:-)

Collapse
X
 
  • الوقت
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Charlie1965
    replied
    المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة mrkira مشاهدة المشاركة
    Now if you think SETI is scientific. what do you think of methodology used to try to detect extraterrestrial life? Is scientific as well?
    I don't know it so I can't really answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrkira
    replied
    Now if you think SETI is scientific. what do you think of methodology used to try to detect extraterrestrial life? Is scientific as well?

    Leave a comment:


  • mrkira
    replied
    DNA is not a code, instruction, language or information like religious apologetics like to call it. It doesn't have any of -those things intrinsicly added to it. DNA involves molecules and processes. That's it. We are the ones who have information about DNA, how it is built and how it works, which we obtained through analyzing and understanding it.
    Whoever says otherwise is misinformed or dishonest.
    Well a simple search in Google about the definition of DNA and you will find many sources saying DNA is instruction, code or information. Here are few examples:

    “DNA is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.”



    "Instruction providing all of the information necessary for a living organism to grow and live reside the nucleus of every cell. These instruction tell cell what role it will play in your body."

    “The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases”
    MedlinePlus Genetics provides information about the effects of genetic variation on human health. Learn about genetic conditions, genes, chromosomes, and more.


    here are some quotes from some authorities:

    Bill gates: “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created”

    Richard Dawkins : “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”

    And Generally, any different characters arranged in certain pattern is information. What you are reading right now is information that you knew by the of arrangement of English letters. The output is your understanding of my message. The computer language consist of arrangement of 0s and 1s, these arrangement serves many purposes in a computer software and it’s called a Binary language. In DNA, the arrangement of the four different chemicals ( cytosine (C), guanine (G), adenine (A), or thymine (T) ) can be translated into a protein production and it is Quaternary language.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrkira
    replied
    Okay let me dismantle your example of thunder and god of the gaps argument because I need to clear this up to avoid repetitive misunderstanding. In the past, people could not produce electricity, so for them to claim a thunder was made by god is false. It was just an argument from ignorance and God of the Gaps argument
    So what would be a good analogy of how thunders happens ? Well nowadays, people can produce electricity indirectly. We can see engineers build a system that consist of a compressor, turbine and generator and by using natural laws of nature like Faradays law, they could produce electricity. So what is the source of electricity? It is the fined tuned system built by the engineers
    So they just built a fine tuned system that could produce electricity. So when we compare this with the fine tuning of the universe, we can find a designer that produced a system that has fined tuned laws of nature and a material universe. Without the fine tuning of the laws of nature, life would not be there and the formation of natural phenomenon like thunders would not happen. The same thing with electricity generator, if the system was not fine-tuned, it would fail to generate electricity and plant equipment would fail to operate leading to economic losses. So we can see here that a designer is indirectly involved in thunders as engineers indirectly involved in producing electricity. The source of the electricity is not the engineers but the fine-tuned system

    Well what about information. What is the source of information? Books for example contains papers, ink and information. The ink and paper are of material origin but the information is not. Because the source of information in any writings is the mind of the author who wrote it down. So we can form a general statement/theory here that the source of information is a mind. This is direct relationship unlike the previous example of electricity

    So now you can see here that intelligent design theory is not just some random argument that was put there to explain anything to serve the agenda of religious people and satisfy their preference. The theory has scientific basis and you should try to falsify its arguments. Because if we kept throwing accusation at each other, we would not have any professional discussion in this matter. Yea the theory of intelligent design has implications of god. But the design theorists did not say anything about the identity of the designer because its beyond the scope of the theory. The designer might be the Abrahamic god, the Hindu god, Zeus, unicorn, fairies, aliens or whatever you have in your mind, it is a matter of your preference and has to do nothing with our discussion. And I don’t deny there might be some bias in such topics. But with agreed foundation of logic and science, it is inevitable that we would agree in some points no matter how biased we might be

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie1965
    replied
    If you think we cannot form an analogy to form a theory of intelligent design then please show me why I might be wrong.
    - .You can form any analogy you like. I am not taking that right from you. I just question the validity of doing that.
    And I think I discussed that already but let's do it again:

    1.
    Do you believe in the thoery evolution?
    - Do you remember that part in Theory of Evolution when it talks about gnomes and fairies? And unicorns? Or maybe god? No?
    Well, compared to the Theory of Evolution which strictly relies on concepts and facts from reality, the major element of yours is actually god - a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient being able to design and create anything it wants, a being never proven existing in the first place. If this doesn't make your "theory" incredible and namely ridiculous, then I guess no idea can be ridiculous, and everything makes sense from now on.

    Like Ancient Greeks who had Zeus casting thunders, You have intelligent design (GOD) responsible for everything in the universe! After all, how else can you explain the origin of natural objects? And how else can you explain those powerful electric bolts from the sky? Must be god.

    Until you prove natural objects result from intelligent design, you are among the guys from Ancient Greece adding an improbable agent to something that doesn't require any.

    2.
    That totally different story because right now we are dealing with obvious evidence of design like the instruction code of DNA

    DNA is not a code, instruction, language or information like religious apologetics like to call it. It doesn't have any of -those things intrinsicly added to it. DNA involves molecules and processes. That's it. We are the ones who have information about DNA, how it is built and how it works, which we obtained through analyzing and understanding it.
    Whoever says otherwise is misinformed or dishonest.

    3.
    One more question; what do you think of SETI? Is it scientific or not
    Compared to god, which has no evidence, our existence on this planet is evidence that life is a possibility in the universe, and since there are so many planets out there, it is pretty probable there are extraterrestrial creatures out there.


    SUMMING UP:
    You believe compexity can't arise without intelligent design, so you believe in god. A belief based on a belief. No facts involved, but still very, very scientific, and no agenda there whatsoever.

    Cheers!

    Leave a comment:


  • mrkira
    replied
    If you think we cannot form an analogy to form a theory of intelligent design then please show me why I might be wrong.
    And by the way if you call it BELIEF or THEORY; it does not matter as long as its based on evidence. Do you believe in the thoery evolution? If you believe in it then thats your BELIEF. And a thoery/belief is not KNOWLEDGE; I know that already. In science we form theories and we try to find the best explination. Any explination found is not necessarily a KNOWLWDGE. It is still a theory that might be wrong or right. Having an analogy of the behavior of human designers to form a general theory of intelligent design is valid since its a theory and I did not claim thats its KNOWLEDGE . So unless you could prove the thoery of intelligent design is wrong then we can have meaningful discussion. But throwing random accusations of agendas and god of gaps argument is a waste of my time.
    And please dont mix things up about what people did in the past. That totally different story because right now we are dealing with obvious evidence of design like the instruction code of DNA. Let me ask you this, what if it was really the case that certain feature is explained by design? How would we know this? Of course any athiest/agnostic would come and say "people in the past explained anything as the result of god; therefore any explination that have god/designer in it must be wrong". See how easy it is to just refute any argument of design with this silly excuse.
    One more question; what do you think of SETI? Is it scientific or not?

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie1965
    replied
    I would like to establish definitions of what a belief and knowledge are."
    KNOWLEDGE is something confirmed to be true, it is TESTABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, MEASURABLE.
    If I make a statement, it is true because I can prove it.
    The universe exists - I can prove it to you. It is evident.

    A BELIEF can only become knowledge when you meet the expectations above. Otherwise it is based on FAITH
    which has nothing to do with LOGIC and REALIA.
    [ I]God is real./There is a designer of the universe.[/I] - This is a belief, not evident, and really a matter of preference.

    Then there is EVIDENCE and ARGUMENT:
    EVIDENCE should be empirical so again something DEMONSTRABLE, MEASURABLE and TESTABLE.

    An ARGUMENT doesn't require those things above, you may throw arguments for or against anything you like, they can be a matter of preference and faith you actually represent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie1965
    replied
    Lets avoid naming designers as I am trying to debate you from scientific point of view only; that there a designer. No matter what names you throw. The common thing that we should agree about that there is a designer.
    - Why should we agree on that? Because you can't explain how complexity emerges? Or because you have evidence that all complexity requires a designer to actually emerge? If you do have evidence for that, please share it, if you don't, case closed.

    Saying god did is is like saying: I AM NOT GOING TO BE HONEST THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT IT.


    [So how we deal with type of evidence we have? We gonna just say we dont know and thats it? I mean do we really do that in our life acting agnostic all the time? Of course not. Usually a reasonable person would try to form theories and then choose the best explination. And we know from our experience the products of the designer and we can postively infer that any similar product is the product of a designer even if we did not see
    - I guess how we deal with information depends on what our agendas are, if we want to see god we will say it was god. It seems we also disagree who a reasonable person is, and in matters concerning what we do with
    information.
    We don't know the universe is a product of a designer, this is your belief. Belief doesn't equal knowledge. Especially if that belief is a matter of preference.
    Seriously people in the past did that already, they called every phenomena a result of some GOD's will, and they failed, because we know those things don't require gods, what makes you feel your assumptions do not belong there?

    We know that human products are human products and non-human products are not. Again, prove it to me that anything else than a human-product requires a designer, just anything you like. Prove to me that there needs to be a designer for complexity, and don't give human products as an example anymore because it is common knowledge we make certain things, it is not concluded, it is not a matter of assumption, it is really just knowledge. And everything else is a matter of assumption.
    It seems to you that it is impossible for complex things to emerge without that "special agent" called GOD out there.
    How it is not incredible that "the special agent exists in the first place? It should be even more incredible since you can't confirm its existence at any point.

    If you are just selectively sceptical, because this is what your religion tells you to do. You may look for arguments concerning anything, and I really mean anything. But that doesn't make you reasonable..

    Leave a comment:


  • mrkira
    replied
    Man we know for sure that information is always the product of a designer. Have you seen any case where information was produced by other mechanisms? And by 'complexity' I mean what is called 'Speciefied Complexity'.
    The following videos explains this concept better: - https://youtu.be/RiUJLHDYOBs

    Lets avoid naming designers as I am trying to debate you from scientific point of view only; that there a designer. No matter what names you throw. The common thing that we should agree about that there is a designer.
    So we have real good evidence in our bodies and from our universe. Fine tuning and our DNA. what does fine tuning implies? It simply implies there is a fine tuner. And its unavoidable implications if it was compared with other competing theories like the multiverse. This really big piece of information that you are just ignoring. To get more familair with the concept of fine tuning, I suggest you to watch the following video: https://youtu.be/UpIiIaC4kRA

    What about DNA? The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). The arrangement of these chemicals in a pattern can be translated as instructions to build protiens and do other functions. Do we have any instructions being made by other types of process beside intelligence? Nope.
    So how we deal with this type of evidence we have? We gonna just say we dont know and thats it? I mean do we really do that in our life acting agnostic all the time? Of course not. Usually a reasonable person would try to form theories and then choose the best explination. And we know from our experience the products of the designer and we can postively infer that any similar product is the product of a designer even if we did not see the designer himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie1965
    replied
    Btw, I would be glad if we could create another thread called:
    ?Can god lie and is it really god

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie1965
    replied
    Scientific discoveries actually work, if you make a claim that a computer sends messages, you can verify it and prove that it actually is true.
    If you make a claim that DNA is a result of designing, you hit a wall called "I don't have facts to back this up"

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie1965
    replied
    You see, you just dressed it in nice words but the argument stays the same and let me explain why:

    As I said, you can't prove a non-man made object requires a creator/designer.

    And you can't prove that "detection of design" works outside Archeology - in other words to notice any divine interference or to actually establish a claim that all other objects or phenomena are a result of designing.

    Leave a comment:


  • مسلم أسود
    replied
    If only I had a dollar each time an Atheist mentioned Zeus in the exact same fallacy . Though I'll leave it to who knows better than I do .

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie1965
    replied
    المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة mrkira مشاهدة المشاركة
    Regarding who designed the designer. To make it simple for you to understand this. If and only if we could find any empirical evidence of the designer, then we could talk about the designer of the designer. So here you really need to be agnostic about who designed the designer since we dont have any emprical evidence of the first designer!! This purely from scientific point of view. Because if we kept questioning any scientific discovery we have and if we failed to answer all these questions; then we wont have any science by your logic.
    Therefore; any irrelevant question about our best explination wont really falsify it. To falsify a theory you need to show that its evidence is weak or by proving that alternative explinations can best explain the given phenomenon. And in our case, from the fine tuning argument and from DNA, we are justified to infer that there is a designer since evidence provided prove it.And I am not saying that we should stop asking questions for our best explination. We could ask such questions and hope that in the future we could find good evidence to answer it without the need to claim that our best explination is invalid.
    Well, here's a problem, technically we don't create anything, we reshape what is already there, so we are not really creators but just designers. Secondly, you can not prove that a designer is necessary for the emergence of the universe.

    You don't have any evidence, you rely on lack of it. I don't need to present an alternative to anything. You are the one saying god exists and he created the universe - the burden of proof relies on you. And what you have given already is useless practically.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie1965
    replied
    المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة mrkira مشاهدة المشاركة
    Hi there

    Okay I will be quick in here cos I need to sleep
    As I see from your reply for the first point, you commited straw man argument. We dont claim that "there are some complexity in the universe, and because of our ignorance it must be god who did." We did not claim that at all. Our argument states that there are certain features of the universe and of living things that are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. So you can see here that we are just using what is known by philosphy of science as 'inference of the best explination', where you have many explinations lets say A, B and C, and therefore you decide from all those explinations which one that makes more sense by refuting the other alternative explinations. So intelligent design argument is not 'god did it' argument, argument of ignorance or 'God of the Gaps' argument. This common mistake that many athiests/agnostics insist to make about the argument of intelligent design.
    The thing is, you have no evidence to confirm it in the first place, you don't know how complexity emerges and this is where this lack of information leads you.
    Hellenic believers had gods too, and one of them was Zeus who could cast thunders, and since they didn't have any explanation, when they saw thunders, they thought it was actually Zeus.
    Like I said: Your god is far from any good explanation because it raises even more questions than answers. Secondly, you are giving credit to something you can not prove existing in the first place. So it is really pointless. And even if there is an uncaused cause, it doesn't have to be god, not even mentioning your god.
    And like I already said: God is a great explanation for those who already believe in him. But that's where greatness ends.

    Whatever makes more sense to you, A, B or Z, is irrelevant, you don't have information to be able to effectively analyze it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...