What is ID?

[xianghua]

And what makes this paper particularly compelling with respect to ID?

that its very rare to find a complex functional sequence.

 

[xianghua]

God can neither be proven nor disproven by true science.

actually its fit well with evolution. but we actually can prove that god exist. so id is science when evolution is not.

 

[Colter]

actually its fit well with evolution. but we actually can prove that god exist. so id is science when evolution is not.

To me it's obveous that mind created mind, but it's not provable using the scientific method. ID was an attempt to bridge the gap, merge belief with science but it failed. ID is still belief not fact.

 

[xianghua]

ID is still belief not fact.

i dont think so. for instance: do you think that a robot that is identical to human is evidence for design?

 

[Speedwell]

i dont think so. for instance: do you think that a robot that is identical to human is evidence for design?

If it was identical to a human, how would you know it was a robot?

 

[pitabread]

that its very rare to find a complex functional sequence.

How so? How does the paper demonstrate this?

 

[Colter]

i dont think so. for instance: do you think that a robot that is identical to human is evidence for design?

I get your point, I've often said that when we create artificial intelligence we demonstrate that mind created mind, that the universe is mind made and personality managed. But making robots programmed by mind doesn't prove infatically that God created life. It's not me that you need to convince.

 

[doubtingmerle]

To me it's obveous that mind created mind, but it's not provable using the scientific method. ID was an attempt to bridge the gap, merge belief with science but it failed. ID is still belief not fact.

If minds are created by minds, and you think that over, doesn't that lead to an infinite regress of minds?

 

[Colter]

If minds are created by minds, and you think that over, doesn't that lead to an infinite regress of minds?

No, finite minds created by the infinate mind doesn't lead to infinitely regressive minds.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, finite minds created by the infinate mind doesn't lead to infinitely regressive minds.

Ah so when you said it is obvious that mind created mind, you didn't mean it was obvious that minds need to be created by another mind.

 

[Speedwell]

Ah so when you said it is obvious that mind created mind, you didn't mean it was obvious that minds need to be created by another mind.

What do you mean by "mind" exactly? Self-awareness?

 

[Colter]

Ah so when you said it is obvious that mind created mind, you didn't mean it was obvious that minds need to be created by another mind.

Minds don't create themselves.

 

[doubtingmerle]

you can start with this one:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

Ah, the odds against a functional protein forming are great. But what if you are in a situation where life already exists, and has DNA that specifies proteins? What if all that is happening is that you are mutating the code for an existing functional protein, or copying that code? Then the odds are quite good that the proteins specified will still be functional.

I find it odd that you report an argument based on statistics. After all, when confronted with evidence that every creature in Cambrian layers are very different from modern species, and every fossil of modern species is in the Cenozoic, you seem to say that is just a lucky coincidence. If all life lived at the same time, and you find 1000 fossils of what we know as Cambrian life and 1000 fossils of modern species, what are the odds that all 1000 fossils of Cambrian life are found in Cambrian layers, and all 1000 fossils of modern species are found in the Cenozoic by chance? The odds of that happening by chance are about 1 in ten to the 18th power. Yet somehow you appear to be comfortable with this just happening by chance. When you recognize that we are dealing with many more fossils than that, and many more layers with consistent findings, then the odds of this happening by chance are truly astronomical. Yet you seem comfortable in saying that maybe all the Cambrian life lived at the same time as all mammals, and by dumb luck we don't find any mammals down there in the Cambrian.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but we actually can prove that god exist.

Amazing. Why isn't this front page news?

I suggest you create a thread and off that demonstration / proof in the OP.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i dont think so. for instance: do you think that a robot that is identical to human is evidence for design?

If a robot would be indentical to a human, how would you be able to identify it as a robot?

Also, why do you think you can "prove" things by talking only about hypothetical robots that don't actually exist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I get your point, I've often said that when we create artificial intelligence we demonstrate that mind created mind

Really?
So, when we create a freezer or refrigirator... are we then also demonstrating that the North Pole can't be a natural setting?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Minds don't create themselves.

Nobody said that either.

And, off course, in that sentence is hidden away a false dichotomy:
either the mind "created itself" (whatever that means)
or
the mind is "created by the infinite mind".

I'll not even go in on how you "know" this "infinite mind" even exists or does anything at all.
In any case, there's other options as well.

Such as, what I would consider the most likely: minds emerge from physical configurations like the brain. The mind is not a "thing" in itself that exists independently from "other stuff".
The mind is an emergent property of the physical brain.

That last one is the only explanation that is actually consistent with all the empirical evidence.

 

[Colter]

Really?
So, when we create a freezer or refrigirator... are we then also demonstrating that the North Pole can't be a natural setting?

A freezer isn't natural, it's made by a creative mind.

 

[Colter]

Nobody said that either.

And, off course, in that sentence is hidden away a false dichotomy:
either the mind "created itself" (whatever that means)
or
the mind is "created by the infinite mind".

I'll not even go in on how you "know" this "infinite mind" even exists or does anything at all.
In any case, there's other options as well.

Such as, what I would consider the most likely: minds emerge from physical configurations like the brain. The mind is not a "thing" in itself that exists independently from "other stuff".
The mind is an emergent property of the physical brain.

That last one is the only explanation that is actually consistent with all the empirical evidence.

How did pre emergent mind matter configure itself to allow for the biological elasticity that exists in life leading to the electrochemical platform that the emergent property of mind rests on?

How did the intellectual and philosophic endowments of mind evolve from increasingly lesser intelligences the further back they go, finally taking origin in primitive life which was utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling?

How did such a remarkable coincidence of falling upstairs develop minds conscious of truth, beauty and goodness, of God? Is this faith a kind of unforeseen virus to the magical pre emergent mind forces?

 

[Colter]

DUP