Intelligent Design & the Odds of Life

[akh]

I infered this conclusion actually based on scientific knowledge, namely that the cell contains codified information, and such information comes always from a mind.

 

 

You can't infer it, you have to prove it. They are not the same things. Prove that codified information must come from a mind.

 

 

Scientific data actually points clearly to a supernatural origin of all universe, since naturalism is not able to explain convincingly why our universe is finely tuned to create life, and life per se. And the origin of the universe points us to a cause of it. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

 

No it does not. Define "finely tuned". "Why" in the sense that you pose the question is not a valid question. There is no "why", the appropriate question is how. By asking why, you are already assuming "greater purpose". That assumption is not part of evidence based investigation. Moreover, there is mountains of scientific knowledge that contributes to the how.

 

thunder and lightning is actually evidence of God.

 

And Christmas presents are evidence of Santa Clause, and Easter baskets are evidence of the Easter Bunny.

Edited August 5, 2012 by akh

[Elshamah]

1

Well, you are half right. The cell contains information.

There is no need or logical reason to suppose that it comes from a mind.

 

 

well, can you give a example, just one, of codified information, as contained in DNA, that has a natural, aka non intelligent origin ?

 

 

 

[akh]

well, can you give a example, just one, of codified information, as contained in DNA, that has a natural, aka non intelligent origin ?

 

 

Yes, you have mentioned it already, DNA. There are others, like RNA. So that's two.

 

Please address the concerns in my previous post.

Edited August 5, 2012 by akh

[Moontanman]

well, can you give a example, just one, of codified information, as contained in DNA, that has a natural, aka non intelligent origin ?

 

 

All of it...

[iNow]

thunder and lightning is actually evidence of God.

Good stuff, man. Good stuff. Woo... I thought you were serious there, for a moment.

 

[akh]

And you still have not provided proof that DNA, or all codified information, always comes from the (a) mind. All you did was pose another question.

 

So, again I will ask you prove that codified information must come from a mind.

 

In fact, I can show that the codified information does not even need a mind to translate it. Thats two degrees of separation from your argument.

Edited August 5, 2012 by akh

[Moontanman]

I infered this conclusion actually based on scientific knowledge, namely that the cell contains codified information, and such information comes always from a mind.

 

You have been shown evidence that this is a strawman argument yet you ignore it instead of trying to refute it...

 

 

 

 

 

Scientific data actually points clearly to a supernatural origin of all universe, since naturalism is not able to explain convincingly why our universe is finely tuned to create life, and life per se. And the origin of the universe points us to a cause of it. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

 

No, you cannot show out universe is fine tuned for life, in fact since more than 99.9999% of the universe is hostile to life i think it can be said the universe is not fine tuned for life...

 

 

http://www.ideacente...ils.php/id/1186

 

the argument notes that intelligent design theory is a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of specified (or irreducibly) complex information, and thus argues from positive predictions of design. The lack of detailed step-by-step evolutionary explanations for the origin of irreducible complexity is the result of the fact that irreducible complexity is fundamentally not evolvable by Darwinian evolution.

 

irreducible complexity is yet another strawman that has been refuted in this thread many times...

 

And how did this nature came to be ?

 

http://www.gty.org/r...t-or-not-part-1

 

You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hum...somebody made it." What else would logic say? "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody...somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it."

 

Do you have any real science to back any of this up?

 

You say, "No, no, chance made it." Listen, folks, that's rational suicide, that's not logical. Logic abandoned leaves you with myth and the enemies of mythology, the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational. But if you love your sin enough, you'll do it. You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic and those two things are the essence of pure science, if you can get rid of those things then mythology runs wild.

 

Again, listen to this closely Elshamah, no one but you is saying chance made every thing, only you, this is a strawman argument.... Every time you assert this idea that chance made everything you are showing your own ignorance...

 

Writers of astronomy textbooks just keep recycling the myth, sort of like the flat-Earth myth, which was the idea that Columbus was told the Earth was flat and he thought it was round. That's just wrong too.""Scholars at the time knew it was a sphere," added Gonzalez. "Even the ancient Greeks knew it was a sphere."They'd known it for a thousand years or more," said Richards.I knew they were right about that. David Lindberg, former professor of the history of science and currently director of the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin, said in a recent interview:One obvious [myth] is that before Columbus, Europeans believed nearly unanimously in a flat Earth-a belief allegedly drawn from certain biblical statements and enforced by the medieval church. This myth seems to have had an eighteenth century origin, elaborated and popularized by Washington Irving, who flagrantly fabricated evidence for it in his four-volume history of Columbus.... The truth is that it's almost impossible to find an educated person after Aristotle who doubts that the Earth is a sphere. In the Middle Ages, you couldn't emerge from any kind of education, cathedral school or university, without being perfectly clear about the Earth's sphericity and even its approximate circumference.

 

 

The Holy bible, old testament clearly asserts the earth is a flat disc under a crystal dome surrounded over and under by water...

 

 

thunder and lightning is actually evidence of God.

 

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t410-thunder-lightning-proof-of-god

 

That is an amazing collection of strawmen, do you get points to this constant rant of ignorance? If lightning come from god why is it so easy to prevent it from striking, makes god look awfully weak to me and NO, No one says that lightning striking a pool of goo made life.

 

Elshamah, you are an embarrassment to creationists everywhere, I bet Ken Haim tells jokes about your poor arguments...

[Elshamah]

You can't infer it, you have to prove it. They are not the same things. Prove that codified information must come from a mind.

 

I don't need to prove anything, to show how rational my position is.

 

 

 

http://www.chirpz.com/2011/04/19/dna-evidence-for-god/

 

 

Define "finely tuned".

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

 

The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.[/font][/color]

 

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12540

[akh]

I don't need to prove anything, to show how rational my position is.

 

 

Ohh, but you do and you can't which is why you refuse to do so.

 

BTW, I fixed your statement so that it is now true.

 

 

I don't need to prove anything, to show how irrational my position is.

 

[John Cuthber]

I don't need to prove anything, to show how rational my position is.

 

This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

"I don't need to prove anything, to show how rational my position is. "

That's a lot more true than it first looks.

 

"This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism."

Indeed, and it's a very poor argument (not least because it's a strawman attack on an alternative).

Edited August 5, 2012 by John Cuthber

[doG]

....its also possible that Santa Claus exists. We has just not found him yet....

 

ID is not a made up answer, but a logical inference based on what we have discovered through science...

 

Proofs, only in mathematics.

 

I do not believe, God was created, but exists eternally, without beginning, without a end.

 

It appears you have already drawn your own conclusions...Discussion is pointless.

[Greg H.]

I infered this conclusion actually based on scientific knowledge, namely that the cell contains codified information, and such information comes always from a mind.

And yet, there's no proof of this. No more than there is proof that natural laws require a law-giver.

 

 

Scientific data actually points clearly to a supernatural origin of all universe, since naturalism is not able to explain convincingly why our universe is finely tuned to create life, and life per se. And the origin of the universe points us to a cause of it. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

Define "finely tuned" in an objective way.

 

 

the argument notes that intelligent design theory is a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of specified (or irreducibly) complex information, and thus argues from positive predictions of design. The lack of detailed step-by-step evolutionary explanations for the origin of irreducible complexity is the result of the fact that irreducible complexity is fundamentally not evolvable by Darwinian evolution.

 

Irreducible complexity IS the argument from incredulity I was referring to. Just because something seems irreducible does not mean it is.

 

 

And how did this nature came to be ?

While I admit we do not have all the answers, using supernatural explanations tosses science out the window. If we're going to invoke the supernatural we may as well say demons cause friction, and reindeer keep airplanes up.

 

thunder and lightning is actually evidence of God.

 

Oh...ok, so you're a crackpot who will never change from their preconceived notions and belief that Goddidit. Good to know. I can spend less time thinking you're seriously debating the topic as opposed to just preaching.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Elshamah,

The preaching stops now. You don't need to provide proof of anything (proofs belong to math), but you sure as hell need to stop ignoring people and provide evidence for your assertions. This is your last warning. Since this is not your thread I am reluctant to close it, so be warned that you will be considered by staff for suspension if this keeps up.

Before posting again, read these:

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29
http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

Once you've read those, read them again and then go back to the start of this thread and read the links that were already provided by other posters. While you're at it, perhaps you could also go back and read the answers to the questions you keep posting instead of ignoring them.

Finally, please don't derail the thread by responding to this mod note. If you have a question about it, please use the report feature, located at the bottom left of each post.

[Elshamah]

While I admit we do not have all the answers, using supernatural explanations tosses science out the window.

 

Of course not. The supernatural is one of the possible explanations based on what we see in nature.

 

 

 

[iNow]

The supernatural is one of the possible explanations based on what we see in nature.

Your comment here is self-falsifying. If it is "super-natural," then it is "beyond" nature. Ergo, it cannot explain what we see "in" nature. The two circles in that particular Venn diagram are non-overlapping and orthogonal to one another.

 

Even if you deny this, you cannot reasonably argue that your personal version of mythologies and fictions are an "explanation" for anything other than human ignorance and delusion, or perhaps their ability of authors to create baseless stories only fractionally connected to reality. Your comment above is equivalent to saying that the existence of characters in Harry Potter books are "one of the possible explanations based on what we see in nature," and it's frankly both childish and silly.

 

Either way, the cosmos doesn't give two shits what you believe and what you choose to accept or reject. You can believe that a magical unicorn is your best friend if you're so inclined. Simply believing it won't make it true, though.

[Elshamah]

Your comment here is self-falsifying. If it is "super-natural," then it is "beyond" nature. Ergo, it cannot explain what we see "in" nature.

 

The supernatural can be the cause of the natural. Where is the problem ?

 

 

 

Even if you deny this, you cannot reasonably argue that your personal version of mythologies and fictions are an "explanation" for anything other than human ignorance and delusion, or perhaps their ability of authors to create baseless stories only fractionally connected to reality.

 

How comes ? please present a better explanation for the existence of the universe, than a intelligent creator.

 

 

 

 

Your comment above is equivalent to saying that the existence of characters in Harry Potter books are "one of the possible explanations based on what we see in nature," and it's frankly both childish and silly.

 

Yes, Harry Potter would be silly and childish. You cannot however compare something, that has no evidence, with the God i believe in.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Elshamah

[Greg H.]

Yes, Harry Potter would be silly and childish. You cannot however compare something, that has no evidence, with the God i believe in.

 

And you have no idea how ironic that statement is, do you? It is obvious that further discussion with you on the matter is pointless. You are unwilling to actually consider what is being said to you.

 

To paraphrase Epictetus:

You cannot teach a man what he thinks he already knows.

[ecoli]

Yes, Harry Potter would be silly and childish. You cannot however compare something, that has no evidence, with the God i believe in.

You only lack sufficient faith to believe in the reality that is Harry Potter. So it is written.

[dragonstar57]

Of course not. The supernatural is one of the possible explanations based on what we see in nature.

the supernatural does not exist.

do you know how I know?

because that is basically what the word supernatural means....

natural:Existing in or caused by nature

nature:the universe, with all its phenomena.

so the phrase unnatural basically not existing within the universe.

lets see what universe means....

 

universe:the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

so basically if something exists it it natural and not supernatural.

if ghosts were proven to exist they would be considered natural.

so we know that life began by natural means because whatever happened (even if it was your god) we would describe it as natural.

so why should we pick one natural argument over another: evidence Aabiogenesis has more

[Moontanman]

The supernatural can be the cause of the natural. Where is the problem ?

 

So could invisible dragons, what is your point?

 

How comes ? please present a better explanation for the existence of the universe, than a intelligent creator.

 

A naturalistic cause that doesn't add a unnecessary layer of complexity... such as colliding branes in a multidimensional space...

 

Yes, Harry Potter would be silly and childish. You cannot however compare something, that has no evidence, with the God i believe in.

 

And yet you provide no evidence for the god you believe in that is any better than the evidence of Harry Potter.....

[Elshamah]

And you have no idea how ironic that statement is, do you? It is obvious that further discussion with you on the matter is pointless. You are unwilling to actually consider what is being said to you.

 

 

How about you ?!!

 

But indeed : no one can convince me on the contrary. Neither i am here with that purpose. I have seen miracles happen in my life, that makes in impossible to NOT believe in God.

 

 

 

 

the supernatural does not exist.

do you know how I know?

because that is basically what the word supernatural means....

natural:Existing in or caused by nature

nature:the universe, with all its phenomena.

so the phrase unnatural basically not existing within the universe.

lets see what universe means....

 

universe:the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

so basically if something exists it it natural and not supernatural.

if ghosts were proven to exist they would be considered natural.

so we know that life began by natural means because whatever happened (even if it was your god) we would describe it as natural.

so why should we pick one natural argument over another: evidence Aabiogenesis has more

 

The problem is just about semantics . We can just replace the word supernatural with God. A God that is above our universe, and the known dimensions.

 

So could invisible dragons, what is your point?

 

My point is, that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. The universe most probably had a beginning, therefore a cause.

 

A naturalistic cause that doesn't add a unnecessary layer of complexity... such as colliding branes in a multidimensional space...

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">Please note that the number of superstring theories given above is only a high-level classification; the actual number of mathematically distinct theories which are compatible with observation and would therefore have to be examined to find the one that correctly describes nature is currently believed to be at least 10^500 (a one with five hundred zeroes). This has given rise to the concern that superstring theories, despite the alluring simplicity of their basic principles, are, in fact, not simple at all, and according to the principle of Occam's razor perhaps alternative physical theories going beyond the Standard Model should be explored.

 

do you believe we are the result of such a big lucky accident ?

 

And yet you provide no evidence for the god you believe in that is any better than the evidence of Harry Potter.....

 

Please present evidence, the universe is all there is.

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2012 by Elshamah

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

My point is, that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

 

This assertion is at odds with experimental results for the Casimir effect.

Particles pop in and out of existence even in an "empty" space and they cause measurable effects.

 

Your reasoning is based on a false premise (as well as being deeply logically flawed)

[Moontanman]

How about you ?!!

 

But indeed : no one can convince me on the contrary. Neither i am here with that purpose. I have seen miracles happen in my life, that makes in impossible to NOT believe in God.

 

Care to share on of those impossible not to believe in god type miracles?

 

The problem is just about semantics . We can just replace the word supernatural with God. A God that is above our universe, and the known dimensions.

 

We can play word games forever doesn't make god any more likely...

 

My point is, that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. The universe most probably had a beginning, therefore a cause.

 

Why does that cause have to be an intelligent super being? Why can it not simply be a naturalistic cause we are currently unaware of?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">Please note that the number of superstring theories given above is only a high-level classification; the actual number of mathematically distinct theories which are compatible with observation and would therefore have to be examined to find the one that correctly describes nature is currently believed to be at least 10^500 (a one with five hundred zeroes). This has given rise to the concern that superstring theories, despite the alluring simplicity of their basic principles, are, in fact, not simple at all, and according to the principle of Occam's razor perhaps alternative physical theories going beyond the Standard Model should be explored.

 

do you believe we are the result of such a big lucky accident ?

 

Accident? Lucky? If things were different... things would be different... and we wouldn't be here to complain.

 

Please present evidence, the universe is all there is.

 

You have made a positive assertion that god exists, in fact you are asserting that a particular god exists but no matter, the burden of proof is on you not me....

[Greg H.]

And you have no idea how ironic that statement is, do you? It is obvious that further discussion with you on the matter is pointless. You are unwilling to actually consider what is being said to you.

 

How about you ?!!

 

But indeed : no one can convince me on the contrary. Neither i am here with that purpose. I have seen miracles happen in my life, that makes in impossible to NOT believe in God.

 

 

When you start presenting evidence, I'll listen. However, personal miracles and parables from the Bible are not evidence, nor is your inability (or unwillingness) to examine the scientific evidence presented that conflicts with your statements. If you aren't here to discuss things based on evidence and science, why did you join a science forum?

Edited August 7, 2012 by Greg H.