Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=============================
“...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. ...”
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 ...[text shortened]... uction of Amoeba being one example that lives today!)
and then egg and sperm type.
yes, because, unlike with the diversity of life, no natural process would account for it.
==============================
That natural processes account for this diversity apart from intelligent know-how, is what you wish to prove. I am not starting with the assumption that it has been proved. That is what the dispute is about.
You're affirming that the dispute is solved already.
====================
“...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?
=========================
As in your above point, you assume that no intelligent "know-how" has already been proved in the process of life development. So naturally you ask "why?"
I do not start out with this statement of faith, that it has been conclusively proved that no intelligent know-how was involved in development of biological life.
DNA, conveys coded information. We notice that coded information usually has meaning superimposed upon it by intellegence from without of the materials themselves.
The real meaning of the words you are reading are imposed upon them from without by a mind. The molecules of the pixels of your PC do not infuse meaning into the combination of shapes that are being made. An intelligence outside has imposed the real meaning of these symbols.
=================
what does “ the case of the DNA strains in every cell of your body” mean?
===================
Replication of the same codes in every cell of the body.
===================
“...Most mutations are harmful. ...”
...and “most” means many can be beneficial.
==========================
By harmful it is meant not benefitial. Most mutations do not improve the organism. The statistics are stacked in favor of non-benefitial mutations rather than benefitial ones.
===========================
new beneficial mutations and variants inevitably occur frequently and in every generation so no need to wait for “aeons” for them.
=============================
I think here you want it both ways. My understanding is that evolutionists excuse the unobservability of species to species transformation because of the length of time is too long for human observation. But on the other hand you wish to say it is frequent and in every generation, so we need not wait eons.
Let's say that the giraffe neck evolved from shorter to longer to enable it to reach higher up plants. During the million or more years this transformation was kicking in, other forms of food were probably coming and going. I have to assume something static and staying the same over a long period of time. But everything else is also suppose to be evolving according to its own mutations.
Weather is changing. Climate is altering. Many things are in a flux over that same period of time. I think it idealistic to always assume all things remained static and stationary giving evolution trial and error to improve a species.
What makes that bush that the long necked giraffe is evolving to reach stay the same when it has its own evolutionary needs ?
===============
Where did you get that from?
===================
Thinking about the big picture. Everything living is suppose to be evolving. They all have their own particular needs. And the physical environment is changing over long periods of time, not waiting for everything to adopt to a static situation necessarily.
I just consider without excessive idealism to consider realistically the whole process.
=====================================
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!
=====================================
That is not a good example for macro evolution a dog into something totally different, like a goat.
I can see many different kinds of dogs being breed in an observable amount of human time. But they are still dogs. I think even a child can see that a wolf is pretty much just a kind of dog.
We're talking dinosaurs to birds or land walking cows to dolphins or whales. I can see micro evolution as viable. It is macro evolution of species changing something altogether different, which presents problems to the theory.
So dog variations and virus variations are not convincing to me as far as macro evolution is concerned. The extrapolation of things from inter-species variation to that level is problematic.
============================
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?
==============================
I think micro evolution along this line we must agree has been observed. The extrapolation to macro evolution is the leap that some of us don't feel comfortable taking.
When the dog is bread into something not a dog, then I will have to re-consider.
Now I don't mean to ignore your other comments. But I have to continue latter.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“...That natural processes account for this diversity apart from intelligent know-how, is what you wish to prove. ..."
[b]=============================
yes, because, unlike with the diversity of life, no natural process would account for it.
==============================
That natural processes account for this diversity apart from intelligent know-how, is what you wish to prove. I am not starting with the assumption that it has been proved. That is what the disp er.
Now I don't mean to ignore your other comments. But I have to continue latter.[/b]
I do not “ wish to prove” that any more than I “wish to prove” that wind does not select the lighter sand grains without intelligence and for the same reason; the absence of evidence for an intelligent agent is reason enough to think that there is no intelligent agent at work.
“...I do not start out with this statement of faith, ...”
yes you do; blind faith that there is intelligence behind the formation of modern life.
“...that it has been conclusively proved that no intelligent know-how was involved in development of biological life. ...”
no proof required; evolution accounts for the existence of modern life just fine without an intelligent agent. Therefore your faith that there must be intelligence behind it is without rational premise. If there is a simple natural explanation for something that does not involve intelligence then it is always reasonable to assume that that explanation renders the hypothesis that that something was caused by an intelligence as a unnecessary and therefore baseless hypothesis. If this was not the case then we would have to think that it is perfectly reasonable to assume intelligence is behind the wind selecting the lighter grains of sand and behind lightening and all physical phenomenon and all biological phenomenon such as a flower opening etc.
“...DNA, conveys coded information. We notice that coded information usually has meaning superimposed upon it by intellegence from without of the materials themselves......”
?
DNA codes for 1, proteins 2, development 3, switching other genes on or off under certain conditions.
A snowflake crustal also has information in it (geometric information) ; does that imply an intelligence behind it?
“...The real meaning of the words you are reading are imposed upon them from without by a mind. ...”
DNA is not designed for us to read it. Its function is to code for proteins etc and not to have “meaning” ( “meaning” in the sense of having a definition).
“...===========================
new beneficial mutations and variants inevitably occur frequently and in every generation so no need to wait for “aeons” for them.
============================= (my quote)
I think here you want it both ways. My understanding is that evolutionists excuse the unobservability of species to species transformation because of the length of time is too long for human observation. ….”
hay! Where did I mention “ species to species transformation” there? Read my above quote again! I clearly said “new beneficial mutations and variants” and NOT “ species to species transformation” so I am not having it “both ways” and stop putting words in my mouth! Beneficial mutations are occurring all the time without the need to wait “aeons” and species to species transformations occur over a much greater period of time because MANY beneficial mutations will usually (but not necessarily) need to accumulate over time to make such a big change and neither I nor evolutionists say otherwise.
“...Let's say that the giraffe neck evolved from shorter to longer to enable it to reach higher up plants. During the million or more years this transformation was kicking in, other forms of food were probably coming and going. ...”
“other forms of food”? You mean other than trees? How would you know this?
“...I think it idealistic to always assume all things remained static and stationary giving evolution trial and error to improve a species. ...”
well you “think” wrong! What is stopping evolution from continuing in a changing environment?
“...They all have their own particular needs. And the physical environment is changing over long periods of time, not waiting for everything to adopt to a static situation necessarily. ...”
...and no need to wait for “ everything to adopt to a static situation”. Take the evolution of the neck of a giraffe; the global whether may change, ice ages may come and go, the occasional meteor may cause massive disturbance, but as long as the giraffes are reliant mainly on feeding on trees of various heights when those trees are just occasionally scarce enough to cause some (not all) of the giraffes to starve, the giraffes with the longer necks that can reach higher and therefore less likely to starve will be mainly the ones that pass on their genes and thus the environment will selectively breed them to have longer and longer necks. -why is a completely static environment needed for that? Answer, it isn't! The only thing that needs to stay “static” here is the presence of trees and the reliance on mainly feeding on those trees when food is short.
“...That is not a good example for macro evolution a dog into something totally different, like a goat. ...”
I didn't say that a breed of dog is a different species from the bread it was bred from.
“...I think micro evolution along this line we must agree has been observed. The extrapolation to macro evolution is the leap that some of us don't feel comfortable taking. ...”
...only if you have religious reasons to “don't feel comfortable” with it. There is no LOGICAL problem with the concept.
This is my most critical question of this post:
What barrier is stopping micro evolution continuing on until it is macro evolution?
Answer, none. If you think otherwise, then I would like you to tell me what this barrier is.
What is stopping a series of many micro evolution constituting an overall macro evolution?
Answer, nothing. And hence, in science, the distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution is sometimes a blurred one. Exactly how much change distinguishes micro evolution from macro evolution is an area of scientific contention that may never go away.
“...When the dog is bread into something not a dog, then I will have to re-consider. ...”
you may have to wait for about another ~10000 years for that. In the mean time, you would stay unconvinced of the scientific facts despite the mountain of evidence that already exists.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=========================
“...That natural processes account for this diversity apart from intelligent know-how, is what you wish to prove. ..."
I do not “ wish to prove” that any more than I “wish to prove” that wind does not select the lighter sand grains without intelligence and for the same reason; the absence of evidence for an intelligent agent is reason enough to th ...[text shortened]... unconvinced of the scientific facts despite the mountain of evidence that already exists.
...only if you have religious reasons to “don't feel comfortable” with it. There is no LOGICAL problem with the concept.
This is my most critical question of this post:
===============================
There is a logical problem with asserting it too dogmatically when it has never been observed.
The operative phrase there is "too dogmatically"
And the comment about religious sentiments causing discomfort, I could well say of you also. Colorful stain glass windows are not necessary for one to have a religion.
=========================
What barrier is stopping micro evolution continuing on until it is macro evolution?
Answer, none. If you think otherwise, then I would like you to tell me what this barrier is.
============================
Maybe none. But it hasn't been observed. So we should be careful to be too dogmatic about it. That is unless we want to branch over from science into religious dogma.
=======================
What is stopping a series of many micro evolution constituting an overall macro evolution?
========================
Maybe nothing. But we have not observed it. Isn't observation part of the scientific method ?
So we have to be careful about proclaiming it as FACT dogmatically.
=====================
“...When the dog is bread into something not a dog, then I will have to re-consider. ...”
you may have to wait for about another ~10000 years for that. In the mean time, you would stay unconvinced of the scientific facts despite the mountain of evidence that already exists.
===========================
Maybe not. Maybe they will find a way to speed the process.
Even if macro evolution is proved to be a fact, I can't see how you can exclude intelligent design from the whole process.
I don't see macro evolution as at all causing me to believe no intelligent know-how is involved in the program.
It requires much "faith" for me to look at the overall outcome of biological development and see no intelligence involved.
The result is either miraculous or magic.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonA snow flake does have intelligence, because intelligence is everywhere.........and there is no place in existence where intelligence is not found.
“...That natural processes account for this diversity apart from intelligent know-how, is what you wish to prove. ..."
I do not “ wish to prove” that any more than I “wish to prove” that wind does not select the lighter sand grains without intelligence and for the same reason; the absence of evidence for an intelligent agent is reason enough to th ...[text shortened]... unconvinced of the scientific facts despite the mountain of evidence that already exists.
Intelligence is in every atom out to infinity, because God is omnipresent.
For atoms to behave the way they do, it requires intelligence.
The intelligence within the atom, keeps the construct of the atom stable.
How do you think one substance is coal, and another substance is plastic?
It is because the intelligence within the atom, instructs the atom to behave in particular ways and to oscillate at a certain frequencys, and when it does, it produces particular substances.
If intelligence didn't instruct the atoms in their behavior, then you would have plastic turning into copper at any given moment, because of instability at the micro level.
And beyond the atoms, there are things unseen to man and his puny microscopes.
At the final end of dull matter, you will only find, earth, water,fire, air and ether......that counts for all inert material energy
And depending on frequency, oscillations, speed, direction, intensity and the creative will within atoms, you will have your different substances.
And ultimately everything is energy, and it only becomes diverse in the many ways it does, because of intelligence.
Because of intelligence we have plastic, glass, iron, rocks, wood, oil, chemicals, minerals and so on and so on.
So do not falsely state, that intelligence is not behind the snow flake.
And do not falsely state, that inert matter can arrange itself into complex, useful, aware and conscious living beings.
And do not falsely claim that the cosmos has manifested, without intelligent creative potency.
Originally posted by vishvahetuSo you don't believe in the current atomic theory?
At the final end of dull matter, you will only find, earth, water,fire, air and ether......that counts for all inert material energy
You don't believe in the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons and stuff?
You believe that all chemists are liars?
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...A snow flake does have intelligence ...”
A snow flake does have intelligence, because intelligence is everywhere.........and there is no place in existence where intelligence is not found.
Intelligence is in every atom out to infinity, because God is omnipresent.
For atoms to behave the way they do, it requires intelligence.
The intelligence within the atom, keeps the construct of the a ...[text shortened]...
And do not falsely claim that the cosmos has manifested, without intelligent creative potency.
LOL
“....For atoms to behave the way they do, it requires intelligence. ...”
LOL
“...The intelligence within the atom, keeps the construct of the atom stable. ...”
haven't you heard of “quantum physics”?
“...How do you think one substance is coal, and another substance is plastic?
It is because the intelligence within the atom, instructs the atom to behave in particular ways and to oscillate at a certain frequencys, and when it does, it produces particular substances. ...”
Err...no. Coal comes from fossilised plants and plastic is man-made. Plastic is not made by making its atoms “ oscillate at a certain frequencys”.
“...If intelligence didn't instruct the atoms in their behavior, then you would have plastic turning into copper at any given moment, because of instability at the micro level. ...”
stability comes from the forces of attraction within the atom -no intelligence required.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSorry, printing error; “...A snowflake crustal also ...” should have been “...A snowflake crystal also ...”
“...That natural processes account for this diversity apart from intelligent know-how, is what you wish to prove. ..."
I do not “ wish to prove” that any more than I “wish to prove” that wind does not select the lighter sand grains without intelligence and for the same reason; the absence of evidence for an intelligent agent is reason enough to th ...[text shortened]... unconvinced of the scientific facts despite the mountain of evidence that already exists.
Originally posted by jaywill“...There is a logical problem with asserting it too dogmatically when it has never been observed. ...”
[b]=========================
...only if you have religious reasons to “don't feel comfortable” with it. There is no LOGICAL problem with the concept.
This is my most critical question of this post:
===============================
There is a logical problem with asserting it too dogmatically when it has never been observed.
The opera ...[text shortened]... pment and see no intelligence involved.
The result is either miraculous or magic.[/b]
micro-evolution has been directly observed and proven. Macro-evolution has been indirectly observed and proven.
Would you claim that indirectly observation is invalid? If so, then would you claim that the Earth's core does not exist?
“...=========================
What barrier is stopping micro evolution continuing on until it is macro evolution?
Answer, none. If you think otherwise, then I would like you to tell me what this barrier is.
============================ (my comment)
Maybe none. But it hasn't been observed. ...”
If there is no reason to believe that such a barrier exists and no such barrier has been observed then it is reasonable to assume no such barrier exists.
If there is no evidence nor observation (direct or indirect) that X exists and no rational reason to suppose that X does exists then it is reasonable to assume that X doesn’t exist.
A teacup has never been observed orbiting around Pluto and there is no reason to believe that there is a teacup there. So should we still assume that a teacup orbiting Pluto is a reasonable hypothesis?
“... So we should be careful to be too dogmatic about it. That is unless we want to branch over from science into religious dogma. ...”
to believe that a barrier exists when there is no reason to believe that it may exist and when it hasn't been observed is like a “ religious dogma”.
“...Isn't observation part of the scientific method ? ...”
yes, and that includes indirect observations.
“..Even if macro evolution is proved to be a fact, ...”
-which it has.
“...I can't see how you can exclude intelligent design from the whole process. ...”
why would intelligence be required for mindless mutations and mindless natural selection? Remember, evolution is just a combination of those two things (and the effect of that) so if both of those two things is mindless then evolution is mindless.
“...I don't see macro evolution as at all causing me to believe no intelligent know-how is involved in the program. ...”
evolution, being unintelligent, produces imperfections in both body and brain. So “macro evolution” is not expected to cause you “to believe no intelligent know-how is involved in the program”! (assuming that what you mean by “the program” is “evolution“ else what do you mean by “ the program”? )
We both have imperfect brains as a result.
“...It requires much "faith" for me to look at the overall outcome of biological development and see no intelligence involved. ...”
it requires no faith. It requires faith to believe that intelligence is required for a process that requires no intelligence to operate.
You said you agree that micro-evolution happens.
So do you agree that no faith is required to believe that no intelligence is required to make micro-evolution happen?
-if yes, then, given the only difference between micro and macro-evolution is the extent of the change because of the greater time period involved, why would you NOT agree that no faith is required to believe that no intelligence is required to make macro-evolution happen?
I mean, surely the arbitrary degree of change and time period is irrelevant here when it comes to why you should think of whether intelligence is involved?
Remember, macro-evolution is only a series of micro-evolutions so if no single macro-evolution requires faith to believe that no intelligence is required within that series then the whole series does not require faith to believe that no intelligence is required for the whole series to work.
“...The result is either miraculous or magic. ...”
You said you agree that micro-evolution happens.
So do you agree that no “ miraculous or magic” is required to make micro-evolution happen?
If so, then, given the only difference between micro and macro-evolution is the extent of the change because of the greater time period involved, why would “ miraculous or magic” be required to make macro-evolution happen?
Remember, macro-evolution is only a series of micro-evolutions so if no single macro-evolution is “ miraculous or magic” within that series then the whole series is not “ miraculous or magic” .
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe forces you speak of are governed by intelligence....their not blind.
“...A snow flake does have intelligence ...”
LOL
“....For atoms to behave the way they do, it requires intelligence. ...”
LOL
“...The intelligence within the atom, keeps the construct of the atom stable. ...”
haven't you heard of “quantum physics”?
“...How do you think one substance is coal, and another substance is plastic?
It ...[text shortened]... .”
stability comes from the forces of attraction within the atom -no intelligence required.
If the forces act randomly without direction.....then you have your coal turning into something else, at any given moment.
And the forces exist and have their cause.....they are not self created from thin air. Behind them you have the creative potency of God.
Plastic is produced by manipulating petroleum products........but still you have all the atoms behaving according to the direction they are given by intelligence within.
The atheistic scientific establishment would have us believe, that all laws and forces behind the workings of the cosmos, just self create from thin air........but this is absurd.
While you remain dishonest, and do not accept the intelligence behind all phenomena, you will remain a fool.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonEvolution doesn't exist.
“...There is a logical problem with asserting it too dogmatically when it has never been observed. ...”
micro-evolution has been directly observed and proven. Macro-evolution has been [b]indirectly observed and proven.
Would you claim that indirectly observation is invalid? If so, then would you claim that the Earth's core does not exi ...[text shortened]... ulous or magic” within that series then the whole series is not “ miraculous or magic” .[/b]
You mistake adaption for evolution.
Every species has the ability to adapt to their environment.
And over long periods change something about themselves, for the better.
Minor changes here and there is not evolution.....its adaption.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIam going to answer this because Iam curious.
So you don't believe in the current atomic theory?
You don't believe in the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons and stuff?
You believe that all chemists are liars?
How could you possibly equate my post above, to mean that i dont accept electrons neutrons and protons?
It is not at all possible, to come to that conclusion in a trillion years.
This is what happens when persons are bent on fault finding.....they say all manner of dishonest comments.
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuIt seems every day you dig yourself deeper and deeper into absurdity.
The forces you speak of are governed by intelligence....their not blind.
If the forces act randomly without direction.....then you have your coal turning into something else, at any given moment.
And the forces exist and have their cause.....they are not self created from thin air. Behind them you have the creative potency of God.
Plastic is p ...[text shortened]... main dishonest, and do not accept the intelligence behind all phenomena, you will remain a fool.
So if your post is to be understood, lets pose a what if: What if your god decided to remove its intelligence from some set of atoms somewhere in the universe. What would happen to said atoms?
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetu"How could you possibly equate my post above, to mean that i dont accept electrons neutrons and protons?"
Iam going to answer this because Iam curious.
It is not at all possible, to come to that conclusion in a trillion years.
This is what happens when persons are bent on fault finding.....they say all manner of dishonest comments.
Because so many things you wrote about atoms are so strange in relation to the valid atomic theory accepted by every chemist in profession. So believing in your words and holding the current atomic theory as true is mutually excluding beliefs. If you don't realize this, then you cannot know much about the matter.
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe underlying basis of all phenomena,is God.
"How could you possibly equate my post above, to mean that i dont accept electrons neutrons and protons?"
Because so many things you wrote about atoms are so strange in relation to the valid atomic theory accepted by every chemist in profession. So believing in your words and holding the current atomic theory as true is mutually excluding beliefs. If you don't realize this, then you cannot know much about the matter.
You can have your theories about many things, and many will be correct, and many will be wrong......
But their is still intelligence everywhere, because God is omnipresent.
And it is because of this intelligence, that anything can operate as it does.
Originally posted by sonhouseI will never play the .......... "what if" game.
It seems every day you dig yourself deeper and deeper into absurdity.
So if your post is to be understood, lets pose a what if: What if your god decided to remove its intelligence from some set of atoms somewhere in the universe. What would happen to said atoms?