Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
but just a while ago you knew enough about nature to classify all its manifestations as purely natural without any outside intervention.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?
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.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
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.
If you have evidence of a living universe, by all means, present it.
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..
But they don't build brains do they? That's where your claim of chemicals did it becomes similar to a fairy tail.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.
This is what I mean about people promising evidence, then arguing about why they shouldn't have to show it rather than delivering.but just a while ago you knew enough about nature to classify all its manifestations as purely natural without any outside intervention.
Huh?But they don't build brains do they? That's where your claim of chemicals did it becomes similar to a fairy tail.
This is what I mean by people requesting targets to shoot down with arguments that are essentially nonsensical. Pull!This is what I mean about people promising evidence, then arguing about why they shouldn't have to show it rather than delivering.
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?Nahhhh! I will pass on that.
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.
"I can't be convinced by evidence you won't show me" is nonsensical to you?This is what I mean by people requesting for targets to shoot down with arguments that are essentially nonsensical.
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.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
Well thats entirely provisional.but just a while ago you knew enough about nature to classify all its manifestations as purely natural without any outside intervention.
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?"I can't be convinced by evidence you won't show me" is nonsensical to you?
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"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!
So argument from incredulity with a side of strawmanning and poisoning the well? That's your evidence?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?
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?