Intelligent Design

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is not a Buddhist belief, it is a personal belief of Shakyamunison...

I'm sorry, I usually make that clear, but I didn't in this thread.

My beliefs are my own, they are a reflection of what I have learned from Christianity and Buddhism with my own life experience thrown in, but in no way should they ever be confused with the pure teachings of Buddha.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Considering that Creation Science is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, yes it does.

A creation theory of development does not necessarily need to incorporate the Bible. I probably should have used the term intelligent design. Assuming that the Bible is not fact does not disprove intelligent design, just Biblical creationism. Intelligent design would to me be the equivalent to the agnostic stance, "something created it, could have been a god"

Thanks for the clarification on the Buddhist belief mistake. I know a little about Buddhism, but not enough to know if someone is stating their belief or the Buddhist belief.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not attacking anyone.

I am sorry I did not mean attack in a negative sense. I view statements like these to be a debate. If you state a stance opposing another view I typically term it an attack, it could also be a defense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are interpreting the bible fugitively and are opened to the possibility of other interpretations. This is not the kind of mind set was talking about.

I am unsure as to your meaning in the phrase "interpreting the bible fugitively." Could you clarify the meaning of this phrase?

I am not mainstream Christian, I am Mormon. I also would probably be considered very open-minded as to interpretation compared to the majority of people that believe the Bible.

Mormons should suspect religious beliefs that conflict with science, although we do take a highly skeptical stance as to anything reliant only on inference from other information, no matter the degree of certainty involved.

Originally posted by ushomefree
At the core of Intelligent Design, Molecular Biologists become acquainted with DNA. Defined loosely, DNA are blue prints (information) utilized within the cell for the task of manufacturing, much like blue prints are utilized by architects for the task of manufacturing structures- stadiums for example. Molecular Biologists are forced to ponder: Where did the information come from? When nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind did not say, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!" Intelligence is required to manufacture such a machine. Such complexity is present in all organisms, even slugs and meal worms. The big question is, however, where did the information stored in DNA come from? To better understand the complexity of organisms, let us focus on the cell. Click the hyper link below, and enlighten yourself to the automated presentation surrounding protein synthesis. Thank you.

http://www.lewport.wnyric.org/JWANAMAKER/animations/Protein%20Synthesis%20-%20long.html

Don't waste your time, no one's gonna make an intelligent rebuttal to your argument.

Originally posted by Regret
I am sorry I did not mean attack in a negative sense. I view statements like these to be a debate. If you state a stance opposing another view I typically term it an attack, it could also be a defense.

Cool.

Originally posted by Regret
I am unsure as to your meaning in the phrase "interpreting the bible fugitively." Could you clarify the meaning of this phrase?

I will try: some people read the bible and take what is written literally, you are not one of these people. Did that help?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Don't waste your time, no one's gonna make an intelligent rebuttal to your argument.

Here is a rebuttal:

Information in the sense that you are describing is material, DNA. Material is copied, via the DNA splitting and combining with other material. Where did it come from? At some point in time what we refer to as a cell evolved into a cell from something else. DNA is not that complex, it is just small. If you look at one individual gene, it is not complex in itself, the sequence, given its size is complex. DNA in itself is not complex, it is complex when compared to the number of possible variations. Intelligent Design theory is saying this, "Oh look at that arrangement of stars, it is so complex, God must have done it" when in reality there are simple gravitational principles that control their arrangement. They claim complexity from our frame of reference, and from the difficulty they have in comprehending the subject they look at. Or else they see that man behaved in the same way as his physiology does and say "look I did a similar thing as my molecular physiology does, some entity must have done what I did to start all this." Maybe when nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind should have said, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I will try: some people read the bible and take what is written literally, you are not one of these people. Did that help?

Yep, wasn't sure if it was saying I had done something in conflict with the Bible. Thanks.

Originally posted by Regret
Here is a rebuttal:

Information in the sense that you are describing is material, DNA. Material is copied, via the DNA splitting and combining with other material. Where did it come from? At some point in time what we refer to as a cell evolved into a cell from something else. DNA is not that complex, it is just small. If you look at one individual gene, it is not complex in itself, the sequence, given its size is complex. DNA in itself is not complex, it is complex when compared to the number of possible variations. Intelligent Design theory is saying this, "Oh look at that arrangement of stars, it is so complex, God must have done it" when in reality there are simple gravitational principles that control their arrangement. They claim complexity from our frame of reference, and from the difficulty they have in comprehending the subject they look at. Or else they see that man behaved in the same way as his physiology does and say "look I did a similar thing as my molecular physiology does, some entity must have done what I did to start all this." Maybe when nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind should have said, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!"

Perhaps I should just have stated that ignorance of origin and complexity do not equal Intelligent Design being a necessary possibility.

Originally posted by ushomefree
At the core of Intelligent Design, Molecular Biologists become acquainted with DNA. Defined loosely, DNA are blue prints (information) utilized within the cell for the task of manufacturing, much like blue prints are utilized by architects for the task of manufacturing structures- stadiums for example. Molecular Biologists are forced to ponder: Where did the information come from? When nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind did not say, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!" Intelligence is required to manufacture such a machine. Such complexity is present in all organisms, even slugs and meal worms. The big question is, however, where did the information stored in DNA come from? To better understand the complexity of organisms, let us focus on the cell. Click the hyper link below, and enlighten yourself to the automated presentation surrounding protein synthesis. Thank you.

http://www.lewport.wnyric.org/JWANAMAKER/animations/Protein%20Synthesis%20-%20long.html

You're forgetting a couple of extremely important points.

1. Evolution took a very, very long time. 4 billion years is an unfathomably long amount of time—it's basically beyond human comprehension. Evolution is nothing like building a nuclear submarine. I heard one analogy that sums it up better: evolution is something like turning a pickup truck into a Ferarri with nothing but a hammer, a chisel, and a few hundred million years in the garage. Oh, and there's that other part—you have no idea what you're building.

2. Again, the analogy of DNA to blueprints might be appropriate for explaining genetics to a child, but it's a pretty poor one. The big piece you're forgetting here is that there are long stretches of DNA that mean absolutely nothing. They are known to biologists as "nonsense". What architect would fill his designs with complete gibberish?

3. The argument of, "I'm too complex to have arisen by accident" is completely asinine. You can't blame something on God just because you don't understand it.

"One of the most famous arguments of the creationist theory of the universe is the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley's: Just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into existence by accident, so too must all living things, with their far greater complexity, be purposefully designed...[The] analogy is false. Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

Evil Dead....action at a distance can be explained by quatum mech and sypersymmetry. A though is an electrucal impulse (with our current understanding).

as of 2001.....it had yet to be explained. Exactly how the information is transferred nor how it does so instantaneously. A quick google search gives me the impression that in the 5 years since I attended a physics course, no new information has been gained.

It's off-topic of this thread so if you could please PM me the names of the published papers in which this mystery was solved so I can read up on it or atleast a link to some reputable over-view of the findings I would be eternally greatful.

I'll see what I can find on it.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Don't waste your time, no one's gonna make an intelligent rebuttal to your argument.

Originally posted by Regret
Here is a rebuttal:

Information in the sense that you are describing is material, DNA. Material is copied, via the DNA splitting and combining with other material. Where did it come from? At some point in time what we refer to as a cell evolved into a cell from something else. DNA is not that complex, it is just small. If you look at one individual gene, it is not complex in itself, the sequence, given its size is complex. DNA in itself is not complex, it is complex when compared to the number of possible variations. Intelligent Design theory is saying this, "Oh look at that arrangement of stars, it is so complex, God must have done it" when in reality there are simple gravitational principles that control their arrangement. They claim complexity from our frame of reference, and from the difficulty they have in comprehending the subject they look at. Or else they see that man behaved in the same way as his physiology does and say "look I did a similar thing as my molecular physiology does, some entity must have done what I did to start all this." Maybe when nuclear submarines were invented and all its housed super computers, mankind should have said, "Amazing! What a wonderful mistake!"

That was wrong in some-many ways, intelligent design claims that intelligence begets intelligence and that systems less complex cannot produce systems more complex. you say a cell evolved from something else but will never explain where the traits make it become different originated.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
That was wrong in some-many ways, intelligent design claims that intelligence begets intelligence and that systems less complex cannot produce systems more complex.

Systems less complex cannot produce systems more complex. This is a false statement. The brain cavity of early human specimens is smaller than that of humans today. This, shows that the brain of the human has evolved to a larger size. If the brain is larger, then the neural network must be more complex by virtue of mere mass. If the brain is now more complex than it once was then we have already shown that this statement is false. Also, humans have shown more intelligence with nearly every generation during the past century.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
you say a cell evolved from something else but will never explain where the traits make it become different originated.

You are committing a logical fallacy of distraction. Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

You are saying because the initial form is unknown that it did not exist.

Humans invented quantum mechanics....THAT is an example of a less complex system begetting a more complex one.

Species are very dynamic. We have obsevered species overcoming natural challenges and they become more complex for it.

Originally posted by Regret
Systems less complex cannot produce systems more complex. This is a false statement. The brain cavity of early human specimens is smaller than that of humans today. This, shows that the brain of the human has evolved to a larger size. If the brain is larger, then the neural network must be more complex by virtue of mere mass. If the brain is now more complex than it once was then we have already shown that this statement is false. Also, humans have shown more intelligence with nearly every generation during the past century.

You are committing a logical fallacy of distraction. Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

You are saying because the initial form is unknown that it did not exist.

What? Less complex systems produce more complex systems all the time. When water freezes it goes from a liquid to a solid and a solid is more complex then a liquid.

Now is that the production of a new system or behavior exhibited by an existing system?

I think its the latter.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? Less complex systems produce more complex systems all the time. When water freezes it goes from a liquid to a solid and a solid is more complex then a liquid.

I think he is referring to what I would term living organisms. But then I'd assume that a purely scientific theory would have to explain the mutation from non-living to living, and I don't know enough about that type of topic to make any guesses there.

So worm to centipede, etc.

Originally posted by Regret
I think he is referring to what I would term living organisms. But then I'd assume that a purely scientific theory would have to explain the mutation from non-living to living, and I don't know enough about that type of topic to make any guesses there.

So worm to centipede, etc.

OK laying eggs to live born.

The Platypus; an animal that lays eggs in a pouch.

http://www.genevaschools.org/austinbg/class/gray/platypus/

remember not to get caught up in superficial complexities, like the number of legs.

Originally posted by Regret
Systems less complex cannot produce systems more complex. This is a false statement. The brain cavity of early human specimens is smaller than that of humans today. This, shows that the brain of the human has evolved to a larger size. If the brain is larger, then the neural network must be more complex by virtue of mere mass. If the brain is now more complex than it once was then we have already shown that this statement is false. Also, humans have shown more intelligence with nearly every generation during the past century.

Here we going again evolutionist drawing a conclusion based on what they see not what they tested.

Originally posted by Regret

You are committing a logical fallacy of distraction. Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

You are saying because the initial form is unknown that it did not exist.

And your jumping to conclusions, I asked a question. Where do these traits come from?