Intelligent Designer? Not yet.

reply to post by jiggerj

And what I'm saying, or would like to add, is that there is no viable natural explanation for the formation of the moon, nor a moon of it's precise characteristics in relation to the earth and the sun.

When we consider the moon, we run right smack dab head on into the idea of an intelligent design and even a designer operating from outside of spacetime ie: one in who's design we can recognize that it began, from the beginning of the beginning with the end already in mind, and if that's not intelligent design then I don't know what is.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


sure... all this video is saying apples for today, but...
as the moon is moving away about 1cm a year, that means it was closer few millions years ago
just for that reason your logic is fraud and this video of yours makes no sense at all

besides you believe earth is 6000 years old, well than....

Originally posted by vasaga
How was I claiming I know the truth when I've presented three possible situations regarding intelligence? Logic works with premises. If the premises are true and the argument is sound, the conclusion must be true. I have not seen you argue against any of my premises. All you've done is say "you have no evidence herp derp". And if I didn't present any science, what is Robert Lanza?

You never listen. All you do is repeat and pretend you are addressing what someone said, while you never do.

I never listen? I thought I very specifically broke down your post and addressed your points one by one.

My point from the very first post was that nobody knows the answer and that ID advocates act like their hypothesis is proven. That's all. You tried to take it to another level and disprove that, but you have not.

If you present three POSSIBLE situations, by definition they are POSSIBLE not empirical. You say "if the premises are true". Exactly. IF. Logic does not apply. I can't present evidence against a hypothetical scenario.

In the beginning of the Lanza video he is expressing his opinion. He mentions a few experiments with photons. I couldn't find them. If you could link those experiments since you are so familiar with this, that would be great. Could you also explain what the experiment with photons has to do with intelligent design? Lanza doesn't mention intelligent design once. He's musing about the possible reasons for the difference in the way things behave on the quantum level. There's nothing scientific to suggest ID at all in that video. Maybe you are confused about what qualifies as science. Science requires repeated experimentation that has been peer reviewed and published. To this day there has only been 1 paper published on intelligent design and it has since been refuted and discredited. There is a ridiculous amount we do not know about quantum mechanics. It seems to me like he's just trying to promote bio-centrism. Where's the science? Correct. You haven't presented it. Youtube videos of people expressing their opinion isn't scientific evidence of intelligent design.

reply to post by Barcs


What is your definition of intelligent design?

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Barcs

 

What is your definition of intelligent design?

The belief/hypothesis that DNA/life was intentionally designed by a conscious intelligent entity.

reply to post by Barcs

in·tel·li·gent
/inˈtelijənt/
Adjective
1. Having or showing intelligence, esp. of a high level.
2. (of a device, machine, or building) Able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past...

As we can see from the second definition, evolution can be used as evidence of intelligent design. Obviously, by itself, it makes a weak argument. But it's a better start than a lot of cases I see on ATS.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Barcs

 

in·tel·li·gent
/inˈtelijənt/
Adjective
1. Having or showing intelligence, esp. of a high level.
2. (of a device, machine, or building) Able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past...

As we can see from the second definition, evolution can be used as evidence of intelligent design. Obviously, by itself, it makes a weak argument. But it's a better start than a lot of cases I see on ATS.

Intelligence requires consciousness, hence why I said conscious entity. You can't just say, "oh there's intelligence in nature" or "evolution designs". It's not the same thing. Intelligent design is not about that, it's about a DESIGNER. While the design might APPEAR intelligent, it is not evidence of intentional intelligent design. If you want to argue semantics on the meaning of intelligence we can do that, but I'm trying to specifically address the belief known and promoted as intelligent design. If evolution counts as ID, then ID is true, but we all know that's not the argument here. If there's any evidence for any intelligence outside of human beings beside "I believe it appears that way", I'd love to see it.

reply to post by Barcs


So patterns do not imply intelligence?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by jiggerj

 

And what I'm saying, or would like to add, is that there is no viable natural explanation for the formation of the moon, nor a moon of it's precise characteristics in relation to the earth and the sun.

NewAge, you are almost right. There is no viable natural explanation AT THIS TIME! Throughout history mankind has come to some outrageous conclusions because there was no viable natural explanation at that time. Then science improved, technology improved, and that's when we found those viable natural explanations.

The sun orbited the earth. Mice were formed when wheat and a dirty shirt was placed in a vase for a few days. Plagues were caused by god. All of these things made sense until we learned more and more about the world and the universe around us.

And, though it may be hard to imagine, our science is still so brand spanking new. It needs time to mature, and that may take thousands of years.

But, the one thing we can't deny is that, so far in man's very short history, every time the religious have claimed a god in the works, science has proven them wrong every time. EVERY TIME! Why would it be different for the creation of the first living cell? For the formation of the universe? And for the weird stuff going on in the quantum world?

The answer may very well be an intelligent designer, but the evidence (or should I say the track record of discoveries that reduced the metaphysical down to the natural) suggests that we will find a natural culprit in the future.

reply to post by jiggerj




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That my dear OP is the Giant's Causeway in Ireland.. And yes it is a natural formation...

www.northantrim.com...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Barcs

 

So patterns do not imply intelligence?

When it comes to the most finely detailed design of the snowflake, I'm being told, no, patterns do not imply intelligence. In the autumn, when my yard is helter-skelter with leaves, when I go outside and find the leaves in a neat pile, does this imply an intelligent being raked my leaves? I'll tell you that I've watched the swirling wind do just this.

I can't tell you how many times I've held a leave in my hand and looked at how the veins are so astoundingly uniform. Every time I say to myself or to nearby friends, somebody had to have designed these leaves. The information within them is just too perfect.



Then I back away from this belief because the real answer is, we just don't know how all of these things formed.

Originally posted by fluff007
reply to post by jiggerj

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That my dear OP is the Giant's Causeway in Ireland.. And yes it is a natural formation...

www.northantrim.com...

Isn't it awesome! I love that pic! If I had gone there I would've been the first to ask, what was somebody building here?

reply to post by jiggerj


Lol..! Yep it truly is a remarkable and unique landscape.. I went there as a kid, so much to be had hopping up and down all the pillars..!

s/F

Originally posted by jiggerj

I can't tell you how many times I've held a leave in my hand and looked at how the veins are so astoundingly uniform.

Then again if it was not uniform and symmetrical and complex it would not be a very good leaf would it, and it could not do what a leaf does. And you wouldn't call it a leaf either.
In fact the whole world would be a mess if things weren't complex they way they are.
There would be no natural world at all, maybe just one big tumor.

Originally posted by fluff007

Lol..! Yep it truly is a remarkable and unique landscape.. I went there as a kid, so much to be had hopping up and down all the pillars..!

s/F

Were you playing q~bert?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Barcs

 

So patterns do not imply intelligence?

They do not, but our ability to recognize them does. Human intelligence. Humans create information out of what is there. The information itself does not exist until we process it. That's why we look in awe at patterns in nature like the stones above. Patterns, compositions, interpretations, it always boils down to human intelligence, not a separate external one capable of creating life. But yeah, that was the point of the entire thread, I'm pretty sure. To show that patterns can arise naturally despite appearing to be designed. It perfectly illustrates the flaw of intelligent design.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Barcs

 

What is your definition of intelligent design?

The belief/hypothesis that DNA/life was intentionally designed by a conscious intelligent entity.

Hm. When I refer to it, I mean nature as a whole, not life on itself. That obviously includes life. But ok.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Barcs

 

So patterns do not imply intelligence?

They do not, but our ability to recognize them does. Human intelligence. Humans create information out of what is there. The information itself does not exist until we process it. That's why we look in awe at patterns in nature like the stones above. Patterns, compositions, interpretations, it always boils down to human intelligence, not a separate external one capable of creating life. But yeah, that was the point of the entire thread, I'm pretty sure. To show that patterns can arise naturally despite appearing to be designed. It perfectly illustrates the flaw of intelligent design.

A snowflake for example doesn't imply intelligence. But that's black/white. Where things get blurry is say.. A bird's nest. Is that intelligence or just instinct? Is instinct a form of intelligence? And what evidence is there that anyone else beside yourself has intelligence? How could intelligence be proven in the first place?
And it's not limited to just patterns. A code is not a pattern, but a language.

‎"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds the most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." -Max Planck (Father of Quantum Theory)

Just a little something I thought I'd throw into the discussion. Have fun.

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Barcs

 

What is your definition of intelligent design?

The belief/hypothesis that DNA/life was intentionally designed by a conscious intelligent entity.

Hm. When I refer to it, I mean nature as a whole, not life on itself. That obviously includes life. But ok.

That's fine. It can refer to the universe as well although some people are sticklers about it just being life.

A snowflake for example doesn't imply intelligence. But that's black/white. Where things get blurry is say.. A bird's nest. Is that intelligence or just instinct? Is instinct a form of intelligence?

It is intelligence. Birds have brains and they think. They may not think on the level of a human, but yes most creatures that have brains possess intelligence. I would guess that instinct is related to the brain as well.

And what evidence is there that anyone else beside yourself has intelligence? How could intelligence be proven in the first place?

A bird's nest. Well, we know the bird created the nest because we can observe the creation process. The problem with the claim of "higher" intelligence or designer, is that we do not ever observe creation events taking place, nor do we observe the creator of them. Something like that would need inter dimensional technology to even begin the process of utilizing the scientific method

And it's not limited to just patterns. A code is not a pattern, but a language.

A code is not always a language. DNA code is not a language. It contains 4 repeating atoms. There are no words or commands. Again, this is the part where the opinion /belief comes into play, because your opinion is that DNA code is a language, designed by an intelligent being. The truth of the matter is that science is still studying it. We don't know whether or not it was designed, but it boils down to taking a guess about the unknown. DNA "code" is information that WE have created by observing the structure of DNA.

reply to post by Barcs


A nest is something you already know the builder of. How would you recognize something produced by intelligence without knowing who built it or if there was a builder in the first place?

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Barcs

 

A nest is something you already know the builder of. How would you recognize something produced by intelligence without knowing who built it or if there was a builder in the first place?

That's the point, same with codes and other products of human intelligence. You can't recognize it without observing the creator or at the very least the process of creation, unless you find an instruction manual, blueprints or you can take the thing apart and reassemble. You would need to prove that whatever you are talking about is indeed designed technology. Otherwise you are guessing.

Intelligence can create a nest, but a storm can do the same given the right circumstances. The storm, however, does not choose what it wants, like the bird does. The storm has no intention, no after thought, no intelligence. It is a result of different temperatures and pressures in the atmosphere, but sometimes it can APPEAR intelligent to us. Appearances can be deceiving.