Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:42 am**

Simple Yes or No, idk or maybe so, therefore Kittens gotta go. Please post sharing how you voted. You don't have to explain your vote to me or anyone else (unless you want to) and I promise not to challenge the opinions of a single person voting as this is not another one of my traps to corner peeps with my Spock logic powers. I just came across a video with someone who can actually articulate on the subject and that lead to learning the history on the issue which lead to a bunch of Evolution speeches by professors at Universities mocking people who have a single question about the theory of evolution but also the history of the court battles concerning teaching it in public schools and the school board battles in various states. So I'm just curious about what people think/believe nowadays

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:48 am**

My biggest problem with the whole discussion is what I call the "martian canal" problem. You might know this story, but bear with my telling of it. In previous centuries, astronomers had to stare for hours from earth based observatories which were generally cold at night. One of these astronomers thought he saw lines on that small spot called Mars. They looked like river channels and he labeled them as such. Bad translations of Italian turned them into canals. Since canals are man made this was declared proof of intelligence and they proclaimed there was intelligent life on mars. They were correct in one thing; there was intelligence, but it was on the other end of the telescope. It was the ability to find patterns in what was effectively random noise that was the "intelligence" of the canals.

This is the problem for anyone who wants to discuss "intelligent" design. Is the intelligence in the design or in the observation of the design by the observer?

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:25 am**

There is definately and intelligent design in this universe. tzor, you say that intelligence is in the eye of the beholder, and that it is relative. But do you know, that at some point, a thing is no longer relative. There comes a point that something is so intelligent that if someone says that it is not, then they are just plugging their ears and shouting so that they do not have to hear something that they don't want to. When something is PERFECT, then the Designer must be very intelligent. Evolution says that the PERFECT world was created by a designer that just got lucky. God created the world perfectly, and we, mortal men, have ruined it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:35 am**

blackdragon1661 wrote:When something is PERFECT, then the Designer must be very intelligent. Evolution says that the PERFECT world was created by a designer that just got lucky. God created the world perfectly, and we, mortal men, have ruined it.

Hardliner Christian literalist I presume? No offence, but I really have never heard that stance taken by anyone else.

I am curious though, at what point in this narrative was everything "perfect"?
From the supposed start of man in the perfect Garden of Eden; God invented evil for no reason, put it in a tree, forgot to give Adam any way to breed, (unlike every other creature/plant he had already been making for three days at that point) ripped his rib out to fix it, let the Devil roam around; again for no damn reason, then punished all of everyone (including the animals and plants) forever for disobeying him despite the pair having absolutely no sense of right or wrong to begin with that would prevent them from doing so.

PS to Ps: As for the main topic, I actually kinda hope aliens designed some stuff, because that would be cool.

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:57 am**

blackdragon1661 wrote:Evolution says that the PERFECT world was created by a designer that just got lucky. God created the world perfectly, and we, mortal men, have ruined it.

Evolution doesn't state the world is PERFECT nor that the world was created by a designer. And the word "lucky" is actually unfitting as well. It contradicts Darwin's natural selection.

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:59 am**

tzor wrote:
This is the problem for anyone who wants to discuss "intelligent" design. Is the intelligence in the design or in the observation of the design by the observer?

How can "intelligence" be within a design? Intelligence comes without, not within. There is function of a design, not the design itself being intelligent. It was intelligence that created the design. The old "watchmaker" theory bears to mind. Also, how is it that we perceive what is intelligent? Intelligence trickles down from a higher source, a source that is separate from our physical design. One may call this source God. I do not think this is wrong. To our simple human minds the wonders of the universe's physical laws and its creation is indeed very godlike in its immense complexity.

Intelligence as I recognize it transpires from without the perimeters of the design, not the design itself being the true intelligence (though the design may indeed mimic intelligence). We as humans are only allowed to observe the perimeters thereof.

When AI becomes prevalent in our lives in the very near future and a computerized android can seemingly be more intelligent than a human being, are we then going to say how intelligent the robot is? No. AI was a clever collaboration of multiple scientists, computer programmers, and engineers all of which worked towards a single goal...to make a design that would mimic the cognitive functions of the human brain, and perhaps even more so than a human brain.

To answer your parting question: intelligence is championed by the observer; but the conclusions from such observations is left to the collaborative efforts of others beyond the observer's observations.

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:15 am**

DaGip wrote:Also, how is it that we perceive what is intelligent? Intelligence trickles down from a higher source, a source that is separate from our physical design.

The theory of evolution contradicts the watchmaker's theory. Intelligence, or complexity in other words, can evolve from lower organisms given sufficient time.

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:45 am**

waauw wrote:
DaGip wrote:Also, how is it that we perceive what is intelligent? Intelligence trickles down from a higher source, a source that is separate from our physical design.

The theory of evolution contradicts the watchmaker's theory. Intelligence, or complexity in other words, can evolve from lower organisms given sufficient time.

You limit yourself with such drivel. Alfred Einstein did not envision the theory of relativity using his "complexity" and neither did the "complexity" of Pythagoras shed light upon his theorems. You are indeed marveling at the complexity of the design but are forgetting to give the credit towards intelligence. The complexity of body and the brain to sustain life and the time to process environmental information into a new, ground breaking understanding of our universe is indeed a very wondrous thing, but then what of intelligence?

Do not confuse intelligence with design or even the processes thereof. I am not refuting evolution, I can see its value; but to say that evolution is it and there is nothing beyond that is limiting yourself to the canals of Mars.

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:03 pm**

Yo dragon...IMHO, you really need to preface your statement with "I believe..." or "IMO......" - shoving your beliefs down others' throats is very unchristian, in the true sense of the word ;o)...unless you can prove it of course....good luck with that.

If you truly understand ( we can't, as humans of course...but...) the SCOPE of the KNOWN universe, anything that "designed" such a thing would be so very vast (words fail once again) that we couldn't possibly BEGIN to grasp its....scope....

Thus good old fashioned faith....which dragon has in spades

ps - I like the distribution in the voting...

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:19 pm**

--Andy

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:41 pm**

Please note the original statement was that the intelligence was applied to the design as opposed to the intelligence observing the design. But I'll play the game for the moment.

DaGip wrote:How can "intelligence" be within a design?

A lot depends on the definition of intelligence, (It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive and/or retain knowledge or information and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so) but it possible to have some degree of intelligence within the basic structure.

DaGip wrote:Intelligence comes without, not within.

I'll keep that in mind when responding to you, seeing that clearly your intelligence doesn't come from within you. :twisted:

DaGip wrote:The old "watchmaker" theory bears to mind.

The "watchmaker" theory has a fundamental assumption that is nonsense; complex things just don't "happen." The exact opposite is true, in part due to entropy considerations.

The theory doesn't also consider the appropriate level of design considerations. Consider, for example H2O. There are so many odd exceptions to this simple molecule that are absolutely necessary for life as we know it. But if you go deep into the level of super symmetric particle theory you would scratch your head to see how logically it works toward a fundamental molecule whose solid state is less dense than its liquid state. (If that doesn't happen all those particle interactions don't mean a hill of beans.)

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:47 pm**

waauw wrote:The theory of evolution contradicts the watchmaker's theory. Intelligence, or complexity in other words, can evolve from lower organisms given sufficient time.

Evolution doesn't always lead to more complexity. The only thing that always leads to more complexity is congress. :twisted:

A single cell aerobic plant cell is extremely complex in and of itself, and any collection of such cells only adds slightly to the complexity.

A watch needs a maker because watches don't build themselves, not because they are complex. "Church Keys" don't exactly build themselves either, but they are not complex.

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:18 pm**

Let me ask this question. Who invented math? Everything obeys math. Evolution or creation. It doesn't matter. So explain where math came from please.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:16 am**

warmonger1981 wrote:Let me ask this question. Who invented math? Everything obeys math. Evolution or creation. It doesn't matter. So explain where math came from please.

I've seen this type of arguments forever and I'm fed up with it. Mathematics isn't either a pro or con argument for one or the other.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:11 am**

tzor wrote:Please note the original statement was that the intelligence was applied to the design as opposed to the intelligence observing the design. But I'll play the game for the moment.

DaGip wrote:How can "intelligence" be within a design?

A lot depends on the definition of intelligence, (It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive and/or retain knowledge or information and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so) but it possible to have some degree of intelligence within the basic structure.

I am not talking about complexity in design, I am speaking of the intelligence that created the design. A body with no life (no intelligence) cannot accomplish anything. What's so wondrous about a functionless design? A top that just sits on the table means nothing to the naive until someone spins it...then we understand its function. Its function is made clear to us through observation. If you speak of intelligence within the structure you are then speaking of the intelligence of the top maker that came up with the design through his/her observations in their environment. Intelligence only makes itself known when the creator observes their creation in the company of another observer.

tzor wrote:
DaGip wrote:Intelligence comes without, not within.

I'll keep that in mind when responding to you, seeing that clearly your intelligence doesn't come from within you.

No, I do not believe my intelligence comes from within. Your radio speaks to you, yet do you believe the intelligence that is speaking is coming from the radio or from the one who speaks? The television show you watched last night entertained you, but do you believe the intelligence of the actors, directors, and writers came from the rectangle box that rests in your living room? No, I do not believe that my intelligence comes from within. I am a conduit of the intelligence of my Creator. I observe The Creator's creation along with every other living thing in the universe.

tzor wrote:
DaGip wrote:The old "watchmaker" theory bears to mind.

The "watchmaker" theory has a fundamental assumption that is nonsense; complex things just don't "happen." The exact opposite is true, in part due to entropy considerations.

tzor, my topless friend. Remember the top (simple design...I am almost positive that the universe could form something as simple somewhere in the vacuum of space). It spins, is that its only function? A leaf spins in the wind or in a stream? Is that its function? What have you observed on these things? And how did you observe these things? The planets spin, are they tops too? Perhaps the entire universe is nothing but a giant top whose only function is to spin? Spin and collide with other tops. Some big, some small, and some that spin in opposite directions. Just the sheer number of tops in the universe is complex enough, not so much the top itself. End then the top stops spinning. Does it dissolve into nothingness? Into the aether never to be observed again? The top remains...it just needs to be spun.

tzor wrote:The theory doesn't also consider the appropriate level of design considerations. Consider, for example H2O. There are so many odd exceptions to this simple molecule that are absolutely necessary for life as we know it. But if you go deep into the level of super symmetric particle theory you would scratch your head to see how logically it works toward a fundamental molecule whose solid state is less dense than its liquid state. (If that doesn't happen all those particle interactions don't mean a hill of beans.)

The watchmaker makes watches and the toymaker tops...the man observes, yet the child plays.

Matthew 18:2-5

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:30 am**

That's not answering a question. So math was just random? Is the Pythagorean Theorem just by chance? How would nature know how to apply this without a designer? Or maybe the Fibonacci\Golden Ratio? How do so many different types of plants know how to use this equation to construct itself without intelligent design. Or take the Golden Ratio and apply it to musical notes. You say there is no argument to be made. I'll make the argument. BTW math doesn't lie. It's absolute truth.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:30 am**

warmonger1981 wrote:That's not answering a question. So math was just random? Is the Pythagorean Theorem just by chance? How would nature know how to apply this without a designer? Or maybe the Fibonacci\Golden Ratio? How do so many different types of plants know how to use this equation to construct itself without intelligent design. Or take the Golden Ratio and apply it to musical notes. You say there is no argument to be made. I'll make the argument. BTW math doesn't lie. It's absolute truth.

The only true answer anybody SHOULD give you is "I don't know". You are pretty much asking for the origin of the universe and it's laws of physics. Nobody knows where they came from. Any claim for KNOWING the answer is irrational.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:36 am**

DaGip wrote:
waauw wrote:
DaGip wrote:Also, how is it that we perceive what is intelligent? Intelligence trickles down from a higher source, a source that is separate from our physical design.

The theory of evolution contradicts the watchmaker's theory. Intelligence, or complexity in other words, can evolve from lower organisms given sufficient time.

You limit yourself with such drivel. Alfred Einstein did not envision the theory of relativity using his "complexity" and neither did the "complexity" of Pythagoras shed light upon his theorems. You are indeed marveling at the complexity of the design but are forgetting to give the credit towards intelligence. The complexity of body and the brain to sustain life and the time to process environmental information into a new, ground breaking understanding of our universe is indeed a very wondrous thing, but then what of intelligence?

Do not confuse intelligence with design or even the processes thereof. I am not refuting evolution, I can see its value; but to say that evolution is it and there is nothing beyond that is limiting yourself to the canals of Mars.

You misunderstand my meaning. The watchmaker's theory sugests that intelligence and complexity can only trickle down, while evolutionism has long indicated that complexity, and therefor intelligence, can arise from less complex and unintelligent organisms.

I'm not saying anything about the origins of everything, I was merely commenting on that one specific theory.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:42 am**

tzor wrote:
waauw wrote:The theory of evolution contradicts the watchmaker's theory. Intelligence, or complexity in other words, can evolve from lower organisms given sufficient time.

Evolution doesn't always lead to more complexity. The only thing that always leads to more complexity is congress.

A single cell aerobic plant cell is extremely complex in and of itself, and any collection of such cells only adds slightly to the complexity.

A watch needs a maker because watches don't build themselves, not because they are complex. "Church Keys" don't exactly build themselves either, but they are not complex.

Reread my sentences. I used the word "can". Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of the watchmaker, but it implies organisms don't require said watchmaker. The watchmakers theory doesn't prove anything.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:48 pm**

warmonger1981 wrote:Let me ask this question. Who invented math? Everything obeys math. Evolution or creation. It doesn't matter. So explain where math came from please.

No one "invented math" ... math is the way we look at the laws of the universe. From a technical perspective, nothing obeys math.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:01 pm**

They claim their labors are to build a Heaven.
Yet their Heaven is populated with horrors.
Perhaps the world is not made.
Perhaps nothing is made.
A clock without a craftsman.
It's too late.
Always has been.
Always will be.
Too late.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:07 pm**

DaGip wrote:I am not talking about complexity in design, I am speaking of the intelligence that created the design. A body with no life (no intelligence) cannot accomplish anything.

I believe a lot of extremely large and short lived stars that existed before the creation of the earth accomplished a lot of thing (all the heavy elements) and if they had intelligence they would tell you so. Mind you, as the poet would speculate, they might only say "I burn!"

DaGip wrote:What's so wondrous about a functionless design? A top that just sits on the table means nothing to the naive until someone spins it...then we understand its function. Its function is made clear to us through observation. If you speak of intelligence within the structure you are then speaking of the intelligence of the top maker that came up with the design through his/her observations in their environment. Intelligence only makes itself known when the creator observes their creation in the company of another observer.

Allow me to reword your argument. The function of a top is to provide amusement. If energy is imparted to the top, the result is predictable and apparently there is amusement in this. Such amusement, however, actually comes from the observer not from the top itself (this was something I mentioned earlier). The same intelligence might also be amused at watching paint dry. We have to be careful with terms like "function" in that we could be actually be placing observer's bias in the observation.

DaGip wrote:No, I do not believe my intelligence comes from within. Your radio speaks to you, yet do you believe the intelligence that is speaking is coming from the radio or from the one who speaks?

The notion that the "radio speaks" is a misnomer. But to use the notion to express the function of the human mind is highly irrational. Human beings are not radios. God is not speaking in every thought ever made by man. Indeed, if this was true, God is a very strange person who seems to be at odds with Himself. We can go through the more complex logic of this but that is precisely what God is not.

Your view of the universe seems to be a puppet universe, a precise single function system. That's not a product of love, which demands the notion of free will. While it is certainly possible to stack the deck as it were god (to horribly mix gambling metaphors) is required to "play dice" with the universe. God's "design" is far more complex than your simple "watchmaker" model.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:50 pm**

Your concept of God and my concept of the universe are two very different things. (@tzor)

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:11 am**

tzor wrote:
warmonger1981 wrote:Let me ask this question. Who invented math? Everything obeys math. Evolution or creation. It doesn't matter. So explain where math came from please.

No one "invented math" ... math is the way we look at the laws of the universe. From a technical perspective, nothing obeys math.

PBS's NOVA just did a nice little episode on Math: http://video.pbs.org/video/2365464997/

--Andy

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:32 pm**

show

Your concept of apples and my concept of white tailed deer are two very different things. (@DaGip)

Conquer Club

CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)

Re: CAST YOUR VOTE! (Intelligent Design, pt 1)