|
pixelsword (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'm a programmer, and I already know that the almighty exists. I'm also a Christian. If life was random, then show me a computer that was randomly assembled by nature, since that process is simpler than bacteria. You don't even have to make a computer grow or reproduce. You can't. Even the simplest of machines need intelligent design.
Noahgoy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
From my perspective, it is insane to think that all of this complexity happened on a random basis. I could be wrong of course, but I dont think so.
condorito29 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Be honest, for God's sake (or Dawkins sake).It isn't going to bite you.Either the science of detecting intelligence exists, or it doesn't. And since it already DOES (SETI, archaeology, cryptology, etc) then you my friend, are S.O.L. when it comes to biology.You can try to load the dice when the implications are theologically distasteful to you, but this is blatant bullshit.Darwinisms days are NUMBERED.thats the understatement of the century.
condorito29 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
funny how things are "irrelevant" when they conflict with your views.So the scientists who search for signs of ET life at SETI are just engaging in an "irrelevant" pursuit, is that it?They forgot to call you, right?Funny how detecting design, and INTELLIGENCE, when it has no metaphysical implications whatsoever doesn't raise an eyebrow from you.Of course, when the implication could mean God, it automatically becomes "irrelevant" to the discussion at hand.Loading the dice, aye?
justtryingtothink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Do you understand the question, or are you just avoiding it? I want to know how, specifically, you determine what is or is not the cause of intelligence. As far as I can tell, you have no reference for what intelligence is but a HUMAN reference. You seem to not understand that the phrase "molecular machine" is a metaphor, and you are resorting to hypotheticals. So far, we have not found ruins on Mars, so your point is irrelevant. Can you answer my question by sticking to the facts?
condorito29 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
'who did it' isn't a question science can answer.its a bit like asking, "what caused the big bang, if matter and energy themselves couldn't bring themselves into existence?"When faced with such a question, science MUST stay mute.Here is where philosophy and theology take over.Just because ID has metaphysical implications, it doesn't mean its not scientific. R. Dawkins believes Darwinism has metaphysical implications (atheism). Darwinism still falls within science's borders.
condorito29 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
No, we can conclude that something/s with a HIGH level of intelligence (at least on par with humans), created the ruins. Experience (past evidence) combined with current evidence is what warrants the conclusion. No "Creationism" or "God of the Gaps" bullshit here. Just design inferences and the knowledge of what intelligence DOES. Which is, incidentally, what I.D. is all about.Molecular machines show intelligence. VERY VERY HIGH intelligence.But its only a matter of degree.
condorito29 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
we KNOW that chimps, dolphins, and other creatures have a high level of intelligence. Granted, they don't make engines, but we KNOW what intelligences DO. That's how we measure their levels. Intelligence is a phenomenon ALREADY studied within science.Besides, if we found the ruins of a civilization on mars, must we conclude that humans did it merely because, up to this point, humans have been the only causes of buildings, etc?
justtryingtothink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I guess I didn't state my question clearly enough. Cells run LIKE clocks, turbines, zippers, engines, etc. (all human inventions). Name one thing that we KNOW to be the cause of intelligence that was not made by humans (the key work here being KNOW). Your "theory" is trying to prove that cells are intelligently designed, but we do not KNOW that yet. You can not use your theory to prove your theory. So, do you have a response?
justtryingtothink (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yeah, and I am an artist. Have you ever painted a sunset? Do you have any idea how difficult that is? and a real sunset is infinitely more beautiful; therefore, sunsets must be the work of an infinitely talented artist. We could come to this conclusion (which I actually agree with, metaphorically), but this is not a scientific argument. |