Biomimicry - Intelligence In Design

Originally posted by vasaga
No. You are refusing to acknowledge that you're a hypocrite for doing the same thing as me and yet calling me out on it.

Ad hominem.

Aren't you holding the position that it arose by naturalistic processes? Why shouldn't there be evidence for that? Special pleading.

No, the burden of proof is on you. Barcs isn't claiming anything. If anything, he's taking the agnostic position and saying he doesn't know. If you make the claim that a designer--any designer--had a hand in it, then it's up to you to provide evidence for it.

Bullsh1t. It's not too complex to comprehend. We just sequenced the whole thing and are busy figuring out what it means.

We sequenced ONE genome, but the human race isn't composed of one. It's composed of six billion of them.

It's not too complex to comprehend. That's another straw man. It has nothing to do with complexity, it has to do with the type of information. It has to do with the acknowledgement that it is a language, nothing about it being complex or too complex.

It's up to you to prove it, then.

Originally posted by Barcs
In your own wiki article that you posted it shows what DNA is composed of. It's not made of computer code, it is made out of pairs of atoms.

Another weird inconsistent argument. By this logic, software is composed of electricity and therefore there was no intelligence that created it.. Come on dude.. Fallacy of composition.

Nope. DNA is composed of nucleic acids arranged in pairs. And that is all. It is pure chemistry. Guanine is made of the same stuff that guano is made of, for example.

Uh.. Isn't that exactly the main function of DNA? And uh, what is genetic engineering all about?

Genetic engineering is the manipulation of the genome using DNA technology. DNA can't do it on its own. It needs an intermediary. No computer needs that. Why do you keep ignoring the role of RNA and proteins? Without them, DNA does not function, period. It is one of the most inert, non-reactive molecules in nature.

And yet, it obeys the laws of physics just like every other atom, molecule, system, and organism.

]I know what the word proof means and I know its difference in regards to evidence. Science does not require proof for it to have a supporting theory. For example, the first law of thermodynamics can't be proven. It has a bunch of evidence though, and because no opposite has been observed, it's regarded as true despite the lack of proof.

So you take it as true that there is a designer even though there's no proof of it?

The Law of Thermodynamics is called that not because it hasn't been disproved (although it's a well-established theory, just as gravity is), but because it must apply all the time under the same conditions.

A scientific idea that does not have proof is called a hypothesis.You can't have a theory without data. If you do, you end up twisting the facts to suit your theory. So saying that science doesn't require proof to have a supporting theory is misleading. Scientific proof is accepted within the scientific method. And it must be EMPIRICAL.You have none.

I think you may be confusing philosophical proof with scientific proof.

Originally posted by Barcs
Saying that "prescriptive" information means anything, is nothing more than a guess on your part.

A guess? You're ignoring information science... Does DNA contain instructions? What describes DNA better? The numbers by thrown dices, or a recipe?

Rhetorical.

Information science and its role in biology is speculation at best.

Originally posted by Barcs
I'm not saying that it means god doesn't exist, I'm saying there's no evidence to suggest it. It is poor logic to say, "Well I've never seen a star that looks green, so it is impossible for any star to ever be green". That is NOT objective evidence and nothing you have posted is. You need to demonstrate clear evidence that the "code" itself was programmed.

Uh.. I hope you know that claim actually invalidates your own argument.. You're saying "I have never seen any life being made by intelligence so it is impossible that there is intelligence".

Straw man. That is not what he said. He says right up front:

I'm not saying that it means god doesn't exist, I'm saying there's no evidence to suggest it.

Nowhere does he say that it is impossible that there is intelligence.

There is no objective evidence that DNA arose from natural processes either, let alone the information it contains.. So why prefer that side?

Why do you prefer the creationist side?

Originally posted by vasaga
Really? Then why did I say this?:

Read the original post and the title of this thread. You came into this thread seemingly supporting that position. Maybe you were off topic then. I apologize if I misunderstood your position.

Aren't you holding the position that it arose by naturalistic processes? Why shouldn't there be evidence for that? Special pleading.

Nope. I'm holding the position that I don't know how exactly DNA was originally formed. I'm interesting in seeing evidence to support either way. Right now science has some interesting hypotheses on it but nothing really objective. There's even less evidence of a designer.

Bullsh1t. It's not too complex to comprehend. We just sequenced the whole thing and are busy figuring out what it means. It's not too complex to comprehend. That's another straw man. It has nothing to do with complexity, it has to do with the type of information. It has to do with the acknowledgement that it is a language, nothing about it being complex or too complex.

How is that a straw man? It's one of the main arguments people have used in this thread.

Another weird inconsistent argument. By this logic, software is composed of electricity and therefore there was no intelligence that created it.. Come on dude.. Fallacy of composition.

You don't even know what a fallacy is.

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be broken with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be broken with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken into their constituent parts without any of those parts being breakable.

I said that DNA is composed of pairs of atoms. That isn't a fallacy, it's true. Now its made of more than just pairs of atoms, I'm aware, I was trying to keep it simple. Please explain the coding and what language its written in.

Uh.. Isn't that exactly the main function of DNA? And uh, what is genetic engineering all about?

You are confusing natural processes with computer programming. Again, which language is the code written in? Where's the copyright or logo? Surely if someone created something as amazing as DNA, they'd program something into it so they get credit for it, like every computer program ever written by an intelligent designer on earth. If DNA was indeed programmed and designed it would be an incredible feat.

I know what the word proof means and I know its difference in regards to evidence. Science does not require proof for it to have a supporting theory. For example, the first law of thermodynamics can't be proven. It has a bunch of evidence though, and because no opposite has been observed, it's regarded as true despite the lack of proof.

For something to become a scientific theory, there has to be verifiable evidence and data that can be tested and falsified. The reason its called a theory and not a fact, is because we don't know every detail about it. A theory is composed of facts, as weird as that sounds.

A guess? You're ignoring information science... Does DNA contain instructions? What describes DNA better? The numbers by thrown dices, or a recipe?

What am I ignoring about "information science"? i would honestly say that neither thrown dice or a recipe accurate describes DNA. Calling it programming code is a bit deceiving. It's not like you can read the code can find "blue eyes" written down on a sequence. To me, DNA is mind boggling, but doesn't prove anything about a designer. I'll admit I'm not a geneticist or expert on DNA. I'm assuming you are not either?

You refusing to accept current evidence as enough is more like it. What evidence would convince you that intelligent design is true?

I refuse to accept subjective evidence, yes. I would be convinced of design if I met the designer or had evidence that he existed. If there's no evidence of a designer, there can't be evidence of design, unless somebody fully decodes DNA and finds a logo or credit to show it was definitely made by somebody other than ourselves. You use the word "instructions" as if it is written out in English telling cells how to develop step by step.

Uh.. I hope you know that claim actually invalidates your own argument.. You're saying "I have never seen any life being made by intelligence so it is impossible that there is intelligence".

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the objective evidence of a designer does not exist. I'm not the one who used the fallacious argument that "anything we know that contains prescriptive information is programmed, therefor DNA is programmed". This was the exact fallacy you used, not me.

But apparently the evidence that prescriptive/functional/instructional (or however you want to call it) is only ever seen as arising from intelligence is not enough.. Or, in more layman terms, language only arising from intelligence is not enough evidence... So, I refer you to the question above. What evidence would be enough?

But you can't prove it's a language. What language was the code written in? It's a fallacy to make that leap of logic, just like I said about the green star. Just because we haven't seen it happen, doesn't mean it never does or it can't happen. The universe is HUGE. We are a tiny spec of dust comparatively. I don't understand why people think they know all the answers, when even our best scientist don't know yet.

There is no objective evidence that DNA arose from natural processes either, let alone the information it contains.. So why prefer that side?

I don't prefer either side. I admit I don't know the answer. Maybe someday we will. I'd jump up and down for joy if I found out that evidence for a creator was discovered, or we found convincing proof that DNA was created or programmed.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga
No. You are refusing to acknowledge that you're a hypocrite for doing the same thing as me and yet calling me out on it.

Ad hominem.

No it's not. When I point out special pleading, and use a more common word with the same meaning as a replacement, it does not make it an ad hominem, because there is an argument behind it and I already explained where it comes from. It's not an empty personal attack. Try harder.

Guess this is another thread I'm going to leave. You guys have fun with your dogma.

reply to post by Barcs


....

I refuse to accept subjective evidence, yes. I would be convinced of design if I met the designer or had evidence that he existed. If there's no evidence of a designer, there can't be evidence of design, unless somebody fully decodes DNA and finds a logo or credit to show it was definitely made by somebody other than ourselves. You use the word "instructions" as if it is written out in English telling cells how to develop step by step.

edit on 13-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

This is sad if not outright funny.

You ask for evidence yet it's staring you right in front of your eyes and can't even see it.

You ask for proof of design yet when presented with evidence like Biomimicry or the DNA codes and its amazing functions - you and your fellow atheist and evolutionists con't seem to see it.

No wonder you keep asking for evidence - you have your blinders on - take it off first then ask the questions - or else you will never see the evidence.

I guess that's what evolution does to people.

To prove my point here's a very simple test:

Looking at the pics - what's the correct answer to this very simple question:

Which one require an Intelligent Designer and Creator?

a) Both.

Or

b) Only one requires an intelligent designer and maker.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cc461d195996.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aabbfca19593.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b3baf6f710e.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2000481b1004.jpg[/atsimg]

....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/46fd964bcdf7.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3342f8b67974.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6cebc063f710.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c62c4f7387b.jpg[/atsimg]

My answer - a) Both

What's yours.

reply to post by edmc^2



This was glossed over earlier in this thread.

Francis Crick the co discoverer of DNA, believed in directed panspermia, that life on earth was seeded by intelligent life forms from another world.

A brilliant man.

He realized that life could not have originated on earth, without being put here.

Directed panspermia During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms.[58] At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.[59] In a retrospective article,[60] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life.

Link

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by edmc^2

 

This was glossed over earlier in this thread.

Francis Crick the co discoverer of DNA, believed in directed panspermia, that life on earth was seeded by intelligent life forms from another world.

A brilliant man.

He realized that life could not have originated on earth, without being put here.

Directed panspermia During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms.[58] At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.[59] In a retrospective article,[60] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life.

Link

Thanks,

Yes, I'm familiar with this theory - in fact it's not a new theory as it was proposed long time ago then reemerge again and agian as time went by - then popularized around the early 1900 (1908) by a Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius.

The other terminology used for this theory is "exogenesis"

Anyway here's a short historical background :

The first known mention of the term was in the writings of the 5th century BC Greek philosopher Anaxagoras.[3] In the nineteenth century it was again revived in modern form by several scientists, including Jöns Jacob Berzelius (1834),[4] Kelvin (1871),[5] Hermann von Helmholtz (1879) and, somewhat later, by Svante Arrhenius (1903).[6] There is as yet no evidence to support or contradict panspermia, although the majority view holds that panspermia – especially in its interstellar form – is unlikely given the challenges of survival and transport in space. Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were important proponents of the hypothesis who further contended that lifeforms continue to enter the Earth's atmosphere, and may be responsible for epidemic outbreaks, new diseases, and the genetic novelty necessary for macroevolution.[7] Panspermia does not necessarily suggest that life originated only once and subsequently spread through the entire Universe, but instead that once started, it may be able to spread to other environments suitable for replication.

en.wikipedia.org...

Problem with such theories is that it really do not solve the question of the origin of life.

So to speak these theories sort of "kick the can" further down the road.

In other words - they just sort of avoid the question by "beaming" the problem off into the distant universe despite the fact that scientists have not conclusively established:

1) that there are planets elsewhere, much less any qualified to support life,

2) that there are civilizations beyond our solar system, and

3) that there is microscopic life on other planets within our solar system.


Bottom line - even if they prove that "panspermia" or "exogenesis" is a fact - the question remains:

Who Created Life?

Based on evidence that we've demonstrated and come to know - life has all the hallmark of an intelligent design. That is there's a guiding hand for its existence.

A DNA molecule can not construct itself let alone program itself to handle specific functions needed to build the body.

Yet evolutionists defy gravity - and somehow make the impossible possible by believing that an unguided "force" or whatever they call it made life possible.

And they cling to this baseless theory because the alternative is unpalatable.


That is, that the ONLY logical conclusion that we can arrive at about the origin of life is that it was Created by an Intelligent Being - God.

To say otherwise shows blind ignorance to the fact.

Of course unless one is an evolutionists/atheist

reply to post by edmc^2

My answer - a) Both

Well, unless you finally present some objective evidence as to why you believe life has been created (by presenting proof for a creator), you're clearly wrong and only speculating based on your limited knowledge. You're using the old god of the gaps argument by filling a gap in knowledge (we don't KNOW how life started) with magic (aka god).

Even worse, we KNOW how biodiversity (and that includes humans btw) came to be, the theory of evolution explains it nicely...and is fully backed by hard facts. Something that can't be said for your "magic" hypothesis

As for the pansperimia theory, you can't rule it out 100%. However, DNA has a half-life of only 1.1m years in space...which means it's highly unlikely that life came from outside our solar system if it did in fact come from outer space. And of course you're simply moving the base question to another planet. So if life came from another planet, how did it start there? In short, it doesn't answer the "how did life star" question, and it's backed by objective evidence. At this point, it's pure speculation

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga
No. You are refusing to acknowledge that you're a hypocrite for doing the same thing as me and yet calling me out on it.

Ad hominem.

No it's not. When I point out special pleading, and use a more common word with the same meaning as a replacement, it does not make it an ad hominem, because there is an argument behind it and I already explained where it comes from. It's not an empty personal attack. Try harder.

Guess this is another thread I'm going to leave. You guys have fun with your dogma.

Leave then. No one is forcing you to bang your head against a wall because you're failing to make your point. You called him a hypocrite. That is an ad hominem. And you did it out of frustration and because you have no other argument to make. That's what people who don't have a leg to stand on do.

Funny how you commit the same fallacies you accuse us of committing, isn't it? But you can't even see you're doing it because like most religious fundamentalists (of any denomination) you're so infernally convinced you're right.

This is why I hate religion. It promotes intolerance of other ideas.

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by Barcs
YOU need to provide evidence, not me. I'm not claiming anything about how DNA originated.

Aren't you holding the position that it arose by naturalistic processes? Why shouldn't there be evidence for that? Special pleading.

Since you like to special plead yourself by appealing to fallacies (which is itself a form of special pleading), let's examine this one. He is not special pleading and he's not claiming exemption or presenting a one sided argument. And since you're telling him he's holding the position that it arose by naturalistic processes and assume everyone who's not on your side is an atheist, you're committing the fallacy of hasty generalization. Why should the creationist side be exempt from investigation and why are you exempt from providing empirical evidence for your case?

Originally posted by Barcs
In your own wiki article that you posted it shows what DNA is composed of. It's not made of computer code, it is made out of pairs of atoms.

Another weird inconsistent argument. By this logic, software is composed of electricity and therefore there was no intelligence that created it.. Come on dude.. Fallacy of composition.

Actually, no it isn't. He stated a scientific fact backed up by one of your own sources. Are you saying that the laws of physics are deterministic? Are you saying the atoms are themselves alive?

Be careful in your response.

Originally posted by edmc^2
This is sad if not outright funny.

You ask for evidence yet it's staring you right in front of your eyes and can't even see it.

Where? I have yet to see one single piece of objective evidence, and you keep side stepping it every time I bring it up. You can't make claims without evidence if you expect people to take it seriously.

Person A: Please prove we were designed.
Person B: Just look around you. The earth the trees are all so beautiful and perfect in their role in nature.
Person A: That is not evidence, it's your opinion
Person B: How do you not see the evidence staring you in the face?

That pretty much sums up the thread. If you can't provide OBJECTIVE evidence of your claim, it is not valid

You ask for proof of design yet when presented with evidence like Biomimicry or the DNA codes and its amazing functions - you and your fellow atheist and evolutionists con't seem to see it.

No wonder you keep asking for evidence - you have your blinders on - take it off first then ask the questions - or else you will never see the evidence.

I clearly explained the difference between subjective and objective evidence several times now. You are intentionally ignoring it because it fits your weak attempt at an argument. Proof is NOT subjective. Yeah, I have blinders on because I won't blindly accept something as fact that has no objective evidence behind it. How close minded of me.

I guess that's what evolution does to people.

To prove my point here's a very simple test:

Looking at the pics - what's the correct answer to this very simple question:

Which one require an Intelligent Designer and Creator?

Your argument has nothing to do with evolution. I can't see these pics at work, but something is telling me its pure guesswork again, just like the rest of the thread. Please read the definitions I posted on Objective vs Subjective evidence.

if course unless one is an evolutionists/atheist

Stop with condescending drivel already. "If you don't see the world exactly as I do you must be an atheist!" Get real and provide objective evidence or close the thread.

You guys have fun with your dogma.

Is that really the best you can do? Yeah, scientific evidence = dogma, while your religion = fact. That is laughable. Calling somebody a hypocrite is a personal insult, whether you like it or not. I could construct an argument about how many people in this thread are stupid, but even if backed by facts, it's still an insult and uncalled for.

reply to post by Barcs


I guess there's no point of responding to this post as the poster has left the "building".

reply to post by MrXYZ

You're using the old god of the gaps argument by filling a gap in knowledge (we don't KNOW how life started) with magic (aka god).

hah - speak for yourself- because we DO KNOW.

Evidence of it abound - biomimicry points to intelligence in design.

Please consider this question:

Are "evolution" and "intelligent design" mutually exclusive?

Originally posted by Cataclysm
Please consider this question:

Are "evolution" and "intelligent design" mutually exclusive?

Absolutely not. That's why I always wonder why so many creationists try so hard to disprove or discredit evolution. It could very easily be compatible with their views if god created life using evolution as a tool. The one thing evolution does contradict is the literal interpretation of the genesis story.

hah - speak for yourself- because we DO KNOW.

Evidence of it abound - biomimicry points to intelligence in design.

Funny how you keep referring to your personal faith and worldview as "knowing" while you post no objective evidence whatsoever. YOU DO NOT KNOW. You THINK you know, but it's all based on faith.

Bio mimicry shows intelligence in humans, not design. Not a single aspect of it shows evidence of the designer or mechanisms of design. Humans studying and developing technology based on natural processes shows we are smart. That's all. I've already been over it a dozen times in this and related threads. Philosophy is not science.

reply to post by Barcs


Thank you for your reply, Barcs.

Two additional questions, please:

The question previously asked involved "intelligent design". In the answer, you mentioned "god"? Why? Do you consider those terms interchangeable?

I

You know, you could just observe the wonder of nature and come to your own conclusions, nobody is stopping you. That a person feels the need to try and convince anyone of ANYTHING is a waste of time. Enjoy your theories, or faith, or whatever and be happy about it.Let people find their own truths, let them enjoy their own personal journey. If anybody wants your opinion, they'll ask.

Originally posted by Cataclysm
reply to post by Barcs

 

Thank you for your reply, Barcs.

Two additional questions, please:

The question previously asked involved "intelligent design". In the answer, you mentioned "god"? Why? Do you consider those terms interchangeable?

This trap again? I mentioned god because the OP is the one who has claimed Jehova is responsible for creating everything and claiming convincing and compelling evidence, neither of which I've seen. He has also claimed that philosophy about complexity of DNA proves it. God was used an example and there are millions of versions of god, so I didn't want to discriminate, sure it could have been aliens or countless other things, but it doesn't make ID suddenly viable or backed by objective evidence. It simply is not and has no actual evidence behind it, regardless of who you claim is the creator.

If you want to claim design, then you need to provide evidence of a designer or evidence of the process of creation and the mechanisms involved. If not, then it's nothing beyond faith. There's nothing wrong with having faith and beliefs, just don't try to pass them off as science, or claim human intelligence proves ID. That's my entire point in a nutshell.

reply to post by Barcs


Trap? Do you feel trapped, Barcs?

Originally posted by Cataclysm
reply to post by Barcs

 

Trap? Do you feel trapped, Barcs?

What an excellent, well thought out, and detailed response. Nice try though. Still no science behind intelligent design, whether you refer to god or not.