PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     CREATOR HYPOTHESIS - #8
       Beware of real science!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Science101

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Note: Philosophical hypothesis may later be underlined or highlighted so as to separate it from the scientific hypothesis.

---

CREATOR HYPOTHESIS (preliminary) - Version #8

---

ABSTRACT

We have faith in an intelligent entity we shall call "creator" which science can only evidence that is firmly grounded in reason and can stand on it's own scientific merit. Here we evidence an entity we shall call "creator" which works using forces as a scientifically verifiable intelligence that exist in matter.

---

INTRODUCTION

Intelligence does not necessarily need to be conscious to exist.  Therefore it is possible to describe "Intelligence" to its most rudimentary beginning, in matter, from which higher levels of intelligence emerge.

Atoms exhibit behavior which can be shown using "Truth Tables".  Molecules exhibit "Molecular Intelligence"(7).  Cells exhibit "Cellular Intelligence"(8).  Multicellular organisms sometimes exhibit brain produced intelligence as is studied by neuroscience.

We also understand that the name of this hypothesis is very suggestive.  If a little known deity makes a "Gaia Hypothesis" then it would be no problem.  If a made up deity makes a "Scio Hypothesis" then it is humorous but still scientific enough of a name for a hypothesis.  But a "Creator Hypothesis" really gets everyone's attention.  Even if the word is similarly used.  There is no other word which applies to an intelligent system on the scale of atoms to universe where conscious life is one of the emergent processes.  Even with it all down to the science it's still the entity made up of forces that "Created" us.  A "Creator".

It's an interesting scientific challenge to scientists (not public schools) who would not normally like anything so philosophical.  Publishable because it's honest and presents an interesting way to see what ID type thinking looks like when it's in the form of a hypothesis.  At the same time get help strengthening the classroom appropriate intelligence science that this hypothesis must contain, from Creationists.  We teach each other, even if that sounds impossible.  On computer forums and email they explain what they are looking for and it turns into science now including this hypothesis.  That is probably the best way to explain what this is, and why the name is in this case appropriate.

Science explains how things work.  Therefore a "Creator Hypothesis" must explain how the "Creator" works using repeatable empirical evidence scientists can verify, or it's not science.  This is what a real "Creator Hypothesis" looks like.  It is unfinished, for it to be most educational.  

We are to provide a learning environment where all can gel, on something fun to work on, that does not even need Darwin to explain.  Something in common, to build upon, as we together teach each other how to have fun with science.  Sometimes in forum classrooms where we take turns being student and teacher.

Due to the search for what created us being far from over it can probably keep improving forever by adding yet to be discovered science that belongs here.  Being more valuable forever unfinished, is further evidence that all science is only evidence of a "Creator", be it some may consider that more of a philosophical question.

---

METHODS

A computer model(1) using the guess/memory mechanism (also found in evolution) demonstrates a powerful layered intelligence that exists in matter.

Showing of a single interconnected intelligent system that is first evidenced as a "truth table" symbolic representation of matter that extends into the subatomic.

---

DESCRIPTION

(bring science in references into here)

---

DISCUSSION


We don't normally see verbal communication being so similar to cellular intelligence.  But it interconnects us the same way.  We are then much like one cell in a colony moving in response to environment, the criteria for an intelligent system. For example look down from space at a Florida shoreline just before a hurricane hits and the colony of humans that cover the surface move away from the ocean before it even arrives then the mass goes back when conditions are again favorable. We here see a response to broadcast signals on radio and TV warning of approaching danger.  

If there was a big bang then there are possibilities for us to consider.  Either it was a "natural" event with little or no significance to this hypothesis.  The creator is whatever caused it.  Or this is a cycle that the entity we call Creator is itself a part of.  In the latter case the Creator expanded with the universe or is larger than it. We're inside the expansion. Thus we would here be one with the creator and/or its creation.

Since it is proving to be possible to through science understand our origins, we can infer that the creation of life and thus the "Creator" is not (at least in part) outside the universe.  If the "Creator" and our creation were unknowable then the origin-of-life science we now have could not exist.

---

CONCLUSIONS

Studying intelligence down to the molecular level is a very academic, useful science.(1,5,6,7) The known levels are atom-molecule-cell-organism-biosphere.(2)


Evolution can be viewed from the perspective of intelligence.

There could be a collective consciousness formed at more than just the organism level, but we don't know how consciousness works so more science is expected.

Abiogenesis is dependant of forces.(3,4)

Science is showing that we can in time understand how we were "Created" making it possible to scientifically understand this entity called "Creator".

Science can only evidence the herein described "Creator". (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

Amen...(12)

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ron (Sci,PhysOrg-Creation/Evolution) review BB, (Symbiosis (Bio, Cleveland-ID) review-intro, Cletus77 (IDKWTFIGO, MassLive-Rel) review discussion, Sebdal (paleo, Massachusetts) hypothesis paper structuring, Mensaman (Sci, Al-Rel) review concept, Roytheman (ID, Syracuse-Rel) for first sentence framework, hexidecimal (Sci, PennLive-Rel) review version #1, Kansas Citizens For Science (Sci, Kansas) forum, physorg (Sci, forum)Creation/Science

---

REFERENCES

1) "Intelligence 101 + Free Intelligence Detection Lab"

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=692

2) "Science To Believe In"

http://members.aol.com/fromscience/

3) Origin of life is more the result of "forces" than "random accident" as shown in this experiment that demonstrates how cell membranes self-assemble.

http://members.aol.com/fromscience/experim...llmembrane.html

4) NSTA members: "Demonstrating the Self-Assembly of the Cell Membrane"

http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.a...tst07_074_07_72

5) Interesting Cell Intelligence presentation:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/cellint0.htm

6) Video that everyone has to see at least a few times till they can picture it.

http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_innerlife_lo.html

Higher resolutions and videos:

http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/media.html

7) Molecular Nanobiointelligence Computers, National Cancer Center, June 21, 2005, Byoung-Tak Zhang, Center for Bioinformation Technology (CBIT) & Biointelligence Laboratory, School of Computer Science and Engineering, Seoul National University

http://bi.snu.ac.kr/Courses/4ai06f/NCC2005.pdf

8) Synthesizing cellular intelligence and artificial intelligence for bioprocesses, P.R. Patnaik, Institute of Microbial Technology, Sector 39-A, Chandigarh-160 036, India

http://www.aseanbiotechnology.info/Abstract/21018478.pdf

9) Sigma-Aldrich, Nicholson Metabolic Pathway Charts and free Animations.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/Area_of_Intere...c_Pathways.html

10) Intelligence Generator computer model was adapted from the book (robot made virtual):  Heiserman, D. L., How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, TAB Books, Inc., 1979.

12) Note: "Amen" is not part of the science but see "SUNDAY SERMON - CREATIVE FORCE".

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=186




(Edited by Science101 1/20/2008 at 07:46 AM).
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 05:33 AM on January 20, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Terribly written, and that's saying nothing of the endless stream of non-sequiturs that ooze out of that grammatical nightmare's flesh.

We have faith in an intelligent entity we shall call "creator" which science can only evidence that is firmly grounded in reason and can stand on it's own scientific merit. Here we evidence an entity we shall call "creator" which works using forces as a scientifically verifiable intelligence that exist in matter.


I like the sophistry in this thing. I can picture some dumb creationist out of law school babbling on about this nonsense in much the same way. "Here we conclude based on evidence notwithstanding in the midst of further repudiated speculation and extrapolation that the evidence can only evidence a creator!" Lost already? Me too.

Intelligence does not necessarily need to be conscious to exist.  Therefore it is possible to describe "Intelligence" to its most rudimentary beginning, in matter, from which higher levels of intelligence emerge.


Instead of defining intelligence through any accepted definition, the writer opts instead to define intelligence as something that every particle in the universe exhibits. The investigation stops there because the writer has nothing left to support. It's simply a flow chart of hypothetical syllogisms from here on out:

Atoms exhibit behavior which can be shown using "Truth Tables".  Molecules exhibit "Molecular Intelligence"(7).  Cells exhibit "Cellular Intelligence"(8).  Multicellular organisms sometimes exhibit brain produced intelligence as is studied by neuroscience.



Due to the search for what created us being far from over it can probably keep improving forever by adding yet to be discovered science that belongs here.  Being more valuable forever unfinished, is further evidence that all science is only evidence of a "Creator", be it some may consider that more of a philosophical question.


Uh, why? If this is the writer's admission that the quote above is a matter of philosophy and not science, why he wasting space with such meaningless drivel?

Anyway, the fact that this investigation is unfinished fails on all fronts to support the idea that "science is only evidence of a 'Creator'".

And then there's the other premise that comes out of nowhere:

If there was a big bang then there are possibilities for us to consider.  Either it was a "natural" event with little or no significance to this hypothesis.  The creator is whatever caused it.  Or this is a cycle that the entity we call Creator is itself a part of.  In the latter case the Creator expanded with the universe or is larger than it. We're inside the expansion. Thus we would here be one with the creator and/or its creation.


It's okay, reader. It's a good thing if you can't understand how anything in the above quote follows without a good dose of LSD.

Since it is proving to be possible to through science understand our origins, we can infer that the creation of life and thus the "Creator" is not (at least in part) outside the universe.


No, we can't. This is not a scientific statement. It is a logical argument (not that it's a valid one).

Gotta love the language, too. "Since is it proving to be possible to through science understand our origins." Hardly the work of a scientist. Find me a piece of scientific literature in the English language that deliberately splits a verb up like that. The only reason the writer did that was to confuse his audience and make the language sound more sophisticated than it really is -- perhaps to, I don't know, draw our attention away from the fact that what he is actually saying doesn't make any sense at all.

Studying intelligence down to the molecular level is a very academic, useful science.(1,5,6,7)


LOL

About as far from the ballpark of a scientific conclusion as you can get. Scientific conclusions are supposed to be based on the experiment or the observations. Instead, he bases the conclusions on references. Even more laughable is the fact that those references aren't used academically. "Watch this video and you'll agree!" Wow.


Evolution can be viewed from the perspective of intelligence.


Sure, when you define "intelligence" as a robotic reaction to the environment. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with a creator of any kind.

There could be a collective consciousness formed at more than just the organism level, but we don't know how consciousness works so more science is expected.


That is truly the only honest, scientific conclusion the writer came up with during the whole thing: "I don't know."

Abiogenesis is dependant of forces.(3,4)


Again, not a conclusion that is based on any of the article's observations or experiments. Neither does it have anything to do with a creator.

Science is showing that we can in time understand how we were "Created" making it possible to scientifically understand this entity called "Creator".


Finally something that's related to the writer's "hypothesis". That is not to say that this conclusion is based on reason. For example, he takes for granted the claim that a creator even exists. Without that claim affirmed, it is illogical to assume that we can ever understand a creator because we're not even sure a creator exists.

Science can only evidence the herein described "Creator". (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)


Hah. He'll just site a ton of references that don't say anything about a creator and claim they all support his position. Might work on a first grader.

Amen...(12)


My personal favorite of the "conclusions".





Dear Science101, because you have the scientific understanding of someone who has never taken a single science course in their entire life, please take take a look at the most rudimentary science course open to enrollment near you. Any course with the label "101" behind it is for you.






-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:45 PM on January 23, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for breaking that down for me EntwickelnCollin.  The only thing I got from that jibber jabber was a mean headache!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:01 AM on January 24, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I have to admit that I had a hard time following this thread.  For starters, you have to define what 'intelligence' is.  Certainly atoms bonding together isn't intelligence.  Chemical bonding is merely a product of natural chemical laws.  There is no intelligence involved on the part of atoms.  So you lost me right there.

Science says nothing about the existence of a creator.  There may, or may not be one.  But science has not detected a creator yet.  By 'creator', I am referring to God.  So let that be clear.

Actually, if science ever does detect God, then that would really throw a barrel of monkeys in the works, for that would have enormous implications for natural laws/theories, etc.  But since we haven't any proof of supernatural being (God) yet, I really doubt one exists.

How did the universe start then?  No one knows yet.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:53 PM on January 24, 2008 | IP
Science101

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for your opinions!

The hypothesis is still far from finished.  It's now helping point out problems.  One of them being that scientists have not come to any consensus on a definition of intelligence.  Can tell from the confusion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

G.N. Saridis says intelligence is "The entropy of control responses" which sounds like what the hypothesis is describing.  But no matter what definition is used scientists with 1000 different definitions will never agree, anyway.  But that's not our fault, have to go with what we have, for now anyway.

The links are important.  Especially the "Intelligence 101 + Free Intelligence Detection Lab" that explains Molecular Intelligence and Cellular Intelligence now routinely done in academia.  

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=692

I also have to add that I follow the science where it leads.  So like others who do the same, while still having faith that it is explaining where we came from, the hypothesis is obviously true.  The first sentence of the abstract defines this "faith" as one that follows reason (scientific fact).






(Edited by Science101 1/27/2008 at 2:40 PM).
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 2:24 PM on January 27, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.