Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Harte]

6 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

A little something from Wiki.

"Bioelectromagnetics also known as bioelectromagnetism, is the study of the interaction between electromagnetic fields and biological entities."

So in other words, the soul, 'biological entities' and spirit, 'electromagnetic feilds' are interacting to produce an energetic signature - the aura.

Hay - you say tomatoe, I say tomato.

An electric motor has one hellacious soul then.

Harte

[Only_]

57 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

A person who pretends to be a mathematician who is not and uses imaginary enemies for shock value to sell a book. Well, not much of an obvious agenda is it...... (sarcasm in  case it went over your head) 

 

 

The title is pun intended. Since Dawkins' book is The God Delusion, Berlinski chosed The Devil's Delusion for his response.

Quote

If this book is not utterly rubbish and just preaching, then what are the pertinent points that make it worth reading and how does it refute the physics that support the view of new atheism? 

Preaching what? Berlinski isn't even religious. He's a secular jew. An agnostic.

He uses logic, facts, philosophy and science to refute Dawkins' arguments.

 

Quote

Have you read any of the books covers that you have posted at all? Do you even know how this one supports your view  or is it just a common enemy thing? 

I have this book in epub format on my tablet. Well worth the read.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Hre2breal]

10 minutes ago, Harte said:

An electric motor has one hellacious soul then.

Harte

Not without biological matter it doesnt hence why its called bioelectromagnetics...

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.

I'm asking why some otherwise intelligent people claim that an animal brain, arm, elbow, wrist, finger and hand were not designed, when robot designs are just copies of them?

Why do they make such a claim?

I wonder why some people claim that anything biological shows any signs of being designed.

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

As I said before, they don’t believe they were designed because they don’t believe God exists.  You keep asking the same questions even when people give you answers to those questions.  If there is no designer, animals were not designed.  Does that make sense?

Even if there is a designer why would anyone think that living things are designed?

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Illyrius said:

The original issue was are computers imaginative or not.

The issue I responded to was not about computers but about your post that changed the discussion from creation to interpretation. Even the original computer post was about the creation of imagination and not the interpretation. No matter how you look at it you and you alone attempted to change the discussion to interpretation and that was incorrect.

[Hre2breal]

9 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I wonder why some people claim that anything biological shows any signs of being designed.

Why not?

[Hre2breal]

9 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Even if there is a designer why would anyone think that living things are designed?

You sound unsure yourself...So again Why not?..

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, MauriOra said:

Howsit,

The brain can be rewired, via another route ..yes.?

Mo..xx

It's called neuroplasticity. If you read this link note that it happens in normal brains as well as in traumatized brains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

[Will Due]

11 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Even if there is a designer why would anyone think that living things are designed?

 

Has there ever been anything made by man that wasn't designed?

Then why wouldn't you think that anything else that's been made wasn't designed? 

Like an animal's elbow for example.

 

 

[MauriOra]

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

It's called neuroplasticity. If you read this link note that it happens in normal brains as well as in traumatized brains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

Hey Stereo,

.. Cheers for this Info .. I'll have a read ...

Mo..xx

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, MauriOra said:

Its not absolutely clear ..

Its been defined that way , through the Tests etc in Science .. Physical, Material testing ...

If it was absolutely clear, there would not be this discussion .

Wills Mind is Amazing.. He thinks outside the Triangle..

Biological understanding for Me, is what I must learn..too ..

I know, spirit, energy .. Just need to learn the others, from a spiritual perspective, which I will ...

What happened in Chicago..?

Mo..xx

The idea that a discussion shows it is not absolutely clear is a false argument. Would you say the same about holocause deniers, AIDS deniers, etc.?

The simple fact of the matter is that the diversity and change of life throughout the history of the Earth is well described without having to resort to a designer. Life has all sorts of problems which show there is no designer, or the designer was a buffoon. A designer is an extraneous hypothesis. In other words, a system without a designer works so why add a designer? There is no need to.

Will pretends that because we build some robots that are crude approximations to living objects that this suggests something. Why? Robot hands are not like human hands. Robot arms are not like animal arms. Why pretend there is some connection? Different processes can lead to similar results. Sharks, ichthysaurs, and whales have come up with similar body plans. They had different starting points and different results although they roughly look similar. There is no design that propelled them to the same general shape. It was survival in this random experimentation that led to these shapes.

Will's mind is about as closed as a mind can be. He is stuck in his Chicago hoax.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, MauriOra said:

Nope ..

Souls are True ..

The belief is, it isn't ..

Mo.xx

No. Souls are just a belief. Spiritual people do NOT know. They believe. There is zero evidence for a soul or what it is or where it comes from or its importance to living creatures or even what creatures have a soul.

People that rely on evidence know. They have the evidence that can be checked by others. Spiritual people make up stories. They have no evidence to back up their stories.

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Robot hands are not like human hands.

 

You want to shake on that?

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Will Due

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, MauriOra said:

Yes it does .

Mo.xx

Sorry but it doesn't. It is a demonstrably false idea. Testing has repeatedly shown that there is no aura.

[Will Due]

 

The design of a robotic human hand is intricate. Complex. But a human did design it. 

He used the design of the biological human hand as a template. The robotic hand is a copy of the biological human hand. Period.

Will somebody please explain the logic in denying that the biological human hand was not designed?

Even if you're in Chicago, don't let that stop you from chiming in.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Will Due

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The title is pun intended. Since Dawkins' book is The God Delusion, Berlinski chosed The Devil's Delusion for his response.

Preaching what? Berlinski isn't even religious. He's a secular jew. An agnostic.

He uses logic, facts, philosophy and science to refute Dawkins' arguments.

 

I have this book in epub format on my tablet. Well worth the read.

I have been to two different lectures by people from the Discovery Institute. In both lectures the speakers openly and carelessly lied to the audience. I suspect Berlinski is different because he is not a proponent of ID. But that may not be true.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

Quote

One of Berlinski’s most celebrated anti-evolution arguments is his calculation that at least 50,000 changes were required to change a cow into a whale (he stopped counting). Of course, since even if he was capable of listing out these differences at an implausibly fast average rate of one every ten seconds, it would still take more than 5 days of non-stop 24h-hour activity to accomplish this, few believe that he actually did what he claimed to have done.[10] Berlinski does not, of course, know anything about the evolution of whales, missing such rather central details as the fact that cows did not evolve into whales.

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2008/04/david-berlinski-king-of-poseurs.html

Quote

David Berlinski is yet another of those academic nonentities that the Intelligent Design crowd has elevated to the status of expert, despite having a minuscule scientific publication record and not a single significant contribution to science or mathematics. Berlinski is fond of writing, mostly negatively, about the theory of evolution, despite understanding virtually nothing about the subject, and somehow manages to get his essays published in famous scientific venues, such as Commentary.

 

[stereologist]

48 minutes ago, Hre2breal said:

Why not?

I see no design. Can you give an example of where a design exists. I see none. Pretending a design exists seems to go hand in hand with the belief system people are espousing.

[stereologist]

49 minutes ago, Hre2breal said:

You sound unsure yourself...So again Why not?..

The existence of a designer does not mean there is a design. What don't you understand?

[stereologist]

45 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Has there ever been anything made by man that wasn't designed?

Then why wouldn't you think that anything else that's been made wasn't designed? 

Like an animal's elbow for example.

Question 1 is clearly yes.

The existence of an object does not mean it was designed. I would think anyone suggesting existence implies design is unable to think outside of the box.

An elbow does not suggest design. I see no design in an elbow. Do you?

[stereologist]

42 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Hey Stereo,

.. Cheers for this Info .. I'll have a read ...

Mo..xx

Please note the dates. They are recent suggesting quite clearly that the mechanisms are just being studied.

[psyche101]

On 24/02/2018 at 6:32 PM, Crazy Horse said:

Discipline has two meanings.

In one sense it means to knuckle down and stick with it. The other sense it means different traditions, like Tae kwon do, and kung-fo, boxing and wrestling, these are all different disciplines.

And its plainly obvious that in ti's respect its the different aspects of scientific discovery being referred to. The people who put JSE didn't have new aspects or definitions they failed in the real world. 

It doesn't matter what aspect is, studied, science is science and pseudoscience is not. That's why they have different meanings in the dictionary. 

If the categories being studied like little green anal probing aliens and Bigfoot, or the of spirit or god had any validity,  then that would still not be 'outside the box' they would have a new box to showcase  and then the claims would simply be science. If the supernatural was to be illustrated as a legitimate separate study to say physics, then it would be just another branch of Science. 

Its made up hindsight in an attempt to mask superstition as a valid field in order to steal credibility from valid study to support an unsupported mythical construct. 

Quote

Sheldrake is investigating phenomena associated outside of normal, established disciplines of Material Science.

No he is making stuff up and tailoring his own dodgy results to suit a predetermined narrative. 

All he has, accomplished is to illustrate that those entirely ignorant of the field will embrace his nonsense for self validation of indoctrinated mythical constructs. 

Quote

And thats a good thing, following in the path set by Galileo and Socrates.

Wash your mouth out with soap!! 

Likening such a discredited nobody charlatan to such magnificent and forward thinking pioneers only further illustrates your ignorance of the subject as a whole and exposes your agenda. 

Quote

Thank God for folks who think outside the box, not allowing the estabilshed dogma to stagnate everything.

That's exactly right but you seem to have your dogmas front to back and back to front comparing Sheldrake to Galileo is ignorant and a huge insult to Galileo. 

Quote

And by the way, these peer reviewed journals.....you think appealing to authority is bad?

Yeah, it invalidates the arguments when the appeal is purely for outward appearances. 

Peer review is more like seeing 2 or 3 doctors to get other opinions. I left a how stuff works link on peer review for Illy, I suggest you dig it up and become familiar with it, as you don't seem to know how it works or much about it at all. 

[stereologist]

32 minutes ago, Will Due said:

You want to shake on that?

Thanks for showing that robot hands and human hands are quite different.

Is this a photo of a real robot? Don't think it is. It is a  photo from an article on AI and discusses a robot in a movie.

 

[Will Due]

13 minutes ago, stereologist said:

hand in hand 

 

Was that a Freudian slip?

 

 

[stereologist]

28 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

The design of a robotic human hand is intricate. Complex. But a human did design it. 

He used the design of the biological human hand as a template. The robotic hand is a copy of the biological human hand. Period.

Will somebody please explain the logic in denying that the biological human hand was not designed?

Even if you're in Chicago, don't let that stop you from chiming in.

You're relying on the hoax started in Chicago as the basis for your posts.

There is zero evidence that the biological human or any portion of a human or any other species was designed. Why would any suggest that anything  is designed. The burden falls on Will Due to support his claim that anything biological is designed. Till anything is offered the design story will remain an unsupported belief.

Actually this hand s not a copy of the biological human hand. Let's take a real look into this hand:

http://internetmedicine.com/2016/02/19/47723/

Quote

To build the most realistic robotic hand, one should intentionally ignore 90% of the biological mechanisms of a human hand, replacing them with decidedly un-human mechanisms such as hinges and gimbals. It sounds paradoxical, doesn’t it? How can a robotic hand that willfully discards biological mechanisms in favor of inorganic machinery be more realistic than one that tries to replicate those biological mechanisms? It’s a reasonable question to ask, and one that must be answered with an examination of the concept of “realism”.

Another failure by Will Due to try and dupe people.