| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Lee Bowman" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2005 02:53:35 PM |
| Object: |
feud for thot / macro evolution |
Mindless, arbitrary, chance evolution could never produce the complex,
artistic, purposeful, and balanced harmonious universe that exists.
Arguments against ID include finding fault with various biologic
mechanisms. The rationale is that a designer would have done things
differently? Oh really? First of all, those advocates (primarily
biologists), would like us to believe that their engineering skills
surpass that of any cosmic designer(s) that may be responsible for
these biologic mechanisms. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly,
their premise that any designed biologic structures should be perfect,
or at least better, belie their own ingrained prejudices that the
creator (if they believed there was one) would be perfect, and would
only design perfect life forms. It may be implied in various Holy
books that God is perfect, but that word, in and of itself, is
specious. There is no perfection in the universe, only optimization.
Give me an example of anything that you deem 'perfect', and I will
either show you flaws, or at least alternate designs.
So rather than classify the esophagus as 'bad design', proposing
either a more highly placed trachea, a separate tube for food and air,
or a better designed epiglottis, why not admit that it's a pretty good
compromise, and that its 'multi-functional' design is actually
'economical' engineering. If mammals evolved from fish, why did the
two passageways converge into one organ? If the gills became lungs,
why the merger with the digestive system? Is mindless evolution that
clever?
One more thing, then I'll quit. How did something like the clitoris
evolve? Let me guess. Due to random genetic variability, one just
magically appeared in a female, complete with its elaborate system of
nerves (largest concentration of sensory nerves in the body). Because
of the added stimulation, this anthropoid was more willing to have
sex, and therefore tended to perpetuated the species more than those
without this appendage. To mate with someone with the same genetic
propensity, she would have had to mate with one of her male offspring
(but being that horny, I guess it's possible), and if the male had the
same gene, their offspring, if female, might be born with a clitoris.
Survival of the fittest? Give me a break. The clitoris, like every
other biologic system, is 'design'. Possibly even 'intelligent'
design.
(to be continued)
.
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: feud for thot / macro evolution |
10 Aug 2005 05:15:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:53:35 GMT, (Lee Bowman) wrote:
Mindless, arbitrary, chance evolution could never produce the complex,
artistic, purposeful, and balanced harmonious universe that exists.
Are you illiterate, or just trying out English for the first time?
Evolution (as theory) has no opinion on the origin of the universe. It is concerned only
with the way that living things (on a particular pre-existing planet where life of a sort
already exists, in a particular pre-existing solar system in a particular pre-existing
galaxy in a particular pre-existing universe; but this may expand if life is discovered to
be present elsewhere, and subject to the same processes) have offspring that are alike, but
with differences, and how the environment operates to select among the differences, with
the result that some are more represented than others in the populations resulting after
successive generations of propagation.
Oh! and arbitrary means decision-making (perhaps without due diligence,) not indifferent.
Arguments against ID include finding fault with various biologic
mechanisms. The rationale is that a designer would have done things
differently? Oh really? First of all, those advocates (primarily
biologists), would like us to believe that their engineering skills
surpass that of any cosmic designer(s) that may be responsible for
these biologic mechanisms.
Trivially true, even if we still lack the *technology* to produce full-bore projects that
Earthly life had aeons to accrete incrementally.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly,
their premise that any designed biologic structures should be perfect,
or at least better, belie their own ingrained prejudices that the
creator (if they believed there was one) would be perfect, and would
only design perfect life forms.
You don't mean "belie". You should work with a dictionary at your side, and more
importantly, know when you need to consult it.
First-semester programming students learn to throw out their design ideas that hideously
misbehave, even occasionally, or to gut and redesign the offending parts when they're
identified. Shouldn't a designer smart and powerful enough to make worlds and humans
be at least as meticulous as pimple-faced eighteen-year-old moppets, drunk every third
night and desperate to get laid?
It may be implied in various Holy
books that God is perfect, but that word, in and of itself, is
specious. There is no perfection in the universe, only optimization.
Give me an example of anything that you deem 'perfect', and I will
either show you flaws, or at least alternate designs.
You're playing from my playbook with that, but it won't help you a bit arguing for gods.
(Or for ID, which is just gods with the license tags counterfeited, the body repainted
and the VIN filed off.) It's too late in the day for the press conference changing the
party line on god's perfection w/r/t every imaginable attribute, and the *****-poor attitude
problem of everyone who fails to see how beautiful the Emperor's raiment is.
(Try working it into a State of the Cosmos address.)
So rather than classify the esophagus as 'bad design', proposing
either a more highly placed trachea, a separate tube for food and air,
or a better designed epiglottis, why not admit that it's a pretty good
compromise, and that its 'multi-functional' design is actually
'economical' engineering.
Yeah, you carry that PR water to the families of the next thousand xian babies who choke to
death because they tried to breathe while eating, a not entirely unreasonable thing for the
poor little bastards to want to do.
If mammals evolved from fish,
They certainly didn't.
why did the
two passageways converge into one organ?
You've got that backwards; one passageway converges onto two passageways leading to two
organs.
If the gills became lungs,
why the merger with the digestive system? Is mindless evolution that
clever?
Merger with the digestive system, Gracie? WTF are you on about?
I see no cleverness, nor any mindful design rationale, for this convergence (merging
organ systems is a misnomer for this phenomenon.) But taking an embryological pov
it is easy to see how a contractor-on-the-cheap with no brain could arive at this crappy
plan, given the pre-existing structures. We can argue about how benevolent it is that
some critters survive long enough to reproduce this verkochte scheme.
One more thing, then I'll quit. How did something like the clitoris
evolve?
The penis and clitoris evolve at a stroke, since they are built from the same bit of
embryologic precursor tissue. Cain't have one organ without t'other, design-wise.
The embryo doesn't 'know' what gender it is for a while, nor even what species
(human embryos have gills, did you know that? There are adult structures that map
back to the embryo's gill slits, cell-line-wise.) It would have been a more
insightful question to ask how sexual dimorphism arose in animals (or in plants, or its
rudiments even in lowly yeasts and bacteria.) There's an excellent adaptive rationale.
But I'm too long away from school to be playing TA.
Let me guess. Due to random genetic variability, one just
magically appeared in a female, complete with its elaborate system of
nerves (largest concentration of sensory nerves in the body).
Magically appearing ***** is a theist's stock in trade. Scientists take it to be the case
that things happen because they can, because nothing prevents them from happening,
given pre-existing conditions at each point along the way. The Capitol building in D.C.
can't be assembled from its constituent molecules (until the transporter beam, or its
near analog, is realized,) but it's no more than a job to build it from the required
building materials, once they're at hand. Things happens step-wise much more often than
all at a stroke, which is what distinguishes reality from magic.
Because
of the added stimulation, this anthropoid was more willing to have
sex, and therefore tended to perpetuated the species more than those
without this appendage.
Anthropoids did not invent the penis and the clitoris. When no one is watching, take a
closer than usual look at common mammals. It's ok; it's for science.
To mate with someone with the same genetic
propensity, she would have had to mate with one of her male offspring
(but being that horny, I guess it's possible), and if the male had the
same gene, their offspring, if female, might be born with a clitoris.
Survival of the fittest? Give me a break. The clitoris, like every
other biologic system, is 'design'. Possibly even 'intelligent'
design.
All very lame, stemming as it does from such a lame take on where the clitoris first
appeared.
(to be continued)
Yeah, we can hardly wait. You, otoh, probably should, until you've learned enough about
what is known and seen in nature, so you don't make embarrassing arguments like the
above.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: feud for thot / macro evolution |
10 Aug 2005 03:43:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:53:35 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
lucifer@REMOVEcox.net (Lee Bowman) in
<42fa59a0.86916098@news.west.cox.net> wrote:
Mindless, arbitrary, chance evolution could never produce the complex,
artistic, purposeful, and balanced harmonious universe that exists.
Artistic Universe? Purposeful Universe? Anyway, it is a good think
that evolution is about living organisms and not the Universe as a
whole.
Arguments against ID include finding fault with various biologic
mechanisms. The rationale is that a designer would have done things
differently? Oh really?
No, not really. My argument against ID is that I have no idea what
some unknown designer would do. This means that ID is consistent with
any observation, possible and impossible.
First of all, those advocates (primarily
biologists), would like us to believe that their engineering skills
surpass that of any cosmic designer(s) that may be responsible for
these biologic mechanisms.
No, but I don't have the arrogance to assert that the Universe was
made by some being with some human characteristics like intelligence
who engages in a human pastime, design. That kind of arrogance is
mostly found among creationists who want a God limited by their
imagination.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly,
their premise that any designed biologic structures should be perfect,
If someone is going to assert that an all-knowing, all-powerful being
designed things then they should explain why the results look like
those made by a very limited entity. Sure, some unknown, unspecified,
unconstrained by the evidence entity could do anything, but that makes
ID not science.
[snip]
So rather than classify the esophagus as 'bad design', proposing
either a more highly placed trachea, a separate tube for food and air,
or a better designed epiglottis, why not admit that it's a pretty good
compromise,
It is only "pretty good" if you figure that it was made from a
previous system by small sequential steps. IOW it evolved.
and that its 'multi-functional' design is actually
'economical' engineering.
For some notion of economical, I suppose. Of course we know nothing
about the abilities or the resources of the designer, so we can't
comment on whether the design is economical. Perhaps the designer was
trying for a still life and all this life stuff is messing things up.
If mammals evolved from fish, why did the
two passageways converge into one organ?
Other way around.
If the gills became lungs,
They did not.
why the merger with the digestive system? Is mindless evolution that
clever?
One more thing, then I'll quit. How did something like the clitoris
evolve? Let me guess. Due to random genetic variability, one just
magically appeared in a female, complete with its elaborate system of
nerves (largest concentration of sensory nerves in the body).
It is something shared by all mammals and by reptiles so the origin
should lie in the common ancestor. For sexually reproducing beings
things that promote reproduction will tend to lead to more offspring.
Animals tend to move, so giving them a reason to pair up is a good
thing.
Because
of the added stimulation, this anthropoid was more willing to have
sex, and therefore tended to perpetuated the species more than those
without this appendage. To mate with someone with the same genetic
propensity, she would have had to mate with one of her male offspring
(but being that horny, I guess it's possible), and if the male had the
same gene, their offspring, if female, might be born with a clitoris.
The penis is formed by the same genes as the clitoris. Evolution of
the clitoris is not a particularly hard problem, so to speak. The
interesting question, which is still an open one, is the origin of
sexual reproduction. For an interesting question closer to humans, the
question of why human females do not show particularly clear external
signs of estrus is a very interesting question. It is one of the major
differences between humans and chimps (and other mammals for that
matter) and probably shapes much about what it is to be human.
Survival of the fittest?
No, differential reproductive success due, at least in part, to
genetic differences.
Give me a break. The clitoris, like every
other biologic system, is 'design'. Possibly even 'intelligent'
design.
Why? Because you wave your hands and say so?
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Bowman" |
|
| Title: Re: feud for thot / macro evolution |
10 Aug 2005 06:01:47 PM |
|
|
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the response. I'm an engineer, not a biologist. My
knowledge of the existing body of evolutionary research is limited,
but expanding, thanks to the Internet. I'll never have a firm grasp
on biochemical and cell and molecular biology, nor reproductive
genetics. Few of us will, for that matter, due to their complexities.
I'll leave the research and testing of various biochemical hypotheses
to specialists in those fields. But I may challenge *conclusions*
based on their work.
It's tough to be objective. A given body of research will be
interpreted differently by those of us with varying backgrounds. We
try to be objective, but our prejudices will invariable color our
deductions. I think you'll agree that the evolutions have, and have
always has an agenda; to prove macro evolution. That often leads to
conjecture. Punctuated equilibrium has been postulated, but raises
more questions than it answers. Show me proof of speciation.
First let me say that ID is not Creationism. Granted, many Bible
believers are pushing ID (Dubra?), but I don't welcome their support.
My definition (and there are others) of ID is that one or many
intelligences (*not* necessarily a *supreme* intelligence) has
provided input to the evolutionary process. That's it. No inference
of motive, method, or motif is conjectured. I don't know how or when,
or to what degree input into evolutionary process was or is being
made. I won't even state that I believe the designer(s) had anything
to do with the actual input (creation process). The term
'intelligence' is used for want of a better term. How good or bad
that intelligence is, is not at issue. I am only refuting that the
order and complexity was due to random genetic changes.
I feel that I can *infer* certain things, though, based on
observation. And I agree with the fallibility of human deduction, but
it's what I have to work with. So, at least at this point, ID is not
provable science, but I am looking for ways to make the case for it.
Mindless, arbitrary, chance evolution could never produce the complex,
artistic, purposeful, and balanced harmonious universe that exists.
Artistic Universe? Purposeful Universe? Anyway, it is a good think
that evolution is about living organisms and not the Universe as a
whole.
I'm speaking more of what I see in nature, (human anatomic features
{this could take pages to expound on}, the design of a banana {the
taste, texture, and ribbed design which could very well be to aid in
peeling it}, and the extremely well designed bird wing {hollow
feathers for high strength weight ratio, flight feathers have
interlocking barbs so wind won't pass through}.
Arguments against ID include finding fault with various biologic
mechanisms. The rationale is that a designer would have done things
differently? Oh really?
No, not really. My argument against ID is that I have no idea what
some unknown designer would do. This means that ID is consistent with
any observation, possible and impossible.
Good point. We don't know motive or purpose, but ID isn't really
consistent with *any* observation, only those that are complex, have
function, have redundant features that may be only aesthetic (study a
beautiful woman's face). We, as designers, might do something
different. That doesn't negate that another designer had input.
First of all, those advocates (primarily
biologists), would like us to believe that their engineering skills
surpass that of any cosmic designer(s) that may be responsible for
these biologic mechanisms.
No, but I don't have the arrogance to assert that the Universe was
made by some being with some human characteristics like intelligence
who engages in a human pastime, design. That kind of arrogance is
mostly found among creationists who want a God limited by their
imagination.
I was referring to the argument the vertebrate eyes are designed
wrong, due to the orientation of the optic nerve and the rods/cones
pointing backward. Besides the fact that it works, other analyses
have concluded that that is necessary in vertebrates to protect from
UV, and to enable heat dissipation and cell nourishment.
Referring to your second part, maybe a God or gods may have been
bored, and use the planets as workshops to see what they can come up
with. Look what men to for entertainment (baseball games, sex,
fighting). We also create, via hobbies, all kinds of things to pass
the time. Why not a *creator* then, and yes, over millions of years.
Again, ID is not creationism, and no, I don't believe the Genesis
account of creation.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly,
their premise that any designed biologic structures should be perfect,
If someone is going to assert that an all-knowing, all-powerful being
designed things then they should explain why the results look like
those made by a very limited entity. Sure, some unknown, unspecified,
unconstrained by the evidence entity could do anything, but that makes
ID not science.
I never said that the designers were 'all-knowing' or 'all-powerful'.
That's the Creationist point of view. In my view, Intelligent Design
does not specify the characteristics of any designer(s). That's been
written in by detractors and critics. No, pure ID is *not* warmed
over Creationism, *even though* many Creationists have latched on to
it!
[snip]
So rather than classify the esophagus as 'bad design', proposing
either a more highly placed trachea, a separate tube for food and air,
or a better designed epiglottis, why not admit that it's a pretty good
compromise,
It is only "pretty good" if you figure that it was made from a
previous system by small sequential steps. IOW it evolved.
I don't agree that it evolved. It had to be there from the start of
any reptile or mammal that ate through the same tube that he breathed
through, or he wouldn't survive his first day.
and that its 'multi-functional' design is actually
'economical' engineering.
For some notion of economical, I suppose. Of course we know nothing
about the abilities or the resources of the designer, so we can't
comment on whether the design is economical. Perhaps the designer was
trying for a still life and all this life stuff is messing things up.
Economical since it saves space, allows speech, and gives a place for
bronchial fluids to go (be swallowed). There could be other designs,
but as an engineer, I see it as at least *somewhat* economical.
Similar economies exist at the other end.
If mammals evolved from fish, why did the
two passageways converge into one organ?
Other way around.
If the gills became lungs,
They did not.
Do a Google on 'gills' and 'lungs'. In those 65,000 hits, there's
some discussion that they did.
<snip> One more thing, then I'll quit. How did something like the clitoris
evolve? Let me guess. Due to random genetic variability, one just
magically appeared in a female, complete with its elaborate system of
nerves (largest concentration of sensory nerves in the body).
It is something shared by all mammals and by reptiles so the origin
should lie in the common ancestor. For sexually reproducing beings
things that promote reproduction will tend to lead to more offspring.
Animals tend to move, so giving them a reason to pair up is a good
thing.
I agree with that. I understand (and from personal experience) that
the male doesn't get the same kind of sensory feeling that the female
may get (if stimulated properly), but enjoys that act more out of ego
and conquest. The female, on the other hand, may yell and have
multiple orgasms. If that weren't so, we might have a more difficult
time getting them to consent to intercourse, realizing the possible
consequences.
The fact that it has biological similarities to the penis points to
evolution. The fact is that it's purposeful in helping to prolong
intercourse points to design.
Because
of the added stimulation, this anthropoid was more willing to have
sex, and therefore tended to perpetuated the species more than those
without this appendage. To mate with someone with the same genetic
propensity, she would have had to mate with one of her male offspring
(but being that horny, I guess it's possible), and if the male had the
same gene, their offspring, if female, might be born with a clitoris.
The penis is formed by the same genes as the clitoris. Evolution of
the clitoris is not a particularly hard problem, so to speak.
The interesting question, which is still an open one, is the origin of
sexual reproduction. For an interesting question closer to humans, the
question of why human females do not show particularly clear external
signs of estrus is a very interesting question. It is one of the major
differences between humans and chimps (and other mammals for that
matter) and probably shapes much about what it is to be human.
A difference is design, perhaps. Animals seem to copulate more
mechanically, based on when the female ovulates, often at very
inopportune times. Humans are allowed more choice in the matter,
since the female is not driven that way.
You're right. If we're direct descendants via evolution, why aren't
women in heat during ovulation. Not socially acceptable perhaps.
Survival of the fittest?
No, differential reproductive success due, at least in part, to
genetic differences.
I'm aware of that mechanism, but I see it as protective (adaptive
changes), and to allow for physical differences (we come in all shapes
and sizes). Again, I see those functions as engineered for the
survival of species, and to provide physical variability (what if we
all looked alike).
Give me a break. The clitoris, like every
other biologic system, is 'design'. Possibly even 'intelligent'
design.
Why? Because you wave your hands and say so?
No. Because I feel that genetic variability could not produce one.
Look, study the *****. Look at where its located. Observe its
sheathing. Ponder the nerve density there, and the fact that it's so
vascular, and can become semi-erect for better contact. Or study the
penis. Why is it angled upward at an angle similar to the vaginal
canal? And why is their a so-called G spot conveniently located for
additional stimulation (and it usually gets direct hits).
Thanx for the exchange, Matt.
Lee Bowman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: feud for thot / macro evolution |
11 Aug 2005 12:00:17 AM |
|
|
"Lee Bowman" <lucifer@REMOVEcox.net> wrote in message
news:42fa6a69.91213227@news.west.cox.net...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:nnokf19c2h13oep3ftaoc160u0k458isbu@4ax.com...
[...]
I'm speaking more of what I see in nature, (human anatomic features
{this could take pages to expound on}, the design of a banana {the
taste, texture, and ribbed design which could very well be to aid in
peeling it}
Domesticated bananas ARE intelligently designed, by humans. Wild bananas are
full of seeds and have little meat. Almost all the food you get from the
grocery store has been under design for millenia by humans.
and the extremely well designed bird wing {hollow
feathers for high strength weight ratio, flight feathers have
interlocking barbs so wind won't pass through}.
Why designed? If a bird wing is designed, then why isn't everything
designed? Snowflakes and pretty, so they must be designed? What's your
theory about where design begins and ends?
The penis is formed by the same genes as the clitoris. Evolution of
the clitoris is not a particularly hard problem, so to speak.
The interesting question, which is still an open one, is the origin of
sexual reproduction. For an interesting question closer to humans, the
question of why human females do not show particularly clear external
signs of estrus is a very interesting question. It is one of the major
differences between humans and chimps (and other mammals for that
matter) and probably shapes much about what it is to be human.
A difference is design, perhaps. Animals seem to copulate more
mechanically, based on when the female ovulates, often at very
inopportune times. Humans are allowed more choice in the matter,
since the female is not driven that way.
You're right. If we're direct descendants via evolution, why aren't
women in heat during ovulation. Not socially acceptable perhaps.
More likely it has to do with human intelligence. With their distended
breasts and prominent hips, human females appear to be in heat continuously.
It has nothing to do with prim and proper ideas of social acceptability.
It's to keep human males confused and horny all the time, and to increase
the chances that a man will hang around to help take care of the kiddos.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: feud for thot / macro evolution |
10 Aug 2005 11:25:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:01:47 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
lucifer@REMOVEcox.net (Lee Bowman) in
<42fa6a69.91213227@news.west.cox.net> wrote:
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the response. I'm an engineer, not a biologist. My
knowledge of the existing body of evolutionary research is limited,
but expanding, thanks to the Internet. I'll never have a firm grasp
on biochemical and cell and molecular biology, nor reproductive
genetics. Few of us will, for that matter, due to their complexities.
I'll leave the research and testing of various biochemical hypotheses
to specialists in those fields. But I may challenge *conclusions*
based on their work.
Does it make sense to do that since you are ignorant of the underlying
science?
It's tough to be objective. A given body of research will be
interpreted differently by those of us with varying backgrounds.
Does that mean I can make a 100 story building with cardboard because
I "interpret" the data differently? If I say I can and you say I
can't, who should someone believe? The engineer with the relevant
knowledge or someone who says they don't have the relevant knowledge?
We
try to be objective, but our prejudices will invariable color our
deductions.
It is a good thing that scientists have the peer review process to
help get rid of the results of those prejudices. And if the work is
bad, then the next researcher will uncover it.
I think you'll agree that the evolutions have, and have
always has an agenda; to prove macro evolution.
No, I won't agree with that because it is silly. If for no other
reason than that macro evolution has been observed over and over. You
really should not make these statements until you have read the
material.
"29 Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common
Descent "
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
"Observed Instances of Speciation"
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
"Some More Observed Speciation Events"
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
That often leads to
conjecture. Punctuated equilibrium has been postulated, but raises
more questions than it answers.
I suspect that you have no idea of any of the questions raised by Punk
Eek. Here is a hint: it is not about the existence of speciation. Read
the initial paper, G&E explicitly says that speciation has been
observed. They are talking about something else entirely.
Show me proof of speciation.
See the above.
First let me say that ID is not Creationism.
Sure it is. It is an attempt to get creationism into the schools by
removing explicit mention of God from the material. Of course no one
told the Dover school board who are on record, under oath, saying that
they wanted creationism in the schools.
Granted, many Bible
believers are pushing ID (Dubra?), but I don't welcome their support.
My definition (and there are others) of ID is that one or many
intelligences (*not* necessarily a *supreme* intelligence) has
provided input to the evolutionary process. That's it. No inference
of motive, method, or motif is conjectured. I don't know how or when,
or to what degree input into evolutionary process was or is being
made.
So you don't really have much do you. It is pretty hard to test a
"theory" that says, if I may paraphrase, some unknown entity or
entities did some unknown thing or things at some unknown time or
times and some unknown place or places with some unknown mechanism or
mechanisms producing some unknown result. Is that about it or can you
get more specific?
Can you explain how "Intelligence" can do this? I don't know of any
example of intelligence separated from some living physical entity. Or
do you mean aliens from some other planet?
I won't even state that I believe the designer(s) had anything
to do with the actual input (creation process). The term
'intelligence' is used for want of a better term.
How about you get a better term and explain what it means.
How good or bad
that intelligence is, is not at issue. I am only refuting that the
order and complexity was due to random genetic changes.
Great, I agree. Evolution has selection as well. And while mutation
may be random, selection is not.
I feel that I can *infer* certain things, though, based on
observation.
I agree. How about you make explicit your chain of inference for us.
And I agree with the fallibility of human deduction, but
it's what I have to work with. So, at least at this point, ID is not
provable science, but I am looking for ways to make the case for it.
When you can figure this out let me know. I would start with defining
Intelligent and Design.
Mindless, arbitrary, chance evolution could never produce the complex,
artistic, purposeful, and balanced harmonious universe that exists.
Artistic Universe? Purposeful Universe? Anyway, it is a good think
that evolution is about living organisms and not the Universe as a
whole.
I'm speaking more of what I see in nature, (human anatomic features
{this could take pages to expound on}, the design of a banana {the
taste, texture, and ribbed design which could very well be to aid in
peeling it},
Ah, the "ears and nose are designed for holding glasses" view of the
Universe. Why not point out that bananas are aimed to our mouths,
further proof of design.
and the extremely well designed bird wing {hollow
feathers for high strength weight ratio, flight feathers have
interlocking barbs so wind won't pass through}.
Why didn't the designer use that for bat wings? Why re-design it if it
was good?
Arguments against ID include finding fault with various biologic
mechanisms. The rationale is that a designer would have done things
differently? Oh really?
No, not really. My argument against ID is that I have no idea what
some unknown designer would do. This means that ID is consistent with
any observation, possible and impossible.
Good point. We don't know motive or purpose, but ID isn't really
consistent with *any* observation, only those that are complex, have
function, have redundant features that may be only aesthetic (study a
beautiful woman's face). We, as designers, might do something
different. That doesn't negate that another designer had input.
Are you saying that the designer could not make something simple? Are
you claiming that you can determine the function of the designed
objects? We can have lots of fun talking about function, so be careful
about what you want to claim here. I can't think of any set of
observations that we could not say "it was designed". After all, we
don't know their goals, their tools, their budget, etc.
First of all, those advocates (primarily
biologists), would like us to believe that their engineering skills
surpass that of any cosmic designer(s) that may be responsible for
these biologic mechanisms.
No, but I don't have the arrogance to assert that the Universe was
made by some being with some human characteristics like intelligence
who engages in a human pastime, design. That kind of arrogance is
mostly found among creationists who want a God limited by their
imagination.
I was referring to the argument the vertebrate eyes are designed
wrong, due to the orientation of the optic nerve and the rods/cones
pointing backward. Besides the fact that it works, other analyses
have concluded that that is necessary in vertebrates to protect from
UV, and to enable heat dissipation and cell nourishment.
Which is just plain silly. The nerve goes in front of the cells and
blocks the vision. It does not help at all with UV. You need to be
careful with this, are you going to claim that everything was designed
and that all of these designers are perfect? How about you give me the
design explanation for why bats don't have feathers and I give the
evolutionary answer.
Referring to your second part, maybe a God or gods may have been
bored, and use the planets as workshops to see what they can come up
with.
Sure. Once you start on that path, though, you pretty much give up any
hope of making ID science. No matter what we see we can speculate on
some God that wanted it that way.
Look what men to for entertainment (baseball games, sex,
fighting). We also create, via hobbies, all kinds of things to pass
the time. Why not a *creator* then, and yes, over millions of years.
Again, ID is not creationism, and no, I don't believe the Genesis
account of creation.
You just think that some unknown entity(s) did some unknown thing(s)
for some unknown reason(s) etc. How is that science and what would you
teach in the schools?
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly,
their premise that any designed biologic structures should be perfect,
If someone is going to assert that an all-knowing, all-powerful being
designed things then they should explain why the results look like
those made by a very limited entity. Sure, some unknown, unspecified,
unconstrained by the evidence entity could do anything, but that makes
ID not science.
I never said that the designers were 'all-knowing' or 'all-powerful'.
You may not have, but others do. Given such a being the kind of hacks
we see in biology are surprising.
That's the Creationist point of view. In my view, Intelligent Design
does not specify the characteristics of any designer(s). That's been
written in by detractors and critics. No, pure ID is *not* warmed
over Creationism, *even though* many Creationists have latched on to
it!
Your version of ID is creationism stripped of any content. Your ID is
"the designer(s) did something(s)". They may be wrong, but at least
they make some claims.
[snip]
So rather than classify the esophagus as 'bad design', proposing
either a more highly placed trachea, a separate tube for food and air,
or a better designed epiglottis, why not admit that it's a pretty good
compromise,
It is only "pretty good" if you figure that it was made from a
previous system by small sequential steps. IOW it evolved.
I don't agree that it evolved. It had to be there from the start of
any reptile or mammal that ate through the same tube that he breathed
through, or he wouldn't survive his first day.
Again, I suggest that you learn something about evolutionary biology,
and biology in general, before you write these things. There are
existent organisms that have most of the primitive characteristics we
suspect for the evolution of the mammalian windpipe. They seem to
survive just fine.
Evolution does not propose that some feature pops into existence fully
formed. That is creationism. Evolutions shows how features come from
similar features.
and that its 'multi-functional' design is actually
'economical' engineering.
For some notion of economical, I suppose. Of course we know nothing
about the abilities or the resources of the designer, so we can't
comment on whether the design is economical. Perhaps the designer was
trying for a still life and all this life stuff is messing things up.
Economical since it saves space, allows speech, and gives a place for
bronchial fluids to go (be swallowed). There could be other designs,
but as an engineer, I see it as at least *somewhat* economical.
Again, you can't assert anything about the design until you know the
abilities and goals of the designers.
Similar economies exist at the other end.
Did you know that there are organism that use one tube for both eating
and waste elimination? Now that is economical.
If mammals evolved from fish, why did the
two passageways converge into one organ?
Other way around.
If the gills became lungs,
They did not.
Do a Google on 'gills' and 'lungs'. In those 65,000 hits, there's
some discussion that they did.
Google is not your friend here. Read some real biology. Gills became
the jaw and so the ear, but not the lungs.
<snip> One more thing, then I'll quit. How did something like the clitoris
evolve? Let me guess. Due to random genetic variability, one just
magically appeared in a female, complete with its elaborate system of
nerves (largest concentration of sensory nerves in the body).
It is something shared by all mammals and by reptiles so the origin
should lie in the common ancestor. For sexually reproducing beings
things that promote reproduction will tend to lead to more offspring.
Animals tend to move, so giving them a reason to pair up is a good
thing.
I agree with that. I understand (and from personal experience) that
the male doesn't get the same kind of sensory feeling that the female
may get (if stimulated properly), but enjoys that act more out of ego
and conquest.
Sorry, but you simply can't know that from personal experience.
The female, on the other hand, may yell and have
multiple orgasms. If that weren't so, we might have a more difficult
time getting them to consent to intercourse, realizing the possible
consequences.
The fact that it has biological similarities to the penis points to
evolution. The fact is that it's purposeful in helping to prolong
intercourse points to design.
If you don't understand evolution, sure. Once you understand how
selection works you will start to realize that human design is an
evolutionary process. We make changes and the ones that work are kept.
Because
of the added stimulation, this anthropoid was more willing to have
sex, and therefore tended to perpetuated the species more than those
without this appendage. To mate with someone with the same genetic
propensity, she would have had to mate with one of her male offspring
(but being that horny, I guess it's possible), and if the male had the
same gene, their offspring, if female, might be born with a clitoris.
The penis is formed by the same genes as the clitoris. Evolution of
the clitoris is not a particularly hard problem, so to speak.
The interesting question, which is still an open one, is the origin of
sexual reproduction. For an interesting question closer to humans, the
question of why human females do not show particularly clear external
signs of estrus is a very interesting question. It is one of the major
differences between humans and chimps (and other mammals for that
matter) and probably shapes much about what it is to be human.
A difference is design, perhaps. Animals seem to copulate more
mechanically, based on when the female ovulates,
Read about bonobos.
often at very
inopportune times.
For you maybe.
[snip]
Give me a break. The clitoris, like every
other biologic system, is 'design'. Possibly even 'intelligent'
design.
Why? Because you wave your hands and say so?
No. Because I feel that genetic variability could not produce one.
Do you know enough of the relevant material for your feelings to
matter? I feel that a 1 x 1 .25 steel box is a strong enough beam to
hold up a five story building. Do you want to live on the ground
floor?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: feud for thot / macro evolution |
10 Aug 2005 10:46:13 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Lee Bowman
(lucifer@REMOVEcox.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
Mindless, arbitrary, chance evolution could never produce the complex,
artistic, purposeful, and balanced harmonious universe that exists.
What universe is this? Ours is quite random, and inhospitable.
Arguments against ID include finding fault with various biologic
mechanisms. The rationale is that a designer would have done things
differently? Oh really? First of all, those advocates (primarily
biologists), would like us to believe that their engineering skills
surpass that of any cosmic designer(s) that may be responsible for
these biologic mechanisms. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly,
their premise that any designed biologic structures should be perfect,
or at least better, belie their own ingrained prejudices that the
creator (if they believed there was one) would be perfect, and would
only design perfect life forms. It may be implied in various Holy
books that God is perfect, but that word, in and of itself, is
specious. There is no perfection in the universe, only optimization.
Give me an example of anything that you deem 'perfect', and I will
either show you flaws, or at least alternate designs.
So rather than classify the esophagus as 'bad design', proposing
either a more highly placed trachea, a separate tube for food and air,
or a better designed epiglottis, why not admit that it's a pretty good
compromise, and that its 'multi-functional' design is actually
'economical' engineering. If mammals evolved from fish, why did the
two passageways converge into one organ? If the gills became lungs,
why the merger with the digestive system? Is mindless evolution that
clever?
Natural selection. The species without the tools to survive, didn't.
One more thing, then I'll quit. How did something like the clitoris
evolve?
Hehe hehe he said clitoris.
Let me guess. Due to random genetic variability, one just
magically appeared in a female, complete with its elaborate system of
nerves (largest concentration of sensory nerves in the body). Because
of the added stimulation, this anthropoid was more willing to have
sex, and therefore tended to perpetuated the species more than those
without this appendage. To mate with someone with the same genetic
propensity, she would have had to mate with one of her male offspring
(but being that horny, I guess it's possible), and if the male had the
same gene, their offspring, if female, might be born with a clitoris.
Survival of the fittest? Give me a break. The clitoris, like every
other biologic system, is 'design'. Possibly even 'intelligent'
design.
Your post reeks of Argument from Personal Incredulity. So who designed
the designer?
(to be continued)
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
______________
'03 XVS650A
'04 XVS1100
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: feud for thot / macro evolution |
10 Aug 2005 03:50:35 PM |
|
|
Your arguments are puerile.
The religious movement is trying to blunt the science of evolution which
they fear threatens their faith in God.
All one needs to do is look at the FACTS in the REAL world to see that
the concept that the Universe was created by AN Intelligent Designer is
shear nonsense and preposterous.
Man produces radios, TVs, computers, cell phones, automobiles, aircraft etc.
that or 99.999% and more free of significant defects. The is not true of our
physical Universe.
If our physical Universe was created by an all powerful omnipotent thing
called God it certainly would have created something far better and more
defect free than what presently exists.
The Universe shows NO EVIDENCE of INTELLIGENT design!
First let’s look at the human body.
The openings to our breathing air and swallowing food and water are so close
that it often causes choking ( and sometimes fatal!) Why aren’t there two
separate openings that do not conflict with each other?
The lung design is equally quaint and inefficient. The same tube acts as the
both the entry for life giving oxygen and the exhaust pipe for the spent
air. This is the equivalent of an auto engine designer putting the exhaust
pipe through the carburetor manifold!
And why include non functioning body organs like the Appendix and Tonsils,
which cause serious problems including death?
The penis is used to dispose of foul bodily fluids and to deliver wholesome
sperm to fertilize women’s eggs for the birth of new humans. Likewise the
female’s vagina is used as a sewer line and for the acceptance of sperm to
fertilize her ovum to create new infants and deliver them into the world. Is
running a sewer line through the middle of a creation organ logical or
intelligent?
There is no evidence of intelligent design but only for random mutation and
natural selection. If it helps or does not interfere with survival it is
reproduced. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t survive. If an omniscient God created
man he certainly would have created a more logical and efficient design.
Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Wars,
Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and serious body malfunctions?
Why does he permit millions of both young and old to starve to death or die
of miserable diseases?
Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally “innocent children”
to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed
brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and
others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others
pauper poor? Why does he permit millions of children to suffer miserable
starvation and diseases and die each year? Why punish millions of totally
innocent children in this horrible way?
Why are his creations designed to deteriorate into miserable and devastating
old age?
Why did this all powerful and loving creator create life threatening things
like sharks, jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, poisonous
snakes, stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this
caring benevolent God create animals (including man) that need to painfully
kill and eat other animals to survive?
World War I claimed the lives of 9,000,000 men women and innocent children
of numerous religious faiths.
World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of men, women and
innocent children of various religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of
property and more millions maimed for life.
The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed 270,000 lives; men, women and innocent
children of all religious persuasions. 100,000 of these were totally
innocent children!
There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th.
and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and
totally innocent children.
The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
innocent children indiscriminately.
Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions
indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and
malnutrition.
These afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of all religious
persuasions.
Meanwhile MAN, not God, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of
serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling,
purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation
systems including flying through the air.
Perhaps your loving and caring God is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and
torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think
he will let us enjoy peace and happiness in his eternal Heaven after death?
And why does he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our
dead parents, siblings and friends?
If there is a God that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent God. Nor is he an “Intelligent Designer”. The
objective evidence is that, IF there is a God creator, he has NO concern
about the welfare of the creatures on Earth and he certainly is not a very
competent creator!
If there is a true God creator why does he permit the existence of thousands
of false God beliefs, false messengers and apostates? Why does he not
announce clearly from his heaven the he is the real God and all the others
are fakes?
The objective evidence is that no Gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created Gods.
"Lee Bowman" <lucifer@REMOVEcox.net> wrote in message
news:42fa59a0.86916098@news.west.cox.net...
Mindless, arbitrary, chance evolution could never produce the complex,
artistic, purposeful, and balanced harmonious universe that exists.
Arguments against ID include finding fault with various biologic
mechanisms. The rationale is that a designer would have done things
differently? Oh really? First of all, those advocates (primarily
biologists), would like us to believe that their engineering skills
surpass that of any cosmic designer(s) that may be responsible for
these biologic mechanisms. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly,
their premise that any designed biologic structures should be perfect,
or at least better, belie their own ingrained prejudices that the
creator (if they believed there was one) would be perfect, and would
only design perfect life forms. It may be implied in various Holy
books that God is perfect, but that word, in and of itself, is
specious. There is no perfection in the universe, only optimization.
Give me an example of anything that you deem 'perfect', and I will
either show you flaws, or at least alternate designs.
So rather than classify the esophagus as 'bad design', proposing
either a more highly placed trachea, a separate tube for food and air,
or a better designed epiglottis, why not admit that it's a pretty good
compromise, and that its 'multi-functional' design is actually
'economical' engineering. If mammals evolved from fish, why did the
two passageways converge into one organ? If the gills became lungs,
why the merger with the digestive system? Is mindless evolution that
clever?
One more thing, then I'll quit. How did something like the clitoris
evolve? Let me guess. Due to random genetic variability, one just
magically appeared in a female, complete with its elaborate system of
nerves (largest concentration of sensory nerves in the body). Because
of the added stimulation, this anthropoid was more willing to have
sex, and therefore tended to perpetuated the species more than those
without this appendage. To mate with someone with the same genetic
propensity, she would have had to mate with one of her male offspring
(but being that horny, I guess it's possible), and if the male had the
same gene, their offspring, if female, might be born with a clitoris.
Survival of the fittest? Give me a break. The clitoris, like every
other biologic system, is 'design'. Possibly even 'intelligent'
design.
(to be continued)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Bowman" |
|
| Title: Re: feud for thot / macro evolution |
10 Aug 2005 08:13:40 PM |
|
|
Your arguments are puerile.
The religious movement is trying to blunt the science of evolution which
they fear threatens their faith in God.
Have I quoted the Bible? You're attacking a straw man.
All one needs to do is look at the FACTS in the REAL world to see that
the concept that the Universe was created by AN Intelligent Designer is
shear nonsense and preposterous.
I never said it was (read my original post).
Man produces radios, TVs, computers, cell phones, automobiles, aircraft etc.
that or 99.999% and more free of significant defects. The is not true of our
physical Universe.
What man creates are tinker-toys, compared to biologic life forms.
If our physical Universe was created by an all powerful omnipotent thing
called God it certainly would have created something far better and more
defect free than what presently exists.
Why need it be perfect? Life's a game, full of challenges. I'd hate
to be in a place where I walked in a green field picking daisies.
The Universe shows NO EVIDENCE of INTELLIGENT design!
That's a broad statement, but askew from what I was discussing.
First let’s look at the human body. The openings to our breathing air and
swallowing food and water are so close that it often causes choking
( and sometimes fatal!) Why aren’t there two separate openings
that do not conflict with each other?
It's an economy of design. With a common duct, fluids from the
bronchia are swallowed. These fluids are there to catch incoming
debris, and are necessary. With two tubes, the neck would be wider,
and deep breathing would be near impossible when running. If your
nose plugged up, you couldn't breath through your mouth. We use our
tongue and mouth for speech. Couldn't do that if it was just for
food.
Check out this animation and tell me it came about through random
changes.
http://hopkins-gi.org/multimedia/database/intro_250_Swallow.swf
The lung design is equally quaint and inefficient. The same tube acts as the
both the entry for life giving oxygen and the exhaust pipe for the spent
air. This is the equivalent of an auto engine designer putting the exhaust
pipe through the carburetor manifold!
Send god an email and tell him to change it. No really, what I meant
to say was this: If air could only come in the top pipe, and
something foreign got in there, how would you blow it out?
And why include non functioning body organs like the Appendix and Tonsils,
which cause serious problems including death?
Do a google on those words and the word 'vestigial'. Most of the hits
will say they are evidence of evolution, but others present evidence
that they have uses. It is now known that the tonsils and appendix
produce and/or store antibodies. Also, it was once thought that the
thymus was vestigial, but it's now known that it plays an important
part in the body's defense system.
The penis is used to dispose of foul bodily fluids and to deliver wholesome
sperm to fertilize women’s eggs for the birth of new humans. Likewise the
female’s vagina is used as a sewer line and for the acceptance of sperm to
fertilize her ovum to create new infants and deliver them into the world. Is
running a sewer line through the middle of a creation organ logical or
intelligent?
I'll have to say that I don't like it either, but it *is* an economy
of design. The poop shoot does have two anal sphincters, by the way,
so you have a double barrier there, giving better isolation (similar
to a double set of doors to go outside in some buildings, designed to
help isolate the elements).
On the other hand, maybe our designer did it to annoy us. What about
warts, viruses and toenail fungi. Life's a crapshoot, but
interesting.
There is no evidence of intelligent design but only for random mutation and
natural selection. If it helps or does not interfere with survival it is
reproduced. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t survive. If an omniscient God created
man he certainly would have created a more logical and efficient design.
That's the old Darwinian belief. My belief, based on my research (and
deduction) is that mutation and natural selection are primarily
survival mechanisms, and to make everyone a little different. It's
not been proven that they produce species change.
Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Wars,
Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and serious body malfunctions?
Why does he permit millions of both young and old to starve to death or die
of miserable diseases?
You haven't figured that out yet? Why did the god of the Old
Testament provoke the wandering Jews to attack heathen villages. Why
are there wars today? Sickness is apparently allowed to give us
challenges (why do humans put on ***** fights?). Some would argue that
that would point to a cruel god. In the end, we may all get to sit
down in the spirit world and tell war stories. Look at this life as a
vacation trip, albeit one with pitfalls. Omniscient, omnipotent,
omnipresent, these are words attributed to God by religionists. My
arguments are based on the complexity of life, and the fact that it
simply could not evolve by itself.
Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally “innocent children”
to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed
brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.?
Things sometimes go wrong in any complex, mechanical process (cell
division). Viruses can cause it too. I'm amazed that the birth
process works at all, due to its complexity.
Why are some born idiots and others with super intelligence?
Genetic variability. Luck of the draw.
Why are some born into wealth and others
pauper poor? Why does he permit millions of children to suffer miserable
starvation and diseases and die each year? Why punish millions of totally
innocent children in this horrible way?
Again, the world isn't perfect. A lot of its problems are man caused.
Others may be tossed into the mix to give us challenges. Innocents
who are abused in this life may be rewarded in the next, or reborn.
This is a popular argument against a benevolent God, but maybe he has
two sides.
All I'm arguing here is Intelligent Design, not purpose or ethics.
Why are his creations designed to deteriorate into miserable and devastating
old age?
That's an easy one. Things wear out. There needs to be room for new
arrivals. Ask yourself this: How would you like to graduate HS or
college, go into the work place, and have to compete with some old
fart who was as physically fit as you. Given his experience, personal
preferences and authority, you'd never be able to compete.
I see getting old as humbling, but no all that bad. Life's a cycle.
Why did this all powerful and loving creator create life threatening things
like sharks, jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, poisonous
snakes, stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this
caring benevolent God create animals (including man) that need to painfully
kill and eat other animals to survive?
I have a tough time with animals eating animals. I also have a tough
time dealing with man's wars, and things like raping and killing of
children. It is possible that life is designed to have ups and downs.
How do we know there aren't celestial beings watching us struggle, and
betting among themselves regarding our outcomes. Don't we go to
movies and watch TV? Look at the violence there, and look at the box
office numbers. Maybe we came from the spirit world to see how well
we can do down here. Maybe we'll return to trade tales.
This point is: ethics aren't at issue. Only Intelligent Design vs.
random genetic events.
World War I claimed the lives of 9,000,000 men women and innocent children
of numerous religious faiths.
World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of men, women and
innocent children of various religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of
property and more millions maimed for life.
There is no reconciling that war, the holocaust, Vietnam, the
crusades, etc. My 17 year old kid says he doesn't want to go to war,
fears a possible draft, and yet plays first person shooter games
nightly. For all we know, they may be in training for the next global
conflict. He and his friends organize themselves in battalions, via
networking, and go through the motions of war. Not just a few, but
thousands play these games. Now who do you suppose is pulling the
strings? I'm not saying that God is pushing it. It seems to be man's
nature, but I'm thinking that soon we'll have to deal with it. It's
Muslim vs. Jew vs. Christian. There's fear, greed, and religious bias
at work. There are existing nukes, and I-235 being centrifuged daily.
But these things do not disprove a superior authority.
The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed 270,000 lives; men, women and innocent
children of all religious persuasions. 100,000 of these were totally
innocent children!
The earth burped, and thousands died. It does make one give pause,
but still no reason to reject a supreme being, IMO. I won't comment
on the rest of the perils you mentioned, cause I don't have the
answers.
If there is a God that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent God. Nor is he an “Intelligent Designer”. The
objective evidence is that, IF there is a God creator, he has NO concern
about the welfare of the creatures on Earth and he certainly is not a very
competent creator!
We can easily state the above abuses, then say that God, if he exists,
is malevolent, and non-intelligent. We can say he has no concern. Or
we can seek him personally, and ask the same questions. Maybe some
day we'll know more.
Regarding the word 'Intelligent', it relates to ordered, directed
actions rather than random, chance events. It does not relate to
morals, ethics, or what we see that we view as wrong out there.
If there is a true God creator why does he permit the existence of thousands
of false God beliefs, false messengers and apostates? Why does he not
announce clearly from his heaven the he is the real God and all the others
are fakes?
Because he gave us the ability to choose, and enough intelligence to
make good choices. As I said earlier, life is a mixed bag; maybe even
a contest among ourselves. Shakespeare said, "The whole world's
stage, and we are merely actors." Maybe he was more right than he
knew.
The objective evidence is that no Gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created Gods.
If we ask for his help and he's not there, then there's no harm done.
....
Cheers!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: feud for thot / macro evolution |
10 Aug 2005 09:28:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:13:40 GMT, (Lee Bowman) wrote:
Man produces radios, TVs, computers, cell phones, automobiles, aircraft etc.
that or 99.999% and more free of significant defects. The is not true of our
physical Universe.
What man creates are tinker-toys, compared to biologic life forms.
OK, but you've opened up an opportunity for me to rub the following in: by a couple of
years ago, laboratories had already assembled, from inert stock that can be ordered in jars
from chemical supply houses, "live" (the term should be taken with a pound or two of salt,
in the present context) viruses, able to infect laboratory hosts (mice? who remembers?)
It would be foolish to bet very high that the bar of live bacteria will not be breached in, say,
another ten years (at the rate biochemical technology has progressed in recent decades,
that's a conservative estimate, likely to be easily surpassed. Even if not, twenty years or
fifty is a cake-walk.) You won't actually require a made-from-stock-bottles six foot tall,
blonde, blue-eyed woman with perfect breasts before you catch on that it isn't magic, will
you?
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
