Discussion of "intelligent design" (uncapitalized, AlanF)

by AuldSoul 153 Replies latest members adult

• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Narkissos

  I hope you're not mocking Rael. He's got the real ticket to everlasting life after all. You see, the WTS was right about at least one thing one. Our clones will be living forever.

  kidA

  Its very easy to see the lack of intelligent design in the progression of multicellular life and ecosystems. Both you and Abaddon have called to attention some excellent empirical realities of that. But to be fair to AuldSoul, he isn't disputing evolution, as far as I know. I believe he'd like to discuss whether intelligence was required for the origins of life itself.

  So if any of you got anything on how the first bacterium could have came about, for how it developed its transcription, translation and metabolism, by strictly non intelligent processes, lets hear that.

  AuldSoul

  May I suggest you drop the von Daniken and Project Disclosure stuff and continue on with the points you'd like to make about the genetic code.
• 

  stevenyc

  Midget-Sasquatch: I believe he'd like to discuss whether intelligence was required for the origins of life itself. I don't think this is what auldSoul is saying. I think he is saying that there is evidence in the genetic coding of a designer. A subtle difference. Auldsoul, looking forward to when the starting agreements for discussion are out of the way so you can explain you hypotheses. steve
• 

  PopeOfEruke

  I concur. I want to hear Auld Souls hypothesis now - 7 pages of Introduction is too long.

  This would be a W for sure on the Ministry school card for "Introduction of Proper Length".

  Good thread though!

  Pope
• 

  Satanus

  Tophat

  Which came first? Evolutionism: The Egg came first. Formed by chance

  The answer is easy: an egg is an embryo. Which comes first, the embryo or the more fully formed?

  Also, about your answer about god's designer, the answer being that god is outside time, and hence had no beginning. That answer merely kicks the subject from one sandbox to the next, or from one dimension to another. And so, it doesn't furnish an answer. It's impossible for a superlative being to exist without any kind of precedence. Attempting to use time, or the presumed lack of it as a way out of a dilemma doesn't work.

  S
• 

  press any key

  great thread, nice to see a id/evo discussion without the nasties

  however one thing that is being presupposed without proof is that we are real, when the highest probability is that we are not

  there can only be one reality, but within that reality there is an unknown but potentially very high number of simulated realities (advanced Sim programs if you like)

  so my personal belief is that we are part of a life simulation science project running on some schoolkids super duper laptop, sitting discarded in his bedroom while he has gone outside to play nuclear-hoverball with his Alpha Centaurian neighbours

  anyway I now return you to your normal programmng

  cheers

  pak
• 

  AuldSoul

  As to the assumptions already agreed to, we will use known human designs as an indicator of design. I don't think anyone will take issue with the following assumption, based on the preliminary assumption.

  [+] Design need not be GOOD design, in order to be design (e.g. Microsoft software).

  And based on AlanF's post regarding the program designed to create a circuit, this assumption needs to be added prior to tying this in to TGAC and UGAC.

  [+] Design need not produce subjectively GOOD results, may produce billions of BAD results, and still be design.

  Therefore

  [+] The subjectively GOOD or BAD qualities of the results are not an effective measure (earmark) of design.
• 

  Narkissos

  (Free tip to both regular players: at this point it might be helpful to differentiate the notions of structure and design...

  Not that there is one absolute definition of either -- I too have strong leanings toward nominalism, like Pole . I just regard such words and concepts, once formally and conventionally defined by the players, as precious tools in the discussion.

  As a further clue, linguists deal with undesigned structures every day. Nobody -- not even God I presume -- ever sat down to design the structures of English, Polish or French grammar; they just can be recognised and described "metalinguistically," then built into general structural linguistics -- although phenomenologically there is no such thing as "language," only particular languages).
• 

  zagor

  [+] Design need not be GOOD design, in order to be design (e.g. Microsoft software).

  Oh Jesus, you cannot be serious, LMAO

  Well I guess if we were 'designed' like Micoshfts Windblows operating system we'd still be in ameba stage where

  1. Every freakin virus would kill us
  2. We'd have to be rebooted (died and resurrected) every few hours by our designer
  3. Every new upgrade would be a sick joke by our designer
  4. .... or a proof he doesn't know what he's doing
  5. And then in the middle of creation he'd completely change somewhat slick programming language (DNA) with something that takes all available brain power and memory of an organism just to keep it alive
  6. A top of that we'd have to be periodically reformated and in process would forget everything we ever knew and would have to start from the begining (at least once every two years if not earlier)
  7. Because of constant upgrades our old hardware would not be able to run new and improved versions of software so to keep us alive he'd need to take every organ out and replace it with a new one including our brains.
  8. Our brains would be soo full of sh*t, spyware, malware, adware and as result would be constantly possessed and not really our own
  9. What is more, every new upgrade would likely kill good things old versions of us actually had, so on the balance we'd be worse of than before
  10. And finally, we would be able to get along with others in community only if they pay licensing fee
• 

  Caedes

  PAK

  however one thing that is being presupposed without proof is that we are real, when the highest probability is that we are not

  I would be interested to know where you got this idea from, as my instinct is telling me that the mathematical probability of the reality of our experiental lives is higher than the the probability of a completely unknown but improbably complex artifical reality. Show me the maths, SHOW ME THE MATHS, SHOW ME THE MATHS! Sorry had a bit of a Jerry McGuire moment there!
• 

  proplog2

  AlanF. has left the building.

  Put your lighters back in your pockets.

  There is nothing to see here.

  A little crime scene tape wouldn't hurt.