User Tag List

First 22303132333442 Last

Results 311 to 320 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #311
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    Its presumed, unverifiable, original, condensed state.
    It's true that more evidence must be gathered in favor of the Big Bang Theory for it to be regarded as fact, but as Samurai Drifter pointed out, the original, condensed state of the universe proposed by the theory is indeed proposed on the basis of verifiable evidence.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  2. #312
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    I'd like to post something more thorough in the future, but for the meantime, here's an interesting article. Scientists have created what is, essentially, RNA.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  3. #313
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    It's true that more evidence must be gathered in favor of the Big Bang Theory for it to be regarded as fact, but as Samurai Drifter pointed out, the original, condensed state of the universe proposed by the theory is indeed proposed on the basis of verifiable evidence.
    Wikipedia is probably not the best source to draw from, but its accessibility and conciseness lead me to it. Here's a snippet from wikipedia's BBT entry:

    "Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang",[notes 2] and is considered the "birth" of our universe. "

    At a minimum, this indicates that there is a lot about this hypothetical beginning point that isn't understood and appears paradoxical.

    But there also seems to be some underlying cosmological bias wrapped up in this statement too. The singularity does not necessarily, "signal the breakdown of general relativity." It might also suggest that there is a flaw in the model. A potentially better model is much more likely to be found if one is open to the idea that the current model might be flawed.

    Having said all that, cosmology really deals more with what (who) might have initiated said big bang, and where said big bang material might have come from, and whether or not it always was. I believe the answers to those questions, will always be unverifiable. But I am still inclined to believe even the details of the big bang theory (if things did indeed happen that way -- we've been wrong before) will remain unverifiable.

  4. #314
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I'd like to post something more thorough in the future, but for the meantime, here's an interesting article. Scientists have created what is, essentially, RNA.
    Interesting article.

    Here are the questions I think need an answer before any dent in ID theory will be made:

    Can a verifiable and repeatable experiment be shown to add new information and new complexity through this kind of replication...not just modifications to existing complexity? (see link below)

    Is there a satisfying explanation for how the replicating RNA could come about by chance? (see link below)

    Mycroft, I tried to find a good article for you and am still looking.

    Here is an article that defines complexity and discusses a theory of information. It falls far short of what I'd like to forward (i.e. this is not a counter to your article above, it details the kinds of questions I have about your article above):

    Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: Dembski, William A.

    It defines terms and presents a way to evaluate information and complexity, but doesn't apply the theory to specific examples.

    I was hoping to find an online article that discussed specific microbiology in these terms, but haven't found it yet. I heard a debate with this guy (Dembski) and Sarkar (?) at U of Texas. In that debate Dembski specifically discussed the rate of accumulation of mutations, the fraction of mutations that prove beneficial, what it would take to actually add new complex information, etc.

    His opponent spent a lot of time talking about how the number of legs of a fruit fly can be manipulated by switching on and off different segments of DNA. I found the arguments for how those examples suggested the possibility for the introduction of new complex information unconvincing.

  5. #315
    Senior Member Samurai Drifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erudur View Post
    Interesting article.

    Here are the questions I think need an answer before any dent in ID theory will be made:
    Allow me to translate:

    "Here are the questions I think need an answer before any dent in this theory that has absolutely no supporting evidence can be made:"

    Even if no scientific explanation for abiogenesis was ever developed, that still doesn't provide any positive evidence for the existence of a creator. In other words, even if our current explanation was incorrect, it wouldn't mean yours is correct.

    Can a verifiable and repeatable experiment be shown to add new information and new complexity through this kind of replication...not just modifications to existing complexity? (see link below)
    In the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952, amino acids were synthesized from raw organic materials in a manner that could have easily occurred when the Earth was young. Would you call that an increase in complexity?

    Is there a satisfying explanation for how the replicating RNA could come about by chance? (see link below)
    People who have spent their lives studying chemical and biological evolution have formed many ideas. You should educate yourself on some of them.

    Also, take note of the anthropic principle. If it hadn't occurred by chance, we wouldn't be around to speculate on the low probability of the event occurring. Even if the odds were 900,000,000 to 1 against life forming, it would not in any way constitute positive evidence of design.

    Mycroft, I tried to find a good article for you and am still looking.

    Here is an article that defines complexity and discusses a theory of information. It falls far short of what I'd like to forward (i.e. this is not a counter to your article above, it details the kinds of questions I have about your article above):

    Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: Dembski, William A.

    It defines terms and presents a way to evaluate information and complexity, but doesn't apply the theory to specific examples.

    I was hoping to find an online article that discussed specific microbiology in these terms, but haven't found it yet. I heard a debate with this guy (Dembski) and Sarkar (?) at U of Texas. In that debate Dembski specifically discussed the rate of accumulation of mutations, the fraction of mutations that prove beneficial, what it would take to actually add new complex information, etc.
    Dembski's arguments have been debunked time and again in the scientific community. I suggest you read the essay "Logic and Math Turn to Smoke and Mirrors: William Dembski's 'Design Inference'" by Wesley R. Elsberry so as to avoid using arguments that are widely known to be invalid.


    His opponent spent a lot of time talking about how the number of legs of a fruit fly can be manipulated by switching on and off different segments of DNA. I found the arguments for how those examples suggested the possibility for the introduction of new complex information unconvincing.
    I find the explanation of "an invisible, all powerful being in the sky who has and will always exist designed everything" to be unconvincing.
    Hands in the air, it's a robbery.

  6. #316
    Senior Member Erudur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samurai Drifter View Post
    Allow me to translate:

    "Here are the questions I think need an answer before any dent in this theory that has absolutely no supporting evidence can be made:"
    Allow me to translate - "I don't know enough about the subject to speak to it. I am too lazy and sloppy to learn enough to do so."

    Quote Originally Posted by Samurai Drifter View Post
    ...amino acids were synthesized from raw organic materials in a manner that could have easily occurred when the Earth was young. Would you call that an increase in complexity?
    Says who? And frankly, I don't care. I've heard enough wild speculation from many otherwise intelligent people that it doesn't matter who says it. The short of it is this. Because of the blind faith of many biologists in their own cosmology, those same biologists show themselves completely blind to gaping flaws in their own hypotheses.

    If you are one of them, you are clearly doing it too. If you are not, you are blindly putting your own faith in their logical leaps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samurai Drifter View Post
    People who have spent their lives studying chemical and biological evolution have formed many ideas. You should educate yourself on some of them.
    You should too. PLEASE do. And make sure you have your brain turned on so you really understand the assumptions they are making but not testing. And then take the time to look into the plausibility of those assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samurai Drifter View Post
    Also, take note of the anthropic principle. If it hadn't occurred by chance, we wouldn't be around to speculate on the low probability of the event occurring. Even if the odds were 900,000,000 to 1 against life forming, it would not in any way constitute positive evidence of design.
    That, my friend is philoso-babel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samurai Drifter View Post
    Dembski's arguments have been debunked time and again in the scientific community. I suggest you read the essay "Logic and Math Turn to Smoke and Mirrors: William Dembski's 'Design Inference'" by Wesley R. Elsberry so as to avoid using arguments that are widely known to be invalid.
    I see you've spent some time reading the ad hominem and straw man responses to Dembski. Good for you. I am impressed that you've actually read something on the subject. Up to this point, the content of your posts convinced me otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samurai Drifter View Post
    I find the explanation of "an invisible, all powerful being in the sky who has and will always exist designed everything" to be unconvincing.
    Like I've said earlier, I respect your right to hold to that position. I challenge you to open your eyes to your own bias when looking at things from that perspective.

    In the same way, I find the explanation that the world and the life that we observe within it came about by billions of incremental steps that include leaps like:

    - "raw organic materials" transforming into amino acids

    - amino acids somehow "becoming" more complex chains of RNA

    - RNA then somehow "becoming" able to replicate

    - replicating RNA then somehow "becoming" DNA that constitutes some form of life

    - DNA then, by leaps and bounds, extending to new larger AND usable forms that interact with the existing usable segments to reproduce more complex forms of life.

    (are we still claiming random mutations and natural selection as the driver here, or have we come up with a different driving force?)

    ....continue with a multitude of steps like these, every step more complicated and more complex than the most complex engineering and designs ever devised by man....

    eventually resulting in a state of life where you and I are contemplating the subject on an internet thread.

    That I find unconvincing.

    So I guess we both remain unconvinced.

  7. #317
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Would someone be willing to link to any evidence for Intelligent Design? It may have already been done earlier in the thread, but it's 30 pages long, so I hope you'll forgive me for being a little lazy here.

  8. #318
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Erudur, yet again someone has pointed out that an incomplete theory is better than no theory at all, to which you've responded that an incomplete theory doesn't disprove intelligent design.

    As far as I can tell, the only thing you've actually taken to heart in the course of this entire discussion is to use forms of the term "unconvinced" rather than "incredulous" so your argument from incredulity will, if nothing else, not be blatantly apparent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Would someone be willing to link to any evidence for Intelligent Design? It may have already been done earlier in the thread, but it's 30 pages long, so I hope you'll forgive me for being a little lazy here.
    It hasn't. I'm waiting, as well.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  9. #319
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    I don't spend time arguing about God so I have little experience in the fine art. But I do have a question.

    How do people who don't believe in anything which can't be measured or observed deal with the concept of mindfulness? Multiple realities?

    What's your standard argument about consciousness?
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

  10. #320
    Senior Member Darjur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anja View Post
    I don't spend time arguing about God so I have little experience in the fine art. But I do have a question.

    How do people who don't believe in anything which can't be measured or observed deal with the concept of mindfulness? Multiple realities?

    What's your standard argument about consciousness?
    Chemical reactions. / Mathematics.

    Chemical reactions.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and time
    By Natrushka in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:56 PM
  2. [NT] NTs and controlling thoughts
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 02:10 PM
  3. [NT] Berens' comments on NTs and conflict
    By rivercrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 05:05 PM
  4. [NT] NTs and Concentration
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 01:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO