A very good documentary

[Donald McGlinn]

I have recently seen a documentary called ;

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Intelligent Design)- Physics, Information, Truth or Evolution

I think this is the correct title, but if it isn't, it is very close to the right name.

It opens up some very interesting ideas and suggests with proof that our universe could only have been created by intelligent design.

Reality changes at a subatomic level.

Donald

[Donald McGlinn]

The documentary doesn't speculate the origin of that intelligent design, only that it was intelligent design. :)

Donald

[Donald McGlinn]

Hi Alex,

An interesting viewpoint of the movie.

Are you open to the idea of intelligent design?

Donald

[Osiris]

I, by no means wish to be negative in anyway. It just seems to me the whole creationist/intelligent design idea is born from the arrogance and egotism mankind is frought with. I agree with everyone, and much more so than many that life (as we know it) is beautiful beyond words, full of amazment at every turn, from the delicate fabric of an animals skin to the abstract wonder of a two dimentional plane.....However. We stand in amazement and wonder at those things that surround US, those things we have grown up with both as individuals and as a species. In otherwords those things familiar. If we were afforded a glimpse at the entire universe 99% of which it is my opinion we could never begin to understand it would loose much of its beauty, wonder and magnificance.
It would begin to look like the workings of a mad man more than one of intelligent design (like we are really prepared to define Intelligence anyway). In short We think Our world is soooooo grand because We say it is, and sense we say it is grand it must, not only be Made on purpose but Made by something or someone Great and Intelligent of couse as we define Great and Intelligent. Again I havn't seen the movie, and although trained in the sciences I have greatly distanced myself from them. I am sure the movie is full of insight as are those which espouse evolution. I hate to go on and on but its becoming increasingly clear to me that the term "truth" and "answer" are deeply interwoven with arrogance and egotism. I think true beauty is found in your ability to understand, perceive, and feel, without the vulgarity of conclusion. Can you Understand without Conclusion.... something in the right side of my brain says "sure go ahead" lol. For me Non-sense is the sweetest most beautiful and delicate flower in the garden I call this world, I cherish it above all others, for they always wither and die to be replaced with others the "lastest additions" so to speak, which demand much attention and care. Non-sense, confusion, and paradox on the other hand never need watering and grow everywhere full of eternal color, size and shape. And everytime a new conclusion is made one of them dies. I dont mind though because new questions inevitably take sprout. As a result my garden is full of magnificent blooms. Sorry for the rand the beer went to my head.

[CFTraveler]

Ok I watched the documentary and found it quite stimulating, it was worth watching because it does make one think about how amazing some of the things around us are.

I was driven to questioning one of my fundamental beliefs, namely evolution. Evolution for me has been able to describe more than just a biological process, I see similar "survival of the fittest" mechanisms at work all around - workplaces, politics, technology, scientific ideas... As someone who studied Anthropology and works in a church, I always wonder why the idea of God creating has to do that- Why do we have to separate a creator from it's creation, and why can't evolution be considered God in expression.


The fundamental argument of the documentary was presented in a very compelling manner. The visual impact of amazing, complex biological
machinery seemed to add weight to the scientist's claims.

(For those of you who haven't seen it yet, its worth watching because it would make what I'm saying more meaningful)

However, I did find that one fundamental logical error seems to destroy their entire argument. They claimed that intelligent intervention was responsible for the development of the most complex biological machintery, an idea which I am very open to if it can be demonstrated. They claimed that the existance of such complex machinery is absolute evidence of some kind of intelligent manipulation. Again, I am open to the idea, if it can be demonstrated.

They claim that it is impossible or highly unlikely for a rotary electrical motor to suddenly appear on a bacterium. I agree, such an occurance would be incredibly, incredibly improbable. Then, they say that the machine as it stands today is in its lowest level of complexety, which is true. Each component from the rotor to the bend to the shaft is required as an entirety to make the machine useful. It just won't work otherwise. Mutated bacteria that lack one part or another can't get around, their motors don't work.

So, where the argument falls down for me is that they go on to say that since the bacterial flagellum (rotating tail driven by an electrical motor) is so perfect and efficient, and since each individual component is required to make the motor in its entirety, and that the likelihood of all these components coming together suddenly to make a working motor is so remote as to be deemed impossible - all these factors taken into consideration - it must have been put there by some higher intelligence. I agree with you here but for completely different reasons. If you look at the simplest forms of life, viruses, they are so machinelike that it makes you wonder if what we consider intelligence (that is, human technological achievement) is even capable of creating such a thing. Then remember that viruses existed a whole long time (not too scientific there, lol ) before we (the intelligence that created the electric motor) came on the scene. I say this to point out that what we see as proof of intelligence is in comparison to what we have achieved-and IE proponents use that as an argument of a creator, but that is really circular logic.


Thats in interesting idea if you don't think about it for too long. Unfortunately the documentary doesn't propose any alternative theories worth mentioning, besides one that I forget the name of but it involves being able to swap machinery parts around when required. So they've tried to use a very questionable counter-argument to lend weight to their own theory, since I don't believe their reasoning is solid enough to stand up to intelligent scrutiny. Ecco.

First objection: While they are correct in assessing the highly improbable nature of a biological machine suddenly coming into existence with all its required operatonal parts, they decide its not worth wondering if maybe a more simple machine evolved into what they see today.

I think its just as reasonable if not more reasonable to assume once, on a very early bacteria so simple as to be unrecognisable as a bacteria today - perhaps it was only a few molecules big - but it developed a simple rotating part, perhaps it was just a chain of molecules attached in such a way that it could rotate. Each of its ancestors inherited this simple rotating "tail", which enabled the bacteria to move around in a fluid rather than drift with the current, meaning they came into contact with more food and were able to reproduce more quickly. After a few zillion generations and many such tiny additions here and there, each of which gave the bacteria a slight edge which improved its survival chances and procreation rate (or, for some it could have made things worse and they didn't do quite as well), the device had become as efficient as it is today.

Same story for DNA and protiens. They were simple chemical messengers, but they got better over time. The reason for this oversight is political: IE proponents are just regular creationists who couldn't push the 'creation as science' agenda and who then modified the standard 7-day model to sound more scientific.

An analogy that suits this film well is that you could go to a formula one race track and look at the cars, the perfectly tuned engines, the weighted suspension, the sheer design of the whole thing. Better yet, find someone who has been libing in a closet their whole life, and show it to them. Ask them to explain it. They don't know the history of the evolution of the motor vehicle from the horse drawn cart, through steam engines, early internal combusion engines, computer testing and simulation... They would think the machine had come into existance as if by magic. But, if you could show them the history of the automobile, how it first started as clunky, inefficient, and crude, and then evolved with minor improvements and additions - the carburettor, the air filter, computer controlled anti lock brakes... those changes which survived because they were good, and also the cars which didn't survive because they exploded on impact, rolled over on corners... Then they would see that the machine is simply the current generation in a logical sequence of minor imrpovements, each of which supersedes the previous generation and sets the standard upon which future improvements (or stuff ups) can be made.

I know the analogy is slightly odd because cars are obviously intelligently designed, but they wouldn't exist without a reason, and for any piece of technology to survive in its human environment, it has to be useful for humans. Technology doesn't survive if its useless. Technology can adapt to changing needs the same way organisms adapt to changing environments - those which fail to adapt simply die.

But the documentary is a good one, because for the first time in ages something seriously challenged my beliefs and it made me think.

I have lots of other things I'd love to talk about, concerning the progression of man from apes (if that happened, where are the man-ape hybrids... personally I reckon sucessive generations of humanoids wiped them out, racism isn't a new concept and hairy ape people must have seemed an inferior race to slightly less hairy, slightly less apey people...)

Whew...

Good movie - even though I disagree with its conclusion. What do you guys think? :wink:

[Scorpyn]

I'm pretty sure life could have evolved without intelligence...

This is not entirely related, but still somewhat on topic, but my current theory on how life was created is this (it might be wrong, I'm not a researcher in the field and I just thought it up) :

First, there wasn't life. Then, there was still not life. Then, random chains of RNA (like DNA but cut in half) chains was created.

The RNA chains reacted to its surroundings in different ways. Some would attach to other molecules and create new molecules. After a lot of randomization, a RNA chain that was able to interact with the surroundings in a way that made it able to copy itself was created.

Some of the copies were not exact - and, since RNA is more "unstable" than DNA, the evolution was probably faster than it is now, mutations being a lot more common.

In short : DNA (or RNA) is probably not just the code of life, it's also likely to be the start of life.

[Wolf_Thor]

As someone who studied Anthropology and works in a church, I always wonder why the idea of God creating has to do that- Why do we have to separate a creator from it's creation, and why can't evolution be considered God in expression.



I tend to think that that is the key. Why does it have to be either/or? I like the way you put it, "God in expression".

[Wolf_Thor]

Ok I watched the documentary and found it quite stimulating, it was worth watching because it does make one think about how amazing some of the things around us are.

I was driven to questioning one of my fundamental beliefs, namely evolution. Evolution for me has been able to describe more than just a biological process, I see similar "survival of the fittest" mechanisms at work all around - workplaces, politics, technology, scientific ideas...

The fundamental argument of the documentary was presented in a very compelling manner. The visual impact of amazing, complex biological
machinery seemed to add weight to the scientist's claims.

(For those of you who haven't seen it yet, its worth watching because it would make what I'm saying more meaningful)

However, I did find that one fundamental logical error seems to destroy their entire argument. They claimed that intelligent intervention was responsible for the development of the most complex biological machintery, an idea which I am very open to if it can be demonstrated. They claimed that the existance of such complex machinery is absolute evidence of some kind of intelligent manipulation. Again, I am open to the idea, if it can be demonstrated.

They claim that it is impossible or highly unlikely for a rotary electrical motor to suddenly appear on a bacterium. I agree, such an occurance would be incredibly, incredibly improbable. Then, they say that the machine as it stands today is in its lowest level of complexety, which is true. Each component from the rotor to the bend to the shaft is required as an entirety to make the machine useful. It just won't work otherwise. Mutated bacteria that lack one part or another can't get around, their motors don't work.

So, where the argument falls down for me is that they go on to say that since the bacterial flagellum (rotating tail driven by an electrical motor) is so perfect and efficient, and since each individual component is required to make the motor in its entirety, and that the likelihood of all these components coming together suddenly to make a working motor is so remote as to be deemed impossible - all these factors taken into consideration - it must have been put there by some higher intelligence.

Thats in interesting idea if you don't think about it for too long. Unfortunately the documentary doesn't propose any alternative theories worth mentioning, besides one that I forget the name of but it involves being able to swap machinery parts around when required. So they've tried to use a very questionable counter-argument to lend weight to their own theory, since I don't believe their reasoning is solid enough to stand up to intelligent scrutiny.

First objection: While they are correct in assessing the highly improbable nature of a biological machine suddenly coming into existence with all its required operatonal parts, they decide its not worth wondering if maybe a more simple machine evolved into what they see today.

I think its just as reasonable if not more reasonable to assume once, on a very early bacteria so simple as to be unrecognisable as a bacteria today - perhaps it was only a few molecules big - but it developed a simple rotating part, perhaps it was just a chain of molecules attached in such a way that it could rotate. Each of its ancestors inherited this simple rotating "tail", which enabled the bacteria to move around in a fluid rather than drift with the current, meaning they came into contact with more food and were able to reproduce more quickly. After a few zillion generations and many such tiny additions here and there, each of which gave the bacteria a slight edge which improved its survival chances and procreation rate (or, for some it could have made things worse and they didn't do quite as well), the device had become as efficient as it is today.

Same story for DNA and protiens. They were simple chemical messengers, but they got better over time.

An analogy that suits this film well is that you could go to a formula one race track and look at the cars, the perfectly tuned engines, the weighted suspension, the sheer design of the whole thing. Better yet, find someone who has been libing in a closet their whole life, and show it to them. Ask them to explain it. They don't know the history of the evolution of the motor vehicle from the horse drawn cart, through steam engines, early internal combusion engines, computer testing and simulation... They would think the machine had come into existance as if by magic. But, if you could show them the history of the automobile, how it first started as clunky, inefficient, and crude, and then evolved with minor improvements and additions - the carburettor, the air filter, computer controlled anti lock brakes... those changes which survived because they were good, and also the cars which didn't survive because they exploded on impact, rolled over on corners... Then they would see that the machine is simply the current generation in a logical sequence of minor imrpovements, each of which supersedes the previous generation and sets the standard upon which future improvements (or stuff ups) can be made.

I know the analogy is slightly odd because cars are obviously intelligently designed, but they wouldn't exist without a reason, and for any piece of technology to survive in its human environment, it has to be useful for humans. Technology doesn't survive if its useless. Technology can adapt to changing needs the same way organisms adapt to changing environments - those which fail to adapt simply die.

But the documentary is a good one, because for the first time in ages something seriously challenged my beliefs and it made me think.

I have lots of other things I'd love to talk about, concerning the progression of man from apes (if that happened, where are the man-ape hybrids... personally I reckon sucessive generations of humanoids wiped them out, racism isn't a new concept and hairy ape people must have seemed an inferior race to slightly less hairy, slightly less apey people...)

Whew...

Good movie - even though I disagree with its conclusion. What do you guys think?

Alex, the analogy with the car is a bit odd :D. I mean, that was like their whole argument. ie If you go out into the world and see something as complex as a car, you're not going to assume that it was assembled by natural causes. But, I guess I can see where you're coming from.

Here are my thoughts:

The DNA and the proteins are in 2 totally different realms. DNA, being the instructional guide, does not operate under the laws of natural selection. When something is created, then the natural laws can unfold. It seems to me there must have been an intelligence that must have set things in motion, weather it was intentional or unintentional. But it also seems to me that the "intelligence" is dependent upon the creation, and vice versa. The intelligence cannot gain knowledge or evolve without the experience of its creation. Just like how through experience we can learn how to build a better car. Perhaps the intelligence was so dim in the beginning that it was unaware of what is was doing. Just like how babies and animals are totally unconscious of themselves. Think about how a child can make a painting by just dipping their hands in paint and slathering it onto a piece of paper. But that same child can grow up to be the next DaVinci. So perhaps, in the beginning, it was all more like an unconscious expression rather than a creation.
And maybe that points to the goal of existence: to strike a perfect balance between expression and intelligent design- to combine the unconscious and the conscious in order to create a superconsciousness through the deliberate act of experience.

Excellent film btw. Thanks for the recommendation Donald

[Wolf_Thor]

The video can be seen or downloaded here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7367030221289690214&q=Unlocking+the+Mystery+of+Life)

Where? There is a line, not a link. :?:

And maybe that points to the goal of existence: to strike a perfect balance between expression and intelligent design- to combine the unconscious and the conscious in order to create a superconsciousness through the deliberate act of experience.
I haven't seen the movie, but would like to. Would you repost the link, please? I would have to agree with the above quote. The only difference is that I don't think there ever was an actual beginning. More like an evolutionary, ongoing, eternal circle of creating and expressing. In other words, the Source itself is evolving through us (and other lifeforms) . Always did and always will. :D

Where? There is a line, not a link. :?:

And maybe that points to the goal of existence: to strike a perfect balance between expression and intelligent design- to combine the unconscious and the conscious in order to create a superconsciousness through the deliberate act of experience.
I haven't seen the movie, but would like to. Would you repost the link, please? I would have to agree with the above quote. The only difference is that I don't think there ever was an actual beginning. More like an evolutionary, ongoing, eternal circle of creating and expressing. In other words, the Source itself is evolving through us (and other lifeforms) . Always did and always will. :D

Click on "here"


here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7367030221289690214&q=Unlocking+the+Mystery+of+Life)
that equals this: here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7367030221289690214&q=Unlocking+the+Mystery+of+Life:w7pph8ya)

[Wolf_Thor]

Where? There is a line, not a link. :?:

And maybe that points to the goal of existence: to strike a perfect balance between expression and intelligent design- to combine the unconscious and the conscious in order to create a superconsciousness through the deliberate act of experience.
I haven't seen the movie, but would like to. Would you repost the link, please? I would have to agree with the above quote. The only difference is that I don't think there ever was an actual beginning. More like an evolutionary, ongoing, eternal circle of creating and expressing. In other words, the Source itself is evolving through us (and other lifeforms) . Always did and always will. :D

I should have put "beginning" in quotes. :D

Doh!! Thanks Spec. I think I knew that. :oops: :lol: