• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Intelligent Design

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
as humans seem to be rather insignificant to the rest of the universe

Really? Since humans are the only entities that have consciousness in the universe, I would say that I, personally, am rather central to the universe. In fact, to my perspective and awareness and consciousness, I AM the center of the universe. It is only through removal of illusion of my perception of the universe that I will become enlightened and be one with be God.
 
Last edited:

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I have never seen any of them use koans in the fashion reefdjib is doing.

Perhaps you aren't reading the right books, because attempts at drawing rational argument from koans are commonplace. Try the Gateless Gate for one. Pay particular attention to the commentaries.
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,330
Reaction score
3,588
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not a betting man, but if I were I would only bet based on verifiable data, not supposition. Show me your data that those probabilities you referenced earlier are correct, and I'll bet with you. Absent data, you've just got speculation. And if you're betting based on nothing but speculation, you might as well be playing roulette.

The verifiable data is your senses, either I exist as a separate entity, or I exist as a construct of your mind and am part of a grand deception perpetrated by your senses. I see no reason to doubt my senses, my whole of perception relies upon them, you rely on them for your reality as well. You bet that this reality is in fact real constantly, if you did not you would not be here debating with that which you doubt the very existence of. So stop trying to be snarky and coy - I know as well as you do that you place the odds on favor of your perceptions portraying reality much much higher than that it is merely a grand illusion, or else you would not even bother to be going about your day, or bothering to argue with a nonexistant entity in a fabricated reality.

You have placed your bet, and it is on the table for all to see.
 
Last edited:

Arcadius

Active member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
390
Reaction score
72
Location
Somewhere far away.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well said. That's the very crux of the whole thing.

Some people see a vast universe with trillions of galaxies spanning billions of years and endless space and it makes them feel insignificant. They think with so much big stuff going on around us we're as insignificant as bugs.

I see it the other way around. Even those bugs are more interesting than a dead universe, no matter how vast it is. Whereas the entirety of the universe operates by the laws of physics as predictably as billiard balls, we're in the one place that's actually alive, with all the incomprehensible chaos that that entails.

How lucky we are just to go about our "insignificant" lives every day and experience the universe! And what's more, we human beings are the luckiest of all because we can reflect on the universe, we can create art and things of beauty, we can destroy, we can rearrange the universe based on our own will and we can even learn a little bit about the nature of the world around us by observation and repetition. That's the most significant thing going on in the universe as far as I'm aware.

So why relegate the richness of our internal minds to some ash-heap, when our subjective experiences are really the rarest and most precious phenomena in the universe? We should prize out thoughts like diamonds, not feel insignificant compared to the vast deadness all around.

I find it hard to believe that something of such mass, and wonder has it's most magnificent creation located in such a minuscule area, while the rest is just rocks and gas.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The verifiable data is your senses,

The same sense that you yourself recognize cannot be trusted?

either I exist as a separate entity, or I exist as a construct of your mind and am part of a grand deception perpetrated by your senses.

Why can those two things not be true at once?


I see no reason to doubt my senses, my whole of perception relies upon them, you rely on them for your reality as well.

If you have no trouble relying on your sense to give you data about the world outside your mind, why would doubt the same sense when they give you subjective data about the mystical nature of the universe?

You bet that this reality is in fact real constantly, if you did not you would not be here debating with that which you doubt the very existence of.

I don't doubt the existence of anything, you do.

So stop trying to be snarky and coy - I know as well as you do that you place the odds on favor of your perceptions portraying reality much much higher than that it is merely a grand illusion, or else you would not even bother to be going about your day, or bothering to argue with a nonexistant entity in a fabricated reality.

You have placed your bet, and it is on the table for all to see.

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, the analogy is too cumbersome at this point. Like I said, I'm not betting on anything. One has absolute knowledge as to one's subjective experience; it is not a gamble in any way.
 
Last edited:

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I find it hard to believe that something of such mass, and wonder has it's most magnificent creation located in such a minuscule area, while the rest is just rocks and gas.

Why not? You said yourself that it's up to you to determine what to value. Would you rather place value on the rocks and gas, at the expense of your own experience? What joy do you get from feeling that rocks and gas are somehow superior, and the entirety of human experience is confined to the sump of universe? Seems a depressing way to view the world, to me. Not to mention equally logically valid as the alternative.
 
Last edited:

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
If subjective experience cannot be made to comport closely to objective experience, then there is nothing to discuss between two or more individuals.

Why do you say this? Why cannot people discuss shared subjective experiences?

While it may be true that there is only the subjective, your attempts to convince others of your positions on things belies the fact that you don't really believe that it is all subjective.

There is objective reality, but it does not exist in this universe of perceptual separation of things.

Oh dear... Are you here trying to get others to see your subjective experience in their subjective experience?

Of course. Why are you here?
 

Arcadius

Active member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
390
Reaction score
72
Location
Somewhere far away.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why not? You said yourself that it's up to you to determine what to value Would you rather place value on the rocks and gas, at the expense of your own experience? What joy do you get from feeling that rocks and gas are somehow superior, and the entirety of human experience is confined to the sump of universe? Seems a depressing way to view the world, to me. Not to mention equally logically valid as the alternative.

Actually, I was trying to say that in the infinite of space there is bound to be something that dwarfs the human race's consciousness. To be honest, I really don't understand what makes us so incredible. We have these chauvinistic beliefs that our way of thinking is the greatest. On a global standard, we're definitely innovative and different, but why are we better? It seems arrogant to me. Dolphins have self awareness and complex emotions, they're really only lacking in capability to manipulate their environment. We are not the only conscious beings. I think our human sense of self worth is just blatant self promotion. I know you don't support the idea of aliens. But just think about it. Think about how small the Earth is compared to the sun, think about how small the sun is compared to other stars, you can really go on and on. We live in a galaxy of billion of planets and billions of stars, and then we live in a universe of who knows how many galaxies, and the we could live in a universe that is part of infinite multiverse, and then you get to thing like alternate dimensions, different planes of space and time. I just can't believe that this tiny blue ball is it.
 
Last edited:

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Dolphins have self awareness and complex emotions, they're really only lacking in capability to manipulate their environment.

They have self-awareness, but they are not conscious.

We are not the only conscious beings.

Yes, we are.

We live in a galaxy of billion of planets and billions of stars, and then we live in a universe of who knows how many galaxies, and the we could live in a universe that is part of infinite multiverse, and then you get to thing like alternate dimensions, different planes of space and time. I just can't believe that this tiny blue ball is it.

Forget about all that stuff. We are the only conscious beings in all of it.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually, I was trying to say that in the infinite of space there is bound to be something that dwarfs the human race's consciousness. To be honest, I really don't understand what makes us so incredible. We have these chauvinistic beliefs that our way of thinking is the greatest. On a global standard, we're definitely innovative and different, but why are we better? It seems arrogant to me. Dolphins have self awareness and complex emotions, they're really only lacking in capability to manipulate their environment. We are not the only conscious beings. I think our human sense of self worth is just blatant self promotion. I know you don't support the idea of aliens. But just think about it. Think about how small the Earth is compared to the sun, think about how small the sun is compared to other stars, you can really go on and on. We live in a galaxy of billion of planets and billions of stars, and then we live in a universe of who knows how many galaxies, and the we could live in a universe that is part of infinite multiverse, and then you get to thing like alternate dimensions, different planes of space and time. I just can't believe that this tiny blue ball is it.

I don't know what you mean when you say I "don't support aliens." I've mentioned in other threads that extraterrestrial life is no more likely to exist, absent evidence, than the flying spaghetti monster. But if aliens did exist, and I see no reason to think the cannot exist in principle, nothing I'm speaking of would change. Their subjective experience would have value as well.

Let's analyze what you are really saying here. You aren't making a scientific argument, because you are not basing any of this on data. You are philosophizing as to where to place value. You have an intuition that tells you there must be something greater than our mundane experiences here on earth, but you can't put your finger on what. Despite dressing it up in scientific terminology, you are basically talking about the religious impulse.

And I think that's great if people can use science to achieve religious ends. But what's happening to you is that science, while underlying the religious questions you are asking, is also serving as an impediment to your achieving any understanding or resolution of them. You're so caught up in filling in the gaps left by science that your imagination fills in those gaps with sciencey sounding stuff that has no basis in data. It's not only depressing, it's fundamentally illogical. You need to just let go and allow yourself to be happy.
 
Last edited:

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
This is a logical fallacy.
no, it is a completely consistent syllogistic statement.
The universe is governed by creation and decay, therefore it is perfectly logical that the universe has a beginning, and an end.
no, it is not. decay is change of form and loss of usability, not loss of stuff. the stuff was always there, so far as we can shoe, and WILL always be there as far as we can tell.

nothing is ever 'created' (that, of course, implies a creator which we cannot show to be true) - nor does any new material 'come into being'.

God is not governed by creation and decay, and has no beginning and no end. Therefore, God has always existed and will always exist. God exists outside of space and time.

perhaps, but if so, THAT is a matter of FAITH, not science. it cannot be shown. ID cannot show what is "outside space and time". ID is not science.

geo.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
All "natural" phenomenon have a beginning and an end.
a presumption not shown. it is no more true than its opposite.

Therefore,...
therefore we are right back where we started. YOU believe that some super entity created everything because it pleases you do to so. others do not because the belief does not conform well to reason and we are better satisfied by Reason than Faith.

geo.
 
Last edited:

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
therefore we are right back where we started. YOU believe that some super entity created everything because it pleases you do to so. others do not because the belief does not conform well to reason and we are better satisfied by Faith in Reason.

I corrected that for you. You're welcome.
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
29,727
Reaction score
11,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Can anyone who believes in ID explain how think the genetics and heredity work? Do you deny that genetics mutations exist and are passed to new generations? How do handle obvious examples examples of natural selection like anti-biotic resistance? Why aren't there human fossils as old as dinosaur fossils if we all were put on earth at the same time?

That's the question I was waiting for.

I was "raised" a Jehovah's Witness. Immersed in it from about the time I obtained language until I renounced that particular group at about 9 over an action by the elders that they were unable to justify scientifically or by the concept of God and the Bible they themselves had instilled in me. For purely internal political reasons.

I pretty much always read and comprehended WAY above my age. And while subjects that require develomental referents sometimes were unfathomable to me, scientific and conceptual things have always been easy for me.

I constantly "model", plugging possible answers to questions in and seeing if they "fit". (You know "What if...?)

I ran across the creation/evolution conflict as it applied to dinosaurs. I had digested a LOT of information on the subject BEFORE I was exposed to formal creationism.

And the first explanation I "plugged in" to resolve the conflict, and the one I ended up sticking with was basically what is being touted as ID.

It just seemed to make sense to me that Genesis was a fable, an accessible story relating a complex concept.

And I could never find anything that conflicted with my idea that "evolution is the mechanism of creation".

I think its just as reasonable to posit that God chose to gather the ingredients and bake a cake (evolution as mechanism) as it is to posit God spake an there was a cake (creationism).

Bear in mind. I have a very hard time attributing the universe we live in to the God of Abraham. He's a dick, as far as I am concerned. And far too much like the people who have commited atrocities in his name than the entity presented as his son. Who in fact is remarkably similar to Buddha, Krishna, etc., in core concepts in regards to how someone should comport themselves in life, with the differences being largely explained by cultural differences.

I don't have a scientific explanation for the innate sense I have that there is more to life than is immediately evident. But quantum physics keeps proving the philosophers might be right, and we may have more to do with the universes very existence than anyone ever thought.

Great thread!:2wave:
 

presluc

DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
10,935
Reaction score
2,125
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Show me where any scientist has said 'I have proof this is how the universe was created.'

You just made my point for me my friend they don't.

However some in fact most athiest and nonbelievers are quick to ask if you have faith in God prove that God exist?

I am only asking the same, if you believe the creation is based on a scientific happening where is your proof?:peace
 

presluc

DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
10,935
Reaction score
2,125
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
O M G, seriously? You have just demonstrated almost complete ignorance on several scientific matters. It is ok if you understand them and then disagree, but to demonstrate that you don't have a clue, and then disagree with what you obviously don't understand ... is truly laughable.

Sorry to confuse you.

Let me put it this way do you have iron clad proof of scientific based creation of the universe??

That is a yes or no answer if the answer is yes I will congradulate you on the many medals you will recieve.
If it is no, what makes your theories any better than my faith???
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,163
Reaction score
34,072
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You just made my point for me my friend they don't.

However some in fact most athiest and nonbelievers are quick to ask if you have faith in God prove that God exist?

I am only asking the same, if you believe the creation is based on a scientific happening where is your proof?:peace

There is scientific evidence pointing towards the big bang. There is not scientific evidence pointing towards creationism. That's the difference, and that's why creationism doesn't belong in a science classroom. It belongs in any number of other classrooms, but not science.

Sorry to confuse you.

Let me put it this way do you have iron clad proof of scientific based creation of the universe??

That is a yes or no answer if the answer is yes I will congradulate you on the many medals you will recieve.
If it is no, what makes your theories any better than my faith???

Scientific evidence. Which is why the big bang belongs in a science classroom.

If you can show me scientific evidence in favor of creationism, I'll happily support its being put into a science classroom.

You don't demand that your faith be taught in gym class or a cooking class, do you?
 
Last edited:

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
29,727
Reaction score
11,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Most faith believers have faith we don't know how God works.
We have faith in this, but to be possitive?
We do know this there must be a begining and end to all things
An Alpha and Omega, perhaps the end we will know not see or know but everything has to start somewhere, somehow, and time could be a factor in this.
For we as humans measure time according to our standards perhaps not all time is measured the same way.

The big bang theory is a explosion that takes place without energy or matter that's a lot of speculation.
That is unless natural law was conviently put in place after the big bang happened?

There is no shred of evedence to the contrary.
Oh, sure you have theories and speculation and conjector but real evedence, come on.

Question; Can scientific theory "plug the hole " as you say.
For in fact theory is an unproven fact, aka no proof, aka a guess.:peace

I always thought what happened when God said "Let there be Light!" WAS the big bang.

And then the universe unfolded like a giant, hugely complex clockwork mechanism, precisely according to plan.

Creating an environment where life would bloom, and grow.

Grow into us. Here. Who knows who else, where else.

That's how I saw it, anyway. When it first came up when I was a kid.

I never have seen our universe as other than an "artifact", a made thing.

I just think I know who did it or why less as I get older.

Its still a pretty amazing place! :2wave:
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is a logical fallacy. The universe is governed by creation and decay, therefore it is perfectly logical that the universe has a beginning, and an end. God is not governed by creation and decay, and has no beginning and no end. Therefore, God has always existed and will always exist. God exists outside of space and time.

God could have come from nothing. Maybe He has chosen to return to nothing. Is he not omnipotent?

Maybe he was here, or somewhere, and now he is nowhere. Couldn't an all powerful being make this happen?

Maybe he is currently existing on a Planck scale, just for giggles. OR, it's possible He's vacationing in an alternate universe where the ambient temp is a toasty 4 degrees kelvin, for the same reason some northernors vacation in Florida.

People seem to know an awful lot about a being that supposedly can't be comprehended.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I always thought what happened when God said "Let there be Light!" WAS the big bang.

And then the universe unfolded like a giant, hugely complex clockwork mechanism, precisely according to plan.

Creating an environment where life would bloom, and grow.

Grow into us. Here. Who knows who else, where else.

That's how I saw it, anyway. When it first came up when I was a kid.

I never have seen our universe as other than an "artifact", a made thing.

I just think I know who did it or why less as I get older.

Its still a pretty amazing place!
:2wave:

Sometimes it sucks on Mondays, though...
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Sorry to confuse you.

Let me put it this way do you have iron clad proof of scientific based creation of the universe??

That is a yes or no answer if the answer is yes I will congradulate you on the many medals you will recieve.
If it is no, what makes your theories any better than my faith???

In answer to your first question, no. In fact, I would say that anything attempting to explain the origin of the existence of things is probably better thought of as an hypothesis, though there is some evidence for a very few of these hypotheses. The hypothesis that god did it is not one of these, and in fact that hypothesis has zero evidence. When you or anyone else indulges in accepting a hypothesis as true, you are engaging in faith. I do not accept any hypothesis about the origin of existence at this time.

In partial answer to your second question: one reason theories are better than faith is because they adjust as new evidence presents itself. They are flexible, where faith is not. If faith were to become flexible, it would no longer be faith, but rather reverts to a hypotheses, tentative, and uncertain. That is one small step in a better direction. A larger step in that direction is when hypotheses are subjected to testing, and a willingness to adjust them according to observable evidence. Yet another step in that direction is a willingness to abandon them when evidence is found which substantially contravenes them.

Theories are also better than faith because they have so much overwhelming evidence which supports them that the only rational course of action is to let them guide a significant part of your thinking and action as if you knew them to be fully proved. Faith has no such overwhelming evidence. Indulging in faith causes people to ignore evidence, twist facts, even causes people to lie to themselves and others. All with the aim of protecting that faith.

As such, theories are better than faith because they allow for and foster the pursuit of objective truth as an ideal, and even foster the pursuit of subjective truth. Despite people's notions otherwise, faith does the opposite, because it causes people to prematurely accept as true things which have zero evidence. Again, Faith, in other words, is the act of accepting an hypothesis as if it were true, before it is tested for evidence. And yet again, faith is anathema to truth, objective or otherwise.

There is no reason to accept a hypothesis as true, to engage in faith. In fact this would be slightly or greatly foolish, depending on the hypothesis.

So, what I have answered, actually, is why it is better to engage in evidence based acceptance of things, rather than faith based acceptance of things. I answered this question instead of the one you asked because you would have misunderstood my position if I had answered your question as if it were about accepting science's hypothesis on the origin as opposed to one of the myriad faith based hypotheses.

But, now to answer that question, it is indeed better to hold the scientific hypotheses in higher regard because they do have at least some evidence, whereas hypotheses about god doing it, and these are accepted on faith, do not.

As to why scientific hypotheses are better for science classes than faith based hypotheses: Scientific ones are falsifiable, faith based ones are not. Science demands a falsifiable hypothesis.

Finally, I will say this: just because you don't have an evidence based explanation for something you are not compelled to accept whatever explanation you prefer because it suits your taste or your sentiments. When people ask me, or I ask myself, "what is the origin of things?" I answer "we don't know". And we don't, neither you nor I do, nor does anyone else that we know of. You may believe something about the matter, but belief is not 'knowing'.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I corrected that for you. You're welcome.

no, no correction was needed as it was never in error. you corrected nothing, you perverted another person's words. but then, people do that a lot. What contemporary christians like to pretend were the words of Jesus Of Narareth being the most egregious example in history.

geo.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Geo -

Except a car can be blue.

welcome back to the circus, tim. i started a response to this earlier... lost my connection. I am gonna respond in separate posts to the separate issues, if you have no objections. it will help to avoid the "kid's toybox" effect.

the statement "The universe is perfect, God is perfect" does nothing to define either God or perfection or the universe. Consider - perfect means 'without flaw'. God, as an origin of all things 'begs', in the aristotelian sense, the question of perfection - the qualifying definition is in the statement. whatever god is, he cannot create what is not 'goddish'. So, everything, in its instantiation, is consistent with God. Nothing deviates from what god would have it be as it cannot be anything which god is not. nothing that god creates can be flawed, so nothing can be perfect OR everything IS perfect... the two statements mean the same thing.

your initial statement is true, but says nothing. no, the car cannot be blue. the car is red because it cannot be any color but red and STILL be red. any imperfection in a creation by a consistent being is an illusion.... it must be 'perfect' if it is consistent WITH that being- it cannot be otherwise... there is no otherwise to be.

now, this does not exclude God (of any description) from reason. it does not negate the premise of a designed universe - as you can see, a universe without God has the same qualifications. i only mention it to keep us aligned with a+b=c, avoiding the a=a=a pseudo-syllogism.

geo.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Geo -

There is no cause for dice to tumble, and turn up a random number. There is no statistical predictability for dice to draw a number if the dice has more than six sides, and the numbers are much larger, and say millions of sides. DNA has millions of sides, and it has millions of numbers to match. A gene mutation is not predictable, nor is it theoretically so. Mutation is like throwing dice and drawing a 13.

a die does NOT produce a random number in the sense that there is no cause for it. there IS a cause. the numbers were placed on the die. the die was caused to tumble. how it finally settles is determined by the laws of Newtonian physics. it is random only in the sense that it is unpredictable. it is unpredictable for the same reason that the weather is... the process is far too complicated for anyone to anticipate all the micro-causes within it. but that does not mean that the causes are not there. it was this sorta thing that produced Chaos and Complexity theories in physics.
. The human produced from two other humans is an evolved human, period. I agree that to measure evolution we must measure the frequency of alleles in populations but in the strictest sense, an offspring is an evolved human.
well, as a colloquial usage, i suppose, and yes it is a step in evolution at work. but no, it is not natural selection.
Natural selection is a mechanism that produces changes in the gene frequency from one generation to the next. As a result, organisms become better adapted to their environment. It is important to keep in mind . . . that natural selection does not act on individuals; it acts on populations. Individual organisms cannot become better-adapted to their environment.
- SUNY

But, in humans the frequency of the dominate alleles carries no logical inference for hereditary.
not sure what you mean.... lemme read on
For instance, there seems no reason to make a prediction (One which evolution should be able to demonstrate) that at some point in the future, humans will all have blonde hair, or the same blood type, or the same height, in a particular region all bearing the same environmental pressure.
ah... actually, there is a degree of predictability, though quite the opposite of what you posit. there is dominance in genes. the gene for brown eyes is dominant. we can expect that brown eyes will predominate as brown and blue eyed people intermix. the same with light and dark colored hair.to what extent? to the extent that we intermix. In very insular cultures (japan, for instance), such changes are slow to take effect. in very multi-culti groups, though, it happens rather quickly. One study showed that about 100 years ago, half of U.S. residents had blue eyes. Nowadays only 1 in 6 does.

there is another, perhaps more important factor at work there, though. 100 years ago, blued eyed people mated almost exclusively with blue eyed people restricting genetic drift. Not so much any more.

Evolution is fact, can and has been shown. Is evolution the ONLY process going on in predicating the form of every living thing? THAT is unproven as unprovable, but it is certainly the prevailing opinion among scientists.
I've never heard [NS] explained this way before, and if it is your analogy, kudos!
as a matter of fact, it is and thanks... i hope that it is properly representative of the fact.
However, I think you're still wrong. Selection is an immaterial fact to the concept of intelligent design, IMO.

of course it is. that is the whole point of ID. but in saying so, proponents are putting the horse before the cart - you are coming to a conclusion based on something OTHER than evidence, then looking for evidence to show that you conclusion is "right". that is not really how science works. It is not the way that the best philosophy works either... remember that philosophy began as 'natural science' - attempts to explain the otherwise inexplicable. such philosophies take a back seat, though when we have explanations.

that ID proposes to explain evolution excluding NS is a nonrational leap, about which, see next.

geo.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Geo -

If we are intelligent, and if we can ask these questions, and if we are the universe, or made from it, then we must begin with a basic understanding that we are, as with the universe... intelligent.
again, that is a nonrational leap, a conclusion based upon an unsupported supposition. i do not mean that as a rhetorical slap. it is precisely the sort of leap that i think has made it possible for humans to flourish. often, to get from here to there when the gap is great and the material for building bridges is scarce... humans leap. when science could not explain the passage of light through a vacuum, they leaped, creating the aether. the aether allowed them to contnue with their study of light and astronomy even though they could not have known that light can be understood as composed of particles as well as waves, obliging no such medium as the aether, which of course, does not exist. the round earth wa such a leap, allowing for advances in astronomy and navigation and actually turned out the be true..

but, i think we HAVE the bridge to gap you are leaping over.
may I suggest that the universe would not go on without light, visible or not. If your argument is to suggest that the universe could go on without us, and our intelligence then I'd say yeah, sure, but how productive is that in the context of this argument?
well, it was just a response to a comment of yours. we can disregard it.

go on? no, in the strictest sense it could not exist... light is a useful name for energy within a certain functional spectrum- more technically, a form of electromagnetic radiation (i am putting this in terms that make as close to a sensible statement as I can understand... i do not pretend that it s very accurate.) the universe consists of energy and matter... which is actually redundant - energy IS matter and matter IS energy, each a form of the other. it is conceivable that at some point it might consist entirely of one form, but it would not really mean much.
Humans are intelligent, sentient (Which is merely a higher complex definition for humans over lower life forms) beings, and We made up of the stuff of the universe, we ARE the universe, the universe IS intelligent, and at least a portion of it (Humans) is aware of it.
we are OF the universe. so are rocks. rocks are NOT intelligent. so the universe is and is not intelligent. sorry, tim, but this just doesn't seem to carry a lot of meaning.
Existence is meaningless if it cannot be defined as having a purpose, or recognizable work function.
exactly. existence IS meaningless. "meaning" is meaningless. (OK... NOW i am in for it).
A rock is not intelligent, but a solar system is, to the extent that it gives life to us, and perhaps many billions of other forms of life.
again, there seems a lack of connective tissue between premise A: a rock is not intelligent and premise B: the solar system is intelligent. if it seems a reasonable extrapolation that 'intelligence' cannot come from nowhere (which is what it sounds as if you are saying) and so must exist 'of itself'.... i think we might want to examine what we mean by 'intelligence'.

nor am i attempting to convince anyone of anything. i just love thinking about things. i love talking about them. i love talking about them most when talking about them obliges me to think about them.

Zukav is considered a sorta new age-y sorta writer. His later works are way too spiritualist for my tastes, but Masters can be read as a good introduction to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I mentioned it because he also draws parallels between the bizarre phenomena that QM proposes and much of Eastern philosophical thinking. in that, i think there a suggestion of corollary between pure science and pure philosophy that might suggest an intelligence behind it.


geo.
 
Top Bottom