Jane_Doe Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: Not trying to prove deity through science. Its trying to prove that nature is designed, not just a random product of chaos. In order for it to be designed something has to be doing the designing. Else it is the product of chaos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: In order for it to be designed something has to be doing the designing. Else it is the product of chaos. Yes, thats right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 34 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: Yes, thats right. Hence to scientifically prove ID, you need to scientifically prove the existence of a designer. Which cannot be done scientifically because such theories cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 16 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: Hence to scientifically prove ID, you need to scientifically prove the existence of a designer. Which cannot be done scientifically because such theories cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. No, thats not right. Its about trying to find out if the designs we see in nature, biology, etc, can happen or rise by what we assume is a chance or random unintelligent process. For example- is the laws of chemistry and nature capable of, piece by piece, creating intelligent information such as DNA from chance events in nature? Of course scientists have been trying to test this for a very long time. So far, the evidence shows that chemistry and nature combined does not produce intelligent information. Now, it doesnt matter whether or not one is on one side of the debate or the other, its working to show the same scientific evidence that intelligent information, as far as science can tell, only comes from a design of intelligence preceding it. It doesnt matter so much to find out the ultimate causation for the preceding intelligent design, only that it must exist otherwise no design of intelligent information could have arisen. Now, its very interesting that mainstream science is determined to accept only that the intelligent designs in nature have to arise on their own and anything to the contrary "isnt science". So, they go to the lab determined to create the perfect scenerio that could allow their belief (not observation) to take hold. The problem is that even though they can replicate some of the building blocks of life, they cannot replicate a scenerio thst actually produces an intelligent design that carries intelligent information. I think its rather novel that they can make unique chemical combinations. But I find it most interesting that the only thing they are proving is that specified, intelligent information does not rise on its own in nature. What this should be telling them loud and clear is that the underlying principle of an intelligent design can only be the product itself of an intelligent design that preceded it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: No, thats not right. Its about trying to find out if the designs we see in nature, biology, etc, can happen or rise by what we assume is a chance or random unintelligent process. You can only prove that something is made by an intelligence after you prove the existence of that intelligence, which cannot be done scientifically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: No, thats not right. Its about trying to find out if the designs we see in nature, biology, etc, can happen or rise by what we assume is a chance or random unintelligent process. For example- is the laws of chemistry and nature capable of, piece by piece, creating intelligent information such as DNA from chance events in nature? Of course scientists have been trying to test this for a very long time. So far, the evidence shows that chemistry and nature combined does not produce intelligent information. Now, it doesnt matter whether or not one is on one side of the debate or the other, its working to show the same scientific evidence that intelligent information, as far as science can tell, only comes from a design of intelligence preceding it. It doesnt matter so much to find out the ultimate causation for the preceding intelligent design, only that it must exist otherwise no design of intelligent information could have arisen. Now, its very interesting that mainstream science is determined to accept only that the intelligent designs in nature have to arise on their own and anything to the contrary "isnt science". So, they go to the lab determined to create the perfect scenerio that could allow their belief (not observation) to take hold. The problem is that even though they can replicate some of the building blocks of life, they cannot replicate a scenerio thst actually produces an intelligent design that carries intelligent information. I think its rather novel that they can make unique chemical combinations. But I find it most interesting that the only thing they are proving is that specified, intelligent information does not rise on its own in nature. What this should be telling them loud and clear is that the underlying principle of an intelligent design can only be the product itself of an intelligent design that preceded it. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that because natural protein formation hasn't been successfully replicated, then it must have an intelligent designer behind it, is that correct? If so, then that's not how science works. You don't prove a theory just because you disproved another theory. "X, Y, and Z didn't work, so the answer must be W" is not science. You have to demonstrate why W is correct, not just why X Y and Z are not. For all you know, the answer lies in K. And once again, we seem to be talking about abiogenesis, not organic evolution. Edited January 20, 2017 by Godless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: Do you think its a science inquiry to find out if strong AI can be developed from computer programs? Of course it is. It is measurable and quantifiable. Matter of fact, this is my line of work. But yeah, we have to define what constitutes "strong AI". Edited January 20, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 10 hours ago, MarginOfError said: So you're going with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense. Classy. To be fair, you brought that upon yourself. You began by telling the story of how a scientific lab did exactly what you're decrying. Then you pointed to ID and said that's what the ID side does, just after pointing out the "scientific method" side does that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, anatess2 said: Guys, ID aside, I'm truly just dumbfounded that a group of college educated adults cannot get an agreement on what constitutes science, Do you really believe that's the core of the disagreement? You haven't been paying attention. Then again, it looks like most of the people on the thread haven't been. 8 hours ago, anatess2 said: our resident atheist who is very easy to spot because he calls himself Godless OH! That's why he chose that moniker. I get it. Yeah. Edited January 20, 2017 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 27 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Do you really believe that's the core of the disagreement? You haven't been paying attention. Then again, it looks like most of the people on the thread haven't been. No, that's not the core of the disagreement. It's just that part that I'm dumbfounded on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: You can only prove that something is made by an intelligence after you prove the existence of that intelligence, which cannot be done scientifically. We do it all the time in science. We know what the signature of intelligence is and what it looks like. We have a myriad of evidence that shows that something carrying intelligent information was designed or created by intelligent input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Godless said: If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that because natural protein formation hasn't been successfully replicated, then it must have an intelligent designer behind it, is that correct? If so, then that's not how science works. You don't prove a theory just because you disproved another theory. "X, Y, and Z didn't work, so the answer must be W" is not science. You have to demonstrate why W is correct, not just why X Y and Z are not. For all you know, the answer lies in K. And once again, we seem to be talking about abiogenesis, not organic evolution. There is only two answers possible here. If you disprove one it has to be the other. When we see a design in nature that carries intelligent information, it was either created by an intelligent process or not. There isnt any other possibility to exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 hour ago, anatess2 said: Of course it is. It is measurable and quantifiable. Matter of fact, this is my line of work. But yeah, we have to define what constitutes "strong AI". Then you know and are aware that any program that encodes intelligent information is the direct result or action of the designers or programmers and not the result of the computer doing it on its own. You also aware that a true strong AI, defined as the ability to be self aware and gather intelligent information on its own and comprehend it and create new programming that is new and novel based on that is impossible. What I am getting at is that it is the computer programmers themselves who write commands into the program that then carries out specified intelligent computations is the only way possible that AI can exist- it only can do that which the programmers designed it to do. There isnt any intelligent programs out there in existance that were written by chance by the computers themselves. There are also not programs out there that learned to be self aware or learned how to compute new novel information on their own. If we can thus compare that programming to such a structure as DNA, we can show that DNA is also a program that contains very specified intelligent commands or designs. But, and this is where it gets interesting, it sets itself apart from the computer program because its formulations are designed in such a manner that make it only possible to be read or understood by true intelligence that is self aware already in existance. What I am getting at is that the laws of chemistry and nature are not capable of being self aware and intelligent in their own right. Scientists know this but are yet so determined to try to create, through those natural laws, a program that is written on its own from those laws that only true intelligence could comprehend. Nature and chemistry are not the authors of intelligence. There are no laws in chemistry and physics that encode how to create self aware intelligence let alone a program that requires such to comprehend. a mustard seed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 42 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: Then you know and are aware that any program that encodes intelligent information is the direct result or action of the designers or programmers and not the result of the computer doing it on its own. You also aware that a true strong AI, defined as the ability to be self aware and gather intelligent information on its own and comprehend it and create new programming that is new and novel based on that is impossible. What I am getting at is that it is the computer programmers themselves who write commands into the program that then carries out specified intelligent computations is the only way possible that AI can exist- it only can do that which the programmers designed it to do. There isnt any intelligent programs out there in existance that were written by chance by the computers themselves. There are also not programs out there that learned to be self aware or learned how to compute new novel information on their own. If we can thus compare that programming to such a structure as DNA, we can show that DNA is also a program that contains very specified intelligent commands or designs. But, and this is where it gets interesting, it sets itself apart from the computer program because its formulations are designed in such a manner that make it only possible to be read or understood by true intelligence that is self aware already in existance. What I am getting at is that the laws of chemistry and nature are not capable of being self aware and intelligent in their own right. Scientists know this but are yet so determined to try to create, through those natural laws, a program that is written on its own from those laws that only true intelligence could comprehend. Nature and chemistry are not the authors of intelligence. There are no laws in chemistry and physics that encode how to create self aware intelligence let alone a program that requires such to comprehend. Yes, yes, yes... BUT... We don't have to prove the existence of the Programmer... Because... hello... here I am! So there's no question on whether the designer is intelligence or just a by-product of random (i.e., cannot be scientifically determined) order. By the way... self-aware AI is completely different from self-awareness of humans. The self-awareness of the AI is programmed into it by the programmer - Hello, here I am! It's not random (even if it appears to be, it's not truly random, it's simply an unintended consequence of the programming). So yes, it is a science because I'm the scientist which is the creator of the robot and is therefore outside the experiment. Now, if you bring that up to the level of humans, it ceases to be a science because the designer is INSIDE the experiment... and, since we can't scientifically determine the designer (i.e. we can only speculate), it is not science. It is Philosophy - that branch of it that is not science. And that's just ok. It doesn't have to be a science for it to be valid. MrShorty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Yes, yes, yes... BUT... We don't have to prove the existence of the Programmer... Because... hello... here I am! So there's no question on whether the designer is intelligence or just a by-product of random (i.e., cannot be scientifically determined) order. By the way... self-aware AI is completely different from self-awareness of humans. The self-awareness of the AI is programmed into it by the programmer - Hello, here I am! It's not random (even if it appears to be, it's not truly random, it's simply an unintended consequence of the programming). So yes, it is a science because I'm the scientist which is the creator of the robot and is therefore outside the experiment. Now, if you bring that up to the level of humans, it ceases to be a science because the designer is INSIDE the experiment... and, since we can't scientifically determine the designer (i.e. we can only speculate), it is not science. It is Philosophy - that branch of it that is not science. And that's just ok. It doesn't have to be a science for it to be valid. So, the origins of life is philosophy then because we cant identify the designer. Gotcha. Same with ID, we dont have to prove the existance of the designer, only acknowlwdge it was designed by some external intelligent input. Edited January 20, 2017 by Rob Osborn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: So, the origins of life is philosophy then because we cant identify the designer. Gotcha. Correction: The origins of life is philosophy because we can't scientifically prove an intelligent designer. Edited January 20, 2017 by anatess2 Jane_Doe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 18 hours ago, estradling75 said: Sad.. Found here http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Pre-Adamites#cite_ref-1 After listening to argument from both sides this is what the First Presidency of the Church declared of the matter. If we consider our selves faithful saints we should follow and emulate the wisdom of the First Presidency and not claim that we know better then them what is true about the subject I would point out that a number of topics on this particular forum heading of "LDS Gospel Discussion" has much if any relevance in magnifying anyone calling in announcing to the word the message of the restored Gospel. My personal feeling on the matter is not that the subject should not be discussed but that it should not be discussed under the heading of LDS Gospel Discussion – but rather under the heading of General Discussion (as with many other topics under this particualr heading). I do not believe that the instruction of the First Presidency is that no member should ever study or seek truth in the fields of geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology or that no member should ever find employment in any field that relates to those fields of study or ever publish or take advantage of discoveries they or anyone else has made in these fields of science. Just that we should not teach what we learn concerning these matters (both pro or con) as the Gospel of the Restoration. In essence it appears to me that the statement of the First Presidency is denouncing any declaration in support of or against (for example evolution) as being something that we believe to be part of the Gospel of the Restoration. Perhaps I can give an example: When home teaching or visiting teaching we should not consider whether or not a person holds to the principles of evolution or not in befriending them and fulfilling our calling as a home or visiting teacher. Likewise we should not get angry or upset with anyone for not agreeing with our particular understandings in these matter when we openly discuss our opinions. This should have no effect, what-so-ever in our love and concern for anyone as we share our thoughts with one another concerning these things. The Traveler SilentOne and MrShorty 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 4 hours ago, Godless said: If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that because natural protein formation hasn't been successfully replicated, then it must have an intelligent designer behind it, is that correct? If so, then that's not how science works. You don't prove a theory just because you disproved another theory. "X, Y, and Z didn't work, so the answer must be W" is not science. You have to demonstrate why W is correct, not just why X Y and Z are not. For all you know, the answer lies in K. And once again, we seem to be talking about abiogenesis, not organic evolution. However it does prove that with all our understanding and intelligence we are unable to replicate (engineer) what we observe to happen. This means that there are principles or parameters necessary that we have failed to realize and apply. Since we do not know what is missing – I would submit that it is a greater folly to assume intelligence is not a principle well understood than it is and therefore must or should be discarded as a possibility. I believe that good science would not remove the possibility or think of removing the possibility of intelligence being a factor until it was proven not to be necessary. Being agnostic may have some merit but announcing atheistic without conclusive proof is definitely contrary to science. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 18 minutes ago, Traveler said: In essence it appears to that the statement of the First Presidency is denouncing any declaration in support of or against (for example evolution) as being something that we believe to be part of the Gospel of the Restoration. Perhaps I can give an example: When home teaching or visiting teaching we should not consider whether or not a person holds to the principles of evolution or not in befriending them and fulfilling our calling as a home or visiting teacher. Likewise we should not get angry or upset with anyone for not agreeing with our particular understandings in these matter when we openly discuss our opinions. This should have no effect, what-so-ever in our love and concern for anyone as we share our thoughts with one another concerning these things. There are worlds of difference between "Don't talk about it" and "Don't declare that you know the Churches position" when the church has declared the subject not relevant to its goals and mission. Jane_Doe and MrShorty 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, estradling75 said: There are worlds of difference between "Don't talk about it" and "Don't declare that you know the Churches position" when the church has declared the subject not relevant to its goals and mission. As long as we agree that this door swings both directions - I agree. Also as long as we agree that the Church not taking a position - is not an excuse for not seeking the truth of any matter. If we have not studied a matter and therefore formed an intelligent opinion it is okay to say we do not know or believe. But to form an opinion about something we have not studied nor intend to study - Is in my mind contrary to the principles of truth, honesty and respect for others that have - which are principles of the Restored Gosple. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said: So, the origins of life is philosophy then because we cant identify the designer. Gotcha. Same with ID, we dont have to prove the existance of the designer, only acknowlwdge it was designed by some external intelligent input. But that's the thing... Behe's conclusions of external intelligent input was not derived from proper scientific rigor that's why it got rejected by science. Okay, here's my attempt at juxtaposition - Gravity. You can't prove there's such a thing as gravity that's why it's not a scientific fact. Gravity remains just a theory so we can have a name to call something. What is scientific is all the repeated measurable effects that we attribute to this thing called Gravity. That's where the science is. From the time we accepted the scientific discovery of the gravitational pull, we have made more scientific discoveries that corrected our original conclusions. But, even after all these scientific knowledge we learned about gravity so much so that we can send a rocket to Pluto with it, we still cannot prove exactly WHAT this thing that causes all these behaviors is. But we're fine with just calling it Gravity. You can theorize it is a magnet, you can theorize it is green men in the earth's core pedaling with their unicycles... all those theories are outside of science because we can't scientifically prove it. So, in ID... you can have a scientific discovery that this chemical or this gene or this DNA behaves this particular way and is repeatable or that things in nature have a proportion of phi... that's scientific. To attribute this to intelligence is like attributing gravity to a magnet or green men in the earth's core pedaling with their unicycles. It's outside of science. That's where Behe's leap became problematic (among other things). Edited January 20, 2017 by anatess2 MrShorty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: We do it all the time in science. We know what the signature of intelligence is and what it looks like. We have a myriad of evidence that shows that something carrying intelligent information was designed or created by intelligent input. No, we don't have any of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 I have no problem believing that God created the Universe, and that Evolution is just one aspect of how the universe he created works. Jane_Doe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 hour ago, anatess2 said: But that's the thing... Behe's conclusions of external intelligent input was not derived from proper scientific rigor that's why it got rejected by science. Okay, here's my attempt at juxtaposition - Gravity. You can't prove there's such a thing as gravity that's why it's not a scientific fact. Gravity remains just a theory so we can have a name to call something. What is scientific is all the repeated measurable effects that we attribute to this thing called Gravity. That's where the science is. From the time we accepted the scientific discovery of the gravitational pull, we have made more scientific discoveries that corrected our original conclusions. But, even after all these scientific knowledge we learned about gravity so much so that we can send a rocket to Pluto with it, we still cannot prove exactly WHAT this thing that causes all these behaviors is. But we're fine with just calling it Gravity. You can theorize it is a magnet, you can theorize it is green men in the earth's core pedaling with their unicycles... all those theories are outside of science because we can't scientifically prove it. So, in ID... you can have a scientific discovery that this chemical or this gene or this DNA behaves this particular way and is repeatable or that things in nature have a proportion of phi... that's scientific. To attribute this to intelligence is like attributing gravity to a magnet or green men in the earth's core pedaling with their unicycles. It's outside of science. That's where Behe's leap became problematic (among other things). I disagree. Louis Pasteur proved that life dont spontaneously arise in natural processes. This same principle is being applied to lifes origins on the question if nature can, in like manner, cause life to arise through natural processes. If we can scientifically establish that life requires an intelligent process for it to arise then it will be documented as science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: I disagree. Louis Pasteur proved that life dont spontaneously arise in natural processes. This same principle is being applied to lifes origins on the question if nature can, in like manner, cause life to arise through natural processes. If we can scientifically establish that life requires an intelligent process for it to arise then it will be documented as science. Personally, I would more easily accept that Pasteur's experiments showed that mice don't spontaneously generate from sweaty rags and wheat, for example, and not that he proved life cannot arise in so-called natural processes. I'm skeptical that we can scientifically prove that intelligent design is required for life to arise (even though I believe that God created the Universe) any more than we can scientifically prove God exists. Edited January 20, 2017 by Mike MrShorty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.