Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 14, 2016 at 9:48 pm
(January 14, 2016 at 9:07 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: (January 14, 2016 at 6:05 pm)AAA Wrote: Exactly, life is everywhere we look on Earth. Yet it is nowhere we have seen yet in the rest of the universe (i know we don't have a large sample size yet, but still).
So why aren't you helping NASA look for it on Mars, instead of shitting all over their efforts to sort out the truth?
Quote: This could easily point to the fact that they were designed to live in all conditions.
There's a very simple way of finding out: Dive to the bottom of a mid-Atlantic hydrothermal vent and collect samples of the many fish, crustaceans and eels which survive there off food sources which are not based on photosynthesis, but chemosynthesis from highly toxic hydrogen sulfide. Take them home, put them in your aquarium, and feed them OTC fish food, then see how long they last.
Can't afford to rent a deep-sea submersible or robo-diver? Here's an easy way - take a fish out of water anywhere, and see how long it lasts out of the water.
Well, why else, short of utter desperation, would you post anything nearly so stupid as that idea?
Quote:If we have archaea that live in Mars-like conditions here on earth, then why aren't there bacteria on mars. When you look at how complicated the mechanisms that allow extremophiles to survive in these areas, it begins to look more like design (at least to me),
Ok, first it was the fine-tuning argument based on asserted impossibilities, and now with that can of shit unpacked for you life is just too complicated. YOU are the one who's complicated (profoundly so), and to say something so pathetically weak as that shows how desperate you are to go on believing what you say.
Life is not too complicated, it simply evolves in any way that it can, and we probably don't know all the possible ways that it can do this on our own planet. It does not look like design, not one bit. It looks like what happened because it had to, just as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics calls for it. Life increases entropy (now there's your meaning of it for you)!
That is SO not what I meant by designed to live everwhere. I didn't mean every organism was able to live in each environment, I meant that there were organisms designed for each environment.
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 14, 2016 at 9:58 pm
(January 14, 2016 at 6:22 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Quote:Exactly, life is everywhere we look on Earth. Yet it is nowhere we have seen yet in the rest of the universe
I can't think you're serious. We haven't tested anything remotely approaching 'the rest of the universe'. Using this as a counter is quite a bit like a 10th century Polynesian denying the possibility of the existence of Europe because he can't see it from his canoe.
Quote:(i know we don't have a large sample size yet, but still).
'But still' me bony white Irish arse - there's no 'but still' involved. It isn't that we don't have a large sample size, but that our sample size - except for scratching a few centimeters into the surface of Mars - is non-existent.
Quote:This could easily point to the fact that they were designed to live in all conditions.
If so, then it plays merry hob with the 'fine tuning' argument. If life can exist in all conditions, what is there to fine tune?
Quote:If we have archaea that live in Mars-like conditions here on earth, then why aren't there bacteria on mars.
Do you know that there are no bacteria on Mars? I certainly don't, and neither does anyone else.
Quote:When you look at how complicated the mechanisms that allow extremophiles to survive in these areas, it begins to look more like design (at least to me),
Of course it looks that way to you, since you have an admitted bias to find design in anything. But if life is designed, it requires a Designer, as your lot never seem to get tired of saying. But apparent design can't be attributed to a Designer unless you prove the Designer first. If we can find an explanation for complicated living systems that does not require a Designer, then your speculation is required to take a back seat to a verified, explicable mechanism for complexity. Fortunately, we have one. It's called 'natural selection'.
Boru
Yes we have virtually no sample size, so prediction from me : we don't find other forms of life
You throw the do you know that there are no bacteria? That'd be like me saying do you know that there is no God despite our nonexistent sample size of the universe?
I see why this is illogical do you. I bet someone quotemines that sentence above to try to make it sound like I'm seriously asking it.
And it looks designed to Richard Dawkins too. At least he said so. I haven't always accepted evolution. We don't have to prove the designer to prove the design. natural selection simply selects the best offspring, nobody argues that. But are the best offspring the ones who have a more mutated sequence or a more original genome. That is the question.
Posts: 67172
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Intelligent Design
January 14, 2016 at 10:02 pm
Quote:We don't have to prove the designer to prove the design.
Yeah, actually you do.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 5466
Threads: 36
Joined: November 10, 2014
Reputation:
53
RE: Intelligent Design
January 14, 2016 at 10:06 pm
(This post was last modified: January 14, 2016 at 10:08 pm by KevinM1.)
Esq, that's a great point about manufacturing. The same can be said for software. The entire point of Object Oriented Programming is to create reusable, plug-and-play objects that can be arranged in just about any configuration. The particulars are hidden away through abstraction, popularly through a mechanism called an interface. Rough pseudocode example (you may need to scroll through the code block to see the entire thing):
Code: interface IShape
{
float calculateArea();
}
class Circle implements IShape
{
float radius;
public function __construct(float radius)
{
this.radius = radius;
}
public function calculateArea()
{
return 3.14 * this.radius * this.radius;
}
}
class Rectangle implements IShape
{
float width;
float length;
public function __construct(width, length)
{
this.width = width;
this.length = length;
}
public function calculateArea()
{
return this.width * this.length;
}
}
function doSomethingWithShapes(IShape shape)
{
// blah blah
someResult = shape.calculateArea(); // is it a circle or rectangle?
return someResult;
}
Because Circle and Rectangle implement IShape, they can be used interchangeably wherever an IShape is required. Even better, the calling code (doSomethingWithShapes in this case) doesn't care what kind of shape it gets. So long as it fulfills the promise provided by the interface that it will have a calculateArea() method, all is good.
And that's how high level software is written (as opposed to on-the-metal software like OSes, drivers, etc.). You write what you want to do as abstractly as possible with interfaces and other things known as abstract classes, dealing with concrete classes and objects only when necessary. And by encapsulating discrete functionality into classes, you basically create the software version of LEGOs that connect to each other through simple, abstracted APIs.
While there's a fair amount of upfront work (and creating objects tends to be more memory expensive than using primitive data structures like arrays or structs), the extensibility and reusability of writing code this way really shines in medium-to-large projects. Components can also be shared between projects very easily this way, often with no tweaking involved. Have a kick ass logger? Or email handler? Or anything else general purpose? Use it anywhere.
So, much like hardware has made a conscious effort to reduce the kinds of connection used (notice how USB essentially connects the world right now?) software has made a conscious effort to embrace sensible API structures.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Posts: 28284
Threads: 522
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: Intelligent Design
January 14, 2016 at 10:54 pm
(January 14, 2016 at 9:35 pm)AAA Wrote: I don't think abiogenesis can happen based on how complex a system we see here needs to be to be alive. If somehow we found another set of life forms that operated with simplicity instead, then it may be plausible, but I don't think this is possible either.
[edit]
It's not my opinion that says it is too complex. If you look above at the numbers (I could try to find a reference if you like) you will see how complex it is. And this is all before it can enter the evolutionary pathway. There are about over 100 proteins involved in translation alone. If you can't translate mRNA, then you can't make proteins. It is a serious chicken and the egg problem that the scientific community recognizes.
Just because you can't get a grasp on it for your comfort doesn't mean that there needs to be a fantasy delusion as a creator.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 14, 2016 at 11:10 pm
(January 14, 2016 at 10:54 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: (January 14, 2016 at 9:35 pm)AAA Wrote: I don't think abiogenesis can happen based on how complex a system we see here needs to be to be alive. If somehow we found another set of life forms that operated with simplicity instead, then it may be plausible, but I don't think this is possible either.
[edit]
It's not my opinion that says it is too complex. If you look above at the numbers (I could try to find a reference if you like) you will see how complex it is. And this is all before it can enter the evolutionary pathway. There are about over 100 proteins involved in translation alone. If you can't translate mRNA, then you can't make proteins. It is a serious chicken and the egg problem that the scientific community recognizes.
Just because you can't get a grasp on it for your comfort doesn't mean that there needs to be a fantasy delusion as a creator. It's not that i just can't grasp it. your comment implies that you do understand it. If you understand it, then alert everyone else so we can get on board.
Posts: 28284
Threads: 522
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: Intelligent Design
January 14, 2016 at 11:50 pm
(January 14, 2016 at 11:10 pm)AAA Wrote: It's not that i just can't grasp it. your comment implies that you do understand it. If you understand it, then alert everyone else so we can get on board.
I don't need to understand it, or understand all of it. I don't need to have all the answers. New discoveries are happening every day. I'm comfortable with we're working on it and coming up with more and more answers. Again, I don't need make believe creature to make myself comfortable. If you need it, you're welcome to it. Just remember, you can't argue it into existence.
BTW, you don't need RNA to make peptides/proteins. Read up on abiogenesis. Start with WIKI and it's references.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:00 am
(January 14, 2016 at 11:50 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: (January 14, 2016 at 11:10 pm)AAA Wrote: It's not that i just can't grasp it. your comment implies that you do understand it. If you understand it, then alert everyone else so we can get on board.
I don't need to understand it, or understand all of it. I don't need to have all the answers. New discoveries are happening every day. I'm comfortable with we're working on it and coming up with more and more answers. Again, I don't need make believe creature to make myself comfortable. If you need it, you're welcome to it. Just remember, you can't argue it into existence.
BTW, you don't need RNA to make peptides/proteins. Read up on abiogenesis. Start with WIKI and it's references.
Well, you DO need mRNA to make proteins. Unless you think amino acids form and combine themselves into functional structures by themselves. Sure a few amino acids form in nature rarely, but they don't bind to each other, especially not in forms nearly as elaborate as a protein.
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:04 am
Okay, you know biology.
But what exactly is your point?
Are you arguing the point "These are so complex that it's obvious it was designed."
Posts: 67172
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:13 am
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2016 at 12:13 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(January 15, 2016 at 12:00 am)AAA Wrote: (January 14, 2016 at 11:50 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I don't need to understand it, or understand all of it. I don't need to have all the answers. New discoveries are happening every day. I'm comfortable with we're working on it and coming up with more and more answers. Again, I don't need make believe creature to make myself comfortable. If you need it, you're welcome to it. Just remember, you can't argue it into existence.
BTW, you don't need RNA to make peptides/proteins. Read up on abiogenesis. Start with WIKI and it's references.
Well, you DO need mRNA to make proteins. Unless you think amino acids form and combine themselves into functional structures by themselves. Sure a few amino acids form in nature rarely, but they don't bind to each other, especially not in forms nearly as elaborate as a protein.
It's not as if you -don't- think this happened....you just think that it happened by magic. Honestly man, what's the point, wtf are you doing here?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
|
