08 Jan 15
Originally posted by RJHindsMy refrigerator is poorly designed too, because it can't reproduce itself.
You will have a hard time convincing evolutionists of that because they believe living creatures are poorly designed. Ha. 😀
My refrigerators name is Bradley. Or is it Horace? No, Horace was the name of my last refrigerator...he died a few years ago.
08 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeThe water dispenser on my refrigerator is certainly poorly designed because the water filter must be changed "by me" every six months. What a bummer.
My refrigerator is poorly designed too, because it can't reproduce itself.
My refrigerators name is Bradley. Or is it Horace? No, Horace was the name of my last refrigerator...he died a few years ago.
08 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limePoorly worded but;
1. If I drop a marble on the floor, will it always form a single point?
2. If I drop 2 marbles on the floor, will they always form a line?
3. If I drop 3 marbles on the floor, will they always form a triangle?
4. If I drop 4 marbles on the floor, will they always form a quadrangle?
5. (keep on adding marbles and ask the same question)
1. yes
2. yes
3,4,5 no
Was there any point (no pun intended) to those questions?
Originally posted by wolfgang59yes
Poorly worded but;
1. yes
2. yes
3,4,5 no
Was there any point (no pun intended) to those questions?
The point of the four (numbered) questions was to set up the following two questions. (#5 was not a question)
At what point does yes become no?
Are there signs of increasing complexity in this progression?
Saying no to #5 (keep on adding marbles and ask the same question) means you refuse to keep on adding marbles and ask the same question. #5 is an instruction, not a question.
All of the yes answers are in #1 and #2, so there is no need after question #3 to keep testing with marbles... after #2 the answer will always be no because the level of complexity will not decrease with more numbers, it will increase.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeAt least different forms of random DNA altering mutations has been observed. Have you observed your god writing any code of late? See, it bugs the hell out of you that we "evolutionists" makes no claim whatsoever to know what is yet unknown. We simply note that the theory of evolution is consistent with all the evidence we have so far, and that ID is not. Is it too much to ask, that if you posit a supernatural programmer, you'd actually provide evidence for his existence, instead of poor use of analogies? Give me just one example from nature (so no refrigerators) that absolutely could not have come about through evolution. Just one, is all I'll ask for.
Even though this may pose a problem for Evolution (the theory) it has already been demonstrated (in this thread) an extremely high level of complexity poses no problem for proponents of evolution. If you ask "Can programming write itself?" they may now point to DNA and say "Yes, it can."
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
08 Jan 15
Originally posted by C Hess"...the theory of evolution is consistent with all the evidence we have so far, and that ID is not. "
At least different forms of random DNA altering mutations has been observed. Have you observed your god writing any code of late? See, it bugs the hell out of you that we "evolutionists" makes no claim whatsoever to know what is yet unknown. We simply note that the theory of evolution is consistent with all the evidence we have so far, and that ID is not. Is ...[text shortened]... ors) that absolutely could not have come about through evolution. Just one, is all I'll ask for.
I would be happy to see the reasoning behind this posiion, but IMO ID in its broad nondenominational strokes is not inconsistent with the evidence of the natural world. It is when specific nonessential features are added to ID, such as an unsupported young earth requirement, that the two become inconsistent with one another.
08 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessAll I'm asking is "can programming write itself", so it's not necessary for me to "posit a supernatural programmer". If all you need to do is to point to DNA and say yes, programming can write itself, then no supernatural programmer is needed.
At least different forms of random DNA altering mutations has been observed. Have you observed your god writing any code of late? See, it bugs the hell out of you that we "evolutionists" makes no claim whatsoever to know what is yet unknown. We simply note that the theory of evolution is consistent with all the evidence we have so far, and that ID is not. Is ...[text shortened]... ors) that absolutely could not have come about through evolution. Just one, is all I'll ask for.
If you want to get ahead of the argument and presume a supernatural programmer you're free to do so. But whether or not a supernatural programmer exists (or not) is irrelevant... because why would anyone need to go there if you are able to explain (without showing how) the existence and function of DNA?
08 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by C HessI'll take that as a yes. I'm not sure how you are comparing (or equating) programming with mutations. Saying the program is possible because the "program" is DNA inside a cell (it's called mutations) doesn't answer the question of where the program came from.
It can if the "program" is DNA inside a cell. It's called mutations, and it's been observed to happen. Next question.
I could say a program inside my computer is possible because it's inside my computer, it's called digital information.... but this doesn't tell anyone how the program came into existence. Did someone write the program, or did digital information cause it to be there? Was the process of creating the program intelligently guided, or was it the result of natural causes?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIf the program in question is DNA inside a cell, then it can mutate naturally in different ways (information can be added, altered and removed, through gene duplication, copying errors and RecLOH - and many other mutational variations). This is programming, of sorts. There's no intelligent programmer, which is evident when you consider the randomness of the changes. It's more like blind trial and error, where the "programmer" is natural selection working on random mutation, or so it appears.
I'll take that as a yes. I'm not sure how you are comparing (or equating) programming with mutations. Saying the program is possible because the "program" is DNA inside a cell (it's called mutations) doesn't answer the question of where the program came from.
I could say a program inside my computer is possible because it's inside my computer, it's cal ...[text shortened]... he process of creating the program intelligently guided, or was it the result of natural causes?
Now, how did it start? No one really knows. What we do know is that all the required building blocks can form naturally, that time is on our side, and that there's a lot of wiggle room in what combinations can produce functional results. I feel confident about the evolutionary viewpoint. Obviously, or I'd abandon it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
08 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeAnswer to last two questions: yes, intelligently guided and yes, naturally caused.
I'll take that as a yes. I'm not sure how you are comparing (or equating) programming with mutations. Saying the program is possible because the "program" is DNA inside a cell (it's called mutations) doesn't answer the question of where the program came from.
I could say a program inside my computer is possible because it's inside my computer, it's cal ...[text shortened]... he process of creating the program intelligently guided, or was it the result of natural causes?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Jan 15
Originally posted by JS357Forgive me if I've misunderstood ID, but isn't one of the foundational assumptions that everything was created according to kind, and evolution only works within kinds, so that instead of one evolutionary tree, we have several?
"...the theory of evolution is consistent with all the evidence we have so far, and that ID is not. "
I would be happy to see the reasoning behind this posiion, but IMO ID in its broad nondenominational strokes is not inconsistent with the evidence of the natural world. It is when specific nonessential features are added to ID, such as an unsupported young earth requirement, that the two become inconsistent with one another.
ERV's tell a different story.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeThis is the point where the DNA as a program analogy breaks, because unlike a program in the general sense of the word, DNA can (in a sense) change itself during the replication process, and can be changed by natural causes outside itself. At this point, saying that DNA is just a program, is grossly inadequate.
I could say a program inside my computer is possible because it's inside my computer, it's called digital information.... but this doesn't tell anyone how the program came into existence. Did someone write the program, or did digital information cause it to be there? Was the process of creating the program intelligently guided, or was it the result of natural causes?