Intelligent Design

[Antisthenes]

yes design can be born from chaos, complexity exists in all systems

ID is just another lie for liars to move onto next when they don't understand the science

[mx2]

[usarender]

One can claim what he wants and say design is born from chaos. But where's the beef?

I could claim I am Napolean Bonaparte reborn, if I wish. Or even Einstein reborn, for that matter.

A claim is a claim.

About energy not being destroyed, it is part of scientific theory. And religion has it's say on that matter as well. A new heaven and a new universe to come into existence. So in this point, I see no conflict between science and religion.

About the universe having no beginning or end. This is FALSE. Modern science has demonstrated that the universe had a BEGINNING and will have an END. The mathematics of probability even make it practically impossible for the universe to bounce back -->>

http://www.CosmicFingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

This article demonstrates the latest scientific evidence for creation.

The idea "God is in the details" - now where did this phrase come from?

http://architecture.about.com/library/bl-mies-quotes.htm

It originated by Mies van der Rohe.

"God is in the details."

Speaking about restraint in design, the New York Herald Tribune, 28 Jun 1959.

And who is to use aboriginal thinking as the basis of Western science or civilization. I am not among them. I am certainly not an aboriginal pantheist.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm

"Pantheism

(From Greek pan, all; theos, god).

The view according to which God and the world are one. The name pantheist was introduced by John Toland (1670-1722) in his "Socinianism truly Stated" (1705), while pantheism was first used by his opponent Fay in "Defensio Religionis" (1709). Toland published his "Pantheisticon" in 1732. The doctrine itself goes back to the early Indian philosophy; it appears during the course of history in a great variety of forms, and it enters into or draws support from so many other systems that, as Professor Flint says ("Antitheistic Theories", 334), "there is probably no purepantheism". Taken in the strictest sense, i.e. as identifying God and the world, Pantheism is simply Atheism. In any of its forms it involves Monism, but the latter is not necessarily pantheistic. Emanationism may easily take on a pantheistic meaning and as pointed out in the Encyclical "Pascendi dominici gregis", the same is true of the modern doctrine of immanence."

[P.C.]

Not that I disagrea , -- but I allway's thought devil is in the detail , sometimes I rather see a wild reflecting shaddow in all that heaven, I know where it become exiting that's not from ontop the roof it's when floors come in various hight, when walls suddenly is allowed to be curved when furniture are build in part of the core structure, it's when what was hidden, are allowed to show itself, in all it's beauty. When someone make you see it.

[P.C.]

Sorry it happen all the time.

First of all it must be unique, instantly reconised special, not seen before at best othervise a new angle. in that case it define itself from if it is nice or not.

[usarender]

Yes, as on Sept. 11 many saw wild demonic faces in the clouds of smoke the came after the demonic plunge into the towers. Manifestations of demons can be seen in art, in the shadows of the night, in the hidden subliminal messages they can transmit by their cunning crafty arrangement of light and shadows, by their intent to insubordinate our mental process. Our architecture can do the same. It can create a tension where there should be a balance. It can create a disproportion of figure, of form of volume, to enhance the architectural statement. It can contrive in it's materials. It can overturn the status quo. In this insubordination, truly the devil is in the details.

Now, truly, if it be unique, if it be not done, it is recognized as special, and to some as a new " vicious menacing face of technology".

So it depends on the angle of vision and point of view.

[djswan]

[usarender]

Design can be born from chaos?

Where?

Prove it scientifically.

It is absolutely not true.

People making false claims they cannot prove, to scratch the "itching ears", who would prefer to hear lies, then to examine the scientific evidence.
========================================>>>>>

Then, the evidence is presented, and people still favor ideas that have no scientific foundation.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

"The Key Issue: Patterns vs. Designs

The starting point of this entire discussion is to define the difference between a pattern and a design. A pattern could be a tornado or hurricane, but a tornado or hurricane is not design.

Not all patterns are designed, but all designs have patterns.

Snowflakes, tornados, stalactites, stalagmites the behavior of those things are governed we now know as something that is called Chaos theory.

Chaos theory is the study of how order forms naturally without design.

Chaos is probably not the best word they could've picked, because chaos theory shows how natural processes produce order. Now fractals are a computer version of the same thing. A fractal is what happens when you take a pretty simple math equation and you plug a number into it and you get the number out, and you assign a color to it. Then you take it and you plug it back into the input and you run it through the formula again and again and again and again.... It starts drawing all of these pictures and so what you see right there is called the Mandlebrot set.

Designs are always represented symbolically. Chaos is not.

Again, in a design, there’s always a representation of the thing in addition to the thing itself.

Patterns Chaos: Purely a Result of Matter and Energy, Not Mental Processes

What is the difference between the two? Patterns are simply created by matter in energy. That’s all that’s there.

Language and Design: Product of a Mental Process

On the right, all information is based on language. You cannot symbolically represent something without language. That’s what language is.

Language is a symbolic representation of something else.


To have information you have to matter and energy and will.

Somebody has to decide to create information. Somebody has to write the music. The interesting thing about information is that you can have exact copies of it. You can have an exact copy of a book. I can send you an email and what can you do with it? You can read it on your screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud. You could read it over the telephone. You could save it as a Microsoft Word document. You could post it on the Internet as a web page.

The Message is Not The Medium

Does the message change?

No. The message is separate form the media that it comes in.

That’s what information is, and it requires thought.

All information requires a thought process.

So really the fundamental question if you want to frame the fundamental questions of evolution and the origins question. The question becomes:

Is DNA a pattern or is it a design?
The whole argument rests on the answer to that question.

DNA can be replicated, and replicates itself. It is a form of language. It contains the character, the letter, the word, the sentence, the paragraph.

So what makes a language?

Well the first thing about a language, any language, is it symbolically represents something other than itself.

To have a language, to have information, you have to have a transmitter and a receiver.

Somebody has to talk and somebody has to listen. And then it has these four characteristics; it has an alphabet, it has grammar, it has meaning, and it has intent.

Every language has those four things. DNA has them; all the stuff going on inside your computer has them. If dogs are barking and yelping, the communication has all of these four things. It doesn’t matter if it’s mating calls if it’s pheromones between insects.

All Languages and Codes Have Four Components

Regardless of what kind of communication we are talking about those four things are present in that communication. Alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. And nearly all languages have error correction or redundancy.

So which is DNA more like?

Is DNA more like stalactites and stalagmites and tornadoes and hurricanes and snowflakes and fractals? Or is DNA more like music, maps, computer programs and Chinese?

It’s definitely in the second category. Absolutely there is no question about it. So what we have here is that between the world of chaos and patterns and the world of designs and information there is a huge chasm. A huge chasm. The pattern of DNA is not like a language. It is a language. By any formal definition of language it is a language.

Chaos, fractals and natural processes do not produce languages or codes.

This is the core problem with a naturalistic philosophy of materialistic science: Matter and energy all by themselves cannot produce information.

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”

Perry Marshall’s Update to Paley’s Design Argument
But now I have an improvement to Paley’s design argument. This sounds audacious but I’m serious. I have an improvement that makes Paley’s argument airtight:

• Element common to both watches and life is language
• The essential distinction between pattern and design is language
• Fundamental Property of all Designs: Idea precedes Implementation
• Idea must be represented by language
• All language comes from a mind

The essential distinction betweens patterns and designs is language. Patterns don’t have languages, but designs do. So the fundamental property of all designs is that an idea precedes the implementation of the idea.

The idea exists in a symbolic form before it’s physically built. An idea, in order to exist, has to be represented by a language. Even to have an idea in your mind you have to talk to yourself and have images in your mind of what you want to do before you do it. So we know this:

• Ideas always precede implementation, always, no exceptions.
• All languages come from a mind. No exceptions.
• There are no languages that do not come from a mind.
• So we know that DNA was designed.
• A mind designed DNA, therefore God exists.

[usarender]

The only order I can see in chaos is the replicating patterns, that keep repeating themselves.

Order is not the same as design. It has not intent, no idea, no language.

THE FOUR INGREDIENTS OF LANGUAGE -->>

1. Alphabet,
2. Grammar,
3. Meaning
4. Intent.

In chaos, the four ingredients of language are not present. You only have an order of repeating patterns that keep creating a new order of repeating patterns of chaos, and that is it. There is no alphabet, no grammar, no meaning, no intent.

In the DNA code, ALL THESE ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT.

LANGUAGE ---->>> IDEA --->> --->> DESIGN -->> IMPLEMENTATION

DNA HAS ALL THIS.

RANDOM PATTERNS DO NOT.

In summary -->>

All languages come from a mind.

DNA is a language, therefore it was designed, not a result of a random pattern.

A mind designed DNA, therefore God exists.

[djswan]

I just had an epiphany. I get "it". That's all I can say. I'm too tired to agrue about "it". Design born from chaos. I've got to get back to work. My wife is due Oct 15th.

Scientist have always been my heros. and Oh, by the way, the world is heating up, this eden isn't going to last forever.

Thanks

Derek

[Antisthenes]

right back atcha usa(sic) liar boy

[Antisthenes]

djswan

good luck with the birth!

no point losing focus on hokus pokus

[usarender]

[Antisthenes]

there is no point to ever argue with a theist

have a good day if you can, or project the 'facts' as you see fit, for yourself please, far away from rational free thinking humanists Brights and those who are glad we don't have the answers, so we can keep on with the discoveries

[usarender]

You have proven my point.

You have no arguments.

If you did, you would post them for others to see, not just me.

Everyone projects the facts as they see fit, this is the problem.

Nobody is analyzing the links and looking at any of this in an objective way.

It is easier to shun the question, make a false statement and then avoid defending it in any way.

So you think you are the only rational free thinking human "Bright" then?

You make a false statement, and then you are glad you don't have the answers?

You are not making any sense. You are not even following any kind of humanistic logic in your statements.

This is how the majority of people act, when confronted with facts that question everything they have learned.

They shun it, like an ostridge hiding himself in the sand.

In other words,

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up".

So those who are not willing to look at it in an objective way will never discover if everything they have learned is a bunch of lies.

It is as I said, "The Blind Leading the Blind".

They will both fall into the same pit.

As I had posted earlier in this discussion -->>