How so?
Why is that evidence for intelligent design? Why can't nature produce something complex through natural processes?
Upvote
0
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.
If anything, it is more like AI,
and still more advanced than anything man has made, not to mention the rest of even the simplest cell, which is as complex as a small city.
Arguments stand or fall on their own merit and not on the academic qualifications of the individual who might propose them.
Does that mean that if you were discussing car manufacturing, Henry Ford could not be part of it? And Orville and Wilbur Wright would be nixed when debating the origin of manned flight?
There is nothing anti-biblical in detecting intelligent design in nature. As a matter of fact-we are expected to as Paul clearly pointed out.ID fails mainly because it is a compromise between two religions, not science and the bible, as some think. God doesn't compromise. He made it clear that he doesn't need to get man's approval of how he worked when he created light before the sun and moon.
But it is only important that some do (rather than all).
I don't think anyone assumes that awareness is solely a chemical process. I vaguely remember from my undergrad days the hypothesis of quantum effects within micro tubules in the brain but I confess not having kept up with the literature.But I can't even be sure that awareness is generated by a chemical process to begin with. It could be a quantum effect for all I know. That's the point. If I can't identify the specific chemical reaction that gives rise to awareness, I can't "assume" that's the (only) cause.
Ultimately chemistry itself is a quantum process...I don't think anyone assumes that awareness is solely a chemical process. I vaguely remember from my undergrad days the hypothesis of quantum effects within micro tubules in the brain but I confess not having kept up with the literature.
At any rate, since I'm not suggesting awareness is solely down to chemistry I see no reason to assume an additional undetectable cause is present.
I don't think anyone assumes that awareness is solely a chemical process. I vaguely remember from my undergrad days the hypothesis of quantum effects within micro tubules in the brain but I confess not having kept up with the literature.
At any rate, since I'm not suggesting awareness is solely down to chemistry I see no reason to assume an additional undetectable cause is present.
Well, yeah. But that is kind of reductionism to an unhelpful degree.Ultimately chemistry itself is a quantum process...
It would help to have a clear definition of what is (and what isn't) meant by 'awareness' in this particular context.
Dunno about that.I think you are probably describing ORCH-OR theory, which is the theory that we've been discussing here recently. Hameroff suggests that his model provides a QM mechanism for a 'soul/body' connection.
Sure - having spent some time discussing Penrose & Hameroff's Orch-OR theory, which attributes consciousness to speculative extensions of QM (which do not appear to be supported by the quantum formalism), my point was that, in a sense, QM is an everyday phenomenon whose effects 'average out' to the largely deterministic world we experience; it's behaviour is well understood even if the mechanisms for it are not. It's not a magical answer to every mystery.Well, yeah. But that is kind of reductionism to an unhelpful degree.
We can talk meaningfully about covalent bonds without needed to refer to quantum states.
Oh, see what you mean, now.Sure - having spent some time discussing Penrose & Hameroff's Orch-OR theory, which attributes consciousness to speculative extensions of QM (which do not appear to be supported by the quantum formalism), my point was that, in a sense, QM is an everyday phenomenon whose effects 'average out' to the largely deterministic world we experience; it's behaviour is well understood even if the mechanisms for it are not. It's not a magical answer to every mystery.
No problem - I didn't really make it clear...Oh, see what you mean, now.
Yes, you're correct.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
That's where their selective blindness always very cunningly comes into very convenient play.
An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious that life's design, has a design and a designer behind it...? It should be obvious that Life or this reality was engineered and has an engineer behind it...
Why do you deny that there is a "mind" behind all we see and know...?
Is it because, you say, we may have proof of a thing that was intelligently designed, but because we don't have solid, irrefutable proof or evidence, specifically of the designer behind it, we refuse to believe... Although we will admit that things do overwhelmingly appear to have been intelligently designed, created, or orchestrated, or engineered, but, because we cannot literally see the designer behind the design, though we do think there is sufficient evidence to say it was all designed, created, orchestrated or engineered by a mind, because we can't literally see it, we don't believe in it, though there is plenty of evidence pointing at such a thing, we still do not believe...
Why is that...?
That is like discovering some other earth like planet, and discovering whole cities, complete with machines and machinery, buildings, houses, roads, but no inhabitants.... And then saying, and concluding, well, since we do not see any inhabitants, we deny that there ever were any, and all of this stuff, just came out of nothing and thin air, I guess, is our theory...
Romans 1:19-20 applies to you people...
God Bless!
if the designer is eternal then it doesnt need a designer. nature in the other hand have a beginning. then its on the same conclusion.
No, I mean the SB of those who cunningly refuse to acknowledge the very obvious compelling indications of intelligent design in nature.You mean the selective blindness of those who refuse to see the natural processes that produce the very things they claim are designed?
No, I mean the SB of those who cunningly refuse to acknowledge the very obvious compelling indications of intelligent design in nature.
Romans 1:20What indications would those be?
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?