|
|
#21
10-01-2005, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm attempting to explore the issue of whether information rich systems can result from natural forces and processes, or whether they all require intelligence. [/ QUOTE ] Information = meaningful text, that is complex, in a specific order, and is also non-repeating. Information can't come from natural or physical laws because they always repeat. They insure that you can't get anything more meaningful-since it's a law it always repeats the same pattern. It's my contention that any time we see complex information it has been created/authored/designed or boofed- (that's what my high school biology teacher used to refer to creation as. The boofed theory.) That should get us started huh? 
|
|
#22
10-01-2005, 09:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ADDITIONALLY
If information is a massless quantity, and therefore not materialistic how can any materialistic cause explain it's origin?
This is another problem IMO.Information is a different entity that can't be broken down to matter or energy-yet it's real. Finally what about the fact that this information is at the root of all biological function?
|
|
#23
10-01-2005, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
It's my contention that any time we see complex information it has been created/authored/designed or boofed- (that's what my high school biology teacher used to refer to creation as. The boofed theory.) [/ QUOTE ] Nothing wrong with this contention but it looks like philosophy not science. Is there any way this contention could be tested? chez
|
|
#24
10-01-2005, 02:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way this contention could be tested? [/ QUOTE ] It's "tested" everyday. In courts of law we use logical inference to decide cases with reasonable certainty everyday. etc etc(I can think of many more examples if you need). As far as the scientific method... Scientists should be able to follow the truth wherever it leads. Not just to naturalistic explainations.
|
|
#25
10-01-2005, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Is there any way this contention could be tested? [/ QUOTE ] It's "tested" everyday. In courts of law we use logical inference to decide cases with reasonable certainty everyday. etc etc(I can think of many more examples if you need). As far as the scientific method... Scientists should be able to follow the truth wherever it leads. Not just to naturalistic explainations. [/ QUOTE ] So give me a scenario that would disprove your contention. [ QUOTE ] Scientists should be able to follow the truth wherever it leads. Not just to naturalistic explainations. [/ QUOTE ] Sure but that doesn't make all methods of finding the truth science, does it? chez
|
|
#26
10-01-2005, 02:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm attempting to explore the issue of whether information rich systems can result from natural forces and processes, or whether they all require intelligence. [/ QUOTE ] Information = meaningful text, that is complex, in a specific order, and is also non-repeating. Information can't come from natural or physical laws because they always repeat. They insure that you can't get anything more meaningful-since it's a law it always repeats the same pattern. It's my contention that any time we see complex information it has been created/authored/designed or boofed- (that's what my high school biology teacher used to refer to creation as. The boofed theory.) That should get us started huh? [/ QUOTE ] It seems to me that your notion of information is vague, imprecise and suffers from the fact that the whole notion of information is a construct. Meaningful text? How the hell is Adenine, Thymine, Guanosine, Cytosine text? How about this? Information comes from an observer's interpretation. An observer comes from a mind. A mind comes from biological processes. Biological processes are a result of the big bang. It seems to me that you conveniently defined information so that it fits with the view of G-d as a creator. When you make the definitions fit the belief, you can't miss. But, it's cheating.
|
|
#28
10-01-2005, 03:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Is there any way this contention could be tested? [/ QUOTE ] It's "tested" everyday. In courts of law we use logical inference to decide cases with reasonable certainty everyday. etc etc(I can think of many more examples if you need). As far as the scientific method... Scientists should be able to follow the truth wherever it leads. Not just to naturalistic explainations. [/ QUOTE ] So give me a scenario that would disprove your contention. [ QUOTE ] Scientists should be able to follow the truth wherever it leads. Not just to naturalistic explainations. [/ QUOTE ] Sure but that doesn't make all methods of finding the truth science, does it? chez [/ QUOTE ] chez- I'm not sure where else I can go with this. You keep taking everything to the enth degree.
|
|
#29
10-01-2005, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
chez- I'm not sure where else I can go with this. You keep taking everything to the enth degree. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not trying to. If ID is not science then there's no problem. The problem is that non-IDers think IDers believe ID is science. I'm trying to clear that up. Do you think ID is science? if yes then why? and if no then there is no problem. What's complicated? chez
|
|
#30
10-01-2005, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] chez- I'm not sure where else I can go with this. You keep taking everything to the enth degree. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not trying to. If ID is not science then there's no problem. The problem is that non-IDers think IDers believe ID is science. I'm trying to clear that up. Do you think ID is science? if yes then why? and if no then there is no problem. What's complicated? chez [/ QUOTE ] If I say yes I think ID is science, you say well than any truth is science. Yes I think ID is science, can it be tested with the traditional scientific method? No-not yet, and I concede maybe never. If the evidence we have is pointing towards some thing should it be excluded for that reason alone. Some would say yes, but that to is changing. I understand some people will never even consider ID because it can't be explained by naturalistis methods. However I don't think it's fair when I or someone in my position can make (what seems to me anyway) a sound argument only to get the response."Nope. That's a fairy tale." As to why I think ID is a science. That answer is littered all over this board in my responses, and my posts.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
