Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 03:24 (5197 days ago) @ David Turell


> > you need to detect the intelligence you claim, otherwise it's a "lazy induction." What other processes in the world do we accept claims with as little direct evidence? 
> 
> I'm not inducting anything. Except for Abraham and the burning bush, God doesn't appear much. But since I don't except the fairy tales in the Bible, I know we won't find the bush's ashes anywhere. I don't need to do what you need to do. I'm very content with my position. God is concealed, and He wants it that way. You need absolute proof, I don't.
> > > 
> > > The argument about chance is time vs. chance. Chance stumbles along slowly. Is there anough time to have all the mutations and other layers of the genome create what we now see in the tme allotted? My argument is: were did that speed come from, just as the Cambrian raises the same issue in spades?
> > > 
> > 
> > If chance "stumbles along slowly" then why do cryptographers use it to solve some problems in a more rapid manner?
> 
> Again a simplistic answer that doesn't explain the speed of the Cambrian Explosion. Cryptographers can use huge computers and use some approaches at random and de-code or en-code at will.
> -Touche, but unanswered is the challenge to the increase of information via a random process. -> 
> >
> > And if you learn more about mathematical chaos theory, you also learn that some things simply *appear* random. 
> 
> I read a couple books on Chaos and I know your point. Butterfly effect, fractal formulas, etc., but chance is by definition at random, as I view it.
> 
> 
> >
> > That recent finding in network coding is going to reap big rewards and I think that it can be applied to biological information transfer as well. 
> 
> Which again raises the question: Where did the information in DNA/RNA come from. Since we find it in the simplest organisms it had to be there with the first life.
> > -But we know the origins question lies in the middle ground between organic and biochem. However it arose. -> > 
> > > As for proving the 'intelligence' behind all this, God is concealed. 
> > 
> > A euphemism for "God works in mysterious ways..."
> 
> That is your interpretation, not mine. As far as I am concerned and comfortable with, He is concealed.
> > -On who's authority and knowledge? What makes your claim stronger and better than your Hasidic counterparts, when it is ultimately based on a "lack" of evidence? And don't give me the cop out that its your personal belief only, we've advanced it into public scrutiny at this point. I want to hear your answer on this. How is your claim to theistic knowledge any superior?-> > A better question is to ask you how you know God is concealed? Where is the evidence of this? Where did you get this information? 
> > -> God is not creation. He is God. Creation was the big Bang. I don't understand the question. 
> > -Again, on who's authority? As for the deeper question, if you assert that God influences life, then you have to demonstrate the physical nature of God, plain and simple. -> > I've pieced together Adler's argument from how he reasoned in "The Difference..." and it isn't a logical conclusion to draw; if God has a physical component--and you're directly suggesting this--then you need to demonstrate it, plain and simple, or it isn't acceptable to believe it. 
> 
> It is acceptable for me to believe it. I'm content to state that He is a universal intelligence at a quantum level of reality, which we can't get to anyway.
> > -On a personal level, believing in Leprechauns is just as fair. But this is the realm of public discourse: Why should I be convinced? I've gotten more of a "divine influence" while reading about my ancestors' gods, why is yours any better? -> > If God influences the world still, there will be evidence of it. Anything that happens in our physical world is detectable, and if God exists and interacts--there WILL be direct evidence for it. Otherwise it's more likely that if a theism exists it'll be of my old Deist type.
> 
> Can you detect my thoughts? They happen in MY physical world, but hidden from YOUR physical world.-You should rephrase that as "Can I decode your thoughts?" Thoughts can be detected, we just don't understand the coding principle behind it. The physical component is what can be detected on PET scans. I won't go so far as to say that the story ends there, but I'd like to think so. If God influences the world we should be able to trace a physical phenomenon just like PET scans. In my estimation this has never been done, so either God doesn't influence the world or...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"