Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[tas8831]

I posted this vid in another thread, but wanted to post it here, too....

Videos... plagiarism... cool bag o' tricks, bro!

 

[tas8831]

No kidding, Sherlock.

Oh, the name calling!

 

[Jose Fly]

So, I wondered, what would these, who made these magnificent robots, think, if someone told them no intelligence was needed to make that robot? I'm sure they would laugh you to scorn.

Well yeah, since they know via direct observation how the robot was made and who made it.

Of course by the same token, we could also ponder what they would say if you told them there was no way that robot was made via natural mechanisms.

In other words, if what you made required tremendous intelligence, and does not come close to the real thing, how is it there is no intelligence behind the real thing?

Because there's a plethora of differences between non-living robots and living human beings, most notably that humans biologically reproduce themselves whereas robots don't.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, biology is characterized by the high degree of information (low local entropy), so asking for high information outside of life is rather begging the question.

Thank you for replying, but I thought so. Limiting it to biology is the issue. You're assuming life arose by chance, where I think such mechanisms were installed, by design. I see too much interactive, specified information to conclude it was all by naturalism.

Let me ask...there are posters on this very forum, who claim to have spoken, and have ongoing relationships, with invisible entities.
Do you think they’re all making it up? Now, I grant, some could be making it up....but all of them? (Science can’t test for it, apparently....does that make these ones’s genuine experiences, fantasies?) Google “Lincoln’s Ghost”.

But, feedback mechanisms produce complexity. For example, the water cycle produces the complexity of the weather.

Yes, but nothing that produces new, unknown function. Nothing novel. Only entropy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Because there's a plethora of differences between non-living robots and living human beings, most notably that humans biologically reproduce themselves whereas robots don't.

Yes, there is a vast difference! More complexity!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Please, you need something more than the same old PRATT's. If you did not understand Behe's claims you should have said so. His argument from ignorance was refuted using his standards over ten years ago as that video shows. Behe was the one that claimed that a flagellum would not work without all of the oarts, and yet it works fine. That is why his argument fails there is a pathway to the flagellum without miracles.

Well, Behe and others don’t agree. Take it up with them. Tell them they’re ignorant and don’t understand.
Lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for replying, but I thought so. Limiting it to biology is the issue. You're assuming life arose by chance, where I think such mechanisms were installed, by design. I see too much interactive, specified information to conclude it was all by naturalism.

Let me ask...there are posters on this very forum, who claim to have spoken, and have ongoing relationships, with invisible entities.
Do you think they’re all making it up? Now, I grant, some could be making it up....but all of them? (Science can’t test for it, apparently....does that make these ones’s genuine experiences, fantasies?) Google “Lincoln’s Ghost”.



Yes, but nothing that produces new, unknown function. Nothing novel. Only entropy.

It is improper to incorrectly describe your opponents beliefs or knowledge. For example:

You believe that nailing someone to a board makes people live forever.

That would be a gross mischaracterization of Christianity. Abiogenesis was not "by chance". Tell me, when a lake freezes over in the winter time is that "by chance"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, Behe and others don’t agree. Take it up with them. Tell them they’re ignorant and don’t understand.
Lol.

Yes, but Behe is a dishonest hack. He may not like the refutation of his ignorant claim, but it was based upon the "rules" that he set up. And yes, Behe is either a liar or ignorant. I guess that you are claiming that he is a liar and you may have a valid point.


By the way, you do not seem to understand what an argument from ignorance is. That is what Behe formed. It is why it was never taken seriously to start with. Pointing out that someone made that error is not the same as claiming that that person is ignorant. In this case his argument from ignorance boiled down to this:

"I do not understand how the flagellum could have evolved, therefore God". Not understanding something is never a valid excuse to bring God into the picture.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you for replying, but I thought so. Limiting it to biology is the issue. You're assuming life arose by chance, where I think such mechanisms were installed, by design. I see too much interactive, specified information to conclude it was all by naturalism.

Well, it isn't clear what *specified* information consists of. Who does the specifying? And how can we know?

But what we *do* know is that even the differences in atoms carries information. And the differences in the way those atoms interact determines what sorts of structures arise naturally.

Let me ask...there are posters on this very forum, who claim to have spoken, and have ongoing relationships, with invisible entities.
Do you think they’re all making it up? Now, I grant, some could be making it up....but all of them? (Science can’t test for it, apparently....does that make these ones’s genuine experiences, fantasies?) Google “Lincoln’s Ghost”.

No, I don't think they are making it up. I think they are having real experiences, but are misinterpreting what they are experiencing. They attribute the experiences to outside influences, when, in reality, they are all in their heads.

Yes, but nothing that produces new, unknown function. Nothing novel. Only entropy.

Again, that depends on what you mean by 'unknown function'. For example, lipids will naturally arrange themselves into spherical, bilayered structures. This is what we see in biological cells. And yet they form these structures because of entropy (not in spite of it).

The point is that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. There is no 'life force' that is required in addition to the chemistry to make something alive. So the *only* question in abiogenesis is whether those basic chemicals can form and arrange spontaneously. We know that they can form. We know there are multiple pathways for them to form depending on the environment. And we know that they do, in fact, spontaneously produces structures that catalyze biologically important reactions (isn't that information?). We also know that self-reproducing RNA does not need to be very complicated.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, there is a vast difference! More complexity!

Are you saying that such complexity cannot be the result of mutation and natural selection?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Well yeah, since they know via direct observation how the robot was made and who made it.

Of course by the same token, we could also ponder what they would say if you told them there was no way that robot was made via natural mechanisms.


Because there's a plethora of differences between non-living robots and living human beings, most notably that humans biologically reproduce themselves whereas robots don't.

Did a lot of science and knowledge and craftsmanship go into making those human robots?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[ecco]

OK...

There are many origin stories. Let's take three four:

1. God created everything as it is written in Genesis. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
2. God created everything last Thursday. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
3. Everything arose naturally over the course of 14.5 billion years.
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.

I've included your option. Now...
Please make some suggestions as to how scientists could differentiate between those options.

Easy...

By using currently accepted empirical methods....all complex information that’s been discovered, in most fields of science except in the life & earth sciences, always recognizes mind as its source.
Even SETI is set up that way, determining intelligence as the cause of even simple things, like patterns. They’ve so far looked in vain, but that’s the way they expect to achieve their objective.

Yeah, easy. Everything is easy if you don't answer the question. Ducking and dodging is easy.

Now, try putting a little effort into it and actually answer the question (third try):
There are many origin stories. Let's take three four:

1. God created everything as it is written in Genesis. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
2. God created everything last Thursday. God made it look like everything was created millions and billions of years ago.
3. Everything arose naturally over the course of 14.5 billion years.
4. Everything was created millions and billions of years ago by God, the Intelligence behind life and the information and systems supporting its diversity.

I've included your option. Now...
Please make some suggestions as to how scientists could differentiate between those options.

 

[ecco]

I posted this vid in another thread, but wanted to post it here, too....

Behe's Brainchild - Irreducible Complexity - was refuted by science many years ago. In 2005 a Republican Judge also found it was nonsense after listening to Behe "testifying" about it and scientists refuting his nonsense.

The fact that these many years later Creos still trot out IC just proves how totally bankrupt their/your stash of knowledge and ideas really is. They/You have nothing to support ID/Creationism. Making cutesy videos changes nothing.



ETA: I just skimmed the video. At 5:10 - 5:22 a supporter of Behe tells an out and out lie. This is so typical of Creo propaganda.

 

[ecco]

Just an observation.

I happen to see awhile back a show on the making of human robots. ... I'm sure they would laugh you to scorn. In other words, if what you made required tremendous intelligence, and does not come close to the real thing, how is it there is no intelligence behind the real thing?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Please do continue to reinforce the caricature of Bible-thumpin' trailer park red neck intelligence and ignorance. Makes my day.

 

[ecco]

Yes, there is a vast difference! More complexity!

Why did you post that video? If you had taken the time to watch it and had the basic intelligence to understand it, you would know that it refutes your Behe nonsense.

What happened, did you see the words "protein folding problems" and guess that it meant that proteins could not naturally fold into useful biological things? Did you, therefore (incorrectly) assume that it supported Behe?

Here's a clue: If it's a TED Talk, it probably is not going to support Creationism.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, there is a vast difference! More complexity!

This is actually a wonderful example of how something that *seems* incredibly unlikely (the correct folding of a protein) is nonetheless completely natural and the result of natural forces. I saw once a calculation that if proteins went through every folding possibility, it would take longer than the age of the universe to fold. In actuality, it takes fractions of a second.

I'm not quite sure why you think it supports your viewpoint, though. In fact, it points to a very common creationist mistake: thinking that there is no interaction between parts of a process that can mean the process is much faster than it would be if every possibility were included in the 'search'.

A similar mistake is made by the Hoyle calculations of the likelihood of a cell forming.

 

[ecco]

By the way, you do not seem to understand what an argument from ignorance is. That is what Behe formed.

"I do not understand how the flagellum could have evolved, therefore God". Not understanding something is never a valid excuse to bring God into the picture.

Behe's original thoughts might have been "I do not understand how the flagellum could have evolved, therefore God". However, after others analyzed the problem and found solutions, he could no longer claim "I do not understand". At that point, it became "I must reject science whenever science disagrees with God". It is also no longer an "argument from ignorance". He is not ignorant of the truth. That makes it an argument based on lies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Behe's original thoughts might have been "I do not understand how the flagellum could have evolved, therefore God". However, after others analyzed the problem and found solutions, he could no longer claim "I do not understand". At that point, it became "I must reject science whenever science disagrees with God". It is also no longer an "argument from ignorance". He is not ignorant of the truth. That makes it an argument based on lies.

Yes, sooner or later one has to become a liar to maintain one's creationist beliefs. Please note how creationists here will not let themselves understand the nature of scientific evidence. A simple concept that they should be able to understand in less than ten minutes. They seem to know that if they understand what is and what is not evidence that they will lose all plausible deniability and will no longer will not be able to say "there is no evidence for evolution" without blatantly lying.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are you saying that such complexity cannot be the result of mutation and natural selection?

For the diversity of information we see, yes. IMO.

Although natural selection is not random, it nonetheless can only select from what it’s given, mutations. And as we know, mutations are rarely beneficial.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Interesting post, but this....

The point is that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. There is no 'life force' that is required in addition to the chemistry to make something alive

This is an educated guess, but you can’t be sure.
Life is still not defined.