Even If You Don't Belive In Intelligent Design..You Gotta Admit...

[georjec2]

The Design is intelligent.


When I think of and look at the wonders of nature I am in awe. From the redundancy of our eyes and limbs, the rhythm of the seasons, the co-operation of living organisms with the earth, insects that looks like leaves and sticks , the cuttle fish which can change it's color to match a black and white checker board, the vastness of our universe..it is big reallllyyy big and so many , too numerous to ever name all ,miraculous organizations and biological relationships I am overwhelmed.

I cannot belive that the lifeforce that exists in the universe and can we all agree there is a lifeforce, needs my attention in order for it to be happy.

It seems too intelligent.

[Merkin]

Originally Posted by georjec2

The Design is intelligent.


I cannot belive that the lifeforce that exists in the universe and can we all agree there is a lifeforce, needs my attention in order for it to be happy.

It seems too intelligent.

If there is a lifeforce that needs everyone to like/love/worship it, it seems that said is nothing more than a high school girl who needs to be the most popular girl in school and if she isn't than she is very vengeful and vindictive.

This is one lifeforce that won't be getting my vote for "most popular girl in school" in this years yearbook.

[georjec2]

Originally Posted by Merkin

If there is a lifeforce that needs everyone to like/love/worship it, it seems that said is nothing more than a high school girl who needs to be the most popular girl in school and if she isn't than she is very vengeful and vindictive.

This is one lifeforce that won't be getting my vote for "most popular girl in school" in this years yearbook.

I cannot think of a design in nature that I could improve on...right off hand . Can you ?

[bertvan]

If a life force exists in the universe, what would make anyone think it wants to be worshiped? If such a life force exists, it may include instincts, and I do acknowledge that humans seem to have an instinct to worship something. Perhaps speculation is painful to some people, and they find comfort in any contrived certainty. That’s a speculation, but I’m all for speculation. The only thing I’m definitively against is people claiming certain questions are beyond speculation. I object to those who claim life’s diversity is due to “natural selection” somehow organizing genetic mistakes into biological innovations, and insisting that the concept must not be questioned. I have no objections to the speculation that free will is merely deterministic brain interactions, and that free will doesn’t really exist. However I object to anyone claiming such speculations are “science“ and must not be questioned. Deterministic materialists and religionists are equally guilty of trying to stifle speculation.
bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

[unclesharkey]

Originally Posted by georjec2

The Design is intelligent.


When I think of and look at the wonders of nature I am in awe. From the redundancy of our eyes and limbs, the rhythm of the seasons, the co-operation of living organisms with the earth, insects that looks like leaves and sticks , the cuttle fish which can change it's color to match a black and white checker board, the vastness of our universe..it is big reallllyyy big and so many , too numerous to ever name all ,miraculous organizations and biological relationships I am overwhelmed.

I cannot belive that the lifeforce that exists in the universe and can we all agree there is a lifeforce, needs my attention in order for it to be happy.

It seems too intelligent.

You are right.....you gotta admit..........

[Kenect2]

Originally Posted by georjec2

I cannot think of a design in nature that I could improve on...right off hand . Can you ?

I can think of tons of improvements. The most obvious one is that the lack of regeneration in the central nervous system. The peripheral nervous system regenerates just fine. If you sever a nerve in your arm, that nerve will grow back after a few weeks or months. But if you sever your spinal cord, you are going to be paralyzed for life. Why should the peripheral nervous system regenerate but not the central? It is just one of those things...

I don't believe there is any intelligence involved in macro evolution. You might as well say there is some intelligence behind water running down hill and forming a river.

[Kenect2]

Originally Posted by bertvan

I object to those who claim life’s diversity is due to “natural selection” somehow organizing genetic mistakes into biological innovations, and insisting that the concept must not be questioned.

There is a time and place for questioning macroevolution. High school biology classrooms are not the place. Otherwise, I support the questioning of evolution. Even though macroevolution is a sound scientific theory, it is often healthy to question even the most sound of sciences. However, a healthy questioning of macroevolution is rarely the case. More often than not, the people questioning macroevolution don't even have the intellectual honesty to have a robust understanding of the topic. Such an approach is disappointing to say the least. Skeptics of macroevolution, if they want to be taken seriously, should meet the standards of the larger academic community.

[georjec2]

Originally Posted by bertvan

If a life force exists in the universe, what would make anyone think it wants to be worshiped? If such a life force exists, it may include instincts, and I do acknowledge that humans seem to have an instinct to worship something. Perhaps speculation is painful to some people, and they find comfort in any contrived certainty. That’s a speculation, but I’m all for speculation. The only thing I’m definitively against is people claiming certain questions are beyond speculation. I object to those who claim life’s diversity is due to “natural selection” somehow organizing genetic mistakes into biological innovations, and insisting that the concept must not be questioned. I have no objections to the speculation that free will is merely deterministic brain interactions, and that free will doesn’t really exist. However I object to anyone claiming such speculations are “science“ and must not be questioned. Deterministic materialists and religionists are equally guilty of trying to stifle speculation.
bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

There are four instincts for living organisms. Four instincts alone. I have categorized them. They are in this order.
1) Survival
2) Comfort
3)Sex/Procreation
4)Reflection (science ,philosophy, spirituality and creativity in humans are a result of reflection (I cannot prove that trees think but nor can I prove that they do not)


Life wants to live and will go to great lengths to do so. We are hardwired by the four instincts to live as we do so that life may live. How we express that life the life force seems indifferent to. Which is why there are so many of us..to insure that enough of us get it right to make it all matter. (What a hodgepodge of B.S. that sounds like but I see it better than I am saying it )

Here's my point as it relates to intelligent design.

I do not believe that some supernatural entity far off and away designed and made everything and us for it's glorification. Obviously because of all our religious institutions a lot of people do think or believe that is the case and thus we have the division between the creationist and the evolutionists.


I instead believe, and the evidence bears it out, that the design is intelligent.

[georjec2]

Originally Posted by Kenect2;5452970[B

]I can think of tons of improvements. The most obvious one is that the lack of regeneration in the central nervous system. The peripheral nervous system regenerates just fine. If you sever a nerve in your arm, that nerve will grow back after a few weeks or months. But if you sever your spinal cord, you are going to be paralyzed for life. Why should the peripheral nervous system regenerate but not the central? It is just one of those things...[/b]

I don't believe there is any intelligence involved in macro evolution. You might as well say there is some intelligence behind water running down hill and forming a river.

Year 2090
Man: Now back in 2009 before we were able to repair injuries such as this people were doomed to a life of paralysis. But nano technology has virtually eliminated such out comes.

We are a technological species. What our bodies do not automatically correct our minds will provide a solution for. We are the most adaptable species on the planet and we are evolving.
I guess ultimately the ultimate improvement would be to overcome death (or would it ?) Given time that may be achievable.

I'm inclined to believe there is some deep and profound reason why we do not regenerate limbs and spinal cords. I also believe that eventually our technolgy will solve the problem.

People use to die from abscessed teeth, smallpox and bubonic plagues.

Water running down a hill involves physics..and that's bursting with intelligence. Why not up the hill?

[unclesharkey]

Originally Posted by Kenect2

I can think of tons of improvements. The most obvious one is that the lack of regeneration in the central nervous system. The peripheral nervous system regenerates just fine. If you sever a nerve in your arm, that nerve will grow back after a few weeks or months. But if you sever your spinal cord, you are going to be paralyzed for life. Why should the peripheral nervous system regenerate but not the central? It is just one of those things...

I don't believe there is any intelligence involved in macro evolution. You might as well say there is some intelligence behind water running down hill and forming a river.

To get from nothing, to a universe with all these rules of nature...etc. to a galaxy to a solar system to a planet to water running down a hill forming a river, to an intelligent being enjoying the river, to that being forming a language to describe the river to posting it on the internet is a little more complicated than you make it out to be.

[Red Baron]

I instead believe, and the evidence bears it out, that the design is intelligent.

Nah. This is just the same argument re-packaged. Again. What you say is evidence is just your POV.

There are four instincts for living organisms. Four instincts alone. I have categorized them. They are in this order.
1) Survival
2) Comfort
3)Sex/Procreation
4)Reflection (science ,philosophy, spirituality and creativity in humans are a result of reflection (I cannot prove that trees think but nor can I prove that they do not)

Actually, only two are necessary. Survival and procreation. Comfort is nice to have, but not always necessary. I have no problem saying that trees do not reflect on anything. They do not think, as we understand thinking.

Nope, no real proof that it's intelligent. In fact, I am reflecting on whether this thread will get merged with the one of the others on intelligent design, since it's only further rumination on the topic.

[unclesharkey]

Originally Posted by Red Baron

Nah. This is just the same argument re-packaged. Again. What you say is evidence is just your POV.



Actually, only two are necessary. Survival and procreation. Comfort is nice to have, but not always necessary. I have no problem saying that trees do not reflect on anything. They do not think, as we understand thinking.

Nope, no real proof that it's intelligent. In fact, I am reflecting on whether this thread will get merged with the one of the others on intelligent design, since it's only further rumination on the topic.

Since life is so random, simple and unintelligent and came into existence for no apparent reason.....why not give us a synopsis of how we got from pretty much nothing to now.

[Kenect2]

Originally Posted by georjec2

Year 2090
Man: Now back in 2009 before we were able to repair injuries such as this people were doomed to a life of paralysis. But nano technology has virtually eliminated such out comes.

We are a technological species. What our bodies do not automatically correct our minds will provide a solution for. We are the most adaptable species on the planet and we are evolving.
I guess ultimately the ultimate improvement would be to overcome death (or would it ?) Given time that may be achievable.

I'm inclined to believe there is some deep and profound reason why we do not regenerate limbs and spinal cords. I also believe that eventually our technolgy will solve the problem.

People use to die from abscessed teeth, smallpox and bubonic plagues.

Water running down a hill involves physics..and that's bursting with intelligence. Why not up the hill?

georjec, you asked if I could think of a "design" in nature that could be improved on. I thought of an obvious one. The prediction that we will "design" ways to regenerate lost limbs just goes to show that there wasn't any intelligent design before Humans. It can be done, but it wasn't done. Now it's up to us to improve upon where nature has gotten us.

I see no evidence for intelligence in the fact that water runs down hill. It is merely the way the universe is.

[Kenect2]

Originally Posted by unclesharkey

To get from nothing, to a universe with all these rules of nature...etc. to a galaxy to a solar system to a planet to water running down a hill forming a river, to an intelligent being enjoying the river, to that being forming a language to describe the river to posting it on the internet is a little more complicated than you make it out to be.

I didn't claim that the universe has come from nothing. I don't know the origin of the universe. I don't know if the universe has always existed or not.

Regardless, you are the one who is claiming that the universe is simply the design of some creator. You are the one making things out to be simplistic. From my perspective, it appears that the origins of the universe and life on Earth are so complex that we have barely begun to understand what happened.

[unclesharkey]

Originally Posted by Kenect2

I didn't claim that the universe has come from nothing. I don't know the origin of the universe. I don't know if the universe has always existed or not.

Regardless, you are the one who is claiming that the universe is simply the design of some creator. You are the one making things out to be simplistic. From my perspective, it appears that the origins of the universe and life on Earth are so complex that we have barely begun to understand what happened.

Did I ever mention a creator?

Actually, I felt that you were presenting things in a pretty simplistic manner yourself and I was just pointing out that there were a lot of steps before you got to that simple old river. How would a creator make it simplistic? Depends on your view of what a creator might be. In regards to life the universe and everything being a random event how would that make it any more complicated? I am just throwing out ideas not necessary saying any of them are true or not. I don't know the answers.

[mrblack]

Originally Posted by unclesharkey

Did I ever mention a creator?

Actually, I felt that you were presenting things in a pretty simplistic manner yourself and I was just pointing out that there were a lot of steps before you got to that simple old river. How would a creator make it simplistic? Depends on your view of what a creator might be. In regards to life the universe and everything being a random event how would that make it any more complicated? I am just throwing out ideas not necessary saying any of them are true or not. I don't know the answers.

Good simple explanations on what Intelligent Design is and isn't can be found here:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...lligent_design

And of course we have already shown many times that nothing can be produced from a purely random system or process. There has to be some limits or direction or cause for things to be here.

Random processes we see in nature are pseudo random at best and given enough time can ultimately be traced to a non random cause. Our lack of ability to measure or trace is the limiting factor.

Even dumping water down a hill and watching a river form, could be traced back to the source (you and the bucket) given accurate measurements. There was a cause, the flow wasn't random or randomly formed. It didn't spontaneously generate.

[Red Baron]

Since life is so random, simple and unintelligent and came into existence for no apparent reason.....why not give us a synopsis of how we got from pretty much nothing to now.

Just check one of the many many way too many threads on here involving creationism v. evolution. It's not worth re-inventing the wheel.

But I will say there's nothing to say we didn't go from pretty much nothing to now, either. However, I really don't know how it all got started. But I certainly don't put much faith in the Bible's account.

Did I ever mention a creator?

Hmmm... if you're not mentioning a creator, that means you're saying it's... random. But you don't believe in that, either. Maybe you should stop being cutesy and just say what you're trying to get across?

Just another ID v Evolution thread.

You are the one making things out to be simplistic.

Can't get much more simplistic than relying on Genesis. Geez.

And this is another thread going nowhere fast, so I'll just say- if you want to believe in myths, go right ahead. But folks like me will do our damnedest to make sure it never makes it into a science class.

[Passerine]

Originally Posted by mrblack

...[a]nd of course we have already shown many times that nothing can be produced...

Uh-huh.

[Passerine]

Originally Posted by Red Baron

And this is another thread going nowhere fast, so I'll just say- if you want to believe in myths, go right ahead. But folks like me will do our damnedest to make sure it never makes it into a science class.

Seconded.

[unclesharkey]

Originally Posted by Red Baron

Just check one of the many many way too many threads on here involving creationism v. evolution. It's not worth re-inventing the wheel.

But I will say there's nothing to say we didn't go from pretty much nothing to now, either. However, I really don't know how it all got started. But I certainly don't put much faith in the Bible's account.



Hmmm... if you're not mentioning a creator, that means you're saying it's... random. But you don't believe in that, either. Maybe you should stop being cutesy and just say what you're trying to get across?

Just another ID v Evolution thread.



Can't get much more simplistic than relying on Genesis. Geez.

And this is another thread going nowhere fast, so I'll just say- if you want to believe in myths, go right ahead. But folks like me will do our damnedest to make sure it never makes it into a science class.

There you go making assumptions again and putting words and thoughts into my posts and other peoples posts. Anywhooo, I am the type of person who can see things several different ways. I sit on the fence and say....hmmm that is interesting but what about this and hmmmm. I certainly don't think the bible explains it and I don't know why you keep bringing it up. My knowledge of the bible is very limited, you probably know more about it than I do.......I have only read a few passages in my life.

Why is a creator always liked to the bible, is Christianity the only religion on this planet? And why does a creator have to be a magical creator.........you like to throw that out. A creator would not use magic....there is no such thing as magic.

I can see why people believe in ID and I can see why some people don't. Again I am not here arguing about it or to try to convince you and I also think this is like beating a dead horse but again I am here to make statements and share thoughts and to at times play devils advocate. Nothing more nothing less. I am not here to be cutesy unless that is what you want me to be......