Intelligent Design New Evidence

[grip]

Firstly, your terms are irritatingly silly. But second, the only creature you can apply this too are current humans (and even then I'd hardly say that just cause they want a baby that makes it design). Dogs aren't humping each other thinking "awesome, I'm designing a baby". So if you are trying to say that this little segment of nature involves some ****ed up sense of "design", go for it. But evolution encompasses way more than just current humans. So your point is moot. We are talking evolution the process, not just humans.



As far as we know, nature does no foreplanning or designing or planning. natural selection is just a result of nature, its not something that nature thought up and uses when needed. This is not planning, this is not design. Regardless of how many ways you can find to reword it.



What are you even arguing now? That sounds like a bunch of religious woo-woo.

Nature utilizes 'natural selection' as a selective breeding process to weed out the weak. It's a plan man, face it. Nature is smarter than us, all day long, that's why we don't know everything.

 

[roughdraft274]

Nature utilizes 'natural selection' as a selective breeding process to weed out the weak. It's a plan man, face it. Nature is smarter than us, all day long, that's why we don't know everything.

Lol, it doesn't utilize natural selection. Natural selection is the term we have given a completely natural process that happens. Nature makes no decisions regarding natural selection.

Yes, we don't know everything, but I know enough to know that you're wrong and very confused as to what words mean. They have definitions and you are using them incorrectly.

Also, natural selection doesn't just "weed out the weak". Think of natural selection as simply "if you have genes that allow you to be more likely to pass your genes on, then you will be more likely to pass those genes on".

Nature didn't think this up. It's just the way it is. In the same way that gravity didn't design falling objects and nature didn't design gravity.

 

[grip]

Lol, it doesn't utilize natural selection. Natural selection is the term we have given a completely natural process that happens. Nature makes no decisions regarding natural selection.

Yes, we don't know everything, but I know enough to know that you're wrong and very confused as to what words mean. They have definitions and you are using them incorrectly.

Also, natural selection doesn't just "weed out the weak". Think of natural selection as simply "if you have genes that allow you to be more likely to pass your genes on, then you will be more likely to pass those genes on".

Nature didn't think this up. It's just the way it is. In the same way that gravity didn't design falling objects and nature didn't design gravity.

You're so wrapped up in religious denial that you haven't once picked up on what I'm talking about.

Explain 'swarm intelligence'? More of nature just being natural, though it's an emergent system smarter than Google. New Study Finds That Ant Groups Process Information Better Than Google

One person, fairly smart-- humanity combined, much greater. All of nature is an interconnected and recumbent system of information, you can't separate our species from it.

Emergence- emergent behavior or property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective.

The human species, self awareness and conscious intelligence is an emergent property of nature. Evolving or developing gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form, only means, that the information and elements to form humans were already there, it just hadn't come together yet.

 

[roughdraft274]

You're so wrapped up in religious denial that you haven't once picked up on what I'm talking about.

Explain 'swarm intelligence'? More of nature just being natural, though it's an emergent system smarter than Google. New Study Finds That Ant Groups Process Information Better Than Google

One person, fairly smart-- humanity combined, much greater. All of nature is an interconnected and recumbent system of information, you can't separate our species from it.

Emergence- emergent behavior or property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective.

The human species, self awareness and conscious intelligence is an emergent property of nature. Evolving or developing gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form, only means, that the information and elements to form humans were already there, it just hadn't come together yet.

Ants having complex processes does not indicate that those processes are designed.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[grip]

Ants having complex processes does not indicate that those processes are designed.

You don't know what you're talking about.

More than you do. :mrgreen:

 

[RogueWarrior]

Quote mining? I gave you a quoted statement of Hawking from Wiki....and you refused to accept it at face value (which is fair). You demanded:




I not only gave you a link for that said quote, but gave you more quotes from him! And because of that, you trun around and accuse me of quote-mining?


Translation: Darn.


And you quote me a Bible verse?


That is when I realize it'll be a waste of time going any farther with you.....

Bye-bye.

First, the bible verse is one of the 10 Commandments. Not bearing false witness against a neighbour is God's law. Do you even read your bible?
Your use of fallacies is bearing false witness.

If you can't understand why your posts are quote mining, you are a lost cause. You posted the Hawking quote that is taken out of context. Maybe you don't understand what quote mining is, or maybe you don't care as long as the 'quotes' back up your bias.

Either way congratulations, you win Fallacy Bingo!
:2wave::congrats::bootyshake




So the feeling is mutual

 

[Deuce]

I already said that "predictions or not, there is a consensus among scientists that several aspects of the universe is fine-tuned. Thus I quoted Hawking, too.


Your rebut is irrelevant.

:2wave:

Correction:

Somebody told you such a consensus exists. You assumed this was an accurate characterization.

 

[Deuce]

No, DNA uses code to design whatever creature is in its genetic information.

It uses chemical reactions that are complex. The process is not different than hydrogen and water, just more complicated. You can call it "design" and "code," if you like, but believing that to imply some inherent intelligent guiding hand is to misunderstand the laws of chemistry.

 

[tosca1]

You guys better get this and accept it: That, there is a fine-tuned universe,
is an irrefutable fact.


Even Victor Stenger had acknowledged that.

the physicist Victor J. Stenger had shown that perhaps the fine-tuning of constants may not be that big a deal after all.
In a program he called MonkeyGod, Stenger randomly put in different values for the four fundamental constants;

Rejection of Pascal's Wager: Is the Universe "Fine-Tuned" for Life?

 

[marduc]

You guys better get this and accept it: That, there is a fine-tuned universe,
is an irrefutable fact.


Even Victor Stenger had acknowledged that.



Rejection of Pascal's Wager: Is the Universe "Fine-Tuned" for Life?

What you just quoted refutes your position. did you read it? I mean all of it, including this portion immediately following your snip:

...Stenger randomly put in different values for the four fundamental constants; the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the mass of the electron and the mass of the proton. In the randomly generated 100 universes, many were able to have stars with long enough lifetimes for the formation of heavy elements such as carbon and for life to evolve.

Again I reiterate a previous point.. your insistance on the universe being fine tuned to us completely overlooks the distinct possibility that we are fine tuned to it (or at least to the relatively infinitessimally small niche of the universe we occupy).

here we will let your source speak for himself on the matter. THis is from the conclusion of a paper of Stengers that references and draws upon his previous work fiddling with randomly generating variances of these fundamental constants (feel free to click on the link and read the paper in its entirety - asking for you to read it objectively is probbly asking too much though):

However, a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes. Although not required to negate the fine-tuning argument, which falls of its own weight, other universes besides our own are not ruled out by fundamental physics and cosmology. The theory of a multiverse composed of many universes with different laws and physical properties is actually more parsimonious, more consistent with Occam's razor, than a single universe. Specifically, we would need to hypothesize a new principle to rule out all but a single universe. If, indeed, multiple universes exist, then we are simply in that particular universe of all the logically consistent possibilities that had the properties needed to produce us

and the last sentence of his conclusion:

The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf



I posted this quote earlier, I will repost it because it underscores the point so well:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!" -Douglas Adams

Was the hole designed to fit the puddle, or did the puddle conform to the bounderies defined by the hole? In this analogy your arguments insist that it was the former while completely ignoring the possibility that it is the other way around and that the puddle has conformed to the confines of the environment it exists in. Can you even look outside of your little box to examine the question objectively from all angles instead of selectively blinding yourself to even considering the obverse side of the coin? Can you even concede that there is an obverse side to this coin you are brandishing about so insistently? To ask this directly.. can you acknowledge the possiblity that life is fine tuned to its environment, or are you so wedded to the idea that the universe is fine tuned to life that you cannot even consider that it very well might be the other way around?

 

[tosca1]

What you just quoted refutes your position. did you read it? I mean all of it, including this portion immediately following your snip:

Again I reiterate a previous point.. your insistance on the universe being fine tuned to us completely overlooks the distinct possibility that we are fine tuned to it (or at least to the relatively infinitessimally small niche of the universe we occupy).

here we will let your source speak for himself on the matter. THis is from the conclusion of a paper of Stengers that references and draws upon his previous work fiddling with randomly generating variances of these fundamental constants (feel free to click on the link and read the paper in its entirety - asking for you to read it objectively is probbly asking too much though):

and the last sentence of his conclusion:


http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf



I posted this quote earlier, I will repost it because it underscores the point so well:


Was the hole designed to fit the puddle, or did the puddle conform to the bounderies defined by the hole? In this analogy your arguments insist that it was the former while completely ignoring the possibility that it is the other way around and that the puddle has conformed to the confines of the environment it exists in. Can you even look outside of your little box to examine the question objectively from all angles instead of selectively blinding yourself to even considering the obverse side of the coin? Can you even concede that there is an obverse side to this coin you are brandishing about so insistently? To ask this directly.. can you acknowledge the possiblity that life is fine tuned to its environment, or are you so wedded to the idea that the universe is fine tuned to life that you cannot even consider that it very well might be the other way around?

I know that Victor Stenger was an evolutionist, and I know that the article is an anti-God or anti-Creation article.

As I've said earlier.... that there is a fine-tuned universe, is an irrefutable fact.


I quoted him for one reason:

to give support to that statement by showing that even an evolutionist such as Victor Stenger agrees that several aspects of the universe is fine-tuned!

the physicist Victor J. Stenger had shown that perhaps the fine-tuning of constants may not be that big a deal after all.

In a previous post, I'd given Stephen Hawking as another example.

 

[USViking]

17.fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

This is garbled. The fine structure constant =~ .00729, not .06

18.decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life

After decades of experimental observation proton decay has not been shown to exist, and it may not exist.

 

[Deuce]

You guys better get this and accept it: That, there is a fine-tuned universe,
is an irrefutable fact.


Even Victor Stenger had acknowledged that.



Rejection of Pascal's Wager: Is the Universe "Fine-Tuned" for Life?

Fine tune implies adjustments, or at least the possibility of adjustments.

There's no evidence that it is even possible for these universal constants to be any different than they are. You will never face this fact, of course.

 

[marduc]

I know that Victor Stenger was an evolutionist, and I know that the article is an anti-God or anti-Creation article.

As I've said earlier.... that there is a fine-tuned universe, is an irrefutable fact.


I quoted him for one reason:

to give support to that statement by showing that even an evolutionist such as Victor Stenger agrees that several aspects of the universe is fine-tuned!




In a previous post, I'd given Stephen Hawking as another example.

wtf he used 100 randomly slected permutations of variables that spanned 5 orders of magnitude. That is anything but fine tuned. That is like saying 5 cm when 5 kilometers would have worked is "fine tuned"

You have nothing regarding entertaining the notion that life is fine tuned to its environment as opposed to your insistance that it is the other way around I presume?

 

[tosca1]

This is garbled. The fine structure constant =~ .00729, not .06



After decades of experimental observation proton decay has not been shown to exist, and it may not exist.

There is no such thing as an "OBSERVATION" of proton decay. You guys are so full of baloney!


Here, from Princeton U.


In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron.

Proton decay has not been observed.



https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Proton_decay.html

 

[tosca1]

wtf he used 100 randomly slected permutations of variables that spanned 5 orders of magnitude. That is anything but fine tuned. That is like saying 5 cm when 5 kilometers would have worked is "fine tuned"

You have nothing regarding entertaining the notion that life is fine tuned to its environment as opposed to your insistance that it is the other way around I presume?

Who do you think is more credible? You guys.....or atheist scientists like Hawking and Stenger?

You do realize that you're contradicting the scientists that are ON YOUR SIDE!
What? Are you saying they're full of balonies too?

 

[tosca1]

There is no such thing as an "OBSERVATION" of proton decay. You guys are so full of baloney!


Here, from Princeton U.


In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron.

Proton decay has not been observed.



https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Proton_decay.html

However, there seems to be different pathways to determine decay.

 

[marduc]

Who do you think is more credible? You guys.....or atheist scientists like Hawking and Stenger?

You do realize that you're contradicting the scientists that are ON YOUR SIDE!
What? Are you saying they're full of balonies too?

Your usage of "on your side" is telling. This conflict is a one sided affair.

You still are managing to avoid answering whether or not you can even entertain the notion that life is fine tuned to its environmet rather than the other way around. You are being deliberately biased, and in doing so you are pissing on the scientific method.

also go revist your post to me proir to this (#536); read what you quoted -carefully. It does not support your position "fine tuning of constants may NOT be that big of a deal" did you miss that pesky "NOT" that was there?

 

[USViking]

There is no such thing as an "OBSERVATION" of proton decay. You guys are so full of baloney!


Here, from Princeton U.


In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron.

Proton decay has not been observed.



https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Proton_decay.html

My quotation about proton decay is taken from the list, posted by you in reply #14 to this thread, of subjects whose existence is implied to have been verified.

And while proton decay has not been observed, attempts to detect it have certainly been made:

Modeling the Probability for Proton Decay

(from link):

The experimental search for proton decay was undertaken because of the implications of the grand unification theories. The lower bound for the lifetime is now projected to be on the order of t = 10^33 years...

So far, no convincing proton decay events have been seen...

Now, what about the spurious value given by the same list for the fine structure constant?

 

[poweRob]

Okay, I'll play for a few minutes. Probably, I'm about to P.O. everybody.

" In the beginning there was a "Big Bang" and the word was "Big Bang" ........

There are those who accept what has been written as evidence on both sides of the equation; yet there is no absolute proof of either.

Have you witnessed such proof or are you choosing what you wish to believe?

Pick your belief

Thom Paine

ummm.... science is rarely about absolute proof. Science has this rather intelligent design in it that allows it to disprove itself should other evidence come along. Faith does not. Science requires an obedience to evidence. Faith requires an obedience to itself... regardless of evidence. Science's approach is "we don't know, let's follow the clues". Faith's approach is "we have the answers... let's make the evidence prove it."

They are not competing forms of study no matter how much a religion may pretend it to be.

 

[tosca1]

My quotation about proton decay is taken from the list, posted by you in reply #14 to this thread, of subjects whose existence is implied to have been verified.

And while proton decay has not been observed, attempts to detect it have certainly been made:

Modeling the Probability for Proton Decay

(from link):


Now, what about the spurious value given by the same list for the fine structure constant?

Why should we squabble about that?

The whole point is that, scientists agree that several aspects of the universe is fine-tuned for life.

 

[Deuce]

There is no such thing as an "OBSERVATION" of proton decay. You guys are so full of baloney!


Here, from Princeton U.


In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron.

Proton decay has not been observed.



https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Proton_decay.html

.... you literally just repeated what he said while simultaneously declaring him wrong.

Are you incapable of reading complete sentences or something? Because that's the only way your post makes sense. You saw the word observation and literally stopped reading there. That's it. That's the only way you make sense.

 

[Deuce]

Why should we squabble about that?

The whole point is that, scientists agree that several aspects of the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Can you actually quantify a number of scientists who say something like this?

 

[tosca1]

deleted.

 

[tosca1]

Can you actually quantify a number of scientists who say something like this?

Last week, in Nice, France, I was privileged to participate along with 30 scholars, mostly scientists and mathematicians, in a conference on the question of whether the universe was designed, or at least fine-tuned, to make life, especially intelligent life. Participants — from Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, and Columbia, among other American and European universities — included believers in God, agonistics, and atheists.

It was clear that the scientific consensus was that, at the very least, the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned to allow for the possibility of life.

Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life.

Additionally, it is atheistic dogma, not science, to dismiss design as unscientific. The argument that science cannot suggest that intelligence comes from intelligence or design from an intelligent designer is simply a tautology. It is dogma masquerading as science.


Why Some Scientists Embrace the