mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Give me a break! Your OP was full of personal attacks, "you ignorant atheists"
How do you expect people to respond?
How do you expect people to respond?
bajafox
Well-Known Member
Since you've heard him specifically say the word luck, I challenge you to post a link, sentence, reference, ANYTHING official where Stephen Hawking himself used "luck" in the manner you are suggesting.
Wild
Well-Known Member
I won't read through the thread, as the last few pages i've seen have just been 2 'sides' arguing about arguing about their 2 'sides'.
2. I'm sure the religious communitiy would have an early attempt, however the only people wanting and trying to understand it would be those in....
Science, the answer to both is science.......
1. Also Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Jesus, too many to list. But is it always the 'truthkeepers' you speak of finishing these peoples plans prematurely, or is it just human desire to understand everything, but only in a way that suits our individual selves? The only truth usually not lied about would be science (or the records of the losers of war, should they ever surface)..................................................................
I have a few questions with me and i want you guys to help me with.
1- Do you agree that the truth is always killed or covered or lied about?
i mean anything good and truthful is always lied about and targeted by individuals/governments etc.. i mean you dont have to look around the bush to see the traces.
JFK, Martin Luther, Malcom X, Micheal Jackson{i know hes a weird one}, anyone that speaks of equality and fairness, bringing people and cultures together in peace is always destroyed.
2- If I present you here today with a machine that no one has seen or has knowledge of in the world and ask: who would be able to tell you the specification, design, mechanism of that machine?
2. I'm sure the religious communitiy would have an early attempt, however the only people wanting and trying to understand it would be those in....
Science, the answer to both is science.......
dickdasterdly666
Well-Known Member
1.lol thruthkeepers i speak of? ill assure you if i speak of them its not For but Against.
and i was asking and looking for a yes/no answer not an ambiguous answer.
2. I meant literally if i get you a machine and asked you who can tell you its description and use? not who can guess? with no tests to be done on it of any sort.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I misspoke. I will restate. You need to address how to determine whether something is designed or not since mere observation is absolutely not enough.
There are many things in nature with various levels of complexity that have the appearance of design but were formed by geologic processes -- certain crystalline structures, pebbles sorted sorted by size on a beach, faces on rocks, etc. The reason we know they are not designed is not because we just look at them as can tell, we know because we can tell you how they were formed.
This is no different in biology. Since we know and can explain how complex things can form from things less complex, we know they aren't designed.
The IDers must define exactly how to determine unequivocally what is designed and what is not. They must create a set of rules otherwise they create a circular argument -- It appears to be designed because it is complex. If something is complex, then it is designed.
There are no rules that they have come up with. This is merely the fallacy - appeal to incredulity (I can't fathom how it could come about naturally, so it must be designed).
Please. You are using an argument hundreds of years old. Darwin knew about Paley's teleological argument when he discovered natural selection. You aren't saying anything new here that we haven't all heard before.
I've always found it fascinating that people stick with that particular argument. I understand the attraction to it at face value, but to me it seems that even the most rudimentary and brief exploration into it reveals this "logic" to be propped up by popsicle sticks and bubble gum. It's a shame that religion would limit or inhibit altogether such a simple lesson of life: that admitting and learning from mistakes or misconceptions will always yield improvement. Yet, the faithful are willing to turn this completely upside-down out of apparent necessity, because unfortunately for them it is this very process (at the heart of the scientific method) that ends up challenging many specific claims, and in many cases renders them completely untenable (young earth, worldwide deluge, etc.) Many methods are then employed by the faithful to attack science, but this idea that "I'll stick with the one that sticks to its guns and never changes" and therefore the evolving, improving nature of science is "wishy-washy" has to be one of the most fundamentally weak and irrational of all possible arguments. It is literally embracing stubbornness and stunting the growth of one's own knowledge as a virtue.
No ID advocate has demonstrated the validity of irreducible complexity. It can be shown how the eye possibly developed in stages by examining extant species. We have microorganisms with light sensitive patches that can tell when their environment has light or not. There are species of worms that have similar light sensitive cells at the bottom of a shallow cup. We have the chambered nautilus that has a cup that begins to fold over on itself creating a sort of pinhole camera, a lensless eye that fills with water. Every step toward the modern vertebrate eye can be broken down into smaller steps that have useful functionality. The eye is not irreducibly complex.
Don't worry, I understand more than you might think since I have advanced degrees in biological sciences.
Funny, if you google evolution of flagella you get many links explaining exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Your argument is not new, it is hundreds of years old. Darwin knew about Paley's teleological argument (argument from design) and addressed it in Origin of Species. Like the OP, I question whether you have read it or any other book on this subject like Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.
This is just a fancier version of the appeal to incredulity.
You make the same mistake I see many make about evolution and that is that no one thinks organisms came about by single step selection like your 747 but cumulative selection, one piece at a time. Mutations are random but natural selection is the antithesis of chance and randomness. This is the whole basis behind Darwin's discovery.
I'll use an example from Dawkins about a monkey banging away at a typewriter for enough time will produce all of the words of Shakespeare. Let's just use one phrase from Hamlet, "methinks it is like a weasel"
The chance of getting the phrase of 28 letters correct at once is 1 in 27 to the power of 8 or about 1 in 10,000 million million million million million million.
However, using cumulative selection where a random set of letters can be 'bred' with a chance of random error -- 'mutation' -- in the copying. If we examine the mutant nonsense phrase and choose one that is more like, however slightly, our target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Subsequent generations of phrases will begin to look more our goal. A computer program can be run to simulate this and the target will be reached in less than 100 'generations.'
Of course this is simplistic and partially incorrect as natural selection is not goal oriented. This does however explain the power of cumulative selection over the single step selection mischaracterization that you attributed to evolution.
[youtube]CFt8YhU7C5A[/youtube]
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
The stars are certainly the result of the big bang but the stars did not form until a very long time after the big bang. You are using reductionism to the extreme. My computer was built from elements created in stars that formed because our universe came into existence. That must mean the big bang creates computers...
Is it that difficult for you to see how stellar formation is a separate idea than the origin of the universe itself? Can you not see how it's possible to understand stellar and planetary formation without even knowing how the initial starting conditions came about? That's like saying that chemists must understand where the initial hydrogen and helium came from (let alone know that those were the only elements in existence initially) in order for their chemical and atomic theory to make sense, ridiculous.
420ezah420
Active Member
Go and rent Into the Universe :How everything was Created. Its a new special by stephen hawking that premiered a few weeks ago. I shit you not, he says luck this, luckily that, about fifty times, no joke.
No matter what scientist you ask, they cannot explain how everything came about without saying luck at least ten times.Im sorry but we did not get lucky time and time again, and it didnt just so happen that everything came about flawlessly by luck.
Have you ever lost a loved one? You know that feelling of pain inside of you? Have you ever had a baby? What about that overwhelming feeling of joy and peace?
But you dont have a soul? BS and you know it.
420ezah420
Active Member
The stars are certainly the result of the big bang but the stars did not form until a very long time after the big bang. You are using reductionism to the extreme. My computer was built from elements created in stars that formed because our universe came into existence. That must mean the big bang creates computers...
Is it that difficult for you to see how stellar formation is a separate idea than the origin of the universe itself? Can you not see how it's possible to understand stellar and planetary formation without even knowing how the initial starting conditions came about? That's like saying that chemists must understand where the initial hydrogen and helium came from (let alone know that those were the only elements in existence initially) in order for their chemical and atomic theory to make sense, ridiculous.
Thats besides the point.Doesnt matter which element were talking about. Ok then lucky for us the big bang just happened to create helium or wed be shit outa luck eh?
dickdasterdly666
Well-Known Member
You see what i didnt want to do was get into a throw and catch session,
i throw information and you throw information back and it goes on and on.
since with my limited knowledge and ur vast background and academic achievements maybe you can shed a bit more light on this subject for me to have a better understanding, your talking about mutation, and in my stone age knowledge i thought that there is no reason or evidence that a simple single cell could or would be able to initiate any type of development of intelligent alien functions and systems and certainly not by accidental error, no matter the length of period of time.
And all the observable evidence of genetic copying errors and mutations does not do anything in the adding intelligent or alien department but rather produces clear defects and harmful growth.
Has there been up till this moment in time any observation of mutations within an organism that starts to create a new alien biological element or function?
i wanted to approach this from a different point with something that is new and not an old debate thats why im holding out on any proofs or evidences. im not here to prove you wrong or to be right and throw old news, i simply have new{new to you and the others anyway} information that i thought i should present, and you can estimate it at any value or in any way.
we are all researching and coming to conclusions arnt we?
The problem with darwins theory and all the other big names in the show is that it always has to adjust to try and stay dry and to me anything that can change direction and shift once is untrustworthy.
I wont get into another one ill get onto my point quick.
simple English questions and no need for long and complicated play it safe questions, this isnt a mouse trap.
1-Do you think the truth is always concealed by governments/ groups etc..?
2-If i got a machine that no one has tested before and no one has seen, and asked who do you think can explain to you this type of machine and its function?
3-if you want to ask a question about a subject where do you go?
lets say you want to ask about making a cake, where do you go to? barber? shoe maker? no you go to a chef or a cake factory right? if you agree on this then ill move on
i hope you understand the simple English im speaking.
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
Luck, as in, if things had gone a different way, our resulting existents would be altered or impossible. Is the flower lucky that as a seed it was infected by beneficial fungi and bacteria and sufficient moisture and nutrients are present, while the seed 30 feet away landed on concrete? No. Unless you ask the living flower! But actually it's just the way shit turned out. For us. And when you look at an eagle, that's how it turned out for them, Etc. It's quite simple, really. Why do growers in certain regions deal with Mildew issues, while others in other areas deal with mites? Because the environment is right. There doesn't need to be some magical plan. That's comforting, but absent. It is what it is. A rock in space subjected to the right combinations and life started. SIMPLE, if you THINK about it...
bajafox
Well-Known Member
WTF does any of that have to do with the discussion? All I can say is I feel sorry for your kids, they will grow up naive to the real world believing in something that doesn't really exist. God help us all....lol
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Do you feel lucky that you were born without major deformities? Do you feel lucky you were born at all? Sure, I can feel lucky that I exist at all and that existence is certainly owed to a universe that formed that could create life. I feel lucky that if I were to exist that I live in this time, in this country where I have freedoms and we have scientific enlightenment. I feel lucky I wasn't born into poverty in Africa. There's luck everyday in our lives. Why should luck bother you so much Haze?
I think Haze you're confusing a scientist's personal perspective with scientific theory.
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
My argument against irreducible complexity is simple, "Mustn't a watchmaker where his own watch."
I wanted to point out the fallacies in most of these posts but a simple self-defining quote is much nicer in my opinion.
Peace
I wanted to point out the fallacies in most of these posts but a simple self-defining quote is much nicer in my opinion.
Peace
dickdasterdly666
Well-Known Member
would be great if you could reply to my previous post as im interested in information on the subject i asked about and since u are in that field i was kinda hoping you could shed some light on an answer.
thx.
420ezah420
Active Member
Thats exactley how your kids will be raised, believeing that some big bang created a magical pink primordial stew that created all life. Poor damn kids being brainwashed into thinking they have no soul and their life is accidental. Sounds like the beginning of a miserable life for your kids.
420ezah420
Active Member
Really? A magical pink promordial stew? A series of lucky events that just so happened to occur flawlessly in order to create and sustain life? uhhmm. no you are terribly mistaken if you think this is simple. In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth dumbass.
DobermanGuy
Well-Known Member
you, sir, are the dumbass.
i wanna play.
1) Not always, sometimes. Most (if not all) conspiracy theories are so vast they are unprovable.
2) Thats the same as me claiming to have a pink talking unicorn but i can only convey its messages. But I would say you, hypothetically, or one of the leading scienctists in your field of operations.
3) Yes.
bajafox
Well-Known Member
Hahahha, cool, maybe our kids can play together since they'll be exactly the same according to you, lol
dickdasterdly666
Well-Known Member
1) fair enough. some more than others i suppose.
2)hehe, how about the manufacturer or the designer or etc.. i think that you meant that when you said one of the leading scientists. unless im wrong?
3)good.
So my "Claim" is that i have in my possession a type of encyclopedia that is centuries old and i have inside it all the solutions to all mankind's problems and on top of that i have FACTUAL scientific evidence and im not talking about something like A bee produces honey. more along the lines of a vastly detailed description of very complex subjects that only with the aid of advanced technological equipment.
like grave details about the water cycle and clouds and lightning, step by step of embryonic development, the design of mountains and their function, origin of the universe, cerebrum, about the seas and rivers and the barriers between them, the deep sea and darkness and waves over each other in the sea which can only be studied in salinity changes or temp etc... those are amongst many. and my last claim is that this book is FLAWLESS. not even one grammatical mistake or one contradiction and is capable of clearing all types of hate and racism and preserving equality.
Now lets say my Claim is a FACT.{imagine lol}
do you think that the corrupt people in power these days would let me publish this encyclopedia for the whole world to see and benefit from? even if it means they be stripped of their powers and arrogant seats and corruption and money theft?
afrawfraw
Well-Known Member
Promordial is spelled primordial , and you didn't even capitalize GOD, and dumb ass is two words! Sorry I'm a dumb ass...