1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

Religion and Politics cont

Discussion in 'The Swarm Lounge' started by Northeast Stinger, Oct 28, 2016.

  1. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,571
    Listen, it's not an attack but a fact. You hold your position against based on faith in what you've been told. You've admitted that.

    Now, if you want to actually engage the science and discuss the analogies that I've made, then let's go. On what basis do you say that I don't understand what I'm talking about?

    Let me be clear. We all accept things on faith. I accept on faith the modern descriptions of cell biology. However, this faith has the support of successes in genetic engineering and the construction of artificial nano-machines.

    It is from this knowledge of how cell biology actually works, that we can discuss its best explanation. At this point, let's be clear, it is not a matter of competing explanations. Naturalists have no explanation for the origin of information let alone the origin of the biological information processing system. As my simple examples of finding an unexpected digital signal in a scanned frequency environment or the alien discovery of human computer software, the design inference is natural and rational. Carl Sagan's Contact used the example of a transmission of prime numbers from a distant galaxy as a basis for determining a likely candidate for extra-terrestrial intelligence. The SETI project continues on the basis of the similar assumption that evidence of intelligence can be detected.

    Rather than trying to build up a straw man against Dembski, why don't you first answer whether you agree that design inferences in these other situations are rational?

    Now, none of what I've talked about depends on the mathematical development of what has been called specified or functional complexity.

    Your repetition of the Dembski's work and its funding completely ignores the very straightforward illustrations which I think that even you should understand don't need a footnote. Now, I'm not sure what you mean by the "Nylon Experiment," but if you the origin of nylonase, then I think you might be relying on old or biased reporting. However, if you want to explain how the "Nylon Experiment" shows how a digital information processing system can arise randomly, then I'd be happy to learn from you.
     
  2. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,571
    When you say "evolutionism," do you mean simply descent with modification or the neo-Darwinian synthesis (informally: common descent and speciation thru natural selection acting on random variation)?
     
  3. potatohead

    potatohead Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    565
    1) Do you believe in intelligent design?

    2) Nylonase refuted? Lol, let me guess, you googled "Nylonase not true" or "refuted". No its not out dated, check your sources.
     
  4. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,571
    Yes, I believe that when one sees Mt Rushmore, it is reasonable to infer from the appearance of 4 president faces that they did not arise randomly from wind and rain erosion but rather that an intelligent design lies behind their origin.

    Do you not believe in intelligent design?
     
  5. potatohead

    potatohead Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    565
    You think you're being cute, but you're not and its most certainly not clever or a good position. This is why its pointless arguing with you. But just for fun...

    Thanks for your comment AE, but in an effort to ensure we're speaking to the same point, let's go to the dictionary. Do you believe in Intelligent design (ID) is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins
     
  6. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,571
    LOL. You cannot even answer whether erosion is a logical explanation of Mt. Rushmore. So, which one of us is not open to a rational discussion?

    To answer your question (which you refuse to answer any of mine), No, I do not believe in ID as a creationist religious argument for the existence of God.
     
  7. potatohead

    potatohead Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    565
    Deducing that Mt Rushmore was made by man isn't Intelligent Design. Good Lord, this is like picking on a child. Just stop please. Do you do this in public? It's embarrassing.
     
  8. potatohead

    potatohead Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    565
    Having "faith" (as you put it) in science and the output of that community isn't the same "faith" you apply to something you don't understand and thus contribute to Intelligent Design. Its just that simple, you're arguing from ignorance and drawing an equivalency between the two ideas of "faith". Which by the way, in regards to the former, YOU'VE created.

    You will never, ever win this argument. Its not because I'm smarter than you, it because so many other people are smarter than you. It's okay to admit it.
     
  9. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,571
    OK, do you want to have a serious conversation? Listen, it is okay, if you don't know enough to discuss it. If all you can do repeat your echo-chamber (as you put it) and not actually think about the evidence and arguments, then just admit it. You may be out of your depth. Just admit it.

    If you feel that you are up to the discussion:
    1) How do you infer from a distance that Mt Rushmore is the product of an intelligent design and not the billions of years of erosion?
    2) If someone said we just happen to live on one of countless planets in countless universes where Mt Rushmore happened from natural erosion, would you accept that as a rational response?

    If you don't feel up to the discussion, then you're right that I won't win the argument. However, it's because my evidence and argument will never dislodge your faith which is not based on evidence and argument.
     
  10. potatohead

    potatohead Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    565



    1) How do you infer from a distance that Mt Rushmore is the product of an intelligent design and not the billions of years of erosion?
    -we have a record of it being created by man
    -erosion of that nature would defy our understanding of natural erosion

    2) If someone said we just happen to live on one of countless planets in countless universes where Mt Rushmore happened from natural erosion, would you accept that as a rational response?
    -See point two above, that someone would have to prove that its the case. But there absolutely could be a planet that Mt Rushmore was created by erosion, as that universe and planet may not have the same laws of physics what apply on our planet and universe.
     
  11. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,571
    Okay, great.
    1a) An observer from a distance would not necessarily have access to any records, yet they would probably still reach the conclusion that an intelligence was responsible for it.
    1b) I don't understand what you mean by "erosion of that nature" which is observable from a distance. Could you flesh this out in more detail for me? (by the way, this could be a valid point)

    2) What about our current laws of physics make it impossible here?
     
  12. potatohead

    potatohead Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    565
    First off, what is "from a distance"? A hundred feet, two hundred, orbit, within the observable universe, a multiverse telescope, a time traveler, alien?
     
  13. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,571
    [​IMG]
     
  14. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    16,375
    If I arrived onsite and had no history or context of this mountain, I would be very conflicted about its origin. Because on the one hand, I see all the piles of rocks chipped away from the surface, leading me to believe that man had designed those human faces. But on the other hand, if men wanted to design something so big that it could be seen from many miles away, they would have designed a bunch of naked ladies.
     
  15. BuzzStone

    BuzzStone Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,090
    These words here hurt your cause more than you know. That is an outright lie only believed by someone who wants to think there is some imaginary guy in the sky. Please do your research before intentionally mis quoting one of the greatest scientific minds of all time.
     
  16. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    16,375
    These words here hurt your cause more than you realize. Number one, to say that I am in intentionally mis-quoting someone is akin to calling me a liar. Number two, you are implying that he never said such a thing. He is actually on video – I watched it and you can too. It is a two hour YouTube video with a bunch of scientists talking about whether or not the universe itself could be a simulation. deGrass was the moderator, and injected his opinion at one point to say if you want to know what he thinks - yes he does think we are living in a simulation. In other words your best buddy, your man lover of science, believes there is an imaginary man in the sky.
     
  17. BuzzStone

    BuzzStone Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,090
    Yes I am calling you a liar
     
  18. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    16,375
    Like I said, you are hurting your cause. deGrasse is on video saying he thinks we are living in a simulation run by a higher power. Those were his words, and they are on video. Not a good look for you.
     
  19. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    13,638
    No. You are simply showing your ignorance once again.




    Now has Tyson since changed his statement or clarified it to dispel confusion of what he meant or implied? I dunno. I don't find him to be very compelling in what I have seen from him on many issues and I don't follow much of what he says or does. Heck I didn't even watch the 2 linked videos in entirety. A quick online search showed bwelbo to be accurate in his account of Tyson however.

    As for this simulation nonsense. It's about as moronic as the chimp writing Shakespeare theory relative to infinity. That theory states that an infinite number of chimps, with access to a computer keyboard or typewriter and paper, smacking the keys randomly, would eventually (infinite time) result in one of those chimps writing an exact work of Shakespeare. Say Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, or Macbeth. That is, one chimp would eventually write one of those works, word for word and with exact punctuation and grammar.

    No. An infinite number of chimps, given access to smack a keyboard for an infinite amount of time would result in.......an infinite amount of........"[email protected]sk&hxjdjxkyydjtshdktdkydktflzjgxlufxjgd4!".......
     
    bwelbo likes this.
  20. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,571
    You have to believe the equivalent of a finite number of chimps in finite time in order to believe in Darwinism.
     
    Whiskey_Clear and bwelbo like this.

Share This Page