Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou fool......the word selection means subsequent intelligence.
“...That's real good insight rvsakhadeo. ...”
no it isn't. Evolution explains all of the babies characteristics of development because, obviously, advantageous characteristics would general be selected by natural selection.
“...I don't know HOW naturalistic and random Darwinism will survive the accumulating evidence for intelligent design ...” ...[text shortened]... ent design”. I challenge you to give me an “example” and I will gladly debunk it using logic.
Have you ever heard of something meaningful being selected without intelligence.
Every second a trillion trillion trillion, to the power of a trillion trillion trillion selections are taking place in the world around us, perfectly and with purpose.
The madness disease has certainly taken firm hold of you.
It is people like you who subscribe to these absurd beliefs, that create the mad world we live in.
Originally posted by vishvahetuIt is people like you that are very sick troubled individuals that spout inane crap like a roaring geyser.
You fool......the word selection means subsequent intelligence.
Have you ever heard of something meaningful being selected without intelligence.
Every second a trillion trillion trillion, to the power of a trillion trillion trillion selections are taking place in the world around us, perfectly and with purpose.
The madness disease has certainly t ...[text shortened]... is people like you who subscribe to these absurd beliefs, that create the mad world we live in.
Do us all favour and fark off to a more vedic friendly environment - there is a local place down the road - all l need you to do is sign on the dotted line - they have nice padded walls and friendly staff who put cute little vests on you.
Originally posted by jaywillDear Jaywill,I did not obtain these details from any source. Being a civil engineer and construction project management Team Leader in a consulting firm,Fast Track Project Management is of interest to me,including sequence of construction activities and various methodologies of construction. Child birth and child development exemplify how these activities bear the stamp of Design.
[b]=========================================
Dear Jaywill,
Absolutely in agreement with you regarding the Design involved in the evolution of--------
Did you derive these insights on human birth from some source I can visit online?
The references to Human Body Design are many in the literature,but I can't remember off hand. The instances concerned are Bilateralism of important exposed organs e.g 2 eyes, 2 ears,2 nostrils,2 hands,2 legs,2 testicles/ovaries etc so that 1 spare is available always. Even Brain is bilateral with 2 halves of specialized functions but in which one half can learn tasks belonging to the other half in case that half is damaged. Forget humans,lesser vertebrates have bodies duly designed.
That these intricate bodies developed as a result of minute changes over generations( a Darwinian view ) may be argued in view of the fossil evidence but the intricacies appear to me too intelligently done to say that they evolved over a long period of trial and error. More like if some master designer tinkered with 2 or 3 forms and allowed the best to develop.
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo======================================
Dear Jaywill,I did not obtain these details from any source. Being a civil engineer and construction project management Team Leader in a consulting firm,Fast Track Project Management is of interest to me,including sequence of construction activities and various methodologies of construction. Child birth and child development exemplify how these activities . More like if some master designer tinkered with 2 or 3 forms and allowed the best to develop.
Dear Jaywill,I did not obtain these details from any source. Being a civil engineer and construction project management Team Leader in a consulting firm,Fast Track Project Management is of interest to me,including sequence of construction activities and various methodologies of construction. Child birth and child development exemplify how these activities bear the stamp of Design.
The references to Human Body Design are many in the literature,but I can't remember off hand. The instances concerned are Bilateralism of important exposed organs e.g 2 eyes, 2 ears,2 nostrils,2 hands,2 legs,2 testicles/ovaries etc so that 1 spare is available always. Even Brain is bilateral with 2 halves of specialized functions but in which one half can learn tasks belonging to the other half in case that half is damaged. Forget humans,lesser vertebrates have bodies duly designed.
That these intricate bodies developed as a result of minute changes over generations( a Darwinian view ) may be argued in view of the fossil evidence but the intricacies appear to me too intelligently done to say that they evolved over a long period of trial and error. More like if some master designer tinkered with 2 or 3 forms and allowed the best to develop.
==========================================
The one project management discipline I have used is PERT. I cannot recall what the acronym stands for any more.
But on a team of traveling performers we were taught to plan by starting with the desired end product, and work backwards. "Before this happens, what has to happen? And before that happens what has to happen? And before that happens, what has to happen?"
We ended up with a long diagram shaped like an arrow with many contingent branches off to the sides. Then having worked the plan backwards and assigning time values, we then proceeded forwards to execute the project.
Does this sound familiar to you ?
I also, while working at Blue Cross of Mass, got involved in some Project Management excercse software training, which I think was called Critical Path.
I would like to converse with you a bit more latter. You have a unique perspective. And I'd like to know how you would feel about a Divine Master Planner who also had a trasncendent perspective over time. I mean, knowing in advance, how His creatures might rebel or at least planning for possible revolt, might carry out the planning of the universe.
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has some very interesting things to say about this as a OE creationist.
I have a suspicion that one day will look out on the history of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and the whole cosmos and grasp that God built into His management of creation contigencies of astounding forethought or "see ahead" remedies and stop measures for the potentiality of the rebellion of His creatures.
Some atheists object to this idea of updating our appreciation of how wise the Creator was. But I think for me it has to be explored some.
I'll give an example latter.
PERT stands for programme evaluation and review technique. Your description of bacward pass and forward pass is very familiar to me. Practicing it for years. Critical Path is the path made up of the activities which are called critical. The critical activities are the ones which decide the project duration. Software such as MS Project is available for preparing the project execution plan. But why would a Creator anticipate a rebellion from his creations ?
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo======================================
PERT stands for programme evaluation and review technique. Your description of bacward pass and forward pass is very familiar to me. Practicing it for years. Critical Path is the path made up of the activities which are called critical. The critical activities are the ones which decide the project duration. Software such as MS Project is available for pre ...[text shortened]... the project execution plan. But why would a Creator anticipate a rebellion from his creations ?
But why would a Creator anticipate a rebellion from his creations ?
=================================
Good question.
Anticipate may not be the right word. Maybe I mean "plan for the possibility of". With rocks, stones, and non-living things there may be no problem. But with living beings which have their own wills, their own minds, etc. the potential for choosing "another way" may be something God project managed for.
Let me pose an example from Genesis. Before Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he was innocent, neutral, and "very good". He received his instructions directly from God. And they were simple directions.
Essentially, they were only to be careful what he ate. Very simple. no? Okay, "Be fruitful and multiple" and to be careful not to eat a certain thing in his paradise.
But in his disobedience, his conscience was activated.
"And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loinclothes for themselves.
And they heard the sound of Jehovah God walking about in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God among the trees of the garden.
And Jehvoah God called to the man and said to him, Where are you?
And he said, I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked; so I hid myself.
And He [God] said, Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat ? " (Genesis 3:7-11)
At this point in my Bible study, it seems that "the knowledge of good and evil" is related to the human conscience being activated. The question of God - "Who told you that you were naked?" implies that what God had previously given to man no non-innocent self consciousness about, now, from some source, informs Adam that he is wrong.
The disobedience caused man to be excluded from the Paradise and alienated from the divine eternal life of "the tree of life". However, the awakening of the human conscience in him, was at least useful as a "breaking system" to restrict his further decline away from God's way.
The awakening of the internal "breaking system" of man's conscience is not altogether a bad thing, given the circumstances. His conscience should act to warn and stop him from further and further alienation from the will of God.
If so, the it is not hard to view the design of the human conscience as a contingency, should man excercise a free will to choose another way besides God's way.
What was the fall of man in eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in rebellion against God's clear command not to? Basically, it was the taking of "another way" besides the way of God.
Now man, alienated from the life of God, damaged in his fellowship with God, at least to some degree (running off and hiding himself from God's friendly visit) now requires the "breaking system" of the awakened conscience to hold him from further degradation.
By this can you see any "project planning" in the Divine Mind to engineer for a potentiality of His creature taking "another way" beside the will of God ?
I can provide another example.
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...Have you ever heard of something meaningful being selected without intelligence. ...”
You fool......the word selection means subsequent intelligence.
Have you ever heard of something meaningful being selected without intelligence.
Every second a trillion trillion trillion, to the power of a trillion trillion trillion selections are taking place in the world around us, perfectly and with purpose.
The madness disease has certainly t ...[text shortened]... is people like you who subscribe to these absurd beliefs, that create the mad world we live in.
yes. The smaller looser grains of sand can be selected by the wind to be blown to another place etc.
When somebody says “natural selection selects (something) “ , obviously he doesn't mean it is a deliberate and conscious selection.
This is simply an example out of many examples of adapting a word to have a non-standard meaning of the usual word.
I have heard the weather forecaster on TV say “...and the low pressure is trying to push south...” . does that he meant that the low pressure was consciously and deliberately "trying" to pushing south? Answer, no.
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton====================================
“...Have you ever heard of something meaningful being selected without intelligence. ...”
yes. The smaller looser grains of sand can be selected by the wind to be blown to another place etc.
When somebody says “natural selection selects (something) “ , obviously he doesn't mean it is a deliberate and conscious selection.
This is simply an exam ...[text shortened]... that the low pressure was consciously and deliberately "trying" to pushing south? Answer, no.
yes. The smaller looser grains of sand can be selected by the wind to be blown to another place etc.
When somebody says “natural selection selects (something) “ , obviously he doesn't mean it is a deliberate and conscious selection.
This is simply an example out of many examples of adapting a word to have a non-standard meaning of the usual word.
I have heard the weather forecaster on TV say “...and the low pressure is trying to push south...” . does that he meant that the low pressure was consciously and deliberately "trying" to pushing south? Answer, no.
=====================================
But if one comes upon Mt. Rushmore, one would assume that the outcome of the shapes on the side of the mountain probably did not result from grains of sand randomly blown off the mountain.
The outcome suggests intelligence was at work in eliminating portions of sand grains.
It is true that if I take a piano to the top of a mountan and push it down a long sloe, certain notes will be "selected" to sound, as it bounces over the rocks, tumbling, sliding, falling etc.
If the notes "selected" sound like a Bach Fugue, I would be pretty shocked. I would not expect to hear such harmony, symmetry, and intelligence in the arrangement of notes.
And when some of us look out on the natural world, it is too much to ask us to believe, fortunate accidents arrived as such a result.
We perceive intelligence at work to arrive at such a result. Any "selection" that took place display apparent intelligent forethought.
We may dispute whether such was the forethought of whose mind. But some intelligence was at work.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]A lot of people keep thinking that natural selection is "selecting" an improvement. Improvement is subjective in itself and evolutionary processes do not have any awareness of what improvement is.
[b]====================================
yes. The smaller looser grains of sand can be selected by the wind to be blown to another place etc.
When somebody says “natural selection selects (something) “ , obviously he doesn't mean it is a deliberate and conscious selection.
This is simply an example out of many examples of adapting a word to have te whether such was the forethought of whose mind. But some intelligence was at work.
The reality is that they have it backwards and they have to look at what is NOT being "selected" for it to be clearer (i.e. organisms which are less capable of reproducing in comparison to their counterparts, and being filtered out). The overall macroscopic effect being more stability so they can more efficiently reproduce.
Wind blowing grains of sand is just an analogy to show "selection" without intelligence. It cannot be further used as an analogy to demonstrate evolution, because grains of sand do not reproduce as biological organisms do.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill“...But if one comes upon Mt. Rushmore, one would assume that the outcome of the shapes on the side of the mountain probably did not result from grains of sand randomly blown off the mountain. ...”
[b]====================================
yes. The smaller looser grains of sand can be selected by the wind to be blown to another place etc.
When somebody says “natural selection selects (something) “ , obviously he doesn't mean it is a deliberate and conscious selection.
This is simply an example out of many examples of adapting a word to have te whether such was the forethought of whose mind. But some intelligence was at work.[/b]
I honestly don't follow you: We KNOW Mt. RushmoreA is artificial and involves intelligence. We KNOW that wind blowing sand grains isn't artificial and does not involve intelligence. How can you say one is like the other? Are you denying that a natural selecting process can occur without intelligence? I can give you many examples to the contrary.
“...It is true that if I take a piano to the top of a mountan and push it down a long sloe, certain notes will be "selected" to sound, ...”
that analogy is wrong because that “selection” of notes is random and natural selection in evolution does NOT select randomly so a piano playing notes randomly would NOT be analogous to natural selection.
“...And when some of us look out on the natural world, it is too much to ask us to believe, fortunate accidents arrived as such a result. ...”
if you are referring to natural selection, that isn't a “fortunate accident” but an inevitability. There is no chance of natural selection not happening to life.
The wind creates complex shaped waves and patterns of sand dunes over a large area; complex symmetrical microscopic shapes form in snow flakes in clouds;
these are just two examples not of selection but of complexity without intelligence.
I can also give less obvious examples of natural processes without intelligence selecting something in a non-random way thus proving that it IS possible for something to select without intelligence. The wind selectively and non-randomly can select the smaller lighter grains of sand -and I only have to show ONE such example to prove that it is possible for something to select without intelligence!
Originally posted by jaywillSo why did god limit adam to mulitply? Was he forbidden to divide or add or subtract? To say nothing of factorials🙂
[b]======================================
But why would a Creator anticipate a rebellion from his creations ?
=================================
Good question.
Anticipate may not be the right word. Maybe I mean "plan for the possibility of". With rocks, stones, and non-living things there may be no problem. But with living bein ...[text shortened]... " beside the will of God ?
I can provide another example.[/b]
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou do not see correctly....there is no place in existence that there is no intelligence.
“...But if one comes upon Mt. Rushmore, one would assume that the outcome of the shapes on the side of the mountain probably did not result from grains of sand randomly blown off the mountain. ...”
I honestly don't follow you: We KNOW Mt. RushmoreA is artificial and involves intelligence. We KNOW that wind blowing sand grains isn't artificial and ...[text shortened]... ONE such example to prove that it is possible for something to select without intelligence!
Intelligence is everywhere, because God is omni-present and therefore everywhere.
You do not have the spiritual insight to understand this, so you make a false claim....atheist do it all the time.
For a molecule to stay in its construct, it needs intelligence.
The laws of physics that man has observed, are there because of intelligence and creative will.
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou don't understand laws of physics.
You do not see correctly....there is no place in existence that there is no intelligence.
Intelligence is everywhere, because God is omni-present and therefore everywhere.
You do not have the spiritual insight to understand this, so you make a false claim....atheist do it all the time.
For a molecule to stay in its construct, it needs intelligenc ...[text shortened]...
The laws of physics that man has observed, are there because of intelligence and creative will.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=====================================
“...But if one comes upon Mt. Rushmore, one would assume that the outcome of the shapes on the side of the mountain probably did not result from grains of sand randomly blown off the mountain. ...”
I honestly don't follow you: We KNOW Mt. RushmoreA is artificial and involves intelligence. We KNOW that wind blowing sand grains isn't artificial and ONE such example to prove that it is possible for something to select without intelligence!
I honestly don't follow you: We KNOW Mt. RushmoreA is artificial and involves intelligence. We KNOW that wind blowing sand grains isn't artificial and does not involve intelligence. How can you say one is like the other? Are you denying that a natural selecting process can occur without intelligence? I can give you many examples to the contrary.
=======================================
Yes, we know the history of the creation of Mt. Rushmore. But suppose 1,000 years from now, people did not know ? They would detect ingelligence at work.
How one is like the other, to me, is like the outcome. The DNA system is more of a marvel then Mr. Rushmore. I think that intelligence was at work is more likely then it was not at work.
What do you think was more likely, in the case of the DNA strains in every cell of your body ?
============================
“...It is true that if I take a piano to the top of a mountan and push it down a long sloe, certain notes will be "selected" to sound, ...”
that analogy is wrong because that “selection” of notes is random and natural selection in evolution does NOT select randomly so a piano playing notes randomly would NOT be analogous to natural selection.
=====================================
The analogy may not be perfect. But I don't think it is not somewhat useful anyway.
Once again, the total outcome of the process you imagine, is before us. The total outcome looks to me much more like intelligence was at work then that it was not involved.
Most mutations are harmful. So we have to wait for the benefitial ones. In the mean time, environment changes, as the eons go by. The environment does not stand still until the right benefitial "selection" preserves the useful mutation.
I think time is not on the side of the useful mutations, given the encredible success of the total outcome.
The reproductive cycle, for example, is very successful. In arriving at a finished product of this vast system, I think, time is not on the side of weeding out the minority of "useful" mutations amid the vast majority of typically harmful ones.
I think you're proposing a system in which you are saying "Given enough time, the minority of non-harmful mutations, would produce this encredible result."
Between, an assumption that enough TIME would have allowed for useful selections to produce such a result and "know how" and intelligence producing such a result. I think the latter is more realistic.
You are right that we know the intelligence in the case of Mr. Rushmore. But in the case of the human reproductive cycle, saying we don't know the intelligent source does not excuse us from detecting a probable intelligent source.
Not knowing, is not a good rational for assuming that one cannot exist.
===================================
“...And when some of us look out on the natural world, it is too much to ask us to believe, fortunate accidents arrived as such a result. ...”
if you are referring to natural selection, that isn't a “fortunate accident” but an inevitability. There is no chance of natural selection not happening to life.
======================================
Most mutations are not benefitial. I don't think it is inevitable that a benefitial one must come along.
We can say that some benefitial ones did eventually come along. But how these minority of useful mutations so successfully prevailed and triumphed is exceedingly "fortunate". Since the harmful mutations were far in the majority, why didn't they prevail ?
It is more likely that the success of the outcome reveals intelligence then that intelligence was not involved.
Not knowing what the intelligent source was or that matter being contraversial or sensative is no excuse for taking a position that one could not possibly be involved.
===============================
The wind creates complex shaped waves and patterns of sand dunes over a large area; complex symmetrical microscopic shapes form in snow flakes in clouds;
these are just two examples not of selection but of complexity without intelligence.
===============================
True. But how far are you going to extrapolate that ?
Let's advance 2000 years into some future Post American civilization who does not remember the 19th & 20th centuries.
Shall they say "Well, there are symetrical snowflakes made without any intelligent agency. So this mountian here with what appears to be four human faces, conceivably could have also been produced without intelligence ? "
Detection of design is not so easily dismissed because some instances reveal symmetry without design. How far can you take that principle in good conscience ?
======================================
I can also give less obvious examples of natural processes without intelligence selecting something in a non-random way thus proving that it IS possible for something to select without intelligence. The wind selectively and non-randomly can select the smaller lighter grains of sand -and I only have to show ONE such example to prove that it is possible for something to select without intelligence!
========================================
It is still hard for me to imagine the very word "select" without conjuring up the decision of will.
A toss of a coin will lead to a random result. Statiticians can make predictions about the proportions of those random results, given a certain number of tosses.
You are saying a lot about the non-randomness of positive mutations being "selected" over the multitude of adverse ones. Given enough time, you imply that the positive "choices" advance the species.
I look at the total outcome, as to date. The success of the outcome looks like magic. I know you don't want me to believe in magic.
The next best assumption is that the total outcome, as to date, looks like some intelligence was at work.
The less likely assumption to me, is that non intelligent, non-random, "selections" produced such a successful result. Just adding huge amounts of time, doesn't help.
Even in earth history, many many things change over the eons. I'd have to assume that the environmental factors had to have been held constant for the fortunate mutations (in the minority) had the time to win out and advance the species positively.
I don't think there is enough time to produce such an outcome.
I don't think other factors would remain constant while these vasts amounts of time passed.
When I view, for example, the joining of a sperm with an egg, and the cascade of changes that occur to produce another living person (or animal), what non-intelligent process could arrive at such a result ?
To say no intelligence was involved is asking me to believe in magic, given the encredible outcome.
I see no way out of this delimma except to adopt some kind of pseudo Buddhist attitude that its an illusion of genius, or an illusion of design.
Saying "It's really no big deal" doesn't help. It is a marvelous outcome.
Saying. "I see some flaws here and there. So any designer didn't do too good of a job" neither helps.
Perhaps not you, but some seem to imply that God could not have designed this because that would violate the separation of church and state.
We may separate church and state in our educational system. But that will not make the evidence of intelligence in biological systems go away.
We know we didn't design the repoductive system. But some MIND looks like it did. At least to some of us it appears that way.
You think that is a ludicrous idea ? Do you think that is an obsolete idea for the 21rst century ? I don't.
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“...Yes, we know the history of the creation of Mt. Rushmore. But suppose 1,000 years from now, people did not know ? They would detect ingelligence at work. ...”
[b]=====================================
I honestly don't follow you: We KNOW Mt. RushmoreA is artificial and involves intelligence. We KNOW that wind blowing sand grains isn't artificial and does not involve intelligence. How can you say one is like the other? Are you denying that a natural selecting process can occur without intelligence? I can give you m an obsolete idea for the 21rst century ? I don't.[/b]
yes, because, unlike with the diversity of life, no natural process would account for it.
“...How one is like the other, to me, is like the outcome. The DNA system is more of a marvel then Mr. Rushmore. I think that intelligence was at work is more likely then it was not at work. ...”
why?
“...What do you think was more likely, in the case of the DNA strains in every cell of your body ? ...”
what does “ the case of the DNA strains in every cell of your body” mean?
“...Most mutations are harmful. ...”
...and “most” means many can be beneficial.
“...So we have to wait for the beneficial ones. In the mean time, environment changes, as the aeons go by. ...”
new beneficial mutations and variants inevitably occur frequently and in every generation so no need to wait for “aeons” for them. Where did you get that from?
If we had to wait “aeons” for there to be a new non-harmful mutation or variant then the selective breeding of dogs over just a few thousand years to create totally new breads would have been impossible!
The AIDS virus is mutating nearly all the time from the day it enters a victims body.
Most of the harmful mutations are weeded out immediately within the environment of the body.
It is an observed fact that new drag-resistant beneficial (to the virus) mutations often occur within months of the victim receiving antiviral drugs and this results in the viral population rapidly becoming mostly the resistant type. Does that evolution occur over “aeons” of time?
There is also evolution of DDT resistant mosquitoes and antibiotic resistant bacteria as examples of rapid evolution that didn't take "aeons".
“...In arriving at a finished product of this vast system, I think, time is not on the side of weeding out the minority of "useful" mutations amid the vast majority of typically harmful ones. ...”
most harmful mutations are generally selected out in just one or two generations. The useful ones generally start to spread significantly within several generations.
Therefore, the ratio of harmful to non-harmful mutations is irrelevant here. And the amount of time it takes is also irrelevant; tell us, what agent is putting a time limit to this selection? What barrier is stopping this selection occur over ten years or a hundred years or a million years? Is there somebody here with a stopwatch that says “times up! Too late! You are not allowed to continue selecting now!” 😛
“...Not knowing, is not a good rational for assuming that one cannot exist. ...”
what nonsense! Not knowing something exists is a silly reason to believe it exists!
We do NOT know that there is a teacup orbiting between Earth and Mars because there is no logical contradiction in that being true and we cannot disprove it; so we should believe there is a teacup orbiting between Earth and Mars?
Answer, no! Reason; Occam’s razor.
“...Since the harmful mutations were far in the majority, why didn't they prevail ? ..”
because natural selection is constantly selects them out of existence (usually within a single generation depending on how harmful they are)
“...It is still hard for me to imagine the very word "select" without conjuring up the decision of will. ….”
so you cannot imagine the wind selecting a lighter sand grain without conjuring up the decision of will?
“...You are saying a lot about the non-randomness of positive mutations being "selected" over the multitude of adverse ones. Given enough time, you imply that the positive "choices" advance the species. ...”
incorrect; this is a non-standard meaning of the word “selected” that, in this context, does not imply “choice”.
“...I don't think other factors would remain constant while these vasts amounts of time passed. ...”
a constant unchanging environment is not a requirement for evolution. In fact, the exact opposite is the case.
“...When I view, for example, the joining of a sperm with an egg, and the cascade of changes that occur to produce another living person (or animal), what non-intelligent process could arrive at such a result ? ...”
evolution: starting with simple cell division then sexual reproduction without egg and sperm ( the sexual reproduction of Amoeba being one example that lives today!)
and then egg and sperm type.