Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Hidden LightThe Fibonacci post has generated a longer comment thread than anything else I’ve written. I was just digging a little dirt and must have hit a power line. The question I tried to address, was “is there any physics in Fibonacci, or is it just a mathematician’s curiosity?

Here’s the physics that came back:

a) AJ Meyer has looked at the galactic rotation curves, and pointed out that “rigid-body” rotation which is observed, can be obtained by having a mass which increases with radius. Now since we can look at galaxies from the side, and they don’t get thicker with radius,  it would seem that this increase in mass must be due to something else. Gallo argues that it could be dust, or non-glowing “dark” matter. Meyer argues that a logarithmic spiral distribution, like the arms of spiral galaxies, would contribute more mass at larger radii, exactly as required to match the rotation curves. In other words, there is no “missing matter” in spiral galaxies, but precisely the rotation curve for being a spiral galaxy. Of course, Meyer has no explanation for why the stars are arranged in Fibonacci spirals.

Read More…

Comments
VB: For me, it's not a matter extrapolating from observed small molecular changes; rather it's a case of many convergent lines of evidence that all point to common descent with modification. It's molecular evidence, it's fossils, it's morphology, it geo-diversity. But I never have completely understood why there should be a molecular edge to evolution? Our DNA is pretty messy and it seems clear that, not only are better designs preferred over current designs by the environment, but also that there is lots of genetic material to work with especially since we have two copies of all of our genes. Except for males who still have two copies of most of their genes. Two copies (which may be different alleles), lots of duplicated genes . . . ERVs . . . it's always sounded like a lot of room to play.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Earlier, ba wrote, "The counter argument to Theism is materialism." When I pointed out that that was a false dichotomy - there are lots of non-materialistic alternatives to theism, and many variations of theism, ba responded,
Aleta, but alas Aleta, there are only two choices that it boils down to, despite you appeal for multiplicity, 1 we either were designed or 2 we were not designed. Since the first step in the debate is indeed dichotomous, you are simply wrong to pretend that it isn’t.
Well, there are a number of issues in this response that I'd like to discuss. The first is the obvious one: ba switched from theism vs materialism to designed vs. not designed, and there are significant differences between those two. The larger issue is the use of dichotomous logic in logical arguments. Let me discuss that a bit, and then return to ba's particular two statements. In the related thread on Fibonacci, we were discussing the nature of mathematics, including the difference between the internal structure of math itself and the ability of mathematical models to accurately describe aspects of the real world. The same distinction applies to logic. The statement that proposition A is either true or false is a law of logic but applying this to statements about the world brings up additional issues. For instance, in the first statement, if ba had written "the counter argument to theism is non-theism", he would have been more correct, logically, but then that would have opened up his statement to considering non materialistic. non-theistic alternatives. Another problem is that for logic (or math) to be applied to the real world, the terms have to be well-defined. For instance, in the math example, one pebble plus one pebble is definitely two pebbles, but we can't say that one cloud plus one cloud is always two clouds, because often clouds aren't always distinct enough entities that we can definitely say "that is one cloud." Similarly here, "theism" is not a very well defined concept: I could easily say that the counter to ba's form of Christian theism is in fact another version of theism. So the statement "The counter argument to Theism is materialism." is not correct or meaningful in a number of ways. Then, ba switches to "we were either designed or not designed." This is not the same issue as the first one. And even though it is logically correct, we can't actually apply it to the world if we don't know clearly what "we were designed" means, and what kinds of causal explanations are to be included as producing design and which are to be included in not-designed. If designed means exactly the same as "created by a God," we are back to needing to know what exactly counts as God, and if designed means something else, then we are back to discussing the full range of metaphysical possibilties, which are not limited to theism and materialism. My main point here is that the whole subject is vastly more complicated than the view being represented by the simplistic logical dichotomies being offered.Aleta
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
equinoxe: I agree, I'm not sure there is a consensus amongst ID proponents about some issues. And I've always thought: how can it be common descent if some being is helping the biology skip some steps? That's not common descent anymore I don't think. I'd like to see the ID hypothesis be more specific, initially at least, about some particular morphological developments that they are convinced could not have arisen by unguided common descent with modification. A test case if you will. I think Dr Behe tried to do that with the bacterial flagellum and the human clotting cascade but his ideas seem to have not gained much support with most biological scientists so I'd say the case is not yet proven. And now he seems to be trying to be more general and saying that there are limits to what unguided evolution can do. That notion should lead to more specificity regarding where and when design was implemented . . . I'm just waiting for someone to be definite about the where and when. How and why can wait but I'd love to hear those as well. I think it is very difficult for non-specialists to wrap their heads around some of the issues especially the probabalistic ones. I agree that climbing mount improbable does seem . . . improbable if not impossible. Case in point: within 66 million years small, furry mammals eventually gave rise to us!! On the face of it it's inconceivable. But that's our perspective considering the whole climb, not knowing exactly which and how many tiny steps were made over the thousands of centuries. For me, when I look at the evidence available (molecular, geographic, morphologic, fossils) , it all indicates that, despite its improbability, it really happened. Now, if tomorrow some non-coding DNA is found which includes an actual message from a designer (a copyright perhaps?, some design credits?), then I shall revise my stance. What an idea .. . what if some designer 'owns' our design and can collect royalties from all of us who 'use' s/he/it's design . . . . I wonder how long interstellar copyrights last? If the designer is immortal we could be paying fees for a very long time.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
RE 37 "And I find the evidence for evolution to be very compelling" The issue is not whether evolution is true. The issue is it a result of blind unguided natural processes. Equinox stated it well here "For me, ID simply corresponds to a rejection of the blind watchmaker hypothesis" There is absolutely no empirical evidence for the grand claim for the molecules to man blind watchmaker hypothesis zip, nada, nothing!! That is what you need to address. The only evidence is one by extrapolation, we see small changes therefore given enough time any type of change is possible. Vividvividbleau
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
ellazimm: Thanks for your comments. The books you list (Miller, Coyne, Dawkins, etc.) do indeed set out the case for common descent very powerfully. I also think that the molecular genetic evidence is convincing. I don't think that denial of common descent is a "pillar" of ID in principle, even though a straw poll of IDists would probably suggest that it is in practice; ditto with God's existence, etc.. ID sends out a mixed message on this: e.g., Behe affirms CD, but then their flagship forum is called "uncommon descent". A confusing business. For me, ID simply corresponds to a rejection of the blind watchmaker hypothesis as set out by Dawkins (~1986) and Dennett (~1995). It is not that I can't see how the configuration of the genome arises through a process of natural selection - as is often charged by critics of ID, who cry, "argument from incredulity!" Rather, it is that I can see that for the genome (and any other intelligible structure) to form without intelligence is impossible. Regarding common descent, at present I am too ill-informed to back one view or the other. To do so would just be to "take sides". (If I had to take a side, I would grant common descent for the reasons you state.) On the one hand, I am inclined to back the large number of scientists, Christians included, who point to the evidence of common descent: genetic, fossil, and so on. However, when some of these people also speak as though the blind watchmaker thesis were correct (or climbing improbable mountains---choose your metaphor!) and I know they are wrong, I have grounds to at least doubt they are right about other things - things which I cannot assess either way because I lack access to evidence and training in the relevant disciplines. So I suppose I accept CD, but with some degree of scepticism. I'd welcome your comments.equinoxe
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
BA: I don't think evolution is true based on one piece of evidence or even one line of evidence. If we didn't have any fossils I think the other lines are still strong enough to 'prove' that evolution is true. So you may argue against any single point but arguing against them all is pleading special case after special case. Considering the whole theory based on one thread is not considering the full strength of the case for evolution. There is no single 'killer' fact or smoking gun. There are lots and lots of little facts that all point in the same direction and are consistent with common descent with modification. Any good book on evolution will make that point. But, one line of evidence I find particularly strong in and of itself is the molecular genetic evidence. That line of evidence includes: protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses. My discussion of this data would only parrot that found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html so I refer anyone who is interested in checking out the arguments to follow the link.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Excuse me Aleta maybe we were only 99.9587% designed or non-designed. Can you please what percentage of of design you would accept?bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Ellazimm, as I don't want to waste time refuting hundreds of pieces of suggestive evidence, please pick one piece of evidence as to be the one I can't knock down. Aleta, but alas Aleta, there are only two choices that it boils down to, despite you appeal for multiplicity, 1 we either were designed or 2 we were not designed Please tell me Since the first step in the debate is indeed dichotomous, you are simply wrong to pretend that it isn't.bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
ellazim, I really appreciate your approach here, for what's that worth. And yes, there are millions of Christians who accept evolution: I forgot to point out in my previous post that there is also spectrum of beliefs within theisim, and within Christian theism. So these simplistic, dichotomous "either my way or the highway" approaches to discussions of metaphysical beliefs is not likely to be productive.Aleta
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
And I find the evidence for evolution to be very compelling. There are lots of good places to see 'my' evidence. Only a Theory by Kenneth Miller, Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. www.talkorigins.org. You've already seen all that and it falls very short in your eyes whereas I find the multiples lines of evidence which all point to the central notion of common descent through modification to be convincing. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything!! I'm only asking for some respect for notions that are held to be true by millions of people including almost all researchers in the field. I haven't got anything else to say really. It doesn't mean I concede your point, it just means I choose not to reiterate arguments made better than I could ever hope to. All I'm trying to do is to understand why you find the evidence against the modern synthesis to be so crushing.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
ba writes, "The counter argument to Theism is materialism." Not true - there are other metaphysical alternatives which posit a non-material but non-theistic aspect to the universe. And even if one believes in a very general universal Mind as God, this is quite different than the specific God of Christianity, and all its associated dogma about heaven, hell, salvation, etc. So, no, you are incorrect that all there is is a simple dichotomous choice between materialism and Theism.Aleta
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Ellazim and Aleta, The counter argument to Theism is materialism, yet materialism is shown to be absurdly wrong by no less than the best evidence of physics (The only real science). "Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting." Ernest Rutherford And yet even though you guys have no foundation to even make a case for the neo-Darwinian framework in the first place, you act as if 'whistling in the dark' will make your 'fantasy' true. this is not science Ellazimm. Not in the least! Ellazimm you are right, I probably have seen all the best evidence that neo-Darwinism has to offer, and it is not only that I find the evidence unpersuasive as to leave perhaps a reasonable doubt for it to be maybe, perhaps possibly, true, it is the fact that I find the evidence against neo-Darwinism to be absolutely crushing. Absolutely crushing to the point of ridiculous absurdity! That you would appeal to authority of other Christians and other well meaning 'smart' people, really matters not to me, for we are dealing with science, are we not? Thus once again, if you want to persuade me that you are not imbibing delusional ideas please put your best evidence on the table. If it survives scrutiny, so as to leave no doubt that evolutionary processes generated functional information, then so be it, you will have made your case and convinced me of your sanity in this matter. Until then I find your 'politicking' to be but 'whistling in the dark'.bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
equinoxe: Thanks! I like a good argument, my mother used to say I'd be arguing with the undertaker. Too bad my son has inherited the trait: having a pedantic 8-year old who refuses to back down can be quite annoying at times. Especially when he's wrong. And sometimes when he's right. :-)ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
BA: anything I would present in support of evolution you have already heard AND, as I keep saying, I'm not here to support evolution or to promote my own personal beliefs although I'm happy to admit them. I thought it was fair and honest of me to lay my cards on the table so as not to give a false impression. And, again, I think a lot of very intelligent people, some of them Christian, believe in evolution. Some very bright people, some not theistic at all, support ID. We are all, mostly, looking at the same sets of data and some of us come to conclusions that disagree with yours. I accept that you don't mean I am stupid or ignorant but I'm not calling ID stupid or ignorant. In fact, part of my goal of spending time on UD has been met and I much better understand why y'all see things the way you do. And I respect that stand much better than I used to. And I still have my beliefs. And you still have yours. And we're not going to change our minds. I'd still like to know how you see things. And you've been making that pretty clear. And I'd say there is room for uncertainty as well. There are probably lots of people who feel both cases are strong .. . or weak. Or not proven. I think it is always valid to say: I don't know.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
ba writes, "John Stuart Stroup “We probably won’t know everything about the creation of the universe until we stand before either the Judgement seat of Christ, or the Great White Throne judgement.,,,” Then those of living will never know, will we? And if there is no creator who will judge us, then you will never know it, either, even after you're dead. So this faith-based belief has absolutely no relevance to the non-Christian.Aleta
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
ellazimm, I hope that the distinction is clear that it is your 'IDEAS" and not you personally that I find 'stupid and ignorant'. I can assure you with 100% certainty, not 99.497% certainty, that I have held many 'stupid and ignorant' beliefs in my lifetime, and am 94.231% certain that I hold some 'stupid and ignorant beliefs' right now. But as to this issue on ID and evolution there is no uncertainty.bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
"Coincidentally" Aleta, a few minutes ago on Frank Turek's facebook page, right before I read your comment on the 'next court case', a young man just reminded me of the only 'next court case' that really matters. John Stuart Stroup "We probably won't know everything about the creation of the universe until we stand before either the Judgement seat of Christ, or the Great White Throne judgement.,,," I'm always fascinated by these 'coincidences' that always seem to happen at the most appropriate times when discussing issues that revolve around, or relate to, God,,, Somewhat like this following 'coincidence',,, SETI - Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence Finds God - Almost http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007753bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
ellazimm: You are right about the rudeness here. Oftentimes, this attitude is justified on the grounds that it is "no-holds-barred intellectual confrontation", etc, etc. Sometimes this is so, but often is it plain old-fashioned unpleasantness. And I've said so before. I hope you won't be put off ID but the behaviour of some of its internet-forum adherents. I'm fairly uncompromising in many of my views, but I hope I don't come across as arrogant and dismissive. Please also bear in mind that many who write on here frequently are quite polite. They are the ones that deserve a hearing.equinoxe
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
ba writes, "Unfortunately for you, the main reason why people hold ‘ignorant and stupid’ positions instead of admitting to the overwhelming scientific evidence for ID, is precisely because of personal reasons of why they are non-believers." So believing in ID is dependent on believing in God? That will be a useful argument in the next court case. :)Aleta
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Ellazimm, you keep saying that you are being reasonable. Fine, please present the scientific evidence of why you believe evolution to be true, I can tell you exactly why I find it rubbish! The reason I find Darwinism rubbish is because we are dealing with a world of complexity that far surpasses man's ability to produce as such in his most advanced machines, and that was undreamed of just a few short decades ago, and Darwinism has yet to demonstrate the generation of ANY functional information whatsoever, much less the staggering levels we witness firsthand in the cell, and despite that stunning fact, Darwinism is still claimed to be as well proved as Gravity (and I could go on about that comparison). Yet we also know first hand that Intelligence can and does generate functional information almost as a force of habit, in fact we are generating more functional information right now, in our exchange, than can be reasonably expected from the material processes of the entire universe over the entire history of the universe, even with monstrous error bars thrown in to help the Darwinian framework. Furthermore we now know that the universe is not even materialistic in its basis, as the Neo-Darwinian framework absolutely requires in the first place, but we know that it is 'Mental' just as Theism predicted and requires. As Professor Henry pointed out, it has been known since the discovery of quantum mechanics itself, early last century, that the universe is indeed 'Mental', as is illustrated by this quote from Max Planck. "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - (Of Note: Max Planck was a devout Christian, which is not surprising when you realize practically every, if not every, founder of each major branch of modern science also 'just so happened' to have a deep Christian connection.) ,,,,,And Thus Ellazimm, here you sit saying I'm being rude to your ideas, not giving them the respect they deserve, and yet you have presented no scientific evidence whatsoever that they should be considered anything more than the rubbish that we find them to be. This is science is it not? Please cite the exact knock down piece of evidence that will make Darwinism respectable in my eyes?!?!bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
BA: You may be right about some atheists (and all the ones I know are highly moral individuals who believe in the dignity of their fellow human beings); I can only speak for myself. As I've said, several times, I am here to learn NOT to change anyone's mind or convince them I am correct. I'd appreciate some benefit of the doubt.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Ellazimm, this beautiful young lady on Facebook, 'coincidentally' just a few minutes ago on the Frank Turek page, directly addressed the philosophical bias of evolutionists: Melissa Cain Travis You know, the evolution/intelligent design debate has been going on for centuries (Plato wrote extensively on it--and his belief in the necessity of an intelligent First Cause). We can re-hash it on Facebook ('cause it's fun), or we can ge...t down to the real nitty-gritty, which is the question of why the answers matter. Evolutionists seem to think that if they (ever) ultimately prove macro-evolution, they will have discredited theism. That's completely fallacious. I would be totally fine with the idea of God using evolution for His purposes--but I'm not nearly convinced that is the case, even after studying biology and the philosophy of science for almost 15 years. So, here's the REAL QUESTION: Why is it, exactly, that this subject matters so VERY much to atheists and agnostics? Because of the metaphysical implications, not the scientific ones. It's a religious crusade of the most elemental kind for them. As Thomas Nagel (the atheist philosopher) admits, they fervently desire for theism to be false, because they "don't want the world to work that way." They don't want any ultimate moral accountability. What's so very interesting is that the passion of the atheist/agnostic about things like evolution only goes to prove this very thing, and they are utterly oblivious. "Oh the irony!" as Bugs Bunny said.bornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
BA: Why do I come here to find out about ID instead of the Panda's Thumb? You folks should know what you're talking about AND I was hoping you wouldn't behave in the same way, as you rightly point out, some people on 'the other side' do. So completely sure of their view that they won't listen to any dissension. I'm going to take two of your paragraphs and change a few words: "Unfortunately for you, the main reason why people hold ‘ignorant and stupid’ positions instead of admitting to the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, is precisely because of personal reasons of why they are believers." "Elazimm, I do listen to you so as to find out what lies you have believed! But if you want me to respect your ideas and to admit that your theistic leanings are nothing more than intellectual rubbish that stem from personal prejudices, then all you have to do is falsify evolution, establish the explanatory filter to the satisfaction of the general mathematical community or find something that is truly irreducibly complex." Sounds very familiar to me. How you can, without even knowing what my reasons are, call some of my influences lies and intellectual rubbish and that I hold them because of personal prejudices, i.e. I'm incapable of proper analytic thought, is cruel and heartless and, I'd like to think, wrong. Sorry for all the commas. I think the sentence does actually make sense though. People on both sides are saying the people on the other side are deluded; that they can't see the evidence right before their eyes because they are blinded by ideology. I'd like to find a spot where we could avoid the finger pointing and just talk.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Ellazimm you state, 'I came here mostly to find out why people support the ID hypothesis and not to debate the existence of God OR why I am a non-believer.' Unfortunately for you, the main reason why people hold 'ignorant and stupid' positions instead of admitting to the overwhelming scientific evidence for ID, is precisely because of personal reasons of why they are non-believers. Ellazimm you than state: 'I wish I had the benefit of the doubt from you but when you start off by telling me I hold stupid and unfounded opinions then I’m not really interested in trying to change your mind because I’m not convinced you’d listen.' Elazimm, I do listen to you so as to find out what lies you have believed! But if you want me to respect your ideas and to admit that your atheistic leanings are nothing more than intellectual rubbish that stem from personal prejudices, then all you have to do is falsify ID or more to the point falsify Abel's Null hypothesis: Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness - Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke – 2010 Excerpt: In experimental evolution, the best way to permit various evolutionary alternatives, and assess their relative likelihood, is to avoid conditions that rule them out. Our experiments, like others (e.g. [40]), used populations of cells growing slowly under limiting nutrient conditions, thereby allowing a number of paths to be taken to higher fitness. We engineered the cells to have a two-step adaptive path to high fitness, but they were not limited to that option. Cells could reduce expression of the non-functional trpAE49V,D60N allele in a variety of ways, or they could acquire a weakly functional tryptophan synthase subunit by a single site reversion to trpAD60N, bringing them within one step of full reversion (Figure 6). When all of these possibilities are left open by the experimental design, the populations consistently take paths that reduce expression of trpAE49V,D60N, making the path to new (restored) function virtually inaccessible. This demonstrates that the cost of expressing genes that provide weak new functions is a significant constraint on the emergence of new functions. In particular, populations with multiple adaptive paths open to them may be much less likely to take an adaptive path to high fitness if that path requires over-expression. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2/BIO-C.2010.2 The main problem, for the secular model of neo-Darwinian evolution to overcome, is that no one has ever seen purely material processes generate functional information. The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/agbornagain77
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
ellazimm: I am always available if you want to discuss any ID topic! :)gpuccio
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
BA: Well, a lot of thoughtful, caring, loving, tender, gentle people disagree with you. And I'm not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs at the same time being honest about mine. I came here mostly to find out why people support the ID hypothesis and not to debate the existence of God OR why I am a non-believer. In fact, I thought that coming to UD, out of respect and interest, it would be very rude to push my views into everyone's faces. I'm glad you are so sure and solid in your beliefs; clearly you get much comfort and serenity from having faith. I'm not going to disparage them because I think you came to them out of deep contemplation. I wish I had the benefit of the doubt from you but when you start off by telling me I hold stupid and unfounded opinions then I'm not really interested in trying to change your mind because I'm not convinced you'd listen. gpuccio: Thanks. I appreciate your respect and time. I think I'll leave the topic now. Again, I'm not interested in justifying my beliefs; that's not really why I"m here. I'm comfortable talking about how I see a piece of 'evidence' like DNA or mathematics or fossils but I have no wish to change anyone's mind or inflict my deeply held personal beliefs (which arose out of experience, contemplation, listening to others and consideration of the evidence) on anyone else.ellazimm
September 26, 2010
September
09
Sep
26
26
2010
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT
gpuccio, I'll have to wait to read it also, (no kindle), but the book looks to have many gems that will certainly provide much food for thought, and no doubt will make many a atheist very uncomfortable.bornagain77
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
BA: I have just bought Dr. Medved's book, and it's already in my kindle! I hope I can read it in the next few days.gpuccio
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Yes, we can only be responsible for our own serenity.Aleta
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
BA: I am really serene in that. I am sorry if it is not the same for you, but I can serenely accept that too :)gpuccio
September 25, 2010
September
09
Sep
25
25
2010
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply