote: In other words, you cannot. You can't admit it when you don't have an answer, can you? It's a weakness that is sure to hinder your future discussions. I gave you an answer. You are working on such a machine. quote: You mean you just "know" (not "no")that morph isn't a particularly scientific term. How about metamorphosis? Well metamorphosis is generally applied to the transformation of animal during it's development to the adult form.

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 2:06:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: In other words, you cannot. You can't admit it when you don't have an answer, can you? It's a weakness that is sure to hinder your future discussions. I gave you an answer. You are working on such a machine. Well, I was actually thinking more along the lines of living organisms and not patented inventions. Is it necessary for you to look to man-made machinery for an answer to questions about life? quote: quote: You mean you just "know" (not "no")that morph isn't a particularly scientific term. How about metamorphosis? Well metamorphosis is generally applied to the transformation of animal during it's development to the adult form. Okay, I'll keep it simple for you. I'll use the word transform instead of "morph".

Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 5:17:52 AM)
quote: Well, I was actually thinking more along the lines of living organisms and not patented inventions. Is it necessary for you to look to man-made machinery for an answer to questions about life? No, just biology, particularly when talking with those that aren't all that familiar with the subject.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI