Author Topic: OAA & Godexists debate ID  (Read 650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12205
  • Darwins +655/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
OAA & Godexists debate ID
« on: January 23, 2014, 02:22:01 PM »
This debate is between One Above All and Godexists.  The topic is Intelligent Design.  Only these two participants are permitted to post in this thread.  Non-participants may post in the commentary thread.  They have agreed to Parking Places as a moderator.

Any posts by non-participants in this thread will be deleted.

I suggest OAA & Godexists agree on a format and ending conditions prior to beginning their debate.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 02:23:39 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2014, 02:32:50 PM »
Well, since Godexists gave me freedom to choose the rules, I suggest the following (simple) format.

No insulting one another (but we can insult each other's sources and arguments).
No making unsupported assertions (unless they're well known, like the approximate speed of light and the fact that 1+1=2).
Debate ends when we agree on it. Winner (if either of us feels the need for such a thing) will be decided by the other forum members.
EDIT: Oh, and I think Godexists should go first. Each ID proponent has their own unique view of the hypothesis, and I dislike making long posts just to counter every view I can conceive.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 02:34:24 PM by One Above All »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2014, 02:42:22 PM »
 What features in nature would you have to see  in order to infere, the object were product of a intelligent designer ?

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2014, 02:59:32 PM »
What features in nature would you have to see  in order to infere, the object were product of a intelligent designer ?

That's a difficult question. I guess simplicity would be one. A machine is as simple as it needs to be. That's why compilers in programming are made to optimize a code. It also needs to perform its function as efficiently as its creator(s)/designer(s) can conceive. I think these are the main points.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2014, 04:01:04 PM »
What features in nature would you have to see  in order to infere, the object were product of a intelligent designer ?

That's a difficult question. I guess simplicity would be one. A machine is as simple as it needs to be. That's why compilers in programming are made to optimize a code. It also needs to perform its function as efficiently as its creator(s)/designer(s) can conceive. I think these are the main points.

What makes you think, that for example the atp synthase motor, or the kinesin motor, or chaperone protein, or Cotranslational protein translocation, 
translesion synthesis, hexameric helicases, or that organelles like the endoplasmic reticulum, or a rybosome could be designed simpler, in order to function properly ? You can pick one example i mentioned, and elaborate on it.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/cytomorphic-0225.html

A single cell in the human body is approximately 10,000 times more energy-efficient than any nanoscale digital transistor, the fundamental building block of electronic chips. In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.

How do you think could that performance be improved ?
 
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 04:04:02 PM by Godexists »

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2014, 04:20:55 PM »
<snip>
How do you think could that performance be improved ?   

I don't know, but I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If I were, even if their "design" was perfect, I could still improve it.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12205
  • Darwins +655/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2014, 04:36:14 PM »
What makes you think, that for example the atp synthase motor, or the kinesin motor, or chaperone protein, or Cotranslational protein translocation, 
translesion synthesis, hexameric helicases, or that organelles like the endoplasmic reticulum, or a rybosome could be designed simpler, in order to function properly ? You can pick one example i mentioned, and elaborate on it. 

I call a Technobabble Foul.  Godexists, do you even know what any of this stuff is? 
If so, your debate does not belong here, with laymen.  It belongs in a science journal with other technical experts. 
If not, you are just shotgunning jargon and hoping to "baffle us with BS".   
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2014, 07:05:29 PM »
What makes you think, that for example the atp synthase motor, or the kinesin motor, or chaperone protein, or Cotranslational protein translocation, 
translesion synthesis, hexameric helicases, or that organelles like the endoplasmic reticulum, or a rybosome could be designed simpler, in order to function properly ? You can pick one example i mentioned, and elaborate on it. 

I call a Technobabble Foul.  Godexists, do you even know what any of this stuff is? 
If so, your debate does not belong here, with laymen.  It belongs in a science journal with other technical experts. 
If not, you are just shotgunning jargon and hoping to "baffle us with BS".   


I am a laymen. Despite of this, i studied each of these proteins and nano motors. Its not something out of this world. Just google.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2014, 07:07:54 PM »
<snip>
How do you think could that performance be improved ?   

I don't know, but I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent. If I were, even if their "design" was perfect, I could still improve it.

So basically you are saying that you are unable to recognize if a design can be improved, but in order to recognize its intelligently designed, a machine is as simple as it needs to be. In that case, you will never be able to recognize intelligent design in nature.

Case closed.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2014, 07:27:20 PM »
So basically you are saying that you are unable to recognize if a design can be improved, but in order to recognize its intelligently designed, a machine is as simple as it needs to be. In that case, you will never be able to recognize intelligent design in nature.

Case closed.

Um... Putting words in my mouth much? I said I didn't know how those examples could be improved. If you want to know the reason, it's because I studied Biology like 3 or 4 years ago. It was interesting, but not interesting enough to remain in my brain for very long. There are other systems I could improve. One would be whatever system makes DNA replication to go haywire and causes cancer. The other would be the fact that food and air go through the same tube. Whatever you call the smallest toe is useless. So is the appendix. The brain could be rewired to retain all memories; not just the most significant ones. Our eyes could have more than three cones (I think that's what they're called; it's the things that allow us to see colors) while a freaking shrimp has over 10, not to mention the fact that we can only see a tiny speck of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our muscles could run at full capacity without causing permanent damage after a (short) while. Need I go on?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2014, 09:04:30 PM »
So basically you are saying that you are unable to recognize if a design can be improved, but in order to recognize its intelligently designed, a machine is as simple as it needs to be. In that case, you will never be able to recognize intelligent design in nature.

Case closed.

Um... Putting words in my mouth much? I said I didn't know how those examples could be improved. If you want to know the reason, it's because I studied Biology like 3 or 4 years ago. It was interesting, but not interesting enough to remain in my brain for very long. There are other systems I could improve. One would be whatever system makes DNA replication to go haywire and causes cancer. The other would be the fact that food and air go through the same tube. Whatever you call the smallest toe is useless. So is the appendix. The brain could be rewired to retain all memories; not just the most significant ones. Our eyes could have more than three cones (I think that's what they're called; it's the things that allow us to see colors) while a freaking shrimp has over 10, not to mention the fact that we can only see a tiny speck of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our muscles could run at full capacity without causing permanent damage after a (short) while. Need I go on?

So , basically you are shifting the goal posts now. If you first said , that you would recognize design, if "  A machine is as simple as it needs to be ", ( btw. i am still waiting for a example in nature, where this is not the case ),  now you put forward the " bad design " argument. This is easily refuted, since the design hypothesis merely states that there is intelligent causation that permits the existence of life (a probability factor). Optimality of what has been designed is not a criterion for design.

Btw. nice you mention it : The mantis shrimp is amazingly designed : not only its eyes, which are a marvel of engineering, but also the speed of his punch , there is no equal in the animal world.

http://creation.com/mantis-shrimp-fist-body-armour


Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2014, 04:33:36 AM »
So , basically you are shifting the goal posts now.
<snip>

No. I also mentioned efficiency. If a machine stops working long before when it's supposed to, it's not very efficient, is it? If it has parts that can cause it to malfunction at the slightest provocation, it's not very efficient either.
Anyway, I assume you've received the warning from our moderator. Make an argument or end the debate.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2014, 10:31:31 AM »
My PM wasn't intended as a warning, but rather was a request to let the debate begin. If Godexists thinks that cellular processes are strong evidence of a designer, he should detail his reasoning, not just link. And OAA, for this to be a useful discussion, you need either to be prepared to counter his arguments or come up with reasons of your own as to why said cellular processes are not evidence of intelligent design. Or the two of you can agree to go off on some other tangent.

Otherwise this thread will be too boring to follow.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2014, 11:27:02 PM »
you need either to be prepared to counter his arguments or come up with reasons of your own as to why said cellular processes are not evidence of intelligent design.

I will repeat my question :

You said, in order to recognize design, what you want to see in nature is that

A machine is as simple as it needs to be .

Please provide a example in nature, where this is not the case.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10923
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2014, 07:50:58 AM »
I will repeat my question :

You said, in order to recognize design, what you want to see in nature is that

A machine is as simple as it needs to be .

That's not all I said. I said that, among other things, it needs to be simple and needs to perform its function efficiently.

Please provide a example in nature, where this is not the case.

Vestigial organs. I mentioned them in another post. These are remnants of evolution.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2014, 11:00:09 AM »
de·bate  (d?-b?t?) v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

This would work better if you guys started saying something. Short questions and shorter answers do not accomplish anything. Most debates here involve long posts, containing well thought out statements. Points are made, ideas put forth, thoughts expressed. You know, stuff like that. It might be wise to agree to start over and decide who is going to go first. And whoever that is, they would be best served by saying something instead of merely posting links. Those of us occasionally checking the thread have yet to see anything pertinent to our lives.

Also, most debates here don't last long because few are in the mood to put effort into such things. Which is what I am detecting here. If either of you wish to let this drift off into the ether, let me know so I won't have to occasionally check for progress.


Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: OAA & Godexists debate ID
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2014, 03:41:21 PM »
de·bate  (d?-b?t?) v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

This would work better if you guys started saying something. Short questions and shorter answers do not accomplish anything. Most debates here involve long posts, containing well thought out statements. Points are made, ideas put forth, thoughts expressed. You know, stuff like that. It might be wise to agree to start over and decide who is going to go first. And whoever that is, they would be best served by saying something instead of merely posting links. Those of us occasionally checking the thread have yet to see anything pertinent to our lives.

Also, most debates here don't last long because few are in the mood to put effort into such things. Which is what I am detecting here. If either of you wish to let this drift off into the ether, let me know so I won't have to occasionally check for progress.


We are not at Kindergarden , where a moderator has to inteveen all the time. Sorry, but i am  out. Last post here.