Design

Beyond Dreaming
1

There are many theories that attempt to make sense of the ongoing WOW (aka life, the universe and everything) and, although its quite a broad topic (!), this thread is here to exhange ideas.

I think the key to the way forward could be a new movement called Information Theory. It is speerheaded by engineers and computer scientists and is a kind of scientific ‘creationism’ of sorts. I believe Hegel’s Dialectic is accurate in predicting that meeting in this manner between two extremes to create a new norm is neccesary for our advancement.

I am far from being well versed in this but I’ll give it a go: ‘chance’ and probability are not causes. Say you toss a coin and it lands heads. If you were to toss that coin again and perform the toss in 100% exactly the same manner the result would be heads again. Outside of the crazy world of quantum physics, we use probability to kind of ‘roughly’ calculate very complex processes. Strictly, everything is going on as it should.

So things that are caused by processes that we observe to be ‘random’ we associate with increasing disorder. Things that show patterns are evidence of order. If you designed a machine that could consistantly throw a heads it would not be random. It would be designed.

Now in for life to exist I think I’m right in saying you have to have an exlusive population of left handed chromosomes or whatever they are. This is the very very basic beginnings of life and yet is probably in the order of ridiculous numbers of heads tossed. Engineers and computer scientists cannot see a way you can have such incredibly complex ‘Information’ (which is what seperates life from non-life) without there being an inputer of that information. There is no natural law that accounts for this complexity in living things (random mutation being blindly ‘selected’ by environment really doesnt cut it. Fruit flies have been bred under circumstances favouring random mutation-driven evolution for the equivalent, due to short life spans, of many thousands of generations and they stubbornly remain un-modified fruit flies).

So, they argue, the incredible complexity and order requires there be a designer. Computer programmes, and the computers that house them, certainly need designers: these are dwarfed in complexity by micro-organisms.

So where to go from here? Well the theory is if you find a mobile phone out in the street you can

  • take it apart and examine its components to find stuff out about it. (Physical sciences)

  • find the manual that instructs on its use and function and features etc. (Religious texts)

  • speak to the designer that made it…

Now this is my personal philosophy at the moment: this physical world screams out ‘design’ to me, DNA is code, the laws of nature are in place and set to the correct levels etc. So you can look at the physical and find out details of how it works. But the designer, who must exist seperately from the very thing he designed, is the best guy to ask. I believe we should remain open with regards to religious texts (ancient vedas, Bible etc) while accepting that they are not the designer himself. So basically “the idea that what exists within the frame can open the mind to what extends beyond its parameters” still remains my philosophy.

  • within the frame - physical reality
  • the frame - consciousness
  • beyond the frame - God and wherever he resides

So my model of reality would involved God creating the physical world, including all varities of life, and species of creatures evolving through loss or slight variation in existing genes. Beyond that at the moment I really don’t know! The age of the earth is very difficult: some volcanic eruptions have shown that rock formations that appear to have taken thousands/millions of years can form in weeks (excuse lack of citation but I must get going)

2

Then perhaps Engineers and Computer Scientists aren’t the correct people to ask for assistance. :smile:

Biologists are well aware of the fact that life can result from the right series of physical interactions between non-‘living’ elements, and have demonstrated this fundamental process a number of times. Whether you want to believe it or not, Amino Acids are life, and though they don’t represent the complexity of design[size=75][color=red]1[/color][/size] evident in our own physical bodies, they do indicate that the bonding of distinct physical elements is adequate for infinite expansion, guided by the ever-moving force of nature.

I believe we have more than enough evidence to accept that the earth is substantially older than a lot of people would like to suppose. We’re well beyond changing our mind on the topic - it’s just too consistent. The only way the Earth could be as young as 6 thousand years, would be if God him/herself created it in it’s current state, loaded with evidence of a much longer existence. Now, why would God do that? Why would we all be deceived like that? Why wouldn’t God simply create it to appear that it was only 6 thousand years old, so we could all get on with believing in him and bettering our lives?

(Popular religion states that Satan created all this evidence contrary to the existence of God to ‘trick’ us into not believing in him. I just want to hear your opinion :smile: )

Anyway, take a look at: https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html (This article not only provides a detailed description of the many, many methods used to reliably calculate the Earth’s age, but also makes an effort to list and debunk the most common creationist arguments in opposition).

[size=75][color=red]1[/color][/size] ‘Design’ does not imply conscious intention. The human body was designed, just (IMO) at the hand of nature and it’s rules of evolution, rather than at the unsteady hand of God.

When you get more time, I’d like to hear your own idea of when we were created, and in what capacity. Were there just two people, as depicted in popular religion? Did God create fossils of dinosaurs, or actual dinosaurs, only to kill them off before starting on us?

Thanks for taking the time to consider these questions.

3

Athe you are factually incorrect. Biologists have not demonstrated that life forms from non-life. Biologists have NOT demonstrated that life forms from non-life. Spontaneous generation went out many years ago.

I personally don’t think biologists are the people to ask. They insist the brain DOES create non-physical consciousness without offering any mechanism for this. This is un-scientific, just as their belief in evolution is without an adequate mechanism.

I cannot see how rational people cannot see the need for a creator. You actually agreed with me that there there is one, just that it was a physical process. How can a creator be part of his creation?

No I don’t know when the world was made or how. I do know it was. I know they’ve found a dinosaur fish alive in the seas today: www.dinofish.com/ I know that the predicted age of the earth has varied and will continue to.

I have seen the world in atheist terms for years but recently I’ve come to find it an irrational belief. I cannot believe that in a universe where things tend to simplify over time you can believe that matter got together and created life.

See the ancient Vedic text I’m currently reading is the Bhagavad-Gita, and it states that we are currently 6000 years into the Kali Yuga, or un-enlightened age. The age where we have lost sight of God/Krishna/Allah. This age apparently has a long long time to run but Atheist I must ask you what you think of Einstein believing in a God/creator… was he a silly old fool? Why is the idea so impossible for you to entertain? Can you not look at things in terms of design and see how they make sense?

4

Thanks for repeating yourself there. For a moment I was mistakenly under the impression that I was conversing with someone confident in my reading abilities.

Yes, scientists have been able to create, from base elements, Animo Acids. You don’t recall the Urey/Miller experiments? We can’t conclude this early what else is required to perpetuate the process of self-replicating life, but at least we aren’t throwing it all into the fireplace and yelling “heretic!”.

Why do you think I remain pessimistic about a creator? Does this somehow benefit me? What do I have to gain by continually denying the existence of God? Hell, I’d love to be able to believe that there was more to life after death, I’d be hard pressed to remove the smile from my face! - … but I simply haven’t been provided with any evidence in favor of that possiblity. I don’t appreciate you continuously calling me narrow-minded, ignorant or irrational. You seem unable to present a logical argument without losing your temper, and I’m not used to that. Please try to be a little less emotion in your future responses.

I recall stating that I personally don’t believe there was a creator. I’ve heard several convincing and logical arguments in favor of a spherical time model that doesn’t require initial creation. One of the most compelling was presented by our very own Jeff, who’s had almost as long as our combined lives to refine it.

I have nothing against Einstein for believing in God. I don’t even find it such a hard concept to grasp myself - it’s the recent creation of the universe that I refuse to accept, and which I would openly claim was bluntly insulting to humanities otherwise impressive rationality. I think I’ve made this clear a few times in a previous discusssion, but just in case I haven’t:

  • God created of Heaven and Earth? Perhaps. I don’t believe it, but I accept that other’s do.
  • God created of Heaven and Earth a mere 6 thousand years ago? Atrocious demonstration of disregard for discovery and progress, though an impressive display of selective learning.

You don’t think biologists are the right people to ask? They’re the ones looking into our genetic make-up. They’re the ones asking the questions about how we work, and where we came from. They’re the ones examining the evidence and digging deeper into the very structure of our chemical selves. You seem to be implying that you’re not interested in educated science’s view of this matter at all. You can’t simply apply another field of study to these same problems and hope to discover anything useful.

Now, lighten up, and don’t begin your next post with “You’re wrong”. It’s absolutely infuriating. :wink:

5

Heheh sorry man I posted that first thing this morning before I went to work. I would be interested in reading this circular time theory… although it still wouldnt explain where this structure came from. Or what time is and what it thinks its doing.

I just can’t see any way of answering the why’s and how’s of original creation without there being a creator. And it doesnt make sense for whatever created the physical world to be a part of the physical world (I believe I am repeating myself again here! sorry)

Biologists I feel have now felt it their place to replace the creator. Brain-based consciousness and evolution are pretty close to religious beliefs: we can never recreate what the earth has been through or make a computer and know if it has consciousness. No biologists argue about the heart pumping blood and yet they allow their discipline to enter the subjective realm.

The more that is found out about the incredible intracy of the world and everything in it surely the more humble they, and all of us, should become. And yet the opposite is occuring.

As for getting a bit angry, I’m sorry but these days I’m finding all things materialistic really unpallatable. You agree, it is a depressing outlook… I happen to think there is ample reason to be optimistic and take some things at face value. Maybe NDE’s happen because some part of us really is getting reaedy to up and leave. Maybe the chakra’s are the spiritual energy points. And maybe just a few of the many cultures who have a strong spiritual belief really were on to something.

6

Anyway I’m going to lay off the ‘debating’ for a while and get my head together. Been repeating myself like crazy, although the example you picked up on was an honest typo. I think a few experiences I’ve had have scrambled my brains a bit so I have to let them settle! :confused:

7

I can’t say I disagree with you there. It does seem somewhat necessary that the ‘everything and all’ was initially created… but I don’t agree at all with popular religions attempt to humanize this creator. My closest compromise would be a magical infinite power that takes no form (form being a physical phenomenon) and that is not capable of loving, holding opinions in general, feeling emotion or understanding anything. It would just be a creating force without intended cause. The problem remains though… what created it? Even God had to have come from somewhere, so my view that the “potential physical” was always here is no more stubborn than the religious idea that God was simply always here. If he was here a billion years ago, why didn’t he create us all then? Why wait until now? That’s why I don’t believe time can be a straight line. :smile:

I do agree with you to an extent, but I think there are a couple of separate issues here. Biologists can only tell us what exists today, not where it came from. There are plenty of religious biologists, a great deal of which believe in evolution. In my opinion it’s sensible to entertain the possibility that a creator set up the Earth, and the universe, - then let his physical world build and shape us in the form of evolution. Needless to say this answers a lot of questions recent creationism isn’t able to, but granted, it’s still a leap of faith.

Actually, I’d think the less we knew about the world, the more humble and at peace we would be. It’s all these new theories contradicting existing belief that causes us to fight over our programmed belief systems. The fact is, people like to think they’re right, and it’s not a simple matter of saying “Oh, I never saw it like that before. What was I thinking? Thanks mate.” - Unfortunately. :smile:

Maybe, indeed. :hmmm:

8

Eep, didn’t see that. No problem. :smile: