Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Well, that seems to be a good way of kick-starting.
It looks like Kurieuo may disprove my statements below.
I think this topic hasn't drawn a lot of interest because it doesn't seem like most proponents and promoters of ID spend much time on the concept of "design". The arguments generally seem to focus on:
1) Irreducible complexity - the we don't see how it could have developed naturally, so it must be designed (an argument not usually made by people with much background in developmental biology).
2) The fine-tuning of the universe and/or earth which are prerequisites for life as we are.
1) Irreducible complexity - the we don't see how it could have developed naturally, so it must be designed (an argument not usually made by people with much background in developmental biology).
*Strawman detected* The argument is never set up "because we don't know, ID". Sheesh. The argument is that irreducibly complex systems are in principle unevolvable. It's not that we know how, we know it can't.
Last edited by AttentionKMartShoppers on Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
2) The fine-tuning of the universe and/or earth which are prerequisites for life as we are.
Explain another form of life could arise? Silicon instead of carbon, something else in place of water? LOL. I don't think all the prerequisites are for OUR kind of life...but for ANY kind of life. I also thought the argument had expanded to incorporate the observability/measurability of the universe as well...oh well...oh well, maybe later
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
Kurieuo wrote:I think my question may have been missed. Given genetic modifications were made within a labratory, if another group of scientists were handed such a modified form without any information that it had been modified, isn't it conceivable they might be able to work out it had been intelligently modified by examining the modified form and following some sort of methodology?Kurieuo
Guess I can cancel my PM since you have rephrased the question.
Yes, it is possible for certain modifications that a second group of scientists would be very certain that someone had been tinkering with the DNA. For other modifications it would not be clear.
So what signs would the second group of scientists see in order to come to the conclusion that genetic modifications had been made? Beginning to answer this question delves into the thought processes of Intelligent Design - the school of thought believing science can identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence.
Kurieuo
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:There are signals all across the cosmos which can be attributed to stellar objects ranging from neutron stars and black holes, to gass nebulas and ordinary stars. SETI scans the stars for signals which do not fit into these categories and are not random in nature. We look for these types of signals because we produce them ourselves. A signal of this nature would indicate intelligent life.
However it is signs of life. The intricate paterns in plants and the construction of behives shows that man is not alone in creating these types of patterns. Seen in this light even the inventions of man can be seen as natural products.
Perception depends on perspective.
Thank you. We agree then that non-random 'artificial' constructs are discernable.
That is the first step towards establishing common ground on the issue of whether or not we can determine 'design' in the universe.
Well, that seems to be a good way of kick-starting.
It looks like Kurieuo may disprove my statements below.
I think this topic hasn't drawn a lot of interest because it doesn't seem like most proponents and promoters of ID spend much time on the concept of "design". The arguments generally seem to focus on:
1) Irreducible complexity - the we don't see how it could have developed naturally, so it must be designed (an argument not usually made by people with much background in developmental biology).
2) The fine-tuning of the universe and/or earth which are prerequisites for life as we are.
Thanks for the input. I'm actually trying to get behind the issues which I believe are fundamental to approaching the entire discussion. The issue of 'artificiality' is one of those fundamental issues.
If it is agreed that we can discern artificially occurring 'non-random' constructs from naturally occurring 'random' constructs, then we are on the way to approaching (1) and (2) with some common ground.
Kurieuo wrote:I think my question may have been missed. Given genetic modifications were made within a labratory, if another group of scientists were handed such a modified form without any information that it had been modified, isn't it conceivable they might be able to work out it had been intelligently modified by examining the modified form and following some sort of methodology?Kurieuo
Guess I can cancel my PM since you have rephrased the question.
Yes, it is possible for certain modifications that a second group of scientists would be very certain that someone had been tinkering with the DNA. For other modifications it would not be clear.
So what signs would the second group of scientists see in order to come to the conclusion that genetic modifications had been made? Beginning to answer this question delves into the thought processes of Intelligent Design - the school of thought believing science can identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence.
Kurieuo
I am not sure that it would be easy to detect these changes in the organism alone. However if one were given the liberty to examine natural organisms as a whole and were able to do comparative analysis.
Lets say there is a drastic change in the new organisms genome which includes genetic material originating from organisms which could not have combined their genomes naturally(sexually,virally etc...).
This organism would stick out like a sore thumb.
However if the scientists were not allowed this comparative analysis there would be nothing to suggest design, or evolution.
Going further lets imagine that genetic modification of organisms became common place. Scientists who were to arrive to this situation would never even conceive of the notion of evolutionary theory, as comparative analysis would not lead to any sort of heirarchy. Perhaps the analysis would lead to the conclusion that organisms were constructed.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:More storytelling BGood? How naughty of you...
=P
He did pose a what if question.
I am entitled to some creativity, given all the nonsense you post.
I think that all minds such as BGood's and it's variants tell us all we give is nonsense. So all of a sudden, believers in God are nonsense for defending what they know? Again, it is this atheistic belief that "I am right and you are wrong, therefore submit to me as your source for all the information you could ever want!". Ha!
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:More storytelling BGood? How naughty of you...
=P
He did pose a what if question.
I am entitled to some creativity, given all the nonsense you post.
I think that all minds such as BGood's and it's variants tell us all we give is nonsense. So all of a sudden, believers in God are nonsense for defending what they know? Again, it is this atheistic belief that "I am right and you are wrong, therefore submit to me as your source for all the information you could ever want!". Ha!
I didn't mean it that way I was refering to his edited pictures.
Why do you take everything as an attack on you?
I mean you no harm, and if you interpreted my statement this way I am sorry.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:More storytelling BGood? How naughty of you...
=P
He did pose a what if question.
I am entitled to some creativity, given all the nonsense you post.
Nonsense? In comparison to what, what you personally believe to be sensical? Now, do the concepts of sense and nonsense transcend yourself, as that is what you're saying, and if so, how? How, if everything is physically inside your skull somewhere, do sense and nonsense transcend you? Only then can you say that what you think is nonsense is objectively nonsense, and not just your opinion.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:More storytelling BGood? How naughty of you...
=P
He did pose a what if question.
I am entitled to some creativity, given all the nonsense you post.
I think that all minds such as BGood's and it's variants tell us all we give is nonsense. So all of a sudden, believers in God are nonsense for defending what they know? Again, it is this atheistic belief that "I am right and you are wrong, therefore submit to me as your source for all the information you could ever want!". Ha!
I didn't mean it that way I was refering to his edited pictures.
Why do you take everything as an attack on you?
I mean you no harm, and if you interpreted my statement this way I am sorry.
I take everything as an attack on me... AND other believers as well. Like the Jews with Jesus back in the time. Let's pretend I am Jesus, I got attacked by the Jews because they didn't believe me, I had followers who followed my truth, but I was still stomped on and attacked. You attack me (and other atheists), you attack everyone else. Ka'peesh?
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:More storytelling BGood? How naughty of you...
=P
He did pose a what if question.
I am entitled to some creativity, given all the nonsense you post.
Nonsense? In comparison to what, what you personally believe to be sensical? Now, do the concepts of sense and nonsense transcend yourself, as that is what you're saying, and if so, how? How, if everything is physically inside your skull somewhere, do sense and nonsense transcend you? Only then can you say that what you think is nonsense is objectively nonsense, and not just your opinion.
Are you serious?
Now who's the one without a sense of humor?
=)
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:More storytelling BGood? How naughty of you...
=P
He did pose a what if question.
I am entitled to some creativity, given all the nonsense you post.
I think that all minds such as BGood's and it's variants tell us all we give is nonsense. So all of a sudden, believers in God are nonsense for defending what they know? Again, it is this atheistic belief that "I am right and you are wrong, therefore submit to me as your source for all the information you could ever want!". Ha!
I didn't mean it that way I was refering to his edited pictures.
Why do you take everything as an attack on you?
I mean you no harm, and if you interpreted my statement this way I am sorry.
I take everything as an attack on me... AND other believers as well. Like the Jews with Jesus back in the time. Let's pretend I am Jesus, I got attacked by the Jews because they didn't believe me, I had followers who followed my truth, but I was still stomped on and attacked. You attack me (and other atheists), you attack everyone else. Ka'peesh?
In any case I was refering to his pictures of me in the center of the Universe, not his beliefs.
So I don't know how I attacked anyone, except for his sense of humor.
=)
Although I admit, it was funny.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
