14
   

The brief appearance of Islamic members.

 
 
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 06:08 pm
@Fatihah,
Quote:
As for evidence that it takes intelligence to originate a repeating pattern, the evidence was presented in the fact that neither a new born or a dead body has the ability to draw a repeating pattern due to the lack of intelligence.


this doesn't prove anything. reference this please so i may look it up for myself.

Quote:
Your inability to prove otherwise supports so.


http://heritagemath.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/fibonac_8.gif

http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/The-Numbers-of-Fibonacci-and-Nature-2.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsuu3oSigL1r3i71lo1_500.jpg

correct me if i'm wrong, but plants and shells aren't intelligent. that's how they evolved, and maths can describe it.
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 06:09 pm
@Fatihah,
Quote:
And based on your own logic, if life is required to create a repeating pattern,


i never said that, all i said was unintelligence is irrelevant in a dead body.
Berty McJock
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 06:12 pm
@MattDavis,
lol like it, you totally debunk my statement, thus reinforcing both our points of view (i think we're in agreement here in general lol)
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 06:15 pm
@Fatihah,
Fatihah wrote:
Inteligence as defined in the dictionary and the definition that I'm referring too means the ability to learn and comprehend. The different levels of intelligence varies with amongst individuals.

Well,
by this definition, God/Allah must be either unintelligent or not omniscient.
If he is omniscient that means he knows everything and therefore cannot learn more.
If he is unintelligent, I seriously question his worthiness for the title of "God".
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 06:21 pm
@Berty McJock,
Berty wrote:
(i think we're in agreement here in general lol)

I might concede to a tentative agreement so long as the boundary conditions of such an agreement are rigorously defined. Laughing
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 06:36 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
I might concede to a tentative agreement so long as the boundary conditions of such an agreement are rigorously defined.


i have but one condition...outlandish statements need more than the repetition of unsubstantiated opinions and conjecture to back them up.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 07:03 pm
@Berty McJock,
Quote:
i have but one condition...outlandish statements need more than the repetition of unsubstantiated opinions and conjecture to back them up.

Seems like a heavy burden to impose upon myself.
This might lead me toward having to reject the validity of such statements.
I'll think it over and get back to you.
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 07:19 pm
Quote:
Living things like orchids, hummingbirds, and the peacock's tail have abstract designs with a beauty of form, pattern and colour that artists struggle to match.[14] The beauty that people perceive in nature has causes at different levels, notably in the mathematics that governs what patterns can physically form, and among living things in the effects of natural selection, that govern how patterns evolve.[15]

Mathematics seeks to discover and explain abstract patterns or regularities of all kinds.[16][17] Visual patterns in nature find explanations in chaos theory, fractals, logarithmic spirals, topology and other mathematical patterns. For example, L-systems form convincing models of different patterns of tree growth.[12]

The laws of physics apply the abstractions of mathematics to the real world, often as if it were perfect. For example a crystal is perfect when it has no structural defects such as dislocations and is fully symmetric. Exact mathematical perfection can only approximate real objects.[18] Visible patterns in nature are governed by physical laws; for example, meanders can be explained using fluid dynamics.

In biology, natural selection, can cause the development of patterns in living things for several reasons, including camouflage,[19] sexual selection,[19] and different kinds of signalling, including mimicry[20] and cleaning symbiosis.[21] In plants, the shapes, colours, and patterns of flowers like the lily have evolved to optimise insect pollination (other plants may be pollinated by wind, birds, or bats). European honey bees and other pollinating insects are attracted to flowers by a radial pattern of colours and stripes (some visible only in ultraviolet light) that serve as nectar guides that can be seen at a distance; by scent; and by rewards of sugar-rich nectar and edible pollen.


lifted from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature

there are many reasons for patterns in nature...i didn't see intelligence mentioned. patterns are not proof of intellect, they are a result of nature.
0 Replies
 
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 07:21 pm
@MattDavis,
take your time, no rush.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 11:02 pm
@MattDavis,
Rolling Eyes
The "repeated pattern" argument is tautologous and therefore vacuous because it requires "intelligence" to recognize "pattern" !


But note that here are better examples of "spontaneous structure" more reflective of life processes. See for example Prigogine's work on dissipative structures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine
This work strongly supports the conclusion that what we call "the life process" requires no external agent or "creator" to instigate it. And that is effectively the last nail in the coffin of the "intelligent design" argument.

Yet note too that theists have an ultimate catch-all fall back position which can roughly be stated as: "All human knowledge, including scientific knowledge is in the gift of God". Fatihah does understand that this is his/her last and only resort.

MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 11:36 pm
@fresco,
Thanks for the Prigogine reference.
I'm not at all familiar with his work.
I appreciate what I very briefly read regarding his evidence against determinism, and it seems in many ways like the evidence Wolfram discovered for irreversibility in computational systems.
Do you have any "suggested reading" or personal favorites amongst his work?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 03:16 am
@MattDavis,
My knowledge of Prigogine is indirect. He is mentioned by Fritjof Capra in his book "The Web of Life" which I highly recommend.
BTW correction to the above
"...Fatihah does not understand that...."
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 03:53 am
@fresco,
Correction is noted, and has made the proposition of the corresponding statement more plausible.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check for it at ye olde public library.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 04:02 am
@MattDavis,
Capra Synopsis
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~lsdc1/SysBiol/capra.weboflife.schrodingerlecture.1997.pdf
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 04:07 am
Fatihah is an exception which proves the rule. Most of the Muslims who post here, having identified themselves either directly or by implication as Muslims just come here to drop off their copy and paste screeds, and have no interested in discussing anything. They are just using the internet to meet their obligation to preach to the infidel and the pagan. It is very rare indeed that a Muslim here who is promoting Islam actually wants to discuss it.

On the other hand, we could have any number of members here who are Muslim, and not know it, because a discussion of Islam is not what brought them here. Most of the people who come, whether they stay or not, don't come here to discuss religion.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 05:05 am
@fresco,
Thank you so much; that was great!
I will definitely read the book.
Particularly, as it may require me to examine my 'veganism' and how I practice it.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 05:25 am
@Fatihah,
Fatihah wrote:

Yet your weak rebuttal suports evidence to the contrary
It wasn't a rebuttal, it was an observation. The arguments you made weren't even remotely logical or evidentiary, and therefor not even worthy of a rebuttal. You need to learn what logic and evidence are before you can try to present them.

The other members here are doing a good job of trying to educate you on where you went wrong, so I'll leave it to them.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 05:29 am
@Berty McJock,
Berty McJock wrote:
i have but one condition...outlandish statements need more than the repetition of unsubstantiated opinions and conjecture to back them up.
I think this is often phrased as, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Smile
0 Replies
 
aspvenom
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 05:53 am
Where's an Occam's razor when you really need one?
0 Replies
 
aspvenom
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 05:57 am
@Berty McJock,
No that's doesn't do justice to the Fibonacci spiral.

http://mathspig.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/fibonacci-hair-flip.jpg?w=450

Now that's a more proper way to present it
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 04:00:57