I still want to know who created god.
Discussion of "intelligent design" (uncapitalized, AlanF)
by AuldSoul 153 Replies latest members adult
-
-
AuldSoul
So, zagor, do I take it that you agree that known design does not require a subjective qualification of "GOOD" to be applied to it in order to be marked as known design? IMO, Microsoft proves the point that subjective assignation of "good" or "bad" to the practical results of a given design is not an effective measure of whether or not the results were by design.
This removed from the table of considerations, we can eliminate completely the argument that the design must meet some arbitrary standard we set of good vs. bad results.
TGAC and UGAC: we describe these in terms computer programmers also use. They form a language, when strung together in certain sequences, of a fairly small set of basic commands (with some additional variables and a couple of error-handling functions for treating certain acid interactions thrown in, for good measure).
As has been mentioned, frequently DNA strands will have multiple copies of the same code sets, programmers keep staged backups of their work in progress. Redundancy is a mark of intelligence. You never know what the future holds and it is always good to be prepared.
Geneticists call areas of the strand containing non-function DNA "junk DNA"...programmers call areas of non-functioning compiled code "junk code"...in chemistry materials that are present which do not affect the outcome are termed "inert" materials.
The portion of the strand which indicates eye growth in a fruit fly, also indicates eye growth in a mouse. When the gene that produces the fruit fly's eye was spliced into the genes of a mouse, the mouse produced a normal mouse eye, contrary to expectations. This sort of reusable code is called "modular code" in programming. Through use of modular code, many different applications (results) can take advantage of a singular block of code that provably worked well. I am not sure there is a term for this in chemistry, but once interactions are consistently identified between materials in many different preparations they can be anticipated and depended upon, to a degree, in future preparations.
The progeny of fruit flies will have genetic material in common with its parents. If one of its parents had small wings and the other had average sized wings, there is a chance that the progeny will have smaller than average wings. Properties in the result can be inherited from properties possessed by ancestors.
"Evolutionary programming" is an aspiration of current computer programmers. That is, programming that allows the resulting process to respond to stimuli (usually in the form of needed results) by "inventing" its own responses.
Already, bioengineered and discovered bacteria are being used to leech chemical plumes out of water in aquifer systems and brownfields, here in the U.S.
How many years yet remain before humanity launches an experiment in terraforming by using bacteria or other single-celled organisms that survive off of purely chemical interactions? Will it matter to us how many eons the process takes? Will we lose interest in the outcomes? Will we stop with just one or two planets?
It has always been odd to me that earliest life on this planet just happened to generate an atmosphere hospitable to larger carbon-based lifeforms. Because it certainly can't be said that carbon-based life is the form most likely to survive earth's early conditions.
-
frankiespeakin
Actually I find this whole debate thing rather fruitless, no one has proven either way. How can you possibly prove it either way, when "intelligence" is in the eye of the beholder. We have so many variable as to what constitues intelligence, we are discussing what constitutes, good, bad, practicle, absolute,partial, infathomable, etc...types of intelligence.
When you come down to it it is all just opinion based on what one's prejudice might be. Athiest, and Theist, are individuals who have picked a side and tend to slant or read into things from thier POV.
That's why I think the Agnostic, is the more correct approach, why form an definite opinion when the facts don't prove either one.I really think that one would have to be Omniscient to come up with the correct conclusion with absolute certainty.
And this "God" thing, thier are so many variables as to what that can be. Some refure to it as everything is God, or that God is the emptiness out of which everthing comes into being and then disapears back into the nothingness. So many ways to look at it and no certainty, the never ending Mystery.
-
stillajwexelder
I still want to know who created god. I promise to tell you provided you do not ask me who created him (the one that created god)
-
stillajwexelder
who created the singularity that "big banged" that became the universe - who created matter - who created energy? The questions are just as valid
-
Satanus
Auldsoul
It has always been odd to me that earliest life on this planet just happened to generate an atmosphere hospitable to larger carbon-based lifeforms.
You suggest that something programmed those bacterias? Where is the evidence for this? It could be that you have this picture backwards, and that life evolved in adaptation to the conditions. Afterall, those same original oxygen (or whatever) producing bacteria later, some of them, evolved into higher forms.
Because it certainly can't be said that carbon-based life is the form most likely to survive earth's early conditions.
What was the most likely to survive, then?
S
-
Satanus
stillajwexelder
who created the singularity that "big banged" that became the universe - who created matter - who created energy? The questions are just as valid
Not really. The amorphous, diaphenous yet superhot blob that probably was the newly born big bang embryo was vastly different from the all knowing, omnipotent, perfectly formed and organised unchanging bible god creator. The big bang/universe has never been static. It may well be on an upwardly evolutionary course as well. Further, the intelligence within the universe is next to nothing when compared to the supposed intellect of the bible god. S -
Dansk
who created the singularity that "big banged" that became the universe
It was the gods when they banged away!
Ian
-
frankiespeakin
Too make a conclusion, about any of this, is to be arbitrary in some facts one has gathered somewhere along the line in ones resonings for somewhere in the long line of reasonings there are reasonings based on arbitrary conclusions, whether we admit to it or not.
Some will conclude that nothing should exist unless some intelligence makes it exist, this is just as arbitrary as the opposite that states, that something could exist even if there is no intelligence. All stem from an arbitrary notion, or supposed fact which is a belief based on an opinion and no solid provable facts.
-
freetosee
who created the singularity that "big banged" that became the universe
