23 Jun 13
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, if it is billions of years, that could amount to a lot of bananas and perhaps they are not so cheap in the long run. 😀
They are very cheap as far as programming is concern, there are more than
a few complaints on the quality of work, but from what I hear if you let them
type for a few billion years they may get it right given enough time. 🙂
Kelly
The Instructor
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWow, that is the first time I have seen you even SPECULATE on the idea of the possibility of there being billions of years.
Well, if it is billions of years, that could amount to a lot of bananas and perhaps they are not so cheap in the long run. 😀
The Instructor
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeYes, more or less. You wouldn't apply what you know about rocks to make a conclusion about the behaviour of water.
I'm not sure what your point is either. Are you saying living things (or non living things) are a totally different category of things, and so we cannot apply the same principle to living (or non living) things?
To give a better analogy, when you first encounter magnetism, it is counter intuitive. Better yet, have you ever seen the quantum levitation demonstration?
I bet that if you didn't know it was possible, you would say it is not possible, because it simply doesn't fit with what other things we are used to. Yet when you watch the video, you aren't going to say 'thats a fake, they used trick filming.'
As far as I know, the only thing capable of creating a functional design not seen in nature is intelligence. If nature cannot by itself create a particular design, or self regenerating system that appears to overcome the problem of naturally occurring disorder, then something must be able to do that.
I see you are making a fundamental logical error here.
1. You state that nature does not do something.
2. You use that claim to conclude that nature does not do something.
Experience is how we are able to see consistency and details of design, so even if nature is able to pile leaves and twigs into something that looks like a birds nest, experience with observing bird nests is what allows us to take note of the differences.
And when you lack the experience, you will get it wrong. My point is that the only experience you have for abiogenesis is the one event we know about. You are making the error of concluding that your lack of experience of other similar events proves it can't have happened.
Yet you would not do the same for any other new experience. If I explained to you for the first time how nuclear power works, you wouldn't say 'I have no experience of that, therefore you are lying.' If I told you a firefly glows in the dark, and you had never heard of an animal that could do that, you would not say 'I have no experience of that, its impossible'.
23 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI see you are making a fundamental reading error here. I said if nature can not do something, not nature does not do something.
I see you are making a fundamental logical error here.
1. You state that nature does not do something.
2. You use that claim to conclude that nature does not do something.
Intelligent design theory (William Dembski) defines experience differently than you do. It has to do with pattern recognition, which is something we do from birth without needing anyone to explain it to us. As we gain more experiences our ability to recognise patterns and what they mean becomes more accurate and finely tuned. It's on ongoing process that happens whether we know it or not. A ten year old boy has more accumulated experiences than a three year old boy, and a forty year old man has more accumulated experiences than a ten year old boy.
But age and accumulated experiences isn't the only factor. For example, an experienced woodsman can recognise signs in nature that an experienced nuclear physicist wouldn't necessarily be able to recognise... it's all about pattern recognition and accumulated experiences. You might not recognise an intelligent design until you've had some experience with intelligently designed things. A computer is an intelligently designed thing, but even an aborigine who has never seen a computer would be able to correctly guess it was designed by men and not by nature.
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNevertheless, you essentially made your premise the conclusion, a clear logical error.
I see you are making a fundamental reading error here. I said [b]if nature can not do something, not nature does not do something.[/b]
Intelligent design theory (William Dembski) defines experience differently than you do.
I fail to see how anything you say that follows results in a different definition.
My claim is that applying a recognised pattern to something different, results in errors. I am also claiming that most of the time when we apply a pattern and recognize something new, we accept it as a new experience.
But age and accumulated experiences isn't the only factor. For example, an experienced woodsman can recognise signs in nature that an experienced nuclear physicist wouldn't necessarily be able to recognise... it's all about pattern recognition and accumulated experiences.
So what makes you think you are a better pattern recognizer in the field of biology than the bulk of the worlds biologists?
A computer is an intelligently designed thing, but even an aborigine who has never seen a computer would be able to correctly guess it was designed by men and not by nature.
No, an aborigine would think it was magic.
If scientists relied on gut feel based on personal experience, quantum mechanics would have been thrown out the window long ago.
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are presuming my premise is the conclusion, clearly an illogical and presumptuous error.
Nevertheless, you essentially made your premise the conclusion, a clear logical error.
[b]Intelligent design theory (William Dembski) defines experience differently than you do.
I fail to see how anything you say that follows results in a different definition.
My claim is that applying a recognised pattern to something different, results ...[text shortened]... sed on personal experience, quantum mechanics would have been thrown out the window long ago.[/b]
"So what makes you think you are a better pattern recognizer in the field of biology than the bulk of the worlds biologists?"
So what makes you think that I think I'm a better pattern recognizer? Clearly you are making another illogical and presumptuous error.
A computer is an intelligently designed thing, but even an aborigine who has never seen a computer would be able to correctly guess it was designed by men and not by nature.
No, an aborigine would think it was magic.
And you base this on what, your own personal interaction with primitive aboriginals? Another presumptuous error, because whether they thought it was magic or not is irrelevant. If they had to decide if a computer was something in their experience is the result of natural forces or not, I think the aborigine would be able to figure that out without all of the weird logical twists and turns it takes you to completely misundertand what I've been saying. You were assuming I'm talking about an aborigine watching what a computer does. I was referring to a computers physical design. What it does and what an aborigine would think about that is something else.
If a scientist like you did not rely on gut feel based on personal experience then you might actually understand what I'm saying.
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by UfimWhat makes you hope such a thing? I bet I know. You don't want to believe in the God of the Holy Bible that will hold you responsible for your actions.
Lemon lime. I really hope you do not imply that Intelligent design is something to consider seriously. Troll on you!
The Instructor
23 Jun 13
6 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI was not referring to an imagination that can imagine the fairy tales you do for doing that requires no intelligence.
I can imagine science fiction and a fairy tale world too. However, unlike you, I can tell the difference between truth and fiction.
The Instructor
I was referring to imagination that can imagine possible truths.
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeIts very relevant. You claimed they would be able to determine its origin via pattern matching. I say that no, they would not.
And you base this on what, your own personal interaction with primitive aboriginals? Another presumptuous error, because whether they thought it was magic or not is irrelevant.
If they had to decide if a computer was something in their experience is the result of natural forces or not, I think the aborigine would be able to figure that out without all of the weird logical twists and turns it takes you to completely misundertand what I've been saying.
And I say that no, they would not be able to make the correct determination. I say that history shows us that many aboriginal peoples have attributed many natural phenomena to non-natural forces. Consider for example the mythology surrounding eclipses.
In fact, many modern well educated people to this day make exactly this type of error.
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I did not claim they would be able to determine its origin via pattern matching. I was claiming they would be able to determine if nature alone could have created the computer, which apparently (judging from your statements) is something many modern day well educated people would not be able to do.
Its very relevant. You claimed they would be able to determine its origin via pattern matching. I say that no, they would not.
[b]If they had to decide if a computer was something in their experience is the result of natural forces or not, I think the aborigine would be able to figure that out without all of the weird logical twists and turns it takes ...[text shortened]... lipses.
In fact, many modern well educated people to this day make exactly this type of error.
An eclipse is something that happens, just as the operation of a computer is something that happens. Again, I was not talking about what a computer does, I was refering to a computers physical appearance... this is the second time I've explained this to you.
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeAnd why is it so important that they only judge what an object looks like and not what it does? Why would they succeed for one and fail for the other? I suspect you are picking and choosing results that you think match your conclusion.
An eclipse is something that happens, just as the operation of a computer is something that happens. Again, I was not talking about what a computer does, I was refering to a computers physical appearance... this is the second time I've explained this to you.
So, do you want me to find an example of an object in nature that a certain percentage of people would, upon first seeing it, attribute to the work of man or some other intelligence? When I present such an object, what then?
The fact is that the human capacity for pattern matching is impressive, but not perfect, and we both know this to be the case.
To show that life is designed requires more than gut feelings.