jump to last post 1-50 of 184 discussions (1304 posts)

Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?

  1. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?

    1. goldenpath profile image80
      goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      My first question would be, "Evolution" of what?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Life.

    2. Cagsil profile image76
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution isn't to be put into a category, such as you've done. Therefore, it's not worth recognizing as an intelligent discussion to be had.

      You singular inability to understand science is your problem to begin with.

      As far as you leaning toward intelligent design, is because you don't believe in any sort of absolute and/or to justify your sad belief in a 'creator' has to exist.

      Sometimes your questions have validity, but this isn't one of them. Have a great day!

      No response forth coming, so don't waste your effort to type one in.

      You are starting to borderline some psychosis...go get help. big_smile

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol Such a brave response, post silly assumptions, then run away. I understand. Evolution is a pattern and design, if it wasn't there would be no way to put it together or understand it. I think you are ahead of me with all of your wannabe prophetic life knowlege you try to help everyone with. Maybe you should work on yourself before trying to fix others.

    3. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution is intelligent in itself because it is based on learning. A species evolves in response to its environment and it does so genetically. The DNA is like a real language and genetic mutation through reproduction is in itself a transfer of intelligent information. There are new studies showing that the genes are not the one learning but the cell tissue is. It is a responsive unit of life that evolved from proteins. Proteins are moving cells that organize based on its environment too. So in a very objective level, evolution is intelligent design of life. it is a deliberate response to the environment in order to ensure the survival of future offspring. Evolution is actually proof that there is a continuing intelligence that learns and passes from one life form to the next. A memory of what has been learned evolves into various life applications.

      Bruce Lipton explains this.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Very Nicely Stated.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you. smile

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Cecilia, I don't know if what you wrote on evolution is right and if it proves it is intelligent design, but I do know that it makes a good case and I can't find anything to argue in it. I consider things like that pretty intelligent. I guess it is what a person considers intelligent or intelligence and also what a person considers a design or pattern.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's all about definitions. I try to keep it simple. Does it store knowledge and change behavior on its own? If yes then, it learns. It has some level of intelligence. Does it have awareness? We don't know. We are not genes or cells.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Could we have awareness or be alive without genes or cells?

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              We can be alive without genes but not cells. Genes are xerox copy machines to "remember" what we acquired in our lifetime and pass it onto offspring before we die.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                awareness is a big topic. It is hard to pin down.

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  If we have awareness, and we are made of cells, why would cells not have awareness? I think our awareness is attributed to us being able to talk, read, and write.

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Is a software programmed to talk, read and write aware? we will say no, but true answer is we don't know. We cannot know. We cannot even define what is to be aware. It is hard to pin down.

              2. lnhula profile image60
                lnhulaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                We cannot be alive without genes. It is the genes the RNA that creates the proteins you were talking about.  From the genes new cells are created throughout the different parts of our body. Certain ones are not used because it is not applicable to what is going on. Like genes for the liver will be "turned off" when cells are being made in the heart. I am one of those half way people that both believe in the possibility of creationism as well as evolution.  There is no doubt there is scientific evidence for evolution however there are still those missing pieces that are possibly the works of a great power speeding up the process by simply creating the next step.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  by we I mean life in general. It was already proven in a study that single-celled organisms call survive when you talk out the gene, because a gene is not the brain of life but its gonads.

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not sure if what you wrote is entirely accurate.  I don't want to cause problems or anything, I just want to correct what I (italicized because it's my opinion) see as inaccurate (i have studied evolution a bit, so i would qualify myself to comment on this subject)

        Cells don't learn - the same cell, if there is no mutation, will not change in any way unless put specifically under physical stress.  This means EXTREME changes in temperature (-40 C to +100 C ), extreme pressure, or other similar physical changes. A cell in my body can NOT change just because of something like... lions moving into my neighborhood.

        But if we are to say that cells "learn" because the cells that do bad (i.e. are not suited to their environment) die off from the gene pool, and cells that do well (i.e. are well suited to handle their environment) reproduce - then this would be a TECHNICALLY accurate statement... just a really weird, and mischievous, way of saying it.

        I say Technically only because the cells aren't learning -cells don't have consciousness - they are not cognizant of their surroundings. A huge SYSTEM of cells can be considered cognizant, but not a single cell (bacteria and viruses are not really cognizant - they just react to what's around them)

        As a fan of Evolution (as opposed to ID) I say this with complete understanding of my words - Evolution does NOT disprove God, and it does NOT explain how life ORIGINATED. 

        ---- I feel that this is one of the most relevant statements to the entire ID vs. Evolution debates.----

        If you want to study how to CREATE life out of innate matter, look into Abiogenesis.  If you want to study if God exists, check out religion or philosophy.

        I hope my statements are understood to be respectful, while in disagreement with others on the blog.

        1. Sufidreamer profile image82
          Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          smile

          It is a futile debate!

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            such a friendly post, but i have to disagree. It is not futile, its a discussion worth having.

        2. thisisoli profile image64
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well written, however i would say that while evolution does not disprove God directly, it does contradict a huge amount of what is stated by the majority of religious people.

          Since God is infallible, wouldn't it therefore prove the non-existance of god? :p

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It only contradicts the way "the world is flat" notion of people who have not circumnavigated the world contradicted Columbus.

        3. LeslieAdrienne profile image82
          LeslieAdrienneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Evan G. Rogers,

          Thank you for the information.....this will help me in the debates I have in other forums.....your are wonderful..... big_smile big_smile big_smile

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            the evils of misinformation, it spreads.

        4. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          To Hilarious Evan G. Rogers, Fan of Evolution:
          http://thelivingmatrixmovie.com/bruce-lipton. For a living being to evolve, it must adapt to the changing environment. Otherwise, cease to exist. Time Magazine just wrote an article about it, it is very recent information but also quite old to those who read Jastor or Nature Science Journals.

          The statement above was not an opinion. I am merely reporting what is already accepted in mainstream science since circa 2001.

          The Cell Tissue is what learns, the DNA makes copies of what it learns hence, Bruce Lipton's book THE BIOLOGY OF BELIEF.

          Consciousness is a big word. To say the cells don't have consciousness assumes a lot of things. You are conscious aren't you? What are neurons? Aren't they the stuff that connected in your brain to form your opinion. Have you ever been a single-cell to know for sure that cells don't have consciousness? There was a time when the British thought monkeys were french because they've never seen one. Even Buddha cannot fully define it, and you casually dismiss it like yeah, people don't fly sort of fact.

          25 BIG IDEAS by Robert Matthews, I suggest if you're a fan, update what you know.

          If you don't want to believe in G-d, then don't just please don't be ignorant along the way.

          No offense meant, though I admit I am a little combative. Must be because it's 2 am. I need to stand on my head.

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And by the way, certain cells in your body do change within your lifetime.  http://www.hhmi.org/genetictrail/d100.html

            ONCE AGAIN, check your facts

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Ceciliabeltran: You are being combative. I take offense, but I'll forgive you.

              1- The first link you sent me does not still exist. No idea why, but it just doesn't.

              2- For a living being to evolve .... nothing - living beings CAN'T evolve. This is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. A single living being can NOT reproduce, and thus can NOT evolve.

              For a SPECIES to survive, then... still no. The species does NOT need to evolve even if the environment changes. If the environment changes in a way RELEVANT to the species, then, yes, it would need to evolve.

              For evolution to be true, then, no, a species does not need to evolve. If a species fails to evolve to a dramatically changing environment, then evolution is still true because the species will most likely go extinct. This is an important part of evolution.

              3- I have consciousness, indeed, but does a bacterium? Of course consciousness is a loaded word, I'm not even sure what it means. Perhaps it would have been a bit more accurate to just simply say that cells can't learn. The only ways an individual cell can respond to its environment is if it mutates (which means numerous things) or dies.

              4- Cells do NOT change (minus extreme temperature, pressure, radiation, etc) within their lifetime. You are confusing a single cell for the descendants of a cell, i.e. after a cell undergoes mitosis or meiosis. A single cell does not change, but the cells that it makes CAN be different if a mutation takes place while copying the DNA and RNA.

              Once more- a single cell, in it's own lifetime, will not change unless exposed to extreme environments (i.e. freezing or boiling temperatures, dramatic pressure changes, or radiation to name a few).

              If you reread the article you posted: http://www.hhmi.org/genetictrail/d100.html  , you'll see that it indeed does agree with me and my previous statements: "DNA in a human cell consists of 6 billion subunits... all of which must be DUPLICATED EACH TIME A CELL DIVIDES..."

              "...the DNA in our own cells undergoes an estimated 30 new mutations during OUR LIFETIME..."

              (emphasis added) - notice that it does not anywhere say that a single cell ever mutates on it's own accord (it does not have the ability to change based on the environment) - but it can change when it undergoes mitosis (the division). Basically, the changes happen when the cell creates new cells, and the new cells are the changed ones.

              With this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp0esidDr-c You can see that the said mutations during transcription (which is what your article is referencing) only really apply to one of the cells (although a separate mutation can happen to each side, i suppose) and thus it can't really be said that the same cell is being mutated. It might be a bit more accurate to say that the one cell is turning into two cells.

              Here's an awesome video that actually shows the dna being split (through CG) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jtmOZaI … mp;index=4    ----- you can easily see how a mutation can take place. It's a miracle that mutations DON'T take place as frequently as they could.

              Using all these videos, i hope that you can see that it's kind of... illogical to say that the cell itself is changing - it is a bit more accurate to say, perhaps, that the cell is giving birth to itself again and creating a twin while it's at it.

              I hope that you don't take offense to this, nothing was aimed at insulting you, and i feel that none of this had a combative tone.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Oooooo I like this guy. smile

                I gave up explaining to the aggressive religionists with all the answers majikally implanted into their heads a long time ago.

                But good for you. Looking forward to a sensible response from either the dog or cecelia, because all I have seen from them is majik knowledge and semantics.

                1. skyfire profile image73
                  skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree with mark here.

                  Good luck Evan.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ceciliabeltran, I just got done finally hunting down some online references to Bruce Lipton and some of his actual work...

            ... the guy's completely wrong. Using him as a reference is quite ... bad. I highly recommend referencing someone a bit more reliable.

            I'll let these guys do the speaking for me, as they've read more of his material than I have (most likely) http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop … mp;t=22720

            And I'll point out that, acc'ding to Wikipedia (which is not a very safe reference, I know), he teaches at the New Zealand College of CHIROPRACTIC... why are we quoting him for cell and biological and evolution?

            1. 59
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I already tried to tell her that, but she remains adamant Bruce Lipton is right.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                /sigh, it's been two weeks... she won't respons will she? I see she posted some stuff 3 days ago, but not to me!

                1. 59
                  (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  That's the world of the woo-woo. Welcome to it. smile

      4. parrster profile image87
        parrsterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Surely then evolution is muted by your comment. Since life, in gaining in complexity, becomes more fragile, not more able to survive. In fact the most robust organisms in our universe are the simplest, some able to survive almost any environment. And since evolution claims that these tough little critters were around long before the more complex organisms, what need have they to adapt?

    4. andromida profile image76
      andromidaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Marine, How are you doing.I think evolution might be a option or method of evolving life form- an intelligent design just as iteration process.If so,then the question comes who is responsible for that design.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Good to see you andro, I have no clue who are what is responsible for the design.

        I don't understand if the designer is smarter than the design, how the design has awareness to recognize and find errors. It is an ignorant design with intelligence. lol

    5. RKHenry profile image79
      RKHenryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I guess this says a lot about the original poster.  Who does he think he is kidding?  The creationists, or the educated people in the back row?

    6. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution is ignorant design, and in so being, can also be intelligent design.

      First and foremost, it is hopeless to call it a design mechanism. There is, perhaps, validity in arguing that there is a design mechanism in Evolution by arguing that the natural laws of the universe are that which design. But design assumes a designer - and this is a false argument.

      Many will argue "if the design of evolution is the physical world, then who designed the physical world's laws?! - OF course! GOD!".  But this is a nonsensical argument - who designed God? Who designed God's designer? etc etc; eventually there has to be a being who was never designed. If this is to be true, and there is a being that just 'is' and is in no way designed, then it must also be an option that the physical laws of the universe just 'are' and were not designed.

      Thus, that which 'designs' evolution would be Ignorant.

      But, being ignorant, it is also intelligent. This comes about when one being of evolution, say humans, willingly and with intelligence designs another being, say wolves. Doing so leads to evolution that is designed by the designing being.

      Thus, evolution is NOT able to be categorized by your topic. I don't know if you meant to make the topic's question to be anti-evolution, or if it was simply an honest question, but this is an honest answer that shows the fallacy of the question.

      Evolution just is, the same way that a god can just be, and the same way that the physical laws of the universe can just be. Until we prove one of these claims, only statements that are proven empirically (i.e. the scientific method being used in fields where it can be used) or through sheer logic (i.e. praxeology being used in fields where science can not be used.)

      1. earnestshub profile image86
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        A very accurate description of the process and clearly stated. smile

      2. parrster profile image87
        parrsterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The purest of all sciences, maths, tells me that nothing comes from nothing.
        Therefore for something to be there must have always been something that was.
        The universe is. Therefore, it cannot, logically, have come from nothing.
        What, then, is the something it came from?
        It cannot be of this universe, for that is a contradiction. A material thing cannot pre-exist itself. (neither can its Laws, logically)
        Also, the universe cannot be eternal, for evidence is everywhere that it had a beginning and is getting older, winding down like a mechanical clock (in response to this very truth the big-bang theory was thought up). Implying, then, that there was a time it was fully wound up and new.
        But what existed before the universe’s beginning? Before it arrived in all its newness?
        Was it a mind (thinking) or matter (non-thinking), not of this universe?
        The universe encompasses incredible complexity (an understatement), and all the hallmarks of, what appears at least to be, intelligent arrangement.
        However, non-thinking matter is not intelligent. It has the ability to neither decide anything nor put anything in order; such requires reasoned thought.
        Therefore what pre-existed the universe cannot have been matter.
        Mind then.
        What are some of the things I can deduce regarding a creative mind who dwells beyond this material abode and who is able to produce such a place as this universe?
        Beyond the obviousness that they are immensely powerful and able to order things on a magnitude I cannot fathom, can I deduce much else? 
        Maybe, but such a being is definitely beyond me, their thoughts not my thoughts, their ways not my ways. After all, they are not of this universe.

        Lastly, I do not think we should attempt to apply Laws of our universe to things or beings outside our universe.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          your argument has a few logical fallacies.

          If something must be created from something else, how was the first thing created? Either it must always have been, or.... nothing. Your argument is that something must have always been. So that means that the universe must have always been, or that there's a god. But to say that "there must always be something that the thing came from" proves that god exists in inaccurate. All that your argument states is that something had to exist for always - why couldn't it be the universe going through a chain of expansions and contractions instead of a god? The argument just doesn't hold.

          I suppose you claim that the universe looks like it was created intelligently, so the thing that always exists must be a god. I suppose that is a half decent argument... but what if the thing that always existed were the laws of physics, and through these laws everything just seems to be logically put together?

          Once again, the important thing is that neither of us can prove or disprove our arguments about the beginning of the universe.

          What we can say, however, is that neither of these arguments has ANYTHING to do with evolution - evolution does not make any claims as to god, it does not make any claims as to the origins of life, and it does not make any claims regarding anything other than "if one species is able to reproduce, and the ability to reproduce was made possible by a genetic mutation, then that species' offspring will benefit from the mutation as well and will likely reproduce.

          Looking only at this statement, which is really all that evolution claims, we can see that - unless there's an unproven god directing all the mutations - evolution is ignorant.

    7. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      it's a silly question based on ignorance that doesn't deserve a response

    8. 0
      ralwusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Now you have pulled me in again my Marine friend. Whoever said that evolution was by design? big_smile yer too funny

  2. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Disclaimer: I am not asking to give the religious ammunition or to trick the atheists.

  3. goldenpath profile image80
    goldenpathposted 6 years ago

    Well, I guess in either case it would be intelligent design.  Disregard the question above.  Any design that can transform on a genetic level a caterpillar into a butterfly is evidence enough that it's intelligent and on a far higher plane than the rest of us.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The case could also be made that it is ignorant design for deaths without explanation.  I do lean towards it being intelligent design, I was just making a point that it could be ignorant considering cases of unknown deaths or being born with a case such as mental disorders. I'm sure the atheists will have more when they arrive. big_smile

      1. goldenpath profile image80
        goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        At least in my opinion and what I preach I believe that the mental disabled are assured as far as salvation is concerned.  Their purpose is for our mission in life to obtain the hope of coming close to their faithfulness and valiance proven before the world was.  The same goes for the children who die while unaccountable.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think salvation has anything to do with evolution. You are pretty much claiming that God made disabled children just to teach us a lesson. That doesn't sound very intelligent to me.

          1. goldenpath profile image80
            goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            To me it's intelligent.  To place those who have proven most valiant in the war in heaven in a position where their salvation is assured, and to not have to worry about committing personal sin and strife is fair and intelligent to me.  Yes, they have their stresses and the road seems long but that is according to our own reckoning of time.  An this long journey of time is what's needed for the rest of us to learn and master compassion, charity and pure love. 

            It is an enforced testament to me.  I cannot look into a severely handicapped child and not see a pure spirit and at the same time damn God for it.  It makes no sense.  If handicapped, if pure then there is purpose in it and God, the Author of intelligent design, should not be damned or put down for such eternal design which we, are hardly able to grasp or comprehend.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I think religion makes the point that evolution is ignorant design, not that it's intelligent design which is the illusion it creates.

            2. 59
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              To listen to the monomaniacal faith-based vomit from those who clearly have no understanding of evolution and who believe the contradictions and hypocrisy in their belief system is some sort of test from their gods for them is insanity at its best.

              It's clear they're unable to grasp or comprehend anything beyond their faith-based myths and superstitions and will gladly justify the plights as others as reasoning and rationale to prop up their belief system.

              Not only is it sad, it is horribly deranged thinking and demonstrates the ease to which religion can destroy the mind, and mankind as a result.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I do agree, but I would have used different wording. lol.
                I think it's important to point out that learning beyond their faith does not apply to all. Many have been indoctrinated into religion and have challenged their faith to reach an individual belief. It can only be changed by them. You, me or anyone else can't change it no matter what we write. I think some get content in belief and stop trying or fear to learn anything that challenges that belief. I agree that religion destroy's the mind while a belief beyond yourself "spirituality" can enlighten a persons mind.

              2. goldenpath profile image80
                goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I love you to.  At least I'll be civil and understanding instead of the usual rhetoric on the posts.  How about a complement?  I hereby complement you on your vocabulary.  You have a wonderful use of large words. Someday, I hope to obtain such a skill.  I sincerely mean that.

                Who knows, maybe someday you and I will lock elbows singing "Kumbaya".  Perhaps we'll even have a taco or pizza with a mug of root beer on the side.  Perhaps we'll be best friends at some future HubPages convention.

                I thank you, again, for your exchanges.  smile smile smile smile

              3. LeslieAdrienne profile image82
                LeslieAdrienneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Q,

                You really ought to do something about your anger issue, smile, smile wink

    2. 0
      TheVerbalAxiomposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly.

    3. skyfire profile image73
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Lol, there is no intelligent deisign for molecular level, so that is quite your assumption.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    With yet another thread about evolution do you expect to get different answers that you have gotten the other 25 or so times?

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I haven't asked this question before. This is to whether evolution is intelligent or ignorant.

      1. thisisoli profile image64
        thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And that is the wrong question.

        Evolution is not ignorant, nor is it intelligent, it just IS.

        It's like saying, is a tree growing intelligent or ignorant.

        Evolution is just something that happens, not something that is made to happen. I have trouble understanding how some people cannot understand what evolution actually is.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you say it isn't ignorant or intelligent, are you just "is"? You are evolved aren't you? Are you ignorant, intelligent, or "is"? If it is not made to happen, why must there be perfect conditions for life to evolve?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            i am
            is
            i don't know

            do you?

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well, at least you didn't ask me about the star goat this time. lol

          2. thisisoli profile image64
            thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You seem to be misunderstanding what evolution is, I am the intelligent product of evolution, there is a difference between the process and the product.

            The process that created intelligence has been the slowly increasing brain size of the human race to deal with the increasingly complex world around us.

            The evolutionary process is not intelligent, or ignorant, it is just a way of describing how animals have increasingly adapted to the world around them.

            If you want to know more about evolution there are thousands of relevant texts out there, not to mention fossil maps, which explain everything from personal evolution to symbiotic evolution. 

            A lot of people argue against evolution with reason such as fossil gaps aand the like, unfortunately there are very few fossil gaps left, and those which have not yet been explained, are generally down to lack of scientific interest, rather than lack of proof.

            In a recent court case where a woman tried to sue a doctor for his failure to pray, the prosecutor (Behe had to show that god was real and evolution was false.  In this case he brough up the fossil gap, and said how there was no way that the Flagellar Motor in bacteria, similar to a wheel on an axle.  He claimed there was no way that this could have usefully evolved.  The Defence then stated quite calmly that there was a huge bacterial record leading up to the Flagellar motor in bacteria, which initially evolved as a way to excrete substance, but later becoming used for motion.

            After this monumental failure to disprove evolution Behe then went on to attack how the immune system could not have evolved, the defence produced 58 reviewed papers, and numerous texts all relating to how the immune system evolved.

            When Behe was cross examined on this he admitted that he had read none of them, and he then continued to say that the information was 'unfruitful'. How he managed to convince himself that the medical knowledge which has extended the human lifespan by near twice what it used to be, not to mention helped rid the world of some of it's worst plagues, was unfuitful, completely amazes me.

            Evolution is both complex and simple, its basic principles are easily understood.  However you need to research to fully understand different aspects of the theory!

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Adaptation is pretty intelligent. If it was ignorant, it would be content and not adapt.

        2. Tyrone Smalls profile image51
          Tyrone Smallsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          When you can show me a  skeleton of a monkey with a tail, then a skeleton of a monkey with 3/4 tail and 1/4 man, then a 1/2  monkey and man , then 1/4, then man , then I would believe in evolution. A man is a man, a monkey is amonkey, a cat is a cat, a bird is a bird! What is, is! We were all created at once and everything that was created still exist. The species my evolve but a dog is still a dog.

                                                                                               "Ylynd"

          1. thisisoli profile image64
            thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't even need to show you a skeleton, there are monkeys without tails alive today,

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Macaque

          2. 59
            (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So, you don't know anything about evolution, why not try reading up on it? You might not then have to "believe" in things.



            The bible isn't the only book ever published, just an fyi. wink

    2. IntimatEvolution profile image81
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I totally agree.  As if the answers are going to be any different from the other 10,000x this subject matter has been posted.  Are we that hard-up for ideas to talk about?

  5. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Now a question in favor of intelligent design. If evolution wasn't intelligent design, would we be able to have awareness and figure out the design of evolution? I don't know how this would be possible if we were all ignorant design. Maybe some ignorant and some intelligent explained as random mutation.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think the two things are the same. The design is set up to eliminate the life forms that are 'ignorant' as you put it....again natural selection.

      The better species survive and continue to evolve, those that are sub-standard die out.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Alright, say this is correct. With intelligent design using natural selection in separating the intelligent from the ignorant, I think this makes evolution intelligent with characteristics that make it appear ignorant at times.

  6. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    IMHO, I think evolution is a very intelligent thing. It allows growth and advancement in the physical as well as the mental.
    Those life forms that cannot or do not evolve are eliminated (natural selection)...and the better and more evolved life forms continue on, reaching new heights.

  7. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    @ marine....

    who are you yelling at?

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol Where? Up top?

  8. goldenpath profile image80
    goldenpathposted 6 years ago

    I don't believe I said anything inflammatory or worth fanning contention over.  I only stated my opinions.  All views we express are just that, views, and should not be taken personal unless a comment is a deliberate attack which mine never are.

    Of course, this is assuming that I am the one being yelled at.  Sorry...  sad

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I was responding to Cags up top.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ok I understand now... (and agree)

  9. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    Q u i p p y

    http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rolling.gif


                          Quippy....

  10. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    I don't see the ignorant, the flawed species, the ones that fail to continue to evolve. Weren't always 'flawed' at some point they were really well adapted...they just ran their course...

    That is a smart design, imho.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Example, a baby born healthy compared to a baby born ill. Some are born with a disadvantage to start out with in comparison to others.

  11. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    A percentage are born geniuses as well...

    we are not all the same, but a species that can rise above the way they were born, is a species that evolves...

    Being born perfect everytime isn't the defining characteristic of an intelligent design... it is the self corrective nature of creation(of life) that makes it an intelligent design.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I"m not saying being born at a disadvantage is a defining characteristic that evolution is ignorant, I am just putting up an argument because no one else is putting up any against it. I would still argue that some are born with inabilities to evolve in learning or self correct.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And the self correcting nature of the design of life would eliminate that species from life(creation)....they would die-out do to the inability to evolve(self-correct).

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think I agree. My head is hurting. lol

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            LOL usually I get told I'm a pain in the a$$, not the head...

  12. 0
    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago

    I'm going to pray for an answer! I want to know why liberals weren't born with any of the normal brain functions you would expect even in a "Brand X" person!

  13. thisisoli profile image64
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    evolution is not intelligent design, it is natural accumulation with limiting factors.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Can you further explain that? And what are the limits?

      1. thisisoli profile image64
        thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes,

        Evolution is the accumulation of different changes and adaptation of structure.

        The limiting fators are when evolution creates a weakness instead of a strength there is a greater chance that the creature will die before it reproduces, removing it from the gene pool.

  14. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    There is no one that can prove evolution is an ignorant design instead of an ignorant design? I am really stunned. That is rare.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Design?

      What are you talking about Marine?

      It is what it is. No design involved. Ignorant or otherwise.

      Unless you know something we don't know?......

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If it didn't have a design or pattern, it seems it would be impossible to figure out or put together. How do you put together a puzzle without the peices or a design to the puzzle?

  15. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Does this example not prove my theory that evolution has a design?

    I am guessing from the responses that the scientists have said it just "is" without design. A puzzle missing peices just "is".  How do you put together a puzzle that is missing peices besides in theory? Is there a design to my theory?

  16. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    I think the scientists claim that it just "is" rather than a design or pattern so it doesn't give religion any ammunition. I partly agree with this, but isn't this hiding things when leading scientists will not say that evolution has a design?

    1. 59
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, designed like water is designed to fit the pothole.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Which is a pretty good design if you think about it.

        Come up with a form that could mold itself to any given form, any shape and still be what it is naturally...

        The fact that the water has a natural ability to 'flow' into whatever environment it is placed in makes it a pretty good design. So long as that was the intention of the designer.

        Intelligent life to me is much like water, we 'flow' into new ideas, new truths, the same way water flows into different potholes... we learn and adapt with the situations as new things are brought to light.

        This ability to self-correct, to evolve, to fit our environment (including the intellectual one) is what makes us an intelligent design.

        That someone or something purposefully designed it to be so, is obviously not provable, therefore it is a 50/50 proposition, and will remain so until proof is provided.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Not really sweetie pie. The 50/50 thing doesn't work here either. Remember - 99/1 chance against plus an infinite number of possible designers = infinity:1

          Especially as we have proof that there was no designer - it is called evolution. wink

          And no one "places" water there. Unless you make an ass umption that is. But - then I forget - you already know that there is a designer, therefore it is "placed." We are not an intelligent design sweetie pie. Sorry - you are assuming again.

          People who have the answer spoken into their head and "feel" a god tend to do that a lot I notice.

        2. 59
          (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You continue to embarrass yourself, Mickel. The water/pothole analogy was meant to demonstrate just how ridiculous the concept of intelligent design.

          Since ID has zero evidence while evolution has mountains of evidence, it isn't a 50/50 proposition. That is silly in the extreme and further embarrasses your position to make such a assertion.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Actually I'm not embarrassing myself at all. I completely understood how you were using the analogy, and I simply used it against you to support my own view. How embarrassing is that???

            A lack of proof IS NOT PROOF , by that I mean your ASSUMPTION that ID is false because you have nothing to prove it is true YET , means that your using the same flawed reasoning to come to your own conclusions.

            For me, the proof of Intelligent Design is Evolution , evolution is the proof that an intelligent creator designed life.

            How embarrassed I am....

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              That is a pretty pathetic argument Mikel. And you aught to be embarrassed, but I suspect your irrational beliefs will have turned that off for you. I mean shouting that a lack of proof is not proof? lol

              Dear me. Very embarrassing.

              The other thing to take into consideration is that evolution pretty much proves (not 100% I admit) that there was no design involved.

              Stating that the pink unicorn is a 50/50 proposition is a rather lame argument, don't you thoink?

              I assume you are talking of the Pink Unicorn. I am a fan of the Star Goat Science Biology Theory myself.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I really don't know what your trying to communicate here Mark...I get the personal attack saying I'm pathetic, but beyond that?

                You're really at a loss to refute it then?

                My theory is that Evolution is proof, of an Intelligent Design, and therefore of an Intelligent Designer/Creator. Prove to me that a Designer did not design evolution and then you can call my thoughts pathetic.

                Hit the books boys you have some catching up to do.

                1. 59
                  (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You insult those who clearly have a much better understanding of evolution than you, Mickel. We've already done our homework, thanks.

                  Fyi - the bible isn't the only book ever published.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh Clearly, Fyi I'm not a christian bible thumping man, in fact I could not even give you one chapter and verse quotation from the Bibles(or stone circles as I call them). For me, as I have written in several of my hubs the writers of the Bibles are cavemen, with a caveman's perspective of the world and a caveman's understanding of linguistics. They have truths in them, but are far from an all encompassing guide to life and truth.

                    Your Ignorance shows no bounds here q...

                    Assuming that because a point of logical deduction points in the direction of a concept held by a group of people, makes the person that has pointed out the point of logical deduction a member of that group...is Gross Assumption, and very embarrassing.

                    Using the book covers to pick your teeth and the pages to wipe your butt isn't the use of the books I was intending. Now hit the books you have ALOT of catching up to do.

            2. 59
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What is even further embarrassing for you is the fact you don't even understand evolution, yet you use it to promote religious beliefs.

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                and you do?

            3. thisisoli profile image64
              thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              That makes no sense as an argument, but does prove that you have absolutely no actual knowledge on the specifics of evolution, natural selection, or otherwise.

              The sun rises every day, does that mean it is pushed by a scarab.  Evolution continues every day, does that mean that there is a creator managing every aspect of it?

              Evolution is proof of evolution, saying evolution is proof of Intelligent design is like saying a cupboard is proof of a fork.

              While I can see where you are coming from, it really is an argument which has no factual value, there is plenty of proof showing how evolution occurs, without the help of an overall designer.

              The theory that an overall creator created the governing formulae of our universe shows nothing more than a complete lack of knowledge about science, and why those laws have to be there, and how they work.

              I have personally read a lot of books around evolution, and religion.  You are not the first person to have argued the point, however you are also not the first person to be laughed out of a room because of it.

              What you have done is not create a reasoned, or well designed argument for ID creating evolution, what you have done is simply state the often repeated argument,

              Well ok, Evolution DOES exist then, but it exists because GOD wanted it to, ner ne ner ne ner ner.

              There is no fact, to support evolution being designed, but there is proof that it occurs naturally without providence.

              I's the same argument used when they first learned about the fact behind thunder and lightening, it used to be a message from god, then it was claimed that while science could explain it, God still caused it.  Now however I don't think anyone believes that every lightening storm is the wrath of God.

              However it is just as likely by your own logic that an ID creator would be controlling every aspect of the weather as well as evolution. not believeing the real facts behind weather itself.

          2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Take the Human Brain for instance. There is not a single aspect of the brain responsible for creative thought. It is all the parts that make the whole. WE  know what is going on in the brain yet, we are just beginning to make sense of it. The latest research on artificial intelligence shows that the human brain when stripped of its form and just gazed up by its impulses, it looks so much like the starry universe. This was discussed at TED, where the greatest think tanks talk about ground breaking research.

            As for mythologies surrounding Gd, Joseph Campbell says that these myths are events in universal consciousness. So dispute a potentially interesting prospect of a universe that thinks the way our brains do just because you are having visions of large bearded men with lightning bolts just shows that you have no understanding of the case why Intelligent Design is a plausible explanation for all things that exist.

            As I have said before, there is no such thing as chaos in a timescale. We are only seeing parts and very very small parts of our existence and the existence of the universe. There is really no answer yet. There is mounting evidence on the side of Intelligent Design. But I wouldn't jump to conclusions. All I know is the seven ages of the cosmos produced me, an intelligent human being. My anatomy contains the history of the path of energy as it acquired form.

            1. 59
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              In other words, Campbell establishes a myth with another myth. Well done, Campbell.



              The most intelligent men on the planet are befuddled with the case of Intelligent Design. It would have to make sense before one can understand it.



              Whatever that means?



              No, there isn't. But, you are free to display it here for all to see.



              Seems you have jumped to conclusions.



              Huh?

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Huh? Duh....Who's Joseph Campbell? Duh? Whatzat mean? Oh please. YOUR DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT so just find another place to feel intelligent...like a career for instance.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING  ABOUT

  17. 0
    cosetteposted 6 years ago

    i just wanna know who coined the term "intelligent design".

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think many ideas are limited to one definition. But I do think religion coined it.

  18. 0
    cosetteposted 6 years ago

    hmm Google is my friend. smile

    maybe i will go search although i don't really care all that much, i was just curious big_smile

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I want to add, religions idea of intelligent design and my idea are pretty far off. I base mine on logic and evidence where religion uses ignorance and faith.

  19. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Do "any" scientific books on evolution refer to it being a design or only "is"?

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This is not a trick question.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No, that no science books refer to evolution as a design? Why is this? I think I have an idea.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Why is this? Because the end result cannot be pre-determined. If it could - then the entire theory must be discarded.

            Why do you think the religionists are pushing intelligent design?

            lol

            As has been told you on several occasions - it would behoove you to do some research on this subject. It is quite complex, but worth the effort.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What do you mean it can't be pre-determined? I thought you said it was absolute already? So is it still in theory or is it absolute? I believe it is a little of both.

              I think religion is using Intelligent Design because religion is falling and Intelligent Design sounds more Intelligent than Religion.

              As I have been told? I will do my research, i'm not dead yet. Don't worry about that. In the meantime, please post an argument to how the example I used doesn't relate evolution to being a design. If it's not a design, it is only theory, correct? Or is it both?

              1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Your belief is a belief from ignorance. Do your research - when you have done so - you will not ask questions such as the ones you have just asked. wink Your question makes no sense and your lack of understanding of the subject matter is making it impossible to communicate in a meaningful manner.

                Absolute backwards. It has happened. In the past. It could not have had a developmental destination planned or "designed." If you understood how evolution works - you would understand that.

                Read some Richard Dawkins. big_smile

                http://hubpages.com/hub/richarddawkins

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  lol Knowles, you should be the one to talk about ignorant beliefs. Your belief is whatever disagrees with religion or whatever a scientist with a PHD says.  Research includes asking questions in learning something, just because you are shy to ask questions of what you don't know doesn't mean everyone is. Lose your pride and ask more questions and stop being scared all the time.  How is it impossible to communicate in a meaningful manner, it looks like Sufi wrote a meaningful response. So when something has a past, it can't have a design?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Not what I said. As I have tried to explain - if you do not understand the evolutionary process - you will continue to be confused and ask meaningless questions. I even recommended a book. Oh well.......

                    Your choice.

              2. Sufidreamer profile image82
                Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Put it this way, Marine - I look back at my life and marvel at how I arrived in Greece. It would be tempting to say that it was planned like that. In fact, I had no plan when I was a baby, and my life involved blundering from one situation until the next. Reacting to situations caused me to move in another direction.

                Chance and fortune led to a a move to Greece, not design.

                The same with evolution - you cannot look backwards because it only proceeds in a forwards direction. That is the influence and directionality of time. There was no design with evolution - as Mark said, it just is. There is no ultimate aim to evolution, just as I have no idea where I will be in five years time.

                Your question makes no sense, hence the lack of answers. Evolution = no design, ignorant or otherwise.

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The design or plan of evolution is for life to evolve. If there is no design, why does life continue to evolve? I think your life in moving to greece did have a plan and design or you wouldn't have reacted to the situations. Why can nothing have a future design or plan just because it already is? A design or plan is not limited to only one direction.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Still cannot be bothered to educate yourself huh? Just blindly arguing against everything.

                  2. Sufidreamer profile image82
                    Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That's where we disagree - my moving to Greece was not caused by any master plan or purpose. It was about simply reacting to situations and making a choice that sent me down a path. I could have married my university sweetheart and things would have gone differently. Predicting the future is something that always escaped me.

                    The same with evolution, assuming no god, or a non-interventionist one, nobody knows what is going to happen tomorrow. If you think that there is a design, then you are dangerously close to predestination - that belongs firmly in metaphysics and philosophy, not empirical biology smile

                    As for your 'when something has a past, it can't have a design,' that is not what I said - evolution is one case, with living organisms. Chaos theory is worth looking at, if you have not already. Biology is not the best way to handle metaphysics, predestination and the directionality of time - Plato, Leibniz and quantum physics are better.

                  3. 59
                    (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Once again, it is up to you to educate yourself rather than ask ridiculous questions that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

                2. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sufi, how does predicting the future always escape you? You design your future by how you think and act. Will you also say that thought doesn't design actions?

                  I'm sorry, but scientists work from predestination. They imagine what they want or expect to see before trying to see. This is predestined thought of what they want or expect to happen upon experimenting, during or after.

                  Biology includes the past and also the future as well. Take a doctor prescribing a new medicine. The doctor is going from the patients past record in attempts to predict how the medicine will work. New medicines are predictions from previous biology.

                  1. Sufidreamer profile image82
                    Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I am talking more about random events and unpredictability - I can plan my life all I want, but it only takes one situation to affect that. Maybe I will have a car crash tomorrow, or I will win the lottery. I cannot predict where I will be in ten years time, or even whether I will be alive.

                    What you are doing is picking up on a single point and ignoring the other points - saying that evolution has been designed is like trying to predict turbulence, or state how a flock of birds is going to behave. Many aspects of the universe are underpinned by Chaos which is, by its nature, unpredictable.

                    As for absolutes - I am fully aware that science is not absolute. I am merely arguing that using 'ignorant design' and 'evolution' in the same sentence is extremely confusing, although I have no problem with ignorant. Again, trying to use biology to prove or disprove metaphysical concepts is difficult - it is not the best tool for the job smile

              3. thisisoli profile image64
                thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Evolution cannot be predetermined because it is in detail irrevocably complex. Only guesses can be made at how things will proceed.

                Evolution Theory is a theory in name only, it has been an established fact within the scientific community for a long time now, and technically it should be reffered to as the fact of evolution, the theory of evolution is used for Discussion of Evolution.

                This is the same way we have motion theory and motion fact.  Both are correct, and about something undisputed.  However when it comes to evolution (Contested fact by religious and ID groups) they pick over the word theory as if it was a weakness. What they don't realsie is they are arguing over symantics, the fact that it is often referred to as a theory does not actually matter!

                As previously mentioned Richard Dawkins is a great start to explain to you how evolution works, and how religion doesn't.

  20. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
    Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago

    I've never heard of Evolution being related to Intelligent Design???
    I always thought the question was, "Is the universe an intelligent design or was it by chance, accident, or by way of random collisons?"
    Evolution has nothing to do with design.  I must be missing something...

    1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
      Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh okay, I think I see what 'marinealways24' is trying to say, but he needs to rephrase the question.  I think...
      This would have been a better forum discussion if we was talking about multiple levels of existence and the progress therein.
      You should have just went all the way and brought up a divine journey via creator.  Then, you could have stirred up some real religious turmoil.

      Either way, even if something is created, it is free to evolve as the conditions permit.
      I agree with Sufi on this, as I think this is what he meant:  Things don't always "happen for a reason"...a lot of things are from 'cause & effect'...

      1. Sufidreamer profile image82
        Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        @ obscurely diverse: I agree with Sufi on this, as I think this is what he meant:  Things don't always "happen for a reason"...a lot of things are from 'cause & effect'...

        lol

        That is how to cut down three paragraphs into one concise sentence! That is exactly what I was trying to say, in a roundabout way big_smile

        This thread, for me, sums up the problem - it is like we are speaking different languages.

        A creationist throws me some scripture, and I have no idea of how to read it, nor do I have any interest.

        I could fire back some scientific abstracts, but most would not understand them, nor would they have any interest.

        Many of these questions require philosophy to bridge the divide - the Ancient Greeks were asking these questions centuries ago. Plato and Aristotle had a very similar debate!

        EDIT: Mikel - I am pretty much of the idea that evolution cannot prove or disprove the existence of a creator. For me, it blows Biblical creationism out of the water, but that is as far as it goes smile

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sufi,

          If you fired the scientific abstracts, you never know if anyone will understand it unless you throw it out right? This is an predestined assumption. big_smile

          Philosophy is the thought that leads to the physical science. Philosophy is a science of thought in it's own right. It is, if not more important than the physical results.

          1. Sufidreamer profile image82
            Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Agree fully with the philosophy - it is woefully neglected, nowadays. Science, theology, history etc. all have their own philosophical basis.

            I think that both are important - even going back as far as Aristotle vs Plato, empirical research and reasoning are both essential parts of gaining knowledge. Scientists have to use both smile

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I agree with everything you wrote this time. big_smile

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree. If it were not so loaded with religious implications, we can all move on and not resist gaining understanding of the nature of the forces that created us.

  21. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    Quite the Contrary...

    Perhaps I see the puddle of water anology differently than most.

    For me the water represents life, the life forms in their infinitely diverse forms. The pot holes are the infinitely varied atmospheres or environments that life 'survives' in.

    A creator designed 'life' to be able to survive in an infinite variety of forms... ON purpose, not by happenstance. That same creator designed these life forms to be able to adapt to changing environments as well, again on purpose and with thoughtful reasoning. The results are suppose to be varied and infinitely changeable to suit the infinitely changing environments.

    The only thing evolution proves is the existence of a very Intelligent Creator and that creators Intelligent Design.

    1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
      Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      @Mikel:  If only we could go back and ask the cavemen some of these questions.   Surely their grasp on these subjects, had to be more keen than ours, ha-ha!

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        well they did have larger brains

  22. 0
    StormRyderposted 6 years ago

    Evolution was at one time...(before man started playing with it)..a haphazard thing branching in different directions and the stronger of the branches would survive...now we have been creating things nature would have never conceived like ligers, tigons not to mention all the hybrid pets out there.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think it was haphazard at all, it was created that way by design. Natural selection being one of the main design characteristics of evolution. The evolving of 'life' includes a 'clause' of if it can't change enough it will be replaced by a life form that can. (again by design, a very Intelligent Design)

      1. thisisoli profile image64
        thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You have just argued against your own point, survival of the fittest does not show intelligent design, it shows cause and causality.

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          survival of the fittest does show intelligent design. You are assuming that the intelligence is outside of the living species.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And you are assuming that applying the tern "design" in this fashion is acceptable. Using semantics  merely serves to confuse the issue.

            The term "design" implies a pre-determined out come, and if you are applying this term to the "designer" then you are mistaken.

            The only reason the term "intelligent design" was coined is to introduce the idea of a personal god or "designer," ti prove that religion is correct.

            You do not seem to be assuming a designer, but are instead saying that the process of natural selection is itself an intelligent "design" but without an external designer. As I mentioned - the term "design" implies a pre-determined outcome and I do not see that in natural selection.

            Do you?

            It also implies (in this discussion) a designer. Do you see a designer?

            If the answer is "no" to these questions, then you are merely clouding the issue with meaningless rhetoric. Why?

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Mark, I don't think it has to be predetermined to make it a design. I think evolutions designer are the conditions for which life evolve. If the conditions for life weren't right, life wouldn't evolve.

              I recently read something where scientists made a "prediction" on where and when to find transitional fossils. If all was random and nothing had design or pattern, this would not have been possible.

            2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well, you obviously fail to see that a designer does not have to be one immortal entity but a network of entities.

              The fact is, evolution has a trajectory. It is going towards the direction of optimum survival and will go in that direction progressively. In this respect the intent to survive becomes the motivation to "design".

              Life wants to go on, why? Why does it unconsciously ensure its survival by creating altruism. The individual animal or person does not benefit from it, but the whole does. Why?

              The SELFISH GENE talks about how individual animals and people are mere vessels of the gene machine in order to continue to further its passage. It is like the information it carries is more important than its carriers. Why?

              There are a lot of smarty pants in this discussion, but evolutionists (the scientists) are now no longer relying FOSSILS but GENES to understand it better.

              A deeper understanding of the ideas that inspired present day religious notions of G-d will show that the Creator they speak of is not  like a Giant bearded man. ELOHIM in ancient pictograph means in today's language:
              FORCE LEADS FOCUSED SELF CONSCIOUSNESS. Or:  Force Directs Attention [to] Active Chaos.

              The biblical texts were misread by the Greeks. Their language is not numerical or conceptual like Hebrew.

              When read in pictograph, the biblical texts sound like a scientific account of the big bang.

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Storm, I think you make the case that evolution is a design with the examples you listed. If there was no design, how would scientist create new animals? Did they do it by luck or by looking at the "past" to see how animals previously evolved and formed. How do you create nature without understanding the pattern or design of nature?

  23. 59
    (Q)posted 6 years ago

    When the ill-informed and ignorant continuously demonstrate such, they then tell everyone else to "hit the books" when it's clear they haven't opened one themselves.

    Of course, some spend years in post-secondary education to gain the understanding deserved of hard work and rigor only to be forced to listen to the rantings of the insane and deluded.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      *insults will be highlighted and then ignored*

      "Of course, some spend years in post-secondary education to gain the understanding deserved of hard work and rigor"

      Very true lots of people do spend years learning and continuing their education. Some however spends years in the educational arena and learn nothing at all... Not even the most basic skills of communication and understanding.

      1. 59
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You're free to lie about such things, but you haven't spent a single day at it yet you think you're some brilliant genius that has overturned Newton's laws without even the basic understanding of such laws.

        And, YOU talk about basic skills of communication and understanding?

        I'm just wondering why you feel compelled to be a nutter?

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          why did it suddenly get nasty in here?

  24. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    @Mark and just for the record, I don't mind being insulting... I think it builds character at times. The whole turn the other cheek guilt trip will not work on me, because the other cheek I tend to turn is usually theirs.
    Jesus stated to do unto others as you would have them do unto you...This one I agree with.

    The point you're failing to communicate is not that you think I'm wrong, it is why you think I'm wrong, and the concrete evidence that you state you have proving that I'm wrong, that you never seem to produce...

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not really. As usual - you have missed the point.

      I think you are wrong. Unless you can disprove that - I am correct in my assessment and by your own lologiclol - this means I am right. In which case - I have proven you wrong. I realize and see that you are not a fan of turning the other cheek. God says so.

      It does not matter why I think you are wrong. You say I do not need to prove anything. It is up to you to disprove what I say. You are wrong. Unless you can prove you are right - you are wrong.

      Any time sweetie pie........  wink

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What I heard...

        Mark Knowles, "I'm really mad and don't posses the mental capacity to cope with it.  so I'll just say what I am capable of saying... - you are wrong.I am right."

        roll

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I asserted that you are wrong. According to your logic - It is up to you to disprove that. Therefore you are wrong, until such times as you have dis-proven that........

          Any time sweetie pie. lol lol

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong about?

        2. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry sweetie pie. You "created," the new rules of logic. It is what it is - unless it can be dis-proven. LOLOLOLO

          What you heard has no basis in reality........

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Again, wrong about?????

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Everything you have said is wrong.

              Please disprove that statement.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Ok, I have stated that I believe an absense of proof does not constitute proof.

                1)Love a thousand years ago could not be scientifically proven to exist. Does that mean it did not exist? Today scientists can prove the effects of the emotion 'Love' on the human body. That scientific proof does not negate the existence of the emotion before the scientific proof.

                A man in love 1000 years ago could not prove it, but I for 1 believe that Love existed even when it was not provable by scientists.

                2)The Highest number, I believe that a highest number exists, It cannot be proven scientifically, because it is ever changing, ever growing. Humanity has come to call the concept of a highest number infinity. Again there is no proof, but the abscense of proof does not prove the non-existence of a highest number.

                These are two examples of proof of no proof not being proof.

                Please dis-prove these examples if you can.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Not seeing my statement disproved in any way. "You are wrong."

                  Therefore  - you are still wrong.

                  Any time.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    which means you can't

                    but thanks for playing

                2. 59
                  (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It's called the "Burden of Proof" fallacy, Mikel. Read up on it someday so that you understand what it's about and perhaps you'll stop falling into it all the time.

                3. thisisoli profile image64
                  thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  1) What you are saying is love existed a thousand years ago, now we can explain it and love still exists.

                  My argument is people knew there were a lot of creatures a thousand years ago, now we can explain how they got there, and the creatures still exist.

                  2) What you are saying is there is a highest number, a limit, which shows a poor understanding of mathmatics.

                  Infinity is used as speculative science, however infinity still exists as an idea.

                  If you were to count something then of course you would finally count everything, but there is always a chance that one more 'thing' could be created, in whch case you would need to increase your 'highest number' by one.

  25. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    I find it amusing that some defend science and get offended as much if not more than some religious I have offended from challenging their faith.


    Guess what, Science is not absolute. Science and religion both evolve and are redefined everyday.

  26. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    My fingers are getting tired. big_smile

  27. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Knowles, I was thinking about reading "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry A. Coyne. Is this a good book?

  28. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Sufidreamerposted 18 minutes agoin reply to this
    hehe - looks like we got somewhere.  Not full agreement, but some understanding and many, many things to think about.

    I think I see where you are coming from with the Bible destroying philosophy. If you take it literally, certainly. That means that you have all the answers, which is not for me. The problem is, as you say, that many people now assume that all Christians are literalists and treat them accordingly.

    If you treat the Bible in the same way that you read Aristotle, Plato, Descartes or Popper, then it is all good. Your imagination statement sums that up perfectly - it can both create and destroy free thought.

    Good final statement - humans seem to find patterns in everything. I have a sneaking feeling that, as a scholar, you already have a very long reading list. However, if you can find a couple of decent sources about Chaos Theory, it is fascinating

    Thanks - you have made me think


    Sufi, I had to copy and paste, we used up all of the room. lol That is alright though. I agree on the first, this is one of the most stimulating conversations I have had in the forums without cutting throats. lol. Thank You for that.

    On the bible, I think it is meant to be taken literally. The evidence is it's multiple absolute claims based on faith in contradictions rather than logic and evidence.

    When you talk about reading the bible as philosophy and self learning when picking the good parts to read along with increasing awareness to imagination and spirituality, I fully agree. I think it is "the best book ever written" on understanding human nature, thoughts, belief, and control along with philosophical thought when not taken literally. I think spirituality along with a person believing they have meaning and a purpose can make a huge difference in that persons life.

    Honestly, I haven't read much up until the past year. I was still searching for what I had a passion to learn. I think I am figuring it out. I will check out things on the Chaos theory. What is it simplified?

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      A butterfly flaps it's wings in south america and the ripples cause a tidal wave on the opposite side of the planet.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol I guess it could be possible. If you believe everything and everyone is connected, relative, or related to the other, why couldn't the simplest thing result in something complex?

        Does chaos theory stem from evolution? It seems as if evolution is a chaos theory with evidence. Simple organisms led to complex organisms through "chaos/random mutation" or by "chaos/natural selection". So, is Chaos theory only chaos until it is figured out how it happens?

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          over time...anything is possible I guess

  29. Sufidreamer profile image82
    Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago

    Tough question, Marine - it is 4am here, so making a comprehensible post about Chaos theory is not easy - Mikel is right with the Butterfly effect. The discovery of Chaos was as earth-shattering as Newton's theories smile

    All that I can say for now is that they way your heart beats is driven by Chaos (not to be confused with 'random' or 'messy). The way a tree branches, the way that your blood vessels divide, are driven by a few simple equations. I have included a couple of links that explain it better.

    I cannot take Creationism seriously - I understand evolution and geology, and I have seen nothing to challenge that. However, some theologists now are trying to refute Dawkins with Chaos Theory - I don't understand Chaos well enough to join in, on either side, but it is a much better spectator sport! smile

    Here is a good explanation - it looks like it is condensed from the famous James Gleick book

    http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html

    Some good info, here.

    http://www.openquestions.com/oq-ma002.htm

    I never had to study it in depth, but it certainly underpins fisheries science! It may well influence evolution, too, although it was first discovered by a meteorologist smile

    http://home.comcast.net/~jwatne/fern.gif

    This fractal fern leaf was created with a simple equation - complex, yet simple smile

    From http://home.comcast.net/~jwatne/fern.htm

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Take care Sufi, I will check out the links tomorrow. Thanks.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Evolution and Natural Selection are examples of the chaos effect in my humble opinion... the fact that you don't really know what your going to end up with exactly, but you kinda do...

  30. The_R profile image61
    The_Rposted 6 years ago

    I posted a hub a while ago about how a spiral can bring order to chaos. We see the spiral in many natural architectures. I think it's funny how creationists call the creation of certain plants and animals intelligent design when, in my opinion, it is the design of DNA itself that reflects some sort of intelligence. That DNA can replicate but also mutate is nothing short of miraculous. Of course that still doesn't prove conclusively that an all powerful being such as God invented DNA. To understand the origin of DNA, unfortunately, we still need blind faith. It's either faith in God or faith in scientists. From what I've heard, God is more trustworthy because he doesn't have to worry about investors and such. wink

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nicely Stated....(grinning over investors)
      I think it will always come down to a 50/50 choice(God exists/God doesn't exist).
      Understanding science means we may understand creation better but there will ultimately be that one thing still left unproven that means we have to decide on faith one way or the other.

  31. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    On the Chaos Theory, I'm not sure this is the same, but I think it relates to the butterfly effect.

    I believe that thoughts are a chaos theory within themselves. One thought can begin an endless war or a revolution. Thoughts are chaotic, they can lie or tell the truth, 1 thought can lead to countless deaths or countless lives saved. A thought can seem to have no pattern, direction, or relation when first observing. When the thoughts are observed in depth, they follow patterns from the thoughts leading to the actions.

    This is the definiton for chaos theory pulled from wikipedia.   chaos theory; namely that small differences in the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. Although this may appear to be an esoteric and unusual behavior, it is exhibited by very simple systems:

    Thoughts start with small differences in the initial conditions with ability to produce large variations in short term or long term. When a person commits a crime or does something irrational, some may ask "what was he thinking?" When analyzing the person and their thoughts in depth that committed the irrrational act, it simplifies the pattern of thoughts that led to the irrational action. The irrational could have been believed rational to the person that committed the irrational act.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      A simplified synapsis of chaos theory: a starting point where the outcome is of varied and unknown endings.

      do something , anything 'could' happen...

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not disagreeing, you know more about it than me. Thoughts also have starting points where the outcome is sometimes varied with unknown endings. Think something, anything can happen. big_smile

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That is it exactly....chaos theory...

          some postulate that everything is chaos, it is all random, no patterns no 'design'... guess where this topic will end up....lol

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            big_smile I have a good idea where.
            Does chaos theory not conflict with relativity?

            1. thisisoli profile image64
              thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Chaos theory is all about underlying patterns in chaos, as well as the changes made by the slightest of variations.  When it comes to Chaos theory you need to understand that the entire subject is based on using the underlying patterns to predict the unpredictable.

              1. 0
                china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You are trying to talk a subject way over most of the other heads here. It takes good reasoning power and an open mind to see what is just an idea. It is hard to grasp that time is only a concept, numbers are only an idea and the way that we see them from infinity to infinity through zero is probably more misleading than true. Chaos is also just an idea as is the way we see the patterns in it like physics, ourselves etc.

                The inability to accept that we don't know is why some people need to place a god to deal with it all, provide an answer that falls within their understanding.

              2. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Oli, what do you mean the underlying patterns? What are the underlying patterns of chaos? Would this be an example using a social issue?

                The saints win the superbowl. Many cities have had out of control fans in the past that riot in the streets after the superbowl. From seeing the pattern of chaos in the other cities that follow superbowl wins, New Orleans police add extra officers for the time of the celebration to maintain order. From looking at the previous patterns, they are making a prediction of what will happen or what could happen, so they add extra security.

                1. thisisoli profile image64
                  thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The underlying patterns in chaos theory are not generally easy to understand, I only know a bit about chaos theory from a friend of mine who is a talented mathematician, he studies it for a living!

                  To understand more than the Hollywood explanation of Chaos Theory you really would need to spend a lot of time researching and educating yourself on the subject and the maths behind it!

    2. Sufidreamer profile image82
      Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good stuff, Marine.

      They are only just starting to apply Chaos to social theory, but it certainly is possible.

      I thought that you might like it - I am a long way from being an expert, but it adds another way of looking at things smile

      That is what I meant about the evolution/creationism argument - it is a red herring that is unlikely to provide answers. This is a far more interesting way of pushing boundaries.

      There is also quantum physics, but that is bloody hard - how does Stephen Hawking get his head around that stuff lol

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Sufi, it's good to see you back.  Thanks for posting the links. The fern one messed me up. Anything with numbers, fractions, or equations, I usually draw blanks.

        I'm still not sure i'm clear, is the chaos theory saying that  that "nothing" is predictable?

        I agree that evolution/creationism argument hits a dead end. Or maybe in it's chaos, it is just the opposite. If there wasn't the creationism/evolution argument, would the thread had started? I agree it is a great way to push the limits when I like to think there are no limits.

        On Hawking, I don't know, can you put quantum physics in people terms? lol. I have no idea how to study energy or matter on a scientific level, but I think it's also interesting to study how energy works in human nature.

        1. Sufidreamer profile image82
          Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Likewise, Marine

          'Tis a strange one - I still have a lot to learn about Chaos. I had to study a little in Biology and Oceanography, but it is a big field. Somes things are predictable, others are not.

          There seems to be two sorts of physics at work. Linear physics, like Newton's, which is predictable - astronomers can predict the orbits of planets very accurately.

          Chaos is usually non-linear and unpredictable - like the weather.

          Where it gets confusing is that Chaos can be stable - your heart beating is chaotic, but a 'stable' Chaos. Many natural cycles are governed by it - it is fascinating but, like you, I have a fear of equations!

          Quantum physics is strange - things existing and not-existing, at the same time. Too much for my brain to handle hmm

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is no such thing as chaos in a timescale. Everything organizes in varying measures of time. Stocks, weather, pole shifts, etc. This is what fractals is all about.

    3. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
      Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      When it gets to be a confused, chaotic mess, like you described above...revert back to Bruce Lee's traditional philosophy of: 

      Don't think; feel; be shapeless & formless; become like water.  The consciousness of self is the greatest hindrance.  It is indeed difficult to see the situation simply - our minds are very complex - and it is easy to teach one to be skillful, but it is difficult to teach one his own attitude.  Names &  titles mean nothing, meanings & feelings mean everything...
      --and so on...
      This reminds me of a basic belief, that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
      Okay folks, carry on with your studies while I go recreate & fornicate. Ha-ha!
      All jokes set aside, I made some good points here, it is up to you to figure the rest out.  I think many people have their 'focal points' misaligned, to say the least.  Quit wasting time on petty matters, go out and find something worth the embellishment of decorative thoughts......

  32. waynet profile image48
    waynetposted 6 years ago

    There's nothing intelligent about evolution, I thought it was an average movie that was part comedy and David Duchovny still can't act that well!

    An ignorant design is maybe a badly shaped ice lolly!

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Since you are elite, I will take your word for it. big_smile
      How could you be elite if you wasn't an intelligent design?

      1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
        Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Elite to whom?   Struggling first-timers on the internet?  Hey there, Waynet!  Ha-ha!

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol I just wanted to boost his spirits. Had to ruin his moment huh?

  33. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 6 years ago

    Intelligent design is a dead horse. It died because it never had any facts to eat. Dead horses should be respected and left in peace.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image82
      Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I write for a scientific resource site and, naturally, have written about evolution and the scientific method.

      The website owner receives a steady stream of irate e-mails from creationists, complaining that our articles are not balanced and should be kinder to Creationism.

      It gave us a chuckle big_smile

  34. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Alright, I have read every post on the thread. I still do not understand how you can put something together without it having a design. Whether that design is ignorant or intelligent, I don't know. If all in evolution was just a random puzzle with no pattern or design, how would you get past the first peice in putting it together? If there was no design, how would you even make it to the second peice of understanding how it happens?

    1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
      Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You make for a very valid query.  I'm thinking about doing a new hub that speaks about random creation theories and whatnot.  There is a misconception between creation, science, religion, philosophy, and other systematical beliefs or ways of life, and the misconception is many people do not realize that all of these things work together.

      To throw a spike in the cogwheel, even if you kneel to the belief of a creator, then you may ask, "who in the hell created the creator?"
      It is all very puzzling and interesting at the same time.
      Some people enjoy being perplexed while others fight it profusely.
      I'll give it some more thought before I think about writing anything about it, in the future. 

      Regardless, you started a very lengthy debate, no matter if is was futile or fruitful.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks diverse. I enjoy it being perplexed, if it wasn't we would have all the answers with no need to explore. I think if we had all of the answers, life would be pretty boring.

    2. thisisoli profile image64
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Marine,

      Evolution is not a design, it is a process, an ongoing process.

      A design is something which is created, pre-planned, and static.

      Evolution is not pre-planned, it is not static.

      I don't know why you are so obsessed by the word design, it is just a word. Not everything has to be 'Designed'

      Certainly when Darwin was creating his book, the thory of evolution, he designed it in some respects, he designed his drawings for instance. But that does not mean his clinical assessment of the world around him changed the fact that the world continued as always, without hinderance or design.

      You do not put together a puzzle through design, you put it together through method, trial and error, observations. the Puzzle is designed and then created.  Which does however make your anology irrelevant, since evolution is neither designed, nor created.

      Design is the creation of something, a thory is the observation and analysis of something. Maybe you should change the anology, if evolution is LEGO how do you create the pirates of the caribbean pirate ship without design?  If evolution was an ikea wardrobe how would you put it together without design?

      Your anology makes no sense, it does not fit the process you are talking about.

      You can piece together evolution, not through looking at design, but by looking through history, by looking through fossils, and by comparing the evolution of animals.  Design is notinvolved in evolution.

      Right now you are following one of the oldest, and most commonly shot down arguments of the creationist trying to be clever.  You are arguing over symantics.

      Just because something happens a certain way does not mean it was designed to happen a certain way.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Design means deliberate, correct?

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oli, evolution was designed by the conditions that allow life to evolve. I just think you are mad because you want me to be a creationist and i'm not. Stop being angry that your definition of design is not absolute as the only one.

  35. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    In Darwins theory of evolution, did he just throw a bunch of random thoughts on paper and call it evolution or was it design ed thoughts that lead to the theory? How can a theory be backed by science that has no pattern or design to observe? If there was a design to the thoughts that put together the theory of evolution, how can anyone say there is no design to evolution? Does evolution prove Darwin wrong?

    I wanted to add. By design, i'm not saying that the future of the design can be predicted, but it could be. I am talking about design up to the current state. Also, by something being a design, this doesn't mean that it must follow the design. Many things have design with random actions.

    1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
      Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It might be more pleasing to some, if we just call 'evolution' a less scientific term, like 'progress'...  That way, we can focus more on what is going on - as opposed to science versus religion debates, or whatever.

    2. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "The Origin of Species" sure doesn't read like it's a bunch of random thoughts. Have you read the book?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have not. But, it is only logical to me that science wouldn't put so much effort to study random thoughts unless they had observable evidence and a design and pattern behind the thoughts that led to the theory.

        1. Beelzedad profile image59
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I would definitely recommend to read the book, it will open your eyes. smile

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What are they closed on?

            1. Beelzedad profile image59
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What I meant was that it will open your eyes to the questions you asked. smile

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Ok, I understand. The part I don't understand is, why can't others answer the questions that have already read the books? If the questions can't be answered by those that have read the books, are the answers in the books or have they yet to be written?

                1. Beelzedad profile image59
                  Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Probably because they have read the book and know that others have to read it too in order to understand the concepts.

                  Why wouldn't you want to read the book if you're actually curious about the subject? I mean, it won't take you that long and will answer many of your questions, leaving you with a very good understanding of evolution. It's a win-win for you. smile

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I never said I wasn't going to read the book or didn't want to read the book. Maybe I would like to get others ideas before I read the books so I can compare to see who's being honest and who's not? After I read the books, i'm sure I will have even more questions than I do now and they will likely be harder to answer. Maybe it's a win win for everyone.

  36. Beelzedad profile image59
    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago

    Smoked some of that stuff when I was younger, didn't like it much. smile

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That is because you didn't inhale. big_smile

      1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
        Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ha-ha!  Maybe Beezlebob or whatever the hell his name is, should have tried something besides freon inhalants - back in his day.  Even with the friendly clown face that always depicts a nice, die-hard, hard-core debater, the downfall of clownface's "comebacks"...is that they were all centered around a certain "book"...hmm, how lame, weak and shallow.
        Stay at 'em, Mr. Marine...

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank You Diverse, I have asked people this question before, did the books write the thoughts or did the thoughts write the books? I didn't get many answers from those that told me to read more books. big_smile . I do agree with getting as much information as possible from as many sources as possible, just not relying on one souce or form of source as absolute.

  37. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Beelzedadposted 2 minutes agoin reply to this
    Well, I'll take one last stab at it before moving on.

    First, you asked the question:

    "In Darwins theory of evolution, did he just throw a bunch of random thoughts on paper and call it evolution or was it design ed thoughts that lead to the theory?"

    I responded that by reading the book, "The Origin of Species" you would have your questions answered quite specifically and gain a good understanding of the subject matter; Darwin's theory of evolution.

    In other words, the only way your question can be answered and understood is by reading the book.

    I'll move on now. Thanks.


    Alright. You admit that there was a design to Darwins thoughts and ideas that put his theory of evolution together.

    If there was design and pattern to the thoughts that put the theory together, how is there no design to the theory/evolution which seems that no one wants to admit?

    Do you not read previously where many has said it just "is" without design or not needing design?

  38. Beelzedad profile image59
    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago

    I had to double-check my dictionary to see if there were similarities between the words 'design' and 'method' but couldn't really find much in common.

    Putting Darwin's theory together would have been more of a method than a design, imo.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol Now you are reaching. Designs have methods to understanding the designs. They don't have much in common? The design to his theory is the outcome of the methods he used.

      If evolution is a puzzle, how do you put together the puzzle without a design?

      How can anything or person design something that hasn't been designed already?

  39. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    23Beelzedadposted 1 minute agoin reply to this
    Actually, it would be much faster for you to read an online version of the book than read someones responses here. In fact, wouldn't it be exactly the same thing? 

    There is no waiting. It's all there. No fuss, no muss. Enjoy.

    http://www.literature.org/authors/darwi … f-species/



    And what makes you assume that I didn't already click and started reading the link from you posting it on the other thread? It would still be faster for you to answer simple questions that you claim are already answered by the link and the books.

  40. 0
    china manposted 6 years ago

    You all seem to be talking at different levels on this. Let me have ago at it here.

    Evolution theory is just that a theory, an idea of how something works in general. If you want to prove it you run some scientific style tests, or just look at how any dog in the street has been bred into all different shapes and sizes until those little squeeky ones are more like big rats or cats.

    In the wild, natural selection does the same thing. Consider some animal that eats many things, but mostly fruit, and over a period of time the fruit gets less and less because the bird population increases. Some of those animals start to eat more of the 'other' part of their natural diet, say the birds they find in the trees. Given a couple of thousand years and generations of breeding there will be two different branches of the same basic species, one that is the original fruit eater, maybe moves a bit slow and is good at getting quickly from tree to tree because other animals on the ground are looking to eat it. The other family branch are getting s**t-hot at eating birds because over all the generations the faster they are, the more agile and better at jumping around in the trees they are the better they survive. The new family branch comes from those with characteristics that help them survive better than those without them. They get more food, more babies, more different from the original.

    A lot of people get stuck here because we find it hard to imagine the huge time span that this breeding takes 'naturally'. With the pet dogs somebody is going out looking for specially different characteristics to make a pair and then breed the pups that show the changes together and so they get the job done real quick.

    At this point you can choose to believe that god made the earth and put all this stuff here around 6000 years ago - this is the creation theory. And of course requires a creator to do it.

    The other option is that the Universe started with a piece of super dense something that exploded and everything we see is made from that original big-bang. This is a theory and so just an idea, it doesn't  matter if it is right because if we take the evolution line then something must have happened to start things off and a good bang is normally the cause. (Pun intended)

    Intelligent design is a theory, an idea, that god either created everything as it is - or if a believer in the god idea gets stuck with evolution, then they shift god back in time and make him responsible for the  big-bang becasue he would know  that it would all come to where it is now. This is the idea of pre-determination - that everything is mapped out and (intelligently - god) designed to be what it is now, which means our future must be designed also. So no free will that can change the plan, except as you say, some plans are made to be flexible in parts, except that this one must be not too flexible or we may not have happened by some flexible change or accident along the way.

    The other idea is that all this was pretty inevitable from the moment of the big bang. A bit like a pool break, if we hit it right we get one ball in and the rest set up ready for potting, and we carry on our break to win because we are s**t-hot at it, and so on. If the big-bang or whatever made everything needed to make the suns and planets then we are the product of that chain of events that lead to you and me discussing it. This line of thinking is the scientific view and it leaves us with free will to change things, cut the grass or blow up the planet whatever.

    None of the theories can prove a god, none of the theories dis-prove a god.

    So what is left is chance, the unknown, what the other guy will do, what weirdo stuff our scientists are up to, etc., etc. Some people like to think a god is looking after us and it will all be ok in the end, and they sometimes seem to want to get to their end quick as possible to prove it I guess.

    The rest of us think that we are just a kind of monkey type creature who got lucky because we developed higher reasoning skills and have no special importance in the overall scheme of things. One of the big problems that contributes to those who don't 'see' evolution is the time involved. According to good science the earth has been around a long time, the normal way to explain this is that if you represent the time the earth has been here as how long it will take you to walk down to the store and buy a six pack, humans have been here less time than it took for you to remember you ran out in the first place. Any life on earth at all - is the time you checked your wallet before you got moving.

    This leads to differences of opinion between the two groups where they say I am a heathen who believes in bogus science. And I think they are unable to get their heads around all this c**p and so choose to believe in an entity who made it all for them and will put them somewhere else when they die.
    I, of course, then must think that we are of no importance at all as individuals and we just get recycled to the atoms and molecules, some of which may get to be part of a tree or a butterfly over the next few million years or so that the earth will carry on without me.

    Hope that sums it up for you ok.  Somebody should steal this and make a hub of it, help yourself but answer the questions yourself too.

    1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
      Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, it is called "progress of mankind"...simple as that.

      1. 0
        china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, sorry, I forgot it was that simple

        1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
          Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication!  Ahh, if only more people could realize this.  Thanks for your suspect sarcasm, China Man.  You must excuse me, for one of my personal peeves is that I detest poppycock and excessive, superfluous verbiage.  Other than that, I like to hear other peoples' opinions...just try to be more concise.

          1. thisisoli profile image64
            thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Stephen Fry fan?

            1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
              Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Who the hell is that?

            2. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
              Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, damn!  I checked on this character, and he was supposedly brilliant and very talented, but just read where he liked to take it in the bunghole!  I'm not homosexual, by the way, but thanks for offering your services, dear 'thisarsehole'...oops, I mean 'thisisoli'...  Ha-ha!
              In all due respect, thanks for recommending Stephen Fry, as I'll probably search for some of his grammatical works - outside of all that other funky stuff that you like.  wink

          2. 0
            china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You mean you don't like to read more than the quick pointless quips - that this thread is full of - I guess. Just as you don't have time to read 'superfluous crap' like History of Evolution etc etc. Needing everything to be simple is how a god got invented in the first place. Steven Fry is not a 'was' he lives and writes and acts and does TV in the UK mostly (unless he went while I wasn't looking) where he is a very much like that other brilliant homosexual guy, Oscar Wilde.

            1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
              Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No, I mean: I don't like reading stuff that either takes too long to explain something or exceeds what is necessary to get the point across.  It's my personal choice, as we all have different tastes.  Don't get me wrong, I've read a lot of scientific books and researched a lot of things in the past.  Sometimes, it just seems to all go in a big circle of confusion.  What is proven today, may be disproven tomorrow, and so on.

              As for the homo remark:  Ha-ha! I was merely making a joke to 'thisisoli'...you know, for fun.  I don't care what sexual preference people have.  It was a joke!  There is nothing wrong with having fun occasionally, to break the monotonous vibe & seriousness.  Also, I didn't say Stephen Fry was dead or anything, I just typed it in past tense - as I previously read it.  Yeah, a lot of those British people have a talent for wits & humor, etc.

              See, your last comment (the one above) was more concise.  Thanks, China Man.  wink

  41. 0
    StormRyderposted 6 years ago

    http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/regres.gif


    I'm not too sure about the intelligent side of it...just take a look around you next time you are in Walmart tongue

    1. Obscurely Diverse profile image60
      Obscurely Diverseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      LOL!  Ain't that the truth... A person can find out a lot about their surroundings, when walking into that place.  Ha-ha!

  42. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    I have a question that no one answered on the other thread I posted on.

    If we are not an intelligent design, how would we fix the ignorant design?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Design? Why do you assume a design?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How do scientists and doctors design medicines that will work to cure diseases if there is no design?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          LOLOLOLOLOL

          Just cannot be bothered to do any reading can you?

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I have read. If there is no design, they would be throwing darts blindfolded. If there were no designs or patterns, the same medicines wouldn't work on multiple people. How is this not design simplified without giving me links?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What has that got to do with the question you posed? "If we are not an intelligent design, how would we fix the ignorant design?" Nothing.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I think we are an ignorant design and come with multiple problems. I think we have the intelligence to use science and medicine to solve some of the problems. I think this makes us an intelligent design. If there is no design or patterns, why are there more than one of anything? If no design, all should be random.

  43. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Was this a bad question?

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No, it is the sort of questions that keep people who can't sleep occupied.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Glad I can contribute to your insomnia. big_smile

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          the insomnia is there because of too much cappuccino. I thank you for the source of entertainment!

  44. 0
    china manposted 6 years ago

    If there was a designer then its followers should be aware that, in millions of years of evolved history, humans are just today's fashion.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You could be right. What do you think is next?

      1. 0
        china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I would not like to speculate with no info - but I think humans have got a way to go yet. Maybe we will get over ourselves and have a long period of peace and development to learn how to approach things differently rather than the collection of cultural mental illnesses that passes for progress at the moment.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe we will devolve for so many people hating others for having an imagination.

  45. skyfire profile image73
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Creationists propose “Intelligent Recall” theory to explain extinction of species

    http://www.fakingnews.com/2010/02/creat … f-species/

    lol

  46. skyfire profile image73
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Oli is right. Evolution is not design and it is on-going process. Evolution was not designed, any claim like this requires evidence of who designed evolution.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because something is an ongoing process doesn't rule it out as being a design. Who told you this? Science and theory are done in steps, any claim that it's not designed also requires evidence of what didn't design it.

      If your parents raised you to believe and live a predetermined way, they designed you in hopes of you living their way. This does not mean that you will follow their plan for you.

      1. skyfire profile image73
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Speciation is design ? Random chances of survival is design ?

        Burden of proof lies on the one that claims it is designed, so far with the available evidences of evolution there is no "designer" behind it. If there is "designer and his design" behind it then i'm willing to see proof behind such claims.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I think both are designed by the conditions that make/allow both to happen or exist.

          Because something has design, does it mean what made the design is always known? Maybe the creator of the design is the design.

          1. skyfire profile image73
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm done with this when you said "the creator is design itself". Similar concept was thrown by spiritualists and religionist before. I know you mean it differently here than those but as your assumption of "design itself as creator" is just another claim which you can't back up. Here is one thing before we stop stretching, anything that can be mapped and predetermined comes under design. Evolution can be mapped deterministically ? I would like to know into what we are going to evolve if it's design. So when you say, random of chances of survival are part of design, then this is contradictory to definition of randomness itself.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, death to the imagination once again! Believe everything in the science books. If it says an idea can only come from creationist, woship it's word, it must be right! Evolution is mapped by the fossils. I'm sure evolution can predict some of the future of evolution whether or not it can yet. I don't know what we will evolve into, I do know it looks obvious that we are devolving an imagination based on some of the defensive responses. There are many contradictions, it doesn't rule them out as existing. Maybe nothing is random and everything is relative, maybe random is only used in describing things we don't yet understand.

  47. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Potential for life is "predetermined/designed" by planetary habitability. Evolution of life is predetermined/designed by the conditions of the planetary habitability.

  48. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    Just to add some fuel to the Atheist fire, I find it highly amusing that so many religiously non believing atheists will automatically assume I am fighting for God or Creationism simply for asking questions that spark the imagination. I think many are just quoting what they have read in evolution books because it downplays the possibility of anything having design.

    1. 0
      china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Of course there is no design - In all the universe all the possibilities are happening or have happened - we just  happen to know about the tiny speck that we are slowly killing - because we got lucky, we got intelligence so we know that we exist. I also happen to think that this is probably happening, or has happened, or will happen, all over the universe. If we are the highest level intelligence reaches then something else is needed.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        By design, I am referring to what caused it to happen. What causes it to happen designs it happening. If one thing in evolution is relative to the next step, I don't consider it luck. I think we know we exist because of our ability to read/write along with the amout of information we can learn over our lifetime when exposed. I agree that life is likely happening and happened in the universe, I don't know about all over the universe considering there must be optimum conditions for life to form.

        1. 0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What causes it to happen is the same as you buy bread - amazingly tomorrow you find yourself eating sandwiches. Probably back there somewhere one thing accidentally bumped into another and the ripples and patterns from that are what we see around us. The possible 'accident' (or whatever started it all ) was probably always going to happen and with hindsight - looking back along the events etc - we can see the straight line from cosmic whatever to our own existence. This does not mean design - it means that we are a consequence of things turning out just right for our kind of life to start. Other kinds of life - if they exist - may be quite different to us. Not by design but because the inevitable happened at some point to evolve some kind of life. Of course design cannot be disproved either, and you can go as far back as you like the issue still is unprovable between inevitable accident and design; the same as the answer to god - what created god in its turn - and if the answer is that god IS all of the universe etc then there is not a god there is an intelligent universe. Way I see it is that we are part of the universe and so we are the universe becoming aware of itself.

    2. skyfire profile image73
      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Lol, evolution books ? Get things right first, claiming evolution is design by saying "your definition is wrong about design" etc is play of semantics and you know that. If there is any design pattern you've observed then nobody will deny your claim if you can backup with empirical evidence of that design. Else it doesn't matter whether you're agnostic making this claim or atheist or some religionist.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It is not semantics. There is not 1 absolute definition to design. The evolution book I am reading now constantly refers to patterns in evolution. I wrote this thought on the forum before I started reading the book, then the book confirms that evolution has patterns along with predictions being made in uncovering transitional fossils. Do you want me to list the book?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lololol Design actually means "randomly generated with no possibility of determining the outcome beforehand."

          Everyone knows this and this is a proven fact. Or are you using the word in some other weird way? After all - there are no absolutes therefore you do not need to learn anything because you already know it all.

          Just as a matter of interest - what do "patterns" have to do with "design"? Are you saying it is a pattern therefore there must have been a designer therefore it is a design therefore there is a designer therefore it is a pattern?

          Like the religionists? lol lol

          I am thinking you might have been better off buying a dictionary first. wink

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The design of evolution is predetermined by the conditions for live to evolve. Did you not read this? A design usually has patterns that makes it a design and not random. Like the religious, I think you would have been better off buying an imagination and an open mind first.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              LOLOLOL

              So - you can predetermine the conditions?lol lol

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I can raising my child, it doesn't mean he will follow my design.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Really?

                  You think you can control the environment and all conditions your child encounters.You are absolutely not going to die accidentally?

                  Your child will absolutely never come to unexpected harm? You know and can control every thing?

                  Wow? I am impressed. You must be God. lol

                  No - evolution does not have a blueprint the same as a pattern for a skirt. Dear me. Did you even bother reading that book? lol

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Now you are just being silly. If you base everything on dying tomorrow, no one would care to discover anything. I never said everything could be controlled, everything doesn't have to be controlled for something to have design. lol, You already admitted that it has patterns. I would consider the fossils the blueprints. I am still reading the book, you need to read on finding imagination. Imagination built the ideas you so religiously believe.

  49. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    This is a direct quote from the book, "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne.

    "Tiktaalik itself was not ready for life ashore. For one thing it had not yet evolved a limb that would allow it to walk. And it still had internal gills for breathing underwater. So we can make another "prediction". Somewhere in freshwater sediments about 380 million years old, we'll find a very early land dweller with reduced gills and limbs a bit sturdier than those of Tiktaalik.
    Tikaalik shows that our ancestors were flat-headed predatory fish who lurked in the shallow waters of streams. It is a fossil that marvelously connects fish with amphibians. An equally marvelous is that its discovery was not only anticipated, but predicted to occur in rocks of a certain age in a certain place."

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Uhuh.

      So - seeing the end result, and seeing some intermediate stages in the past, leads one to suppose there must have been Tikaalik and predicting that this fossil would be found to fill in what must have been an intermediate stage - which is then found - means what to you exactly?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That the scientists had a design and a pattern to make a prediction which was found correct. I think that is pretty amazing. If all was random with no design, how would this have been possible?

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's not all random. No scientist (except maybe one of the mad kind) would tell you that a natural process is random.

          Natural selection *involves* a random process, but it is not ALL random. Otherwise, as you say, you couldn't predict the kind of thing in the example you give.

          If it was all random, scientists could've predicted that a large pink daffodil would be the next stage in the line you describe. Or a grand piano. Or Mick Jagger.

          Personally, I think that those who say "Look, there is this extraordinary mechanism in nature working with great precision... there MUST be a designer" have to address the problem "WHY?". WHY couldn't a mechanism that works well exist without being designed?

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It could, I never said it couldn't. I am just making the claim that I observe it leaning to having a pattern and design.

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well, yes, it has a pattern. But are you sure this is not a circular observation... If there was no pattern, how could you recognize it *at all*?

  50. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    "blueprint: something intended as a guide for making something else; "a blueprint for a house"; "a pattern for a skirt""


    This is one of the many defintions for design. Evolution has a blueprint along with patterns.

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      True but you know very well that nobody is getting hot under the collar about THIS definition. The Intelligent Design debate is not one about whether there is a blueprint or not... let's face it (I mean surely that's one thing that everyone already agrees on)

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol I didn't know everyone agreed on anything. Which definition gets picked as absolute, the one the mobb or the scientists picks?

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Everyone agrees that Nature exhibits a blueprint. Evolutionary biologists say this blueprint is the results of certain specific processes, logical mechanisms.

    2. thisisoli profile image64
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This is both a misuse of the English language and a misunderstanding of Evolution, how exactly are you still continuing this argument whe you refuse to look at the basic facts of Evolution, while still making inane comparisons which make no scientific sense?

      Religion and ID theorists both pick at the facts of evolution, not realising that this just shows how weak their own position is, since neither of these thologies provide any fact whatsoever.

      Evolution has a huge raft of facts behind it.  There are gaps, since evolution is trying to encompass the whole evolution of everything existant on earth.

      Religion and intelligent design are simply peoples way of providing an 'answer' even when it doesnt answer anything at all.  In any God argument you can replace God with Flying Spaghetti Monster and it will make just as much (Non) sense. Intelligent design is simply a new stage of religion, for those who cannot grasp reality but feel that religion is wrong.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How am I misusing words? What facts of evolution am I denying? Could you be any less original? Are you quoting your Dawkins bible?

        1. thisisoli profile image64
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Your mis-use of the English language is within the majority of your posts, you are writing things which form no coherent argument.

          All that was in my own words, and mentions several things which are based on fact, not wishful thinking.

          The appendix is a disgarded part of the human body, something once useful, now left behind, and is often used as an argument against creationism.

          Warren Buffet made his money in business, as well as shares, and he makes as many mistakes as the rest of us, he just has more collateral to make them with.  Fortuantely making money on the stock market is fairly easy, unfortunately it is all in percentages, so to make huge gains you need huge capital.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Flying Spaghetti Monster is your own words? You are losing credibility, now you are lying.  This is not original. I know appendix is used against creationism, why do you keep assuming I am defending creationism? I think it's because you are just quoting what your scientific hereos are telling you to quote when anyone mentions design. Your brain automatically jumps to assumptions relating design to religion.

            1. thisisoli profile image64
              thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Religion is a part of intelligent design.  And intelligent Design is often viewed as a religion with new Gods.

              Just like religion ID has no facts, support or reason behind it.

              Why do you jump to the conclusion that I am in love with particular scientific heros? I am merely relating the facts that the entire scientific commmunity has found to be correct.

              Failure to aknowledge or even attempt to understand these facts is where your inability to form a practical argemunt is coming from.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                lol What have I failed to acknowledge? You use the same terminology and thinking as your scientific hereos believing an idea is only related to religion.

                1. michael brannigan profile image61
                  michael branniganposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  To answer your original question and assuming by ignorant you mean: none thinking, not contrived, without purpose. The answer must be ignorant. Design becomes somewhat of a word trap in that it evokes the concept of thought and hence a creator of sorts, such as:  dress designer, house designer. May be a better question could be: Is evolution design or not? Intelligence or ignorance are a matter of semantics at best conjecture at worst. In my opinion and from what I have read, evolution is totally random, life forms exist within a given environment if mutation is of benefit or is not detrimental to survival in that environment. The concept that evolution is some form of advancement is to miss the point entirely.  Evolution is life forms as they exist within a time and designated environment, as time continues and the environment changes the life forms that have the ability to survive the change do and those that don't, don't. I feel the majority of people rest on the misconception of the term; 'survival of the fittest', as if that were talking of athletes preparing for a race. This is not what it means! Only that if what ever attributes an animal has are of benefit or not detrimental within that particular flux or change of the environment exist or don't, they will survive. Life, or evolution, both are much the same historically, exists in spite of and because of it's environment but only as long as its luck holds out. Hence the fact that 99% of all life forms that ever existed on this planet no longer do should show one the randomness and pure opportune aspects of life.

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    My main point is, unless something has patterns or design, it can't be put together and understood. Evolution is not totally random, there are specific conditions that design evolution. In evolution, things are built from what is already present, they are not added from scratch.

                  2. parrster profile image87
                    parrsterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Evolution is muted by your comment. Life, in gaining in complexity, becomes more fragile, not more able to survive. The most robust organisms in our universe are the simplest, able to survive almost any environment. What need had these to evolve in the first place?

                2. thisisoli profile image64
                  thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I am not saying that it is only related to religion, I am saying it has the same amount of factual basis as religion.

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I am using a logical argument, not a religous argument. Try again. I have also given logical examples and facts to support my argument.

 
working