An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[Radrook]

I dont either.
But I dont know every single thing in nature.
I could be wrong! Maybe something out there that i wasnt aware of does indicate ID?

but just a while ago you knew enough about nature to classify all its manifestations as purely natural without any outside intervention.

 

[Armoured]

I'd like to know which specific chemical processes he believes gives rise to awareness in something like a slime mold, which is apparently capable of making "intelligent" choices.

https://phys.org/news/2016-06-slime-mold-insight-intelligence-neuron-less.html

It's an emergent property of a self pruning efficiency. Soap bubbles similarly will always have the lowest surface area possible. Water always follows the path of least resistance. Neither is evidence that water or soap is intelligent.

 

[Michael]

That's not how science works. Theories are formulated in response to evidence. You don't go looking for evidence after you compose a theory.

Not necessarily. What's the "prior evidence" that supports string theory?

If you have evidence of a living universe, by all means, present it.

I already did that in those two threads for you. There's certainly more empirical evidence to support a living universe than there is to support current "big bang" theory.

But you're the one making the claim, it's your job to support the claim with objective facts, not my job to help you convince me subjectively..

You're already subjectively deciding what you personally count as "evidence" without bothering to define the term, or explain why you rejected anything in those threads. I can't read your mind, and I have no idea what type of "evidence" you'd expect to observe from a living universe.

 

[Radrook]

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. But argument from incredulity is not evidence.

Nahhhh! I will pass on that.

 

[Radrook]

It's an emergent property of a self pruning efficiency. Soap bubbles similarly will always have the lowest surface area possible. Water always follows the path of least resistance. Neither is evidence that water or soap is intelligent.

But they don't build brains do they? That's where your claim of chemicals did it becomes similar to a fairy tail.

 

[Armoured]

but just a while ago you knew enough about nature to classify all its manifestations as purely natural without any outside intervention.

This is what I mean about people promising evidence, then arguing about why they shouldn't have to show it rather than delivering.

 

[Armoured]

But they don't build brains do they? That's where your claim of chemicals did it becomes similar to a fairy tail.

Huh?

 

[Radrook]

This is what I mean about people promising evidence, then arguing about why they shouldn't have to show it rather than delivering.

This is what I mean by people requesting targets to shoot down with arguments that are essentially nonsensical. Pull!

 

[Radrook]

Huh?

Who?

 

[Armoured]

Nahhhh! I will pass on that.

Don't complain that people don't believe in ID then.

 

[Speedwell]

Nahhhh! I will pass on that.

But you do have some specifics, I hope. When the "designer" steps in to alter the genome in some way to make up for the inadequacies of variation and selection, what would that look like if we were watching? Or does the "designer" act through introducing artificial selection?

 

[Michael]

It's an emergent property of a self pruning efficiency.

Er, which chemical processes might those be exactly?

Soap bubbles similarly will always have the lowest surface area possible. Water always follows the path of least resistance. Neither is evidence that water or soap is intelligent.

We aren't discussing soap, or bubbles, or any non living organisms, nor did I make any claims about them.

I'm asking you which specific chemical processes that you believe allows simple organisms to "learn", store memory, and make intelligent choices?

Looking for true intelligence, study shows that slime molds can learn - ExtremeTech

 

[Armoured]

This is what I mean by people requesting for targets to shoot down with arguments that are essentially nonsensical.

"I can't be convinced by evidence you won't show me" is nonsensical to you?

 

[Armoured]

Er, which chemical processes might those be exactly?



We aren't discussing soap, or bubbles, or any non living organisms, nor did I make any claims about them.

I'm asking you which specific chemical processes that you believe allows an organisms to "learn", store memory, and make intelligent choices?
Looking for true intelligence, study shows that slime molds can learn - ExtremeTech

I don't know the specific chemicals involved. My explanation was mathematical, not chemical. I don't know the chemicals involved in a schooling shoal of fish, or in traffic jams, either. Schooling behaviour and traffic are still emergent properties.

 

[Armoured]

Who?

I didn't understand your comment.

 

[durangodawood]

but just a while ago you knew enough about nature to classify all its manifestations as purely natural without any outside intervention.

Well thats entirely provisional.
All the ones Ive seen and understood so far dont appear to require a designer. But I'm open to new information!

 

[Radrook]

"I can't be convinced by evidence you won't show me" is nonsensical to you?

It is nonsensical to say that chemicals build brains all by themselves without anyone having arranged the sequences which lead to the formation of a brain. Since when does that kind of nonsense make any sense-since Darwin who was unaware of DNA thought it up?

 

[Armoured]

Well thats entirely provisional.
All the ones Ive seen and understood so far dont appear to require a designer. But I'm open to new information!

You know, if I was trying to convince someone they were wrong, and I had evidence, you wouldn't have to work this hard to get me to show it. But these guys, every time. "I have evidence that proves ID (or creationism) is right and evolution is wrong"
"Wow! Show me,please?"
"Nah, I left it in my other pants. AND YOU'RE A BAD PERSON FOR ASKING! You don't believe in it, so I'm not going to show you!"

 

[Armoured]

It is nonsensical to say that chemicals build brains all by themselves without anyone having arranged the sequences which lead to the formation of a brain. Since when does that kind of nonsense make any sense-since Darwin who was unaware of DNA thought it up?

So argument from incredulity with a side of strawmanning and poisoning the well? That's your evidence?

Chemicals don't just spontaneously come along and make brains. But after a couple billion years of natural selection, there's no reason they can't evolve. We see it happen in the fossil record.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's not how science works. Theories are formulated in response to evidence. You don't go looking for evidence after you compose a theory.

I know what you mean, but that's not strictly true; the hypothesis or theory is formulated to explain some observations (which you could call evidence), but then you have to look for evidence to support it or confirm its predictions.