Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,513
- Location
- ST4
et's
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
If there was an active designer that had a hand in creating life as we know it today, to me that contradicts the known laws of physics. This is because we know that many of the flaws that occur in life are caused by the endless random forces of physics. A good example would be brownian motion, where the movement of molecules inside a cell is no different than if you were to go on a random walk, or by rolling dice - the behaviour is not engineered in any way, it's random - yet it causes changes or differences in the cell which might be good or bad, (it might lead to trichromacy, or it might lead to cancer) all entirely random.
The problem with that, is that the effects of the designer are essentially reduced down to random chance as in - if the known mechanisms of physics can produce the wide range of phenomena that we see today, entirely by themselves (mechanisms we mostly understand down to the atomic level) then the designer is essentially totally defunct and meaningless and has no place in the system.
Of course, if your theory is that everything is a simulation then yeah - I've got argument to take that on
You are still looking at it from our perspective - if the designer wrote the laws of physics as well for a specific end all bets are off in respect to what you are talking about.
I'm afraid most of what you've posted will go over most posters head's in the terms of taking bits too literally where you've meant them simply for illustration, etc.
Yeah I mean - it's impossible to prove any such idea wrong, mostly because it's religious in nature - it's a position based on blind faith without evidence. We could all be in a simulation being watched under a microscope, or part of someone's computer program, or riding on the back of a giant turtle through space, so on and so forth. Those ideas are lots of fun, but I think that's all they really are, and as such - generally end up being talked about around campfires accompanied by drugs, rather than in science
Illustration is not the right term, I would say its more conceptual to the relative subject.
Swings and roundabouts guys.
Yeah I mean - it's impossible to prove any such idea wrong, mostly because it's religious in nature - it's a position based on blind faith without evidence. We could all be in a simulation being watched under a microscope, or part of someone's computer program, or riding on the back of a giant turtle through space, so on and so forth. Those ideas are lots of fun, but I think that's all they really are, and as such - generally end up being talked about around campfires accompanied by drugs, rather than in science
It is something taken quite seriously, especially of late, in scientific circles. For instance fundamental particles are all carbon copies of each other - identical - which is what we would expect to find if this was a simulation by any kind of rules we'd understand of it - that doesn't mean it is a simulation - infact in some ways it is kind of meaningless without knowing anything outside of our existence but at the same time it is something we would expect to see.
Interesting wee story. My Grandad's an old school fisherman, hes not one for telling stories, so this kinda caught us by surprise. At Christmas, we were all chatting away(not about aliens or anything, just random Christmas stuff) and Grandad just came out with "I remember the time we were on the fishing boat( decent size one, 5-6 men on board), all working away, when this cigar shaped aircraft just appeared above the ship. It wasn't directly above the ship, it was off one of the sides. But the aircraft itself wasn't much higher than the ship, it was so close! It was matt black and was really smooth with wee windows down the side. The strangest thing was, it was silent! not a sound! We just stood there looking at it. But it was so close that we could see the people inside, not their faces, just their outlines. but their was definitely people inside. Then just like it came, it flew off really fast, still not making a sound. Funny enough the crew have never spoke about that day, i think thats the first time I've told that story"
My brother and I just looked at each other in shock. He didn't say any more about it.
My brother and I just looked at each other in shock. He didn't say any more about it.
I have read a few stories about the Cuban cigar shapes in the sky, but they never bloody light the end to see it properly.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
Will be interesting to see what the James Webb teleccopes sees when they start pointing it at far away exo-planets and detetcting for signs of life.
You cannot see glass for the lenses, its a metaphorical phrase and subjective.
It wont see **** period of life.. lol
https://jwst.nasa.gov/instruments.html
Edit just remembered pinhole cameras. lol
Last edited:
I think cancer is a better reason than you give it credit for. It's true that any initially perfect system could become damaged due to the environment, but living organisms are self-repairing systems and that changes things in this context. Cancer isn't just the result of environmental damage - in essence it's the result of the self-repairing systems not being up to the job and so I think it's stronger evidence against design than you give it credit for. Many cancerous cells are detected and destroyed by the immune system before they spread and cause cancer per se, so the immediate cause of cancer is failure of the self-repairing systems. We know that the humans immune system isn't up against an inherent limit because there are complex animals that are far more resistant to cancer than humans. Naked mole rats are a good example of that. It's probably tied in with the resistance to aging that they're more famous for - it seems likely that at least one of the factors that increases their resistance to aging also increases the risk of cancer and thus created a very strong selection pressure towards greater resistance to cancer.
It's a book written by religious people and heavily edited by organised religion, so organised religion is something that needs to be taken into account when interpreting it. References to other worlds in a religious context are far more likely to be referring to supernatural worlds than to physical worlds in another part of space. Also in a religious context, references to gods or other supernatural beings are far more likely to be referring to gods or other supernatural beings than to aliens.
Several religions have stories about the sun being pulled across the sky in a chariot by supernatural beings. Would you interpret that as evidence of aliens moving the sun around every day with a spaceship? If not, why the difference?
As for the visions mentioned in religious texts, I think dreams, drugs and mysticism as a route to power are much more likely explanations than aliens. Especially Revelations. Man, that was a bad trip.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
You cannot see glass for the lenses, its a metaphorical phrase and subjective.
It wont see **** period of life.. lol
https://jwst.nasa.gov/instruments.html
Edit just remembered pinhole cameras. lol
Thanks for clearing that one up, I stand corrected.
Cancerous cells are those that don't self-destruct to order. The immune system can (and very often does) detect them and destroy them. So I think I'm right in saying that usually the immediate cause of cancer is the immune system not being up to the job and that it is possible for an immune system to do that job better (because there are animals in which that is true), therefore cancer is good evidence against the idea of design.
They won't
The difference between now and a million years ahead is that we are in a technological revolution and everything is digitised and will remain so forever more. Back then all they had to go by were ancient texts written by man and many things had yet to be discovered or common principles established and accepted.
All intelligent life on (or from) Earth will know what Humans used to be like in history.
Can't see how you can disagree with him unless the digital age gets wiped out.
In my opinion the problem of using cancer as an example of ruling out design, is that it implies that the designer wasn't perfect, and produces systems that aren't perfect - therefore the designer cannot be there, because any such *being* must be capable of perfection, which isn't a sound argument against design, in my opinion. All it proves is that the designer, if present - doesn't engineer perfect life forms, which might be intentional; Part of the design might allow for that animal to be susceptible to the environment, it might be engineered on purpose to not be perfect, perhaps to make it fit in better with the environment - or evolve more naturally with it's environment. Cancer could certainly play a part here - for example with skin tone in humans, darker skin is less susceptible to skin cancer than white skin - a designer might have done that on purpose and allow for natural selection, so that humans fit in better with their environment, over time and distribution - as we spread out.
There are far more stronger arguments against design, most of which are evolutionary remnants, where the life form has evolved over such a long period and undergone so many changes - that all of the original deficiencies which were present from billions of years ago, (laryngeal nerve being a good example) become drastically amplified and biologically expensive (in a giraffe's neck for example), precisely because there is no designer in control - that can go back and correct the design deficiency, hence ruling the designer out of the picture altogether, except for perhaps the very beginning when the basic initial building blocks came together.