# Randomness or Design?

Page 1 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091

19 Feb 2009, 4:06 pm

If you flip a penny, your either going to get heads or tails, one or the other, about half the time for each. Rolling a six sided die, you'll get one of the six sides about one-sixth the time each. That's assuming the items are designed and made so that there's an equal probability for each outcome. If the center of mass is more toward one side of a die, then the opposite side will be the outcome more often.

I see probabilities as applying to events where there is lack of planning or knowledge, but where the outcome is designed to occur it doesn't show randomness, but rather, intelligence. The level of intelligence is shown in the sophistication of the design. A simple or unknowledgeable mind could conceive and carry out a simple plan, and a more complex and knowledgeable mind a more sophisticated plan.

Albeit, any plan is not fool proof and even the most complex devices (such as a computer or a human brain) can be destroyed by mistreatment or malevolent actions.

Question here: which is more sophisticated/complex/higher-technology,
any human-made computer or a human brain?

Next question: is the item in the answer to the above a product of randomness or design?

Haliphron
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

19 Feb 2009, 4:11 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If you flip a penny, your either going to get heads or tails, one or the other, about half the time for each. Rolling a six sided die, you'll get one of the six sides about one-sixth the time each. That's assuming the items are designed and made so that there's an equal probability for each outcome. If the center of mass is more toward one side of a die, then the opposite side will be the outcome more often.

I see probabilities as applying to events where there is lack of planning or knowledge, but where the outcome is designed to occur it doesn't show randomness, but rather, intelligence. The level of intelligence is shown in the sophistication of the design. A simple or unknowledgeable mind could conceive and carry out a simple plan, and a more complex and knowledgeable mind a more sophisticated plan.

Albeit, any plan is not fool proof and even the most complex devices (such as a computer or a human brain) can be destroyed by mistreatment or malevolent actions.

Question here: which is more sophisticated/complex/higher-technology,
any human-made computer or a human brain?

Next question: is the item in the answer to the above a product of randomness or design?

What designed the designer?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Feb 2009, 4:16 pm

The brain is more sophisticated.

The current scientifically based stance is that the brain is neither designed nor random, but rather the result of a trial and error process conducted over millions of years. Trial and error, because it has no necessary foresight as even the simplest plans have, is not design nor is it randomness due to the existence of a selection process.

ruveyn
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Feb 2009, 4:26 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The brain is more sophisticated.

The current scientifically based stance is that the brain is neither designed nor random, but rather the result of a trial and error process conducted over millions of years. Trial and error, because it has no necessary foresight as even the simplest plans have, is not design nor is it randomness due to the existence of a selection process.

The term selection in this context does not mean conscious or intentional selection. It is more of a match of characteristics of the organism against the conditions of its environment with a resultant fitness of reproduction which is all nature "cares" about.

Fit reproducers tend to produce fit offspring. Less fit reproducers do not get as great a chance to reproduce so over the long run they tend to die out.

ruveyn

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091

19 Feb 2009, 4:28 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The brain is more sophisticated.

The current scientifically based stance is that the brain is neither designed nor random, but rather the result of a trial and error process conducted over millions of years. Trial and error, because it has no necessary foresight as even the simplest plans have, is not design nor is it randomness due to the existence of a selection process.

Ok. well, all of us animals on the land are supposed to come from an asexual lungfish, which probably would've had a brain of some type. Before that, perhaps invertebrate fish with or without lung? Maybe with a brain of some type too? and prior to that some type of creature that didn't have a brain but developed one in the next generation. Then into the deep sea we voyage to thermal vents where single cellular organisms developed by chance/trial and error. And before that we trek to an uninhabitable m-class planet which is the result of two stars passing eachother.... yes, it is an interesting story, but this Enterprise doesn't suit me.

Haliphron
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

19 Feb 2009, 4:44 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The brain is more sophisticated.

The current scientifically based stance is that the brain is neither designed nor random, but rather the result of a trial and error process conducted over millions of years. Trial and error, because it has no necessary foresight as even the simplest plans have, is not design nor is it randomness due to the existence of a selection process.

Ok. well, all of us animals on the land are supposed to come from an asexual lungfish, which probably would've had a brain of some type. Before that, perhaps invertebrate fish with or without lung? Maybe with a brain of some type too? and prior to that some type of creature that didn't have a brain but developed one in the next generation. Then into the deep sea we voyage to thermal vents where single cellular organisms developed by chance/trial and error. And before that we trek to an uninhabitable m-class planet which is the result of two stars passing eachother.... yes, it is an interesting story, but this Enterprise doesn't suit me.

I bet it doesnt, because from an intuitive standpoint the complexity of the human brain seems irreducible. But intuition is a means of aquiring information that has VERY LIMITED applications-that is, it only works well when it comes to the world of people and social interaction. Now AG: The brain didnt evolve through random "trial and error" but through a long and laborious process called self-organization. This is a process where a NON-closed dynamic system Decreases entropy by Increasing
the entropy out its surroundings(outside of itself). A good example of this is crystal formation deep inside the Earth. Look at a droplet of water and then compare it to a snowflake(under a magnifying glass or even a microscope); you'll see a BIG difference in term of order. Interestingly enough, this process was described mathematicall before it was observed physically.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091

19 Feb 2009, 4:53 pm

Haliphron wrote:
[Paraphrased:] open system second law situation... crystals have order... formation of solid water increases external entropy to decrease it's own.. blah blah blah... attempted stab at 30 year old Creationist arguments...

yes, how interesting. Crystals repeat the same sequence as they self organize and there is no encoded message, or blueprint as it were, to be translated and used.

Haliphron
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

19 Feb 2009, 4:58 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
[Paraphrased:] open system second law situation... crystals have order... formation of solid water increases external entropy to decrease it's own.. blah blah blah... attempted stab at 30 year old Creationist arguments...

yes, how interesting. Crystals repeat the same sequence as they self organize and there is no encoded message, or blueprint as it were, to be translated and used.

That is an example of very simple self-organization. Inorganic crystals do not have the requisite chemical properties to form large molecules(polymers)the way covalently bonded hydrocarbons do. Thats Probably the reason why we are carbon based and not made of ionic crystals. Now what I dont undestand is HOW a ball of mud becomes something as complex and ordered as a fully grown man within a few seconds! How did God do that?!? And you CONTINUE to dogde the question as to HOW the "Designer" came into being..........

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091

19 Feb 2009, 5:09 pm

Haliphron wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
[Paraphrased:] open system second law situation... crystals have order... formation of solid water increases external entropy to decrease it's own.. blah blah blah... attempted stab at 30 year old Creationist arguments...

yes, how interesting. Crystals repeat the same sequence as they self organize and there is no encoded message, or blueprint as it were, to be translated and used.

That is an example of very simple self-organization. Inorganic crystals do not have the requisite chemical properties to form large molecules(polymers)the way covalently bonded hydrocarbons do. Thats Probably the reason why we are carbon based and not made of ionic crystals. Now what I dont undestand is HOW a ball of mud becomes something as complex and ordered as a fully grown man within a few seconds! How did God do that?!? And you CONTINUE to dogde the question as to HOW the "Designer" came into being..........

I wouldn't be able to answer how He came into being, but that doesn't make Him non-existent due to my lack of knowledge. Also, being able to detect something, as by its effects, does not have to explain its origin. Not anymore than having gravity as the explanation for the motions of the planets has to explain the origin of gravity.

Ragtime
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

19 Feb 2009, 5:14 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The brain is more sophisticated.

The current scientifically based stance is that the brain is neither designed nor random, but rather the result of a trial and error process conducted over millions of years. Trial and error, because it has no necessary foresight as even the simplest plans have, is not design nor is it randomness due to the existence of a selection process.

I really doubt that, but of course we could argue for billions of years.

If people want to think that the human brain is the result of a uncountably-high number of utterly random and unguided mutations, then that's what they're going to think, and they are entitled to that opinion.

I and many other people disagree with that idea. As far-fetched as an invisible all-creator might seem to those who look for purely-empirical evidence, random mutation creating the human brain seems to me to be even more far-fetched.

The only thing that makes random mutation a truly easy thing to believe in is if you first premise that no all-creator exists. From there, random mutation becomes the only remaining possibility. So, anyone who is certain that random mutation created us causes me to believe that they begun their reasoning with simple fiat that an all-creator doesn't exist.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Last edited by Ragtime on 19 Feb 2009, 5:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Haliphron
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

19 Feb 2009, 5:21 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
[Paraphrased:] open system second law situation... crystals have order... formation of solid water increases external entropy to decrease it's own.. blah blah blah... attempted stab at 30 year old Creationist arguments...

yes, how interesting. Crystals repeat the same sequence as they self organize and there is no encoded message, or blueprint as it were, to be translated and used.

That is an example of very simple self-organization. Inorganic crystals do not have the requisite chemical properties to form large molecules(polymers)the way covalently bonded hydrocarbons do. Thats Probably the reason why we are carbon based and not made of ionic crystals. Now what I dont undestand is HOW a ball of mud becomes something as complex and ordered as a fully grown man within a few seconds! How did God do that?!? And you CONTINUE to dogde the question as to HOW the "Designer" came into being..........

I wouldn't be able to answer how He came into being, but that doesn't make Him non-existent due to my lack of knowledge. Also, being able to detect something, as by its effects, does not have to explain its origin. Not anymore than having gravity as the explanation for the motions of the planets has to explain the origin of gravity.

So what DOES make him exist? WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE???
And NO, because its written in a book that you call the "bible" is NOT proof of ANYTHING!
Someone could write a book claiming the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of green cheese and Unicorns are real and live in Siberia and claim in to be the word of G-d. Does that make it Real? Does that make it True? I DONT THINK SO.

This is what frustrated me about creationists: their flat-out REFUSAL to experimentally demonstrate what their God can do for those who of us who are nonbelievers.I brought up the example of crystal formation to debunk the fatally flawed creationist argument that its impossible for entropy to decrease. Complex patters can and ARE generated by a set of very simply rules/initial constraints on what appears to be a disordered system. BTW Ragtime: true randomness is VERY RARE in the Universe and hardly exists at all on the "classical"/Newtonian scale.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091

19 Feb 2009, 5:31 pm

More stuff from Haliphron, in my PM box:

Haliphron wrote:
If I send you a Shoebox of dirt and a container of water, will you demonstrate for me pouring the water over the dirt and having your God turn it into a living creature? If not, WHY??? I want you to SHOW me WHAT your God can do.

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If God said He'd do that, then He would, but how would a feeble creature approach the omnipotent Creator and command Him to do anything?

Haliphron wrote:
You may have fooled some people, and you certainly have fooled yourself, but you DONT fool me! There is NOTHING that person can say to me to convince me that God is real. ONLY GOD can do that and ONLY if he speaks directly to me! Personally, I think creationists should put to DEATH.

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Who should Creationists put to death? Come on, what drives you to say that?

Haliphron wrote:
The desire to be outrageous and stir the pot sometimes

...

Haliphron
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

19 Feb 2009, 5:36 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
More stuff from Haliphron, in my PM box:

Haliphron wrote:
If I send you a Shoebox of dirt and a container of water, will you demonstrate for me pouring the water over the dirt and having your God turn it into a living creature? If not, WHY??? I want you to SHOW me WHAT your God can do.

...

Why WOULDNT G-d show his power when us meager humans challenge him directly like that?
But this isnt about G-d's existence, or lack thereof. Its about this silly, primitive emotional need people have to believe that the Universe has human qualities to it and whatever is responsible for our existence must think like us.
The bible was written by People who CLAIM to be speaking on G-ds behalf. So that means the possibility that the creation story in Genesis was MADE UP by the author and worded to convince those who arent trained in how to think critically to be a believable story has not been ruled out.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Feb 2009, 5:38 pm

Ragtime wrote:
If people want to think that the human brain is the result of a uncountably-high number of utterly random and unguided mutations, then that's what they're going to think, and they are entitled to that opinion.

Well, that isn't the argument. The argument is that the brain is a result of random mutations with some being removed from the selection process.

Quote:
I and many other people disagree with that idea. As far-fetched as an invisible all-creator might seem to those who look for purely-empirical evidence, random mutation creating the human brain seems to me to be even more far-fetched.

The only thing that makes random mutation a truly easy thing to believe in is if you first premise that no all-creator exists. From there, random mutation becomes the only remaining possibility. So, anyone who is certain that random mutation created us causes me to believe that they begun their reasoning with simple fiat that an all-creator doesn't exist.

Well, the reason why selected mutations seems easy be believe happens to be the following:
1) Traits are genetically transmitted
2) Radical genetic change can and has occurred through the transmission process
3) There is fossil evidence that suggests that different creatures have existed and disappeared over time
4) Within those fossils and current living beings there is evidence that premise 2 is what historically happened
5) Life is imperfect with reasons that seem explainable through a genetically based perspective but not as well explained through a view of intentional creation by a perfect being.

Facts 3, 4, and 5 disagree with intentional creation by a perfect being. Facts 1 and 2 are arbitrary in a situation with intentional creation by a perfect being, as are other facts involved in this, such as some geological facts. Thus, there is a reason to think that an evolutionary theory may be valid.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091

19 Feb 2009, 5:42 pm

Haliphron wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
More stuff from Haliphron, in my PM box:

Haliphron wrote:
If I send you a Shoebox of dirt and a container of water, will you demonstrate for me pouring the water over the dirt and having your God turn it into a living creature? If not, WHY??? I want you to SHOW me WHAT your God can do.

...

Why WOULDNT G-d show his power when us meager humans challenge him directly like that?
But this isnt about G-d's existence, or lack thereof. Its about this silly, primitive emotional need people have to believe that the Universe has human qualities to it and whatever is responsible for our existence must think like us.
The bible was written by People who CLAIM to be speaking on G-ds behalf. So that means the possibility that the creation story in Genesis was MADE UP by the author and worded to convince those who arent trained in how to think critically to be a believable story has not been ruled out.

Wh- sh--ld H-? D- y-- th-nk th-t f-ll-w-ng - R-bb-n-c c-st-m -s -mpr-ss-v-?
Why should He? Do you think that following a Rabbinic custom is impressive?

Anyway, I'm certain that even if He spoke to you directly that you'd come up with a naturalistic explanation for it, such a hallucinations. Same as if Jesus Christ appeared to you bodily and broke your door down trying to get your attention. Nothing is unexplainable.

Haliphron
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

19 Feb 2009, 5:45 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
If people want to think that the human brain is the result of a uncountably-high number of utterly random and unguided mutations, then that's what they're going to think, and they are entitled to that opinion.

Well, that isn't the argument. The argument is that the brain is a result of random mutations with some being removed from the selection process.

Quote:
I and many other people disagree with that idea. As far-fetched as an invisible all-creator might seem to those who look for purely-empirical evidence, random mutation creating the human brain seems to me to be even more far-fetched.

The only thing that makes random mutation a truly easy thing to believe in is if you first premise that no all-creator exists. From there, random mutation becomes the only remaining possibility. So, anyone who is certain that random mutation created us causes me to believe that they begun their reasoning with simple fiat that an all-creator doesn't exist.

Well, the reason why selected mutations seems easy be believe happens to be the following:
1) Traits are genetically transmitted
2) Radical genetic change can and has occurred through the transmission process
3) There is fossil evidence that suggests that different creatures have existed and disappeared over time
4) Within those fossils and current living beings there is evidence that premise 2 is what historically happened
5) Life is imperfect with reasons that seem explainable through a genetically based perspective but not as well explained through a view of intentional creation by a perfect being.

Facts 3, 4, and 5 disagree with intentional creation by a perfect being. Facts 1 and 2 are arbitrary in a situation with intentional creation by a perfect being, as are other facts involved in this, such as some geological facts. Thus, there is a reason to think that an evolutionary theory may be valid.

What if its NEITHER a truly random process NOR the result of some intelligent designer? Its the result of a lengthy process, governed by a set of physically implemented algorithms that are RECURSIVELY iterated over what took Millions and Millions of years? Keep in mind that external influences on a deterministic dynamic system DO have affect what its next state will be.