98
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Theo202
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 04:19 am
@Frank Apisa,
"the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason" ~ Blackstone
"to err is human"
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 05:59 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:


Your suggestion of 'give an example of what you’re asking for' is a good one.
i.e.
Izzy said: ‘That’s 'The Ninth Configuration'…”


Yeah, but I've got an answer for everything.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 06:30 am
@Theo202,
Your favorite gambit, occam.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 06:45 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Didn’t say it was the first. Just the best telling of it, IMO.


I disagree, most of our concepts of morality comes from ancient Egypt, which also gave us the ten commandments.

The following is an inscription from the tomb of an Egyptian feudal lord about 2000BC.

As a feudal Lord he had pretty much absolute power over his dominions, but the inscription isn't about battles and glory.

"There was no citizen's daughter whom I misused; there was no widow whom I oppressed; there was no peasant whom I evicted; there was no shepherd whom I expelled;.......there was none wretched in my community, there was none hungry in my time. When years of famine came I ploughed all the fields of the Oryx valley, (his estate).....preserving its people alive and furnishing its food so that there was none hungry therein. I gave to the widow as to her who had a husband; I did not exalt the great above the humble in anything that I gave."
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 08:32 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Leadfoot wrote:
“Now I remember.

THIS is where it got abhorrent years ago.”


Frank replied:
Okay, thank you for sharing that. But it still hasn't gotten abhorrent to me this go-around. We can discuss these issues without rancor...without hurling insults...and I am still willing to try to do that.

Obviously you did not like my response to one of your questions. Give it another shot...in a different way. I thought the response I gave, considering the wide scope of your question, was adequate. Essentially you wrote a short essay...and then questioned me about the subtleties of some of its content.

Form a more specific question--self-contained and of a less wide-ranging scope. Here is what I mean about a self-contained specific question:

Since a significant component of my position on the specific "Is there at least one god*...or are there none?"...is: I do not know...

...let me ask you:

Do you know if there is at least one god or are there there none?

* (When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Alright counselor, I’ll rephrase the question.

Can you give me any indication that you actually read and comprehended any significance aspect of my protein argument?


No, I cannot. I can say to you that I did read it the first time around...and, for the sake of this comment, read the entire piece a second time.

I also re-read my response to that first reading...and stand by that response.

You seem to be insisting that individual components of the totality of existence...and the totality itself...are too complex to have occurred without "intelligent design."

I disagree totally. ALL THAT EXISTS...COULD ALWAYS HAVE EXISTED...OR COULD HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE WITHOUT THE AID OF OUTSIDE AGENCY.

It COULD HAVE...it is POSSIBLE. And since anything that has not been established as impossible is at the very least...POSSIBLE...it is possible.


Quote:
As it stood, you gave me no indication that you had even read it, let alone comprehended what I wrote.


I TOLD you I read it. If you are unwilling to accept that as the truth, there is nothing I can do except meet with you somewhere and read it while you are watching. As for comprehending it...well, I understand parts of it and other parts are more complex than I am easily able to deal with. Most are simply assertions you are making. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I am willing to accept every assertion you've made except your conclusion...mostly because if I independently verified EVERY WORD YOU WROTE...I would still respond the same way. Your conclusion that "intelligent design" is required simply does not logically follow.

Ask a logician. He or she will tell you that it does not.

It is POSSIBLE that intelligent design was involved...it also is POSSIBLE that no intelligent design was involved.

The problem I have with "intelligent design" being involved is...it supposes an agency of design that is infinitely more complex than the creation of its design...and where the hell does that come from?

Obviously something very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very complex had to come from whatever...or have always been...and why not WHAT IS?

Quote:
Quote:

...let me ask you:

Do you know if there is at least one god or are there there none?


By your definition, Yes, I am certain there is at least one god.


I seriously doubt that you KNOW there is at least one god...but I thank you for responding.

Quote:
But as asked with that definition, the proof of that in not in my protein argument. Totally different design paradigm. And because 'serious' scientists are willing to prostitute science with unsupported assumptions (infinite multiple universe, etc) it’s almost impossible to discuss rationally.

That is why I like biology, there is nothing natural about it. With physics it can be argued that all those delicately balanced constants are what they are because they had to be.
But I digress.


Yes.
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 10:38 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The problem I have with "intelligent design" being involved is...it supposes an agency of design that is infinitely more complex than the creation of its design...and where the hell does that come from?


Not infinite regress again. I’m sure I answered that years ago with you.

I do not know.

And unless you really meant to say ‘presupposes' instead of 'supposes', there is nothing wrong with proposing anything that hasn’t been proven impossible as a theoretical possibility. (as you would say).

Then you work on probabilities. A place you seem reluctant to go.

I’m well past the six sigma point on ‘intelligent design' certainty.
There are lots of men more qualified than me (academically) that share that certainty.
But then those same men would probably have me crucified when we got around to talking theology.

But thank you for clarifying your answer to me.

0 Replies
 
Theo202
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 01:48 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
It's pragmatic. You pick the option with the best chances of success until new data turns up and then you re-evaluate.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 02:06 pm
@Theo202,
Still off topic, eh?
Theo202
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 02:07 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
I disagree, most of our concepts of morality comes from ancient Egypt, which also gave us the ten commandments.

Mainstream history has a problem with the Red Sea crossing because it's so deep. There are artifacts in Saudi Arabia.

There's a Saxon version of the ten commandments in the dooms (judgments) of King Alfred. It's the basis of English common law.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 02:24 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Ignore the troll.
0 Replies
 
Theo202
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 02:50 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Because you losing the argument is always off-topic, right?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 04:24 pm
When you get up every morning you know what's going to happen all day long. That is, you don't expect people to walk on water, the sun to stand still in the sky, or to suddenly be able to move faster than a speeding bullet. No magic will happen and you don't expect it to. And yet if somebody asked, you are possibly conditioned to answer, "Yes, the magic could happen." Nevertheless, you don't expect to wrestle with an angel on the way to the bus stop. You know the sun will cross the sky, the result of two heavenly bodies in their respective positions relative to one another.

Reasonable people know that evolution is a fact. I refuse to grant credence to anyone who opposes the truth of the evolutionary theory. Some would posit that a creator is necessary to the process, but the same rule that You know when you wake up what will happen all day long is much more reasonable and there is no evidence contrariwise. From the Big Bang until now there is no measurable evidence of divine intervention.

Death seems a necessary component of evolution, allowing for adaptation to occur. Also, the fact that almost every single organism is food to other organisms. The human notoriously will eat almost anything that doesn't eat it first. What's intelligent about a system that depends on death for survival?

Early humans had no libraries or Einstein from which to draw information. By the time their minds developed so that they could question their circumstances they had to already believe much that entered into legends and myths. Emotionally they could not bear to let go of departed loved ones. They saw enough death they had to know of the inevitable in their own case and like Woody Allen would prefer not to be there when it happened. So all the mysteries became the myths and notions that became codified into religions. Whatever could toss that dislodged boulder onto your house has the power to alter other circumstances. The whatever being invisible like your dearly departed, therefore they all likely live together in invisibility. Anthropomorphism. If you don't know the word look it up.

Science has debunked the myths and fantasies of the religious doctrines, leaving raw faith to sustain the gods.

The evolution that gave the world humans delivers a blurred demarcation between animal and human intelligence the more we know. The same force that causes a human to love a dog can cause a cat to love a chicken. Animals can solve problems and manipulate the environment. The problem is, the human is an insatiable problem solver and a greedy manipulator. He is making the other species go extinct. He is currently like two species intermingled, in that a sizeable portion has essentially adopted the golden rule, while a great many others follow the eye for an eye principle. The greedy eye for an eye crowd appears to be in command because the golden rulers are too polite or too few in number to successfully resist. It is becoming more recognized by the minute that humanity will likely soon make itself extinct.

Those who hold onto notions of divine benevolence can make all the excuses they wish, but when on a daily basis toddler children and other humans get blown to smithereens simply because they are there when the totally unnecessary wars gravitate in that direction, I have to scoff.

Christians holding onto Jesus have virtually no evidence the physical man existed. Even if they could place him in history there is no evidence of his miracles. Another situation for You know what's going to happen all day long.

In conclusion, I don't have to prove there is no god to be right. All you need do is provide one scintilla of evidence to make me alter one word of what I have ever written on the topic. God is not dead, because he/she/it never existed.

bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 06:12 pm
@Theo202,
Converse in English much?
InfraBlue
 
  4  
Reply Wed 27 Apr, 2022 09:13 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'accidental life' is to understand what a protein is and how it is made.

. . .


In the "LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc. of DNA," there is a protein, huntingtin protein, that is known to interact with over one hundred other proteins, and is thought to have various functions. Huntingtin protein is genetically expressed in all cells, and especially in those of the brain and testes, and the liver, heart and lungs in lower amounts. Huntingtin protein acts with other proteins in transcription of DNA into RNA. It's involved in cell signaling and intracellular transporting. It's important in the developments of embryos. It has a role in antiapoptosis, the prevention of certain cell death processes. It controls the development of a protein, neurotrophic factor, that protects neurons and regulates neurogenesis.

There are many instances of bad "LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc. of DNA," one of which are trinucleotide repeat disorders, also known as microsatellite expansion diseases, in which trinucleotide repeats (cytocine-adenine-guanine) increase to the point of instability of those three nucleotides. This unstable repeating can occur in gene locations responsible for protein coding, and gene expression, and areas that may lead to noxious RNA production and unstable chromosomes. One notorious disease caused by trinucleotide repeat disorder is Huntington's disease, in which the huntingtin gene which codes for the huntingtin protein repeats through trinucleotide repeat expansion to the point of instability causing the creation of a corrupt protein, polyglutamine expanded, aptly named mutant huntingtin protein. The pathologically changed functions caused by mutant huntingtin protein are what cause the various symptoms of Huntington's disease, e.g. motor, cognitive and psychiatric impairments and degradation.

In regard to the folding of proteins, and the asserted "barrier to 'natural' life forming," the corrupt protein created by the trinucleotide repeat disorder of Huntington's disease tends to cleave more, creating shorter fragments containing the mutant huntingtin protein. These fragments undergo misfolding and aggregation which create non-native polyglutamine β-strands from various proteins are bonded by hydrogen bonds. The aggregates build up in cells creating inclusions that interfere with the functioning of neurons. Mutant huntingtin protein has deleterious effects on chaperone proteins which help to fold proteins and remove misfolded ones. It interacts with capsases in an apoptosis manner, opposite of the function of regular huntington protein. It is toxic to nerve cells.

The assertion of an intelligent designer is hardly backed by the evidence showing anything but an intelligent design behind what a protein is and how it is made and the various forms that these can go catastrophically awry naturally.
Theo202
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2022 02:11 am
@bobsal u1553115,
I had a similar response when arguing theology. It's like some ideas are simply off-limits for some people.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2022 04:58 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

When you get up every morning you know what's going to happen all day long. That is, you don't expect people to walk on water, the sun to stand still in the sky, or to suddenly be able to move faster than a speeding bullet. No magic will happen and you don't expect it to. And yet if somebody asked, you are possibly conditioned to answer, "Yes, the magic could happen." Nevertheless, you don't expect to wrestle with an angel on the way to the bus stop. You know the sun will cross the sky, the result of two heavenly bodies in their respective positions relative to one another.

Reasonable people know that evolution is a fact. I refuse to grant credence to anyone who opposes the truth of the evolutionary theory. Some would posit that a creator is necessary to the process, but the same rule that You know when you wake up what will happen all day long is much more reasonable and there is no evidence contrariwise. From the Big Bang until now there is no measurable evidence of divine intervention.

Death seems a necessary component of evolution, allowing for adaptation to occur. Also, the fact that almost every single organism is food to other organisms. The human notoriously will eat almost anything that doesn't eat it first. What's intelligent about a system that depends on death for survival?

Early humans had no libraries or Einstein from which to draw information. By the time their minds developed so that they could question their circumstances they had to already believe much that entered into legends and myths. Emotionally they could not bear to let go of departed loved ones. They saw enough death they had to know of the inevitable in their own case and like Woody Allen would prefer not to be there when it happened. So all the mysteries became the myths and notions that became codified into religions. Whatever could toss that dislodged boulder onto your house has the power to alter other circumstances. The whatever being invisible like your dearly departed, therefore they all likely live together in invisibility. Anthropomorphism. If you don't know the word look it up.

Science has debunked the myths and fantasies of the religious doctrines, leaving raw faith to sustain the gods.

The evolution that gave the world humans delivers a blurred demarcation between animal and human intelligence the more we know. The same force that causes a human to love a dog can cause a cat to love a chicken. Animals can solve problems and manipulate the environment. The problem is, the human is an insatiable problem solver and a greedy manipulator. He is making the other species go extinct. He is currently like two species intermingled, in that a sizeable portion has essentially adopted the golden rule, while a great many others follow the eye for an eye principle. The greedy eye for an eye crowd appears to be in command because the golden rulers are too polite or too few in number to successfully resist. It is becoming more recognized by the minute that humanity will likely soon make itself extinct.

Those who hold onto notions of divine benevolence can make all the excuses they wish, but when on a daily basis toddler children and other humans get blown to smithereens simply because they are there when the totally unnecessary wars gravitate in that direction, I have to scoff.

Christians holding onto Jesus have virtually no evidence the physical man existed. Even if they could place him in history there is no evidence of his miracles. Another situation for You know what's going to happen all day long.

In conclusion, I don't have to prove there is no god to be right. All you need do is provide one scintilla of evidence to make me alter one word of what I have ever written on the topic.


Every word you just wrote could be absolutely correct. But if you assert that there are no gods...YOU ARE STILL ASSERTING NOTHING MORE THAN A BLIND GUESS.

Quote:

God is not dead, because he/she/it never existed.


Ah, yes. There it is. The atheistic blind guess. Mirror image of theistic blind guesses.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2022 05:39 am
@InfraBlue,
Ah yes, something has obviously tampered with the awesome genome of virtually all biological entities.

Reminds me of a Bible story, but judging by your conclusion, you’re not interested.

But yes, LANGUAGE, (the spoken kind) is also enough to convince some people that it is not 'natural' either.
Theo202
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2022 03:26 pm
@Leadfoot,
A self referencing language isn't the result of gradual development. It's about Babylon.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2022 03:28 pm
@Leadfoot,
Language is a virus.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Apr, 2022 04:31 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Ah yes, something has obviously tampered with the awesome genome of virtually all biological entities.

Reminds me of a Bible story, but judging by your conclusion, you’re not interested.

I'm game.

Leadfoot wrote:
But yes, LANGUAGE, (the spoken kind) is also enough to convince some people that it is not 'natural' either.

Okay.
I don't buy it, however.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 08:57:31