Man is Polluting Science

[Archaeopteryx]

Just open the link. Don't be scared. I have faith in you.[emoji4]

If you present material from other sources, you should at least be willing to discuss the content and, preferably, summarise the main points. If we all simply posted links to books, articles, and videos without making any effort to link them to the discussion at hand, then this would cease to function as a forum.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The point is that when every piece of evidence that claims the existance of God is immediately rejected, it is easy to say that their is no evidence that God exists. I could very well say that any evidence that claims that God does not exist should be rejected. That way I can say that their is no evidence that God does not exist.

It's not rejected as a matter of doctrine though, but after its merits have been considered. You can also reject an argument while still agreeing with the overall conclusion by arguing that it isn't a good way of reasoning to that conclusion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What should I look for exactly? Everything points to Him.

Life is so beautiful when you realize it isn't the result of random chance.

Who said that it's the result of random chance?

There you go again... This is what started our most recent exchange, which was embittered by your misrepresentation of my words. As I said before, you seem to think that there are only two possibilities for the formation of complex structures: either it was purposefully designed by an intelligence or it came about through random chance. My point, which you either severely misunderstood or distorted, was that natural processes can produce complex structures themselves without any apparent intelligent input. As an example, I pointed to planetary orbits. The planets move in orderly patterns through space, pushed and pulled along by their gravitational interactions with each other and the sun. They aren't wandering around in random directions, and if they were, well, then we wouldn't be here at all. But their motions don't require an intelligence either. They move naturally, their directions determined by gravity, which is in turn determined by their masses.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A "nested hierarchy" only shows the order in His design. It's not chaotic and random.

Why are you assuming that, under natural conditions, things would necessarily have to be purely random and disorderly?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've spent more time on TTA than I have on this forum. My purpose for going there is to learn about atheist and learn how to connect with them. I am very respectfull and do not preach to anyone.

Hmmm... does that mean you are being disrespectful then by preaching here?

The only time I talk about scripture is when I am specifically asked to explain it. Even then, my only intention is to inform an atheist as to the reasons why Christians believe something. But I am in no way trying to persuade anyone to believe what I believe. On an atheist forum, I am a guest in their house. Many atheist go to an atheist forum because they want to get away from the Daily grind of religion so the last thing they want to hear is someone preaching to them.

That's exactly my point: you'd look for atheists on a Christian forum in order to preach to them, even though you know they are likely to be just as receptive to your preaching here as they would be there.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Isn't an intelligent designer intricate and complex?

One would think so, yes.

But apparently some complex things don't need a designer. Go figure.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I guess that answers the question of the OP. [emoji4]

The OP! We abandoned that topic long ago. I tried to start a different thread on evolution but everybody stayed here, so it is what it is, I go with the flow, this thread has evolved into a massive evolution thread.

 

[doubtingmerle]

When have we ever observed anything half as complex as DNA or a single cell existing without a inventor/designer/creator?

Oh, in 2002, for instance, when Sato et al. allowed chance genetic algorithms in a computer to design a concert hall.

Or 1995, for instance, when Porto et al. allowed chance genetic algorithms to design neural networks to distinguish sonar signals.

Or 1996, for instance, when...

Oh well, you get the point? Genetic algorithms in computers allow random exploring of options, which are then evaluated, combined, and modified by chance to create other options. The process is repeated until novel designs are produced.

The process is very much like evolution. Random mutations are selected by natural selection, the surviving ones are mixed in different combination with additional random mutations, until novel designs are reached. It's the same thing.

Random changes plus genetic combinations plus natural selection has been known to create new and interesting designs. You might want to read up on GA-- here.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I can't remember who said it, but there was a scientist to said, "Mankind has been looking through their telescopes to find God when they should have been looking through their microscopes".

I have yet to see a picture from a microscope where we can see God.

Apparently he has a very small God.

 

[amariselle]

Oh, in 2002, for instance, when Sato et al. allowed chance genetic algorithms in a computer to design a concert hall.

Or 1995, for instance, when Porto et al. allowed chance genetic algorithms to design neural networks to distinguish sonar signals.

Or 1996, for instance, when...

Oh well, you get the point? Genetic algorithms in computers allow random exploring of options, which are then evaluated, combined, and modified by chance to create other options. The process is repeated until novel designs are produced.

The process is very much like evolution. Random mutations are selected by natural selection, the surviving ones are mixed in different combination with additional random mutations, until novel designs are reached. It's the same thing.

Random changes plus genetic combinations plus natural selection has been known to create new and interesting designs. You might want to read up on GA-- here.

Right, because no intelligent being invented, designed or created the computer. And no intelligent being was involved in inventing, designing or creating the program that ran those algorithms. Those were all just the result of random chance, right? You know, the computer must have assembled by chance over billions of years, and then eventually a computer program that could run algorithms also evolved to work with that computer over billions of more years. No intelligence necessary!

Yes, I get the point perfectly.

When man assumes the same thing in regard to what is observed in the world around us, man pollutes science.

You simply cannot have complexity without intelligence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You simply cannot have complexity without intelligence.

Yes you can. See my previous post addressing this.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Right, because no intelligent being invented, designed or created the computer. And no intelligent being was involved in inventing, designing or creating the program that ran those algorithms. Those were all just the result of random chance, right?

Ah, but you agree that once we had the computer and the algorithms, then reproduction plus chance plus genetic combinations plus natural selection can create new designs?

That is basically what evolution is: The first cell was like the first computer. The methods of reproducing and using DNA were like the computer algorithm. Once we had the first cell and functioning DNA, then reproduction plus chance plus natural selection can create new designs.

New designs proliferated. One of the new designs this process created was sex. And then, reproduction plus chance plus genetic combinations plus natural selection together created new designs at a faster rate.

So your whole argument that evolution cannot create new things has morphed into an argument that evolution cannot create new creatures until the first cell and the first genetic process begins, and after that, fine, yes, evolution will create new designs. Yes! You go girl!

So now that we got that out of the way, all we need to explore is where the first cell came from.
We are making progress.

 

[amariselle]

There you go again... This is what started our most recent exchange, which was embittered by your misrepresentation of my words. As I said before, you seem to think that there are only two possibilities for the formation of complex structures: either it was purposefully designed by an intelligence or it came about through random chance. My point, which you either severely misunderstood or distorted, was that natural processes can produce complex structures themselves without any apparent intelligent input. As an example, I pointed to planetary orbits. The planets move in orderly patterns through space, pushed and pulled along by their gravitational interactions with each other and the sun. They aren't wandering around in random directions, and if they were, well, then we wouldn't be here at all. But their motions don't require an intelligence either. They move naturally, their directions determined by gravity, which is in turn determined by their masses.

Who or what made them work that way?

You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of what scientists are capable of determining through observation, study and experimentation and what they are not capable of determining.

There is no way that scientists can rule out the existence of an Intelligent Designer. There is no way that scientists can say for certain that an Intelligent Designer wasn't responsible for the natural processes we observe and the order with which certain things function. To say otherwise is to overstep the bounds of science, thereby polluting science and making it say something it can't.

What we can study in the various human creations and inventions, tells us exactly the opposite.

Complexity requires intelligence, every single time.

Man has polluted science, because man has made science into a absurd field of mere conjecture.

If comparatively simple human creations and inventions require intelligence, why wouldn't immensely more complex things like DNA and a single cell, also require intelligence?

To assume otherwise is nonsensical.

 

[The Barbarian]

And why can't intelligent design produce nested hierarchies?

It could. But then you've given away the farm. Once you reduce "intelligent design" to "God, er "the designer" made the world so evolution would happen", there's nothing left but theistic evolution, with a lesser God, unable to create and force to design. And that won't fly, because intelligent design is just a rebranding creationism, and because theistic evolutionists generally think of God as the Creator..

If adaptation occurs that is evidence of intelligent design.

And if adaptation doesn't occur, that is also "evidence of intelligent design." That approach is just drawing a bulls-eye around an arrow stuck in a tree.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who or what made them work that way?

Gravity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Who or what made them work that way?

You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of what scientists are capable of determining through observation, study and experimentation and what they are not capable of determining.

There is no way that scientists can rule out the existence of an Intelligent Designer. There is no way that scientists can say for certain that an Intelligent Designer wasn't responsible for the natural processes we observe and the order with which certain things function. To say otherwise is to overstep the bounds of science, thereby polluting science and making it say something it can't.

Do we have good reason to believe that an intelligent agent was somehow involved? Wouldn't the burden for supporting that claim fall on the shoulders of those who insist that an intelligence must be involved?

Complexity requires intelligence, every single time.

How do you know that? Remember the snow flakes I mentioned earlier? They are quite complex, but there is no indication that an intelligence was responsible for their formation. What about the orbits of the planets? What indicates that an intelligence (or intelligences, plural) is responsible for planetary motion?

If comparatively simple human creations and inventions require intelligence, why wouldn't immensely more complex things like DNA and a single cell, also require intelligence?

To assume otherwise is nonsensical.

Why would it be nonsensical? We can make sense of planetary motions, as an example, in terms of natural processes, such as gravitational attraction.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Complexity requires intelligence, every single time.

Is intelligence complex?

 

[amariselle]

Do we have good reason to believe that an intelligent agent was somehow involved? Wouldn't the burden for supporting that claim fall on the shoulders of those who insist that an intelligence must be involved?

How do you know that? Remember the snow flakes I mentioned earlier? They are quite complex, but there is no indication that an intelligence was responsible for their formation. What about the orbits of the planets? What indicates that an intelligence (or intelligences, plural) is responsible for planetary motion?

Why would it be nonsensical? We can make sense of planetary motions, as an example, as resulting from natural processes, such as gravitational attraction.

No, you cannot. Something or someone still had to be responsible for the natural processes themselves. And, even though you seem to think scientists can rule out an intelligent cause, they cannot.

In any case, I think I'm done with this thread. I have no interest in going off topic any longer, and the topic dealt with in the thread is quite obviously true.

Man has polluted science.

You can put your faith and trust in such things if you choose. It is a choice we can all make.

I choose to put my faith and trust in God.

Blessings

~Amariselle

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, you cannot. Something or someone still had to be responsible for the natural processes themselves. And, even though you seem to think scientists can rule out an intelligent cause, they cannot.

How do you know that someone must be responsible? If planetary motion can be explained in terms of natural processes, unaided by intelligent agents, then it would seem superfluous to posit such an agent as an explanatory factor. To the best of our understanding, no such agents seem to have any input in the motions of celestial bodies. The theory does the explanatory work without them. That doesn't mean we can exclude them with absolute certainty; it means only that we have no good reason to include them in our theories on planetary motion.

 

[WinterAngel]

Hmmm... does that mean you are being disrespectful then by preaching here?

That's exactly my point: you'd look for atheists on a Christian forum in order to preach to them, even though you know they are likely to be just as receptive to your preaching here as they would be there.

You realize you completely missed his point. You are an atheist guest in a science thread on a Christian forum. He stated he was respectful in your turf. So my question is, why can't you be respectful in ours? If you didn't want to hear the gospel or a Christian perspective on scientific and philosophical issues, then why are you here other than to instigate?

Why are you here? What is your purpose if it isn't to hear a Christian perspective? What is your agenda given your record of previous replies and lack of mutual respect therein?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk