1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6Correct, I don’t believe evolution as a blind, goalless process void
Religion has nothing at all to do with my objection to your line of reasoning.
You disagree that evolution could have been responsible for something as complex as the human eye, because you can't see how it could have come about as the result of evolutionary processes - as you have stated many times, you don't believe the probabilities would allow it. Howev sudden appearance of this designer, [b]necessarily more complex than the human eye?[/b]
of any and all plans, purposes, and designs can come up with
something as functionally complex as the human eye. My disbelief
about that actually has nothing to do with religion either, and it is
moving off point to discuss the design of the designer, which avoids
talking about the subject at hand. I do not need to know how a
bird was designed to understand a bird’s nest was designed by
one, I do not need to know how a man is designed to know a car
was designed by one, I don’t even need to know about birds or
men to know those things were both designed. Think the movie
“Contact” if you have seen it a signal was detected, it was
determined it was a message sent by design, and not a random
bit of noise, and no one had to know about those that sent it to
understand it wasn’t a natural grouping of pulses that sounded
like a signal.
I have a clue how much effort it takes to produce something far less
complex in a completely controlled environment with a host of
planners and engineers working feverishly to come up with the best
design possible and seeing the pit falls of such an undertaking! So
it isn’t that I just don’t know how it could happen, it is because the
process described cannot do it, period, in my opinion!
Entire hosts of independent start stop mechanisms working at such
a high degree of reliability don’t just happen, building foundational
body parts doing right thing, the right way so other parts that have
yet to appear in the universe can now form and perform properly, to
get yet other sets of prior non-existent body mechanisms to work
just right, and all of these mutations that people BELIEVE occurred
properly are all pushing evolution along are randomly generated is
just too much for me to accept. People claim the architect of this
process thing that glues it all together so it will work is the blind filter of
natural selection. Given that natural selection is just life playing out
as we see that some life lives and die can some how can take random
mutations feed to the process of change so it can build all these
things is the stuff of fairly tales and great science fiction are made of
in my opinion.
Than in addition to all of these new organs and so on in life just
appearing out of no where they are all attuned to the rest of the
system. Life then goes off and much of life splits into genders and we
now see two different types of life forms male and female mutate in
just the proper pace so that they stay in tuned with each other so they
can evolve in sync with one another. You don’t get to add new body
parts without balancing all the energy needs of the rest of the system
and have it just happen, you don’t get just the right material to be
produced at the right place under the right conditions by
happenstance, and you certainly don’t get to change two genders and
keep the changes in sync with one another without more than a little
effort! None of these complaints have anything to do with religion,
they have to do with the process pure and simple.
Kelly
Originally posted by PBE6If you want to define the designer you want to talk about, we can
You're making my argument for me. I quote:
"Entire hosts of independent start stop mechanisms working at such
a high degree of reliability don't just happen"
If you honestly believe this, how can you believe that a designer sprung into existence ex nihilo?
talk about them. In the mean time, the subject under discussion
is the difference between common ancestors without any design
involved, and a designed life form.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou express a huge list of opinions in this post without giving any premise for a single one.
Correct, I don’t believe evolution as a blind, goalless process void
of any and all plans, purposes, and designs can come up with
something as functionally complex as the human eye. My disbelief
about that actually has nothing to do with religion either, and it is
moving off point to discuss the design of the designer, which avoids
talking about the su ...[text shortened]... nts have anything to do with religion,
they have to do with the process pure and simple.
Kelly
….Think the movie
“Contact” if you have seen it a signal was detected, it was
determined it was a message sent by design, and NOT a RANDOM
bit of noise,
..… (my emphasis)
Actually, it being “NOT a RANDOM bit of noise” is ONLY ONE of the essential requirements for it to hint it may have been made intentionally -what about the NONE-random pulses from a pulsar etc?
There are a vast number of examples where natural process producing order, pattern etc and many such examples don’t involve living things.
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSomething done does it requires intent, or does it just happen all the
How do you verify empirically that something is the result of someone (something?) doing something with intent?
time and everyone can see it without intent? Have you ever seen
anything with similar complexity as living systems just happen without
intent being in the mix? Have you ever seen anything with similar
complexity of living systems just randomly change over time without
intent programmed into it, so that it starts doing completely new things
it never did before, like seeing, eating, having sex, talking and so on?
The fact that we are genetically coded should tell you that our very
make up is not accidental, unless of course you have witnessed
similar phenomenon or this type of behavior else where on that scale
without intent. Can you point to anything, I can point to code that was
written that was done with intent, or books, or any number of things.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf you had been following all the conversations within this thread it was
You express a huge list of opinions in this post without giving any premise for a single one.
[b]….Think the movie
“Contact” if you have seen it a signal was detected, it was
determined it was a message sent by design, and NOT a RANDOM
bit of noise,
..… (my emphasis)
Actually, it being “NOT a RANDOM bit of noise” is ONLY ONE of the ...[text shortened]... natural process producing order, pattern etc and many such examples don’t involve living things.[/b]
already agreed upon that intent and non-intentional actions are some
times very hard to tell apart. That does not however mean that they
will always be impossible to tell apart.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have not even attempted to answer my question. I know you believe life was designed, that wasn't my question. Read again.
Something done does it requires intent, or does it just happen all the
time and everyone can see it without intent? Have you ever seen
anything with similar complexity as living systems just happen without
intent being in the mix? Have you ever seen anything with similar
complexity of living systems just randomly change over time without
intent program ...[text shortened]... t to code that was
written that was done with intent, or books, or any number of things.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay….Have you ever seen anything with similar
Something done does it requires intent, or does it just happen all the
time and everyone can see it without intent? Have you ever seen
anything with similar complexity as living systems just happen without
intent being in the mix? Have you ever seen anything with similar
complexity of living systems just randomly change over time without
intent program ...[text shortened]... t to code that was
written that was done with intent, or books, or any number of things.
Kelly
complexity of living systems just randomly change over time without
intent programmed into it,
..…
Firstly, evolution doesn’t mean just “just randomly change” over time; natural selection isn’t random and evolution has some degree of predictability.
Secondly, how about the evolution of DDT resistant mosquitoes?
Was there “intention” there?
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….That does not however mean that they
If you had been following all the conversations within this thread it was
already agreed upon that intent and non-intentional actions are some
times very hard to tell apart. That does not however mean that they
will always be impossible to tell apart.
Kelly
will always be impossible to tell apart.
..…
Correct -and ONE way (but not the only way) to tell that something happened without intent is if it can be accounted for by natural processes that doesn’t require any kind of intelligence.
-evolution is a natural process that doesn’t require any kind of intelligence.
-and yet another way to tell that something happened without intent is to first consider the possibility of it happening with intent and then seeing if that action seems ‘intelligent’ and, if it doesn’t, that is a clear indication that it happened without intent (unless it was done by a moron of course).
Example: putting the blood vessels in front of our retinas clearly would not be an ‘intelligent’ thing to do.
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not. What I do want is for you to answer the following fundamental question:
If you want to define the designer you want to talk about, we can
talk about them. In the mean time, the subject under discussion
is the difference between common ancestors without any design
involved, and a designed life form.
Kelly
If you believe that something as complex as the human eye cannot arise through evolutionary processes, how do you rationalize the fact that any designer must have sprung into existence ex nihilo?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are saying that there are no random mutations within DNA?
[b]….Have you ever seen anything with similar
complexity of living systems just randomly change over time without
intent programmed into it,
..…
Firstly, evolution doesn’t mean just “just randomly change” over time; natural selection isn’t random and evolution has some degree of predictability.
Secondly, how about the evolution of DDT resistant mosquitoes?
Was there “intention” there?[/b]
Those are the supposed to be the driving force of these changes.
You deny this? Just trying to get a feel for you where you think these
changes are occuring.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6Well you want an answer to your question, and when you find someone
I do not. What I do want is for you to answer the following fundamental question:
If you believe that something as complex as the human eye cannot arise through evolutionary processes, how do you rationalize the fact that any designer must have sprung into existence ex nihilo?
who would like to debate the creation of the designer you have in
mind you and they can talk about it.
In the mean time, I have already put forward questions you are not
willing to engage me on the questions I have asked. So I will look for
those that desire to discuss design, you can look for someone to talk
to about the designers, design.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are telling me, that you have a life form, well for that matter all
[b]….That does not however mean that they
will always be impossible to tell apart.
..…
Correct -and ONE way (but not the only way) to tell that something happened without intent is if it can be accounted for by natural processes that doesn’t require any kind of intelligence.
-evolution is a natural process that doesn’t require any kind of ...[text shortened]... ing the blood vessels in front of our retinas clearly would not be an ‘intelligent’ thing to do.[/b]
life and this life reproduce over time in very friendly and very harsh
environments. Human life repairs itself; it holds its form through
generations, it thinks, it acts, it makes plans. That life form in your
opinion because of something you think is flawed by the location of
some blood vessels proves it wasn't done by someone/thing that is
intelligent? I would submit would not be surprised at all to find out
there more than likely is a good reason for it that we have not
uncovered yet. I'd also submit you don't have clue about design to
grasp how ridiculous that commit is given the scope of the how all
of our parts work togethers, how it gets put together and grows, how
the functionality in place does what is needed.
Kelly