Agreed. I'll leave the original main comment, but after this, creationism (called ID or otherwise) is cause for comment removal.

DS3618: "Have you ever considered that naturalistic explanations cannot explain DNA, or the Cambrian explosion... I challenge you to explain how through naturalistic processes you can form even the simplest bacteria (which by the way has ~160 kilobases)"

My formula for the origin of life is "RNA world plus micelles".

A micelle is a self-organized sphere of hydrophobic molecules. "RNA world" refers to a stage when you don't have the division of labor between DNA (information) and protein (structure), with RNA instead doing double duty (information from sequence, structure from conformation). Lipids and RNA polymers are capable of forming spontaneously in abiotic circumstances. So the idea is that the lipids mechanically self-organized into populations of micelles, which in turn contained different populations of RNA polymers. RNAs can both reproduce (in that one RNA strand can serve as a template for the formation of a second) and catalytically interact with each other (thus increasing or decreasing the reproduction rate of the other RNA species in a population). Finally one supposes a physical process, such as turbulence, which keeps breaking up these RNA-loaded micelles. Voila, you have a population of protocells subject to natural selection.

This is just a sketch of how biological evolution might get underway, by someone who is not even a biologist. But I don't think it's that hard to understand.

And as for the Cambrian explosion, if you know anything about how tissue differentiation and embyronic development work, I don't see how you could regard it as fundamentally mysterious. Sponges are the primordial multicellular lifeform and they already have the relevant genetic regulatory networks. Once that level of genetic complexity exists, it's not that amazing to see how it could lead to the diversity of multicellular life that we have now. So in a way the question is just, how did we get sponges. I am fond of the theory (promoted by John Mattick and others) that the essential new step involved in the transition to complex multicellularity is the development of a new level of genetic regulation involving transcribed intronic RNAs which never become protein but which do play a regulatory role controlling other genes. The idea is that this extra level of regulatory complexity permitted the transition from homogeneous colonies of single-celled organisms to multicellular organisms with differentiated tissues. But again, the bottom line is that this stuff does not look fundamentally mysterious. There's plenty to discover about how it might have happened and how it did happen, but it's not baffling, let alone naturalistically impossible.

I am smarter then almost everyone here

you are just hobbiest

Nevertheless not enough smart to get the orthography right. I don't usually criticise typos, but your way of arguing calls for that.

Honestly, what effect do you expect from declaring that you are superior and able to prove it? This is clearly not the way how to win debates. That's basically why people can think you are a troll.

Did you read what you wrote here?

"An interesting collection of molecules occupied a certain tide pool 3.5 to 4.5 billion years ago, interesting because the molecule collection built copies of itself out of surrounding molecules, and the resulting molecule collections also replicated while accumulating beneficial mutations. Those molecule collections satisfied a high-level functional criterion called "genetic fitness", and it happened by pure chance."

So essentially ignoring the rest of your post because it just goes into more "detail" we have some molecules + lots of magic=the world as we know it. Then followed by a big please accept my straw-man argument therefore the Singularity Summit is necessary. Does that about sum it up?

Just an aside: Have you ever considered that naturalistic explanations cannot explain DNA, or the Cambrian explosion. Have you ever looked at chemistry, quantum mechanics,... and even tried to figure out how that could work? What about considering the early earth and the available chemicals which are essentially what comes out of a volcano? If you have then I challenge you to explain how through naturalistic processes you can form even the simplest bacteria (which by the way has ~160 kilobases).

Humor me

No. You are arrogant, ill informed and condescending. Basically, a troll.

Humor me: I want to take an informal poll:

Questions (just yes or no) 1.) How many of you are in science fields? (by that I mean actually doing research, publishing papers etc.)

2.) How many of you have ever built an AI video game or other?

3.) How many of you have worked on or with or designed automated reasoning and or theorem proving software or algorithms?

4.) How many of you is this just a hobby?

I think those will do for now. (I am just curious from reading the post and comments which apparently someone didn't like my observation in my other comment which was valid)

I think you're re-inventing the wheel here.

"This towards the goal of creating "rationality augmentation" software. In the short term, my suspicion is that such software would look like a group of existing tools glued together with human practices."

Look at current work in AI, automated reasoning systems, and automated theorem proving.

Intelligent Design: does not necessitate the Christian God and centers around the idea of irreducible complexity.

I guess you didn't read the wikipedia article I linked to:

The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.

That textbook [the later 1993 edition] was the first significant published use of the term. It's the same book where they started with a creationism book and used hundreds of passages verbatim by replacing "creationism" with "intelligent design". It was obviously a ploy to repackage creationism in a way that wouldn't run foul of separation of church and state, and would thus allow it to be taught in public schools. Just as obviously, if "intelligent design" centered around the idea of irreducible complexity, why did it not figure prominently in the 1989 edition of the intelligent design textbook?

Seriously I don't agree with it but at least before I go off half-cocked I actually bother to educate myself.

Which is a serious mistake: there is too much gibberish in the world to learn it all before turning down.

ID is not different than creationism, it just uses different terminology with some additional quasi-scientific obfuscation. Consider the creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People:

... a comparison of an early draft of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy showed how in hundreds of instances the word "creationism" had been replaced by "intelligent design", and "creationist" simply replaced by "intelligent design proponent".

Can you think of any other 2 intellectual theories where you could take a book written about one and do a global search-and-replace on a few key terms in order to yield a good launching point for a book about the second theory?