Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 184 discussions (1304 posts)

61
BobLloydposted 15 years ago
Evolution isn't intelligent nor unintelligent. It is unknowing and blind. Although many people thing evolution is random, it isn't. Natural selection is random in the sense that mutations arise randomly but some of those mutations are crucially advantageous in the given environment and so exert an effect on survival rates. So survival isn't a random event, but a very deterministic event. The species survives because the specific mutation confers a specific survival advantage, not because of something random. But the cause of the variation is random.

But just because the mutations are selected by survival advantage, doesn't mean that's the reason they developed. Seeing the end as the reason for the cause is called teleology. Evolution isn't teleological.

Evolution occurs because those random mutations occur, not the other way round. So we don't look for reasons for evolution, nor try to describe it as either intelligent or ignorant. It is simply the consequence of random mutations on biological systems.

That's why a lot of evolution leads to blind alleys, species go extinct, and we get the most bizarre biological structures. Those peculiar structures work but not particularly well.

For example, the pharyngeal nerve in the giraffe goes from the brain, down into the chest cavity, loops under the aorta, then goes back up the neck to supply the throat. An unnecessary detour of around fifteen feet. Not in the least bit intelligent in the sense of design. But explicable in terms of embryology and the effects of evolution.

So we shouldn't be looking for intelligence in evolution. Nor should we be looking for purpose. That's the teleological fallacy.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We have intelligence, we are the product of evolution. How can anyone be claimed intelligent unless you say evolution has intelligence?
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We have been through this, the difference between process and product. We are the product of evolution we have intelligence, htat does not mean the process of evlution accumulation is intelligent.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If the process doesn't have intelligence, it is impossible for the product to have intelligence.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The fact that a mammal that can beat it's rivals and live to reproduce is not 'intelligent' it is simply how life works, it creates the process which is evolution. Intelligence doesnt come in to it other than to say that more intelligent animals are more likely to survive and reproduce. This does not make the process itself any more intelligent. It's like saying the weather is intelligent, or metamorphic rocks are intelligent.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Intelligence doesn't come into it other than to say that more intelligent animals are more likely to survive and reproduce."
  
  Yes, just showed are you a very intelligent animal.
  reply report
76
skyfireposted 15 years ago
If you don't know about something and make claims then it is part of imagination as it links with known things. Imagination is what intellects use, evolution is not some entity to have that intellect of mapped design in order for it to predict human evolution. It is what our theories that can draw conclusion based on observation. If you can back your claims with empirical evidence then no-one will have problem with your claim of "evolution as self-serving design". Making sweeping statements like "i'm sure evolution can predict" without any evidence is BS. I don't want to force you for that evidence based on what you're claiming, but if you want your claims to make sense then"evidence" is the only thing that can prove you right here. Else we're all happy with imagination, who's stopping ?
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Alright, birds for instance, we have no evidence of how they came to exist and fly. The closest examples we have to explain their evolution is animals that soar like flying squirrels. This is prediction of how they evolved with little fossil evidence. Some animals have been shown to have a slow to nothing change in evolution while others evolve much faster. I think figuring out the speed of evolution plays a great part in being able to get a vision on the future of the animal evolving. If you believe the leading scientists, their common claim is that something came from nothing. If something can come from nothing, why can't a design be a self serving design? I am also not making the claim that a self serving design would need a creator. I think the more scientists uncover in the past of evolution, the more they will be able to predict.
  reply report
  76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The problem is that evolution occurs slowly over generations. Evolution happens slowly because environments alter slowly. We would never see the tiny changes that happen between all consecutive generations because they happen at a painfully gradual rate. How you're going to predict ?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We have not evolved slowly in the past 100 years. We are an exception to the rule. Our environment changes on a daily basis on most occasions. I am not claiming to be Ms. Cleo. One gradual rate prediction of evolution is overpopulation. This is a prediction that has a logical and scientific chance of being correct.
  reply report
  76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Who said overpopulation can be predicted by evolution ? Humans managed to resist some of the environmental changes and that contributes to overpopulation. It's not that today's women are more fertile than women living 100 years ago. There are many parameters that goes with overpopulation not just survival. Risk of life is more near coastal area still those areas are largely populated than jungles. Availability of resource, environmental changes are not yet accurately predictable and you think human evolution can be predicted ?
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Please explain how we have evolved quickly over teh last 100 years, since nothing has really changed. The human body is much as it was 100 years ago, and choosing such a small time frame shows your lack of understanding of evolution.
  
  Evolution has barely anything to do with overpopulation, however please note that 300 years ago women popped out between 2-8 kids each, compared to todays levels of 1-3. This is a social change, please don't confuse issues.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Technology has impacted evolution over the past 100 years. People are now living longer due to medical advances. People living longer means more people which means more population and needed resources.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Again a misinterpritation of what Evolution is. Medical advancement is not an evolutionary advancement, infact it is often considered an opposite to the standard evolutionary rules.
  
  The fact that the human race lives longer is simply the human race making further use of the evolved body handed to it.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There are plenty of flightless, and semi flight birds that are not only in fossil records, but also alive today. Did you actually do any research before making that claim?
  
  out of all the examples you have given the evolution of flight is one of the most well documented evolutionary paths to exist.
  reply report
76
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Survival against tsunami is deterministic ?
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, don't live on the coast.
  reply report
71
Cagsilposted 15 years ago
Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?

This question is suggestive that someone created evolution. And, dismisses Evolution for what it is....the on-going changing of environments and life.

Our bodies are made up of many things, all of which, can be found within the "DNA" of Earth. Human beings did not come from nothing.

Earth is not nothing. That's a common misunderstanding. This allows for a creator or 'god' concept to remain. We evolved from Earth's evolutionary progression. Earth evolved to sustain human life. Therefore Earth created the human race, as one of millions of life forms.

What separates humans from all other life form is our consciousness/awareness of our own life. Something, common animals do not have. Our minds are highly superior to that of most life-forms on the planet.

Just a thought.
reply report
0
A Texanposted 15 years ago
Gee Mark, I don't see an attack, you may be a little too sensitive, sweetiepie.
reply report
1. 60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Gosh sweetie - you wouldn't understand. Sorry - this is way over your head.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Over my head? No, I accurately pointed out your sensitivity to any opposition to your beliefs. I'm sure in a couple of hours Ernesthub will be around to back you and make you feel whole again! Bye, Sweetiepie..
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Aww you are going already? Thanks for stopping by sweetie pie.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Mark Knowlesposted 6 minutes agoin reply to this
You are being deliberately obtuse and attacking me when I offer a reasonable question. Is this not intended to get me mad?

Ask yourself why you do this? Are you genuinely ignorant or --- just looking for a fight?

I apologize if I offended you. I don't think I have done anything more than you do when constantly relate me to being religious or defending God for simply having an imagination and challenging science books. Afterall, imagination founded the science books along with science.

Mark: 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?

Me: If I chose to separate my child from society as an extreme example, yes, I could have some control on what he encounters. Again, if we all believed we would die tomorrow, there would be no point in science.
reply report
1. 60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Death has nothing to do with it.
  
  Total control of the environment is the issue.
  
  Can you be certain he will not listen to a Dolly Parton song and become a Country Western freak?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If I monitored what he listed to his entire life, yeah. If we moved out into the woods with no radio, how would he listen to Dolly Parton?
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  And you can guarantee no delivery man will arrive with a radio in his truck. You are going to control every single aspect of his life?
  
  Do you not see that this is impossible to do? Or do you genuinely think you can control everything. And you are not going to die in an accident?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are asking me theoretical questions, I am giving you theoretical answers. If we moved out into the woods where with no address and no house, how would a mailman find us? If we removed ourself from society away from dangers, an accident couldn't be predicted, but the chances of one happening would lessen.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No - you claimed that you could completely control your child's development. I am pointing out how impossible that would be.
  
  But sure - hypothetically - if you could control every aspect of evrything your son encountered ever, and you know beforehand what his response will be to everything he encounters - and you have a developmental goal in mind I guess this could be called a design.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Alright, how about when scientists are able to design life from scratch, this would also be a design of evolution. I don't think we are in absolute control of anything, maybe it is in control of itself. If we based everything on the fact that we are not in control of anything and that a meteor could hit and destroy us all tomorrow, we would never accomplish anything.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are missing the point. I am not suggesting any such thing.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol Yes, you are suggesting that nothing is predictable. But, things are predictable to an extent when you find the pattern or design it follows.
  reply report
  76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Things are predictable but evolution isn't. If it's then i'm all ears(eyes, brain etc) to evidence.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sky, maybe not every biological aspect is predictable yet, but this doesn't mean it couldn't be in the future. When scientists are able to create life and watch/observe it evolve from scratch, I think it will give a better prediction of what will happen in the future. Scientists know that there is a good chance that a meteor could hit the earth one day and wipe us out. How do they know this? They looked at the history/evolution of the earth, the earths blueprint in observing craters of previous meteor strikes. What did this observation do in our evolution? We now track as many meteorites in the sky as possible in a paranoid state that one will hit us.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with skyfire.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No - I am not suggesting that nothing is predictable either. I am pointing out the impossibility or manipulating evolution to produce a desired effect.
  
  The pattern (not design) must already be in place to be able to make a prediction based on past events. Still - this is as close to impossible as makes no odds. How often is the weather forecast 100% ?
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Evolution can be manipulated, to some extent, take pet dogs for an example.
  
  This does not mean that all of evolution is predictable, in the same way that we understand weather, we can create isolated weather patterns, but we can't accurately predict the whole of the worlds weather for more than a few days.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What do you think Sheep cloning is? It is manipulation of evolution for a desired effect. The pattern of the sheeps dna was in place making a prediction on the clone. The weather is not 100%, but this doesn't mean it couldn't be someday. If there was no pattern at all, it should be right only 50% or less.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes - I know. How impressed do you think I am with people like these doing something where they have absolutely no idea of the consequences.
  
  Think Rabbits in Australia and Mad Cow disease. And closer to home for you - ever seen any Kudzu?
  
  That stuff now covers 7 million acres of the USA. Oops.
  
  Still - let me know when you can accurately predict the stock market patterns.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And you are confident in them crashing particles possibly creating a black hole? lol The stock market can be predicted, talk to Warren Buffett.
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The can be predicted through probability but the outcome is not certain.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, you would simply present yourself with a new set of variables.
  reply report
0
StormRyderposted 15 years ago
Intelligent Design can't explain this ..
reply report
1. 0
  A Texanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing could explain that!
  reply report
76
skyfireposted 15 years ago
If and then.....is not going to prove that evolution is predictable.

As of now, all we've is assumption, bunch of theories and some patterns(with evidence) of evolution (note: not sequence). And i don't want to comment about meteor as there are some diverse opinion among scientist. If any evidence of exact time-frame comes for that, i don't mind commenting.
reply report
76
skyfireposted 15 years ago
is sheep evolving here with cloning ? It's not manipulation of evolution.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How is it not? Surgery is a manipulation of evolution.
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I would disagree surgery is a manipulation of Evolution.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Having an appendix is an evolved trait that is of more harm than good to us. We have surgery to fix this error in evolution.
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Who says it's an error in evolution or is that your assumption?
  
  An appendix doesn't always have to come out. I've never had to have mine removed.
  
  Just like the spleen, I haven't had that removed either, nor have I had my tonsils removed. All of which, yes can be harmful. Are all these mistakes or errors of evolution?
  
  No, each are not.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe they aren't mistakes, but they also aren't necessary for survival. It seems if it was truly needed, a person wouldn't be able to survive without one. I think it is an error in the fact that there are huge estimates on how many deaths would occur without surgery to remove bad appendixes. If we didn't have surgery and let evolution run it's course, maybe then you would think it was an error in evolution.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Its not a manipulation of evolution, it's a duplication of an existing creature, there is no advancement or adaptation.
  reply report
0
StormRyderposted 15 years ago
reply report
1. 69
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  More like scoliosis
  reply report
2. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol I think this is a good picture in prediction of Evolution. We get lazy, stuck to technology, and evolve less physical characteristics and more mental characteristics to survive. Work smarter, not harder, could have a huge impact in the future of our evolution I believe.
  reply report
  69
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's tricky, because at some point we evolved forebrains (neocortex, and so on, not being a brain biologist I'm not sure of the details), that catapulted our abilities so far ahead of other species as to, essentially, take us out of the evolutionary realm, in biological terms.
  
  Not just our brains either. I mean, dolphins are extremely smart, but without legs and arms you're at a certain disadvantage...
  
  To state a gross overgeneralization, physically speaking our biologies have more-or-less stopped evolving. Not completely, of course, but I don't think there have been any serious changes for thousands of years (think about it, the ancient Egyptians were not really different from us, biologically).
  
  Cultural evolution is a different kettle of fish.... But the basic point is more-or-less ok; younger generations in the West seem to tend to be taller than their parents, I think (though this could be for nutritional reasons).
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think our evolution in mental abilities can be seen not through biology, but by looking at our technological advances in the last 100-200 years compared to all technology before then. It almost seems uncomparable when you throw in our advances such as Internet, Science capabilities compared to all generations before us. I think competition, communication, money has been a huge motivator in excelling our technological evolution compared to generations before us. I also think we are evolving more toward rational/comparative thinking compared to acting on impulses. I think a majority of our time along with now has been thinking/acting on impulses. I think rational thought separates us from other animals.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is advancement in technology, not evolution. While our advancements may in the future affect our evolution, human advancement in technology and science is not an evolution in itself.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree. Like a language can evolve, technology and capabilities can evolve. Our science evolves as we evolve.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Science may evolve, technology may evolve, but that does not mean it is the same as natural evolution, it is an entirely different kind of evolution.
  
  Technological evolution may be for example how the first transistor evolved in to the first calculator, in to the first computer, in to the desktop PC. confusing this with the biological evolution of the human body is insane.
  
  The human body has arrived after millions of years of natural evolution. We may see minor evolutionary changes, such as less hair due to our artificial skins (Clothes) that we have developed over the last 650,000 years. These are still natural evolutionary changes which have evolved due to the affect on natural selection by technological changes.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol It is not insane, not seeing the relation is closed minded. Technology like biology can take any given path. You said that we can't make predictions in evolution, are you predicting that we will be hairless in time to come?
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  You sound more religious every day. Seeing things that do not exist is not the same as being "open minded."
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not seeing thing that do exist is close minded. Who is the religious one?
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you cannot disprove it - it must be true huh?
  
  But - only you can see it. LOL You think if you keep on telling me it is there, I will believe?
  
  Religious thought is always the easiest way I agree.
  reply report
79
thisisoliposted 15 years ago
As pointed out, sheep cloning is not evolution it is merely duplication, breeding corn to give more product is man made evolution.

Marine, my point on evolution is exactly the same with your agreement with me on what I said about weather. They are vast topics, but research is always ongoing.
reply report
1. 60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  True - but there will possibly be unintended consequences to cloning, and I gather the failure rate is quite high, with abnormal developments that are not replicated animals.
  
  What are they?
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Can't really comment, since I do not have the knowledge!
  
  Since a cloned animal has the exact same DNA as it's originator however then there is no room for change.
  
  As far as I understand it, most mishaps are down to the growth of the embryo. The DNA is the same, but the gestation triggers cause difficulties.
  reply report
0
lyricsingrayposted 15 years ago
who's ignorant?
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Hello you random/relative animals!
reply report
57
ak43posted 15 years ago
It's gods plan.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How can you say it's Gods plan when you can't define God or the plan?
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! I really like it when Einstein talks with the Homer from the Simpsons.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
I guess this is the main question I still do not understand. How can anyone consider another or themselves intelligent, and not consider evolution intelligent. We are the product of evolution. How can the product be intelligent while the process is ignorant? Without the process, there wouldn't be the product.
reply report
1. 55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The process of evolution is neither intelligent or ignorant. People are ignorant, especially when they refuse to read up on the very subject matter they pretend to know. These people are incredibly annoying as they sit there making one stupid comment after another when all they have to do is a bit of reading. Of course, the ignorant are far to lazy to read.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Very intelligent comment.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "People who think they know everything are an annoyance to those of us who do" - some geek's shirt
  reply report
2. 79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Because the process is not ignorant or intelligent. It is just something that happens. We have created a theory to describe this process, which you have argued about the intelligence of. But again, that is simply the theory of the process, not the process itself.
  
  You might as well ask, is motion ignorant or intelligent?
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
To all those that argued me that evolution has no pattern or design and just is, I just read in the evolution book that so many told me to read where the author continually refers to evolution as a "bad design". He does not refer to evolution as just "is". Bad design is an opinion based on what he observes. I consider it possibly intelligent design in the observation that we have awareness to think it's a bad design.
reply report
1. 60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is just an argument that if we are "designed" it is a pretty bad design.
  
  Evolution is an extremely poor way of designing something. I mean - throw a few cells together, wipe out the dinos and wait 3.5 billion years to see what turns out? If I was god - I could have done it in a day.
  
  Just not getting it are you. Hanging on to that irrational, baseless assumption that it was designed. Good for you - that is real open mindedness right there.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How am I being closed minded? The author called it a design and also mentions patterns in the design. Bad or Intelligent design is opinion based. I am not juming to any assumptions about what caused it to be designed, you are. To say it has no design is denial. To believe it is not design with no logical explanation for why it's not is also irrational and assumptive. I have backed up my ideas of why it could logically be designed only to hear that it just "is", when in fact evolution writers admit it has design. I am open to all logical explanations of why it has no design or patterns.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Humans are often referred to as the "eyes of the universe" even though we are most likely not alone. Just look at it as an inward outtake of awareness that leads to a clueless reality that is spinning us into a blissful insanity that causes a whirlwind of confusion; you can call it evolution! Ha-ha! Holy fu*k, I'm no longer banned from the forums, that is, until the next cry baby cries......
  reply report
  0
  china manposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In a weird sort of way I can agree with this What is so intelligent about the behaviour of humanity that is supposedly designed !! If there is a HE and this is the best HE can do then HE is remedial kindergarten at Universe building if we are the summit of it all as having our own special book would seem to claim.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Are you even reading what people write?
  
  You questioned how I could say evolution just 'is' so I explained about process and product, and their differntiation, like all good ID/Theists you then decided to ignore the retort and keep quoting the original argument.
  
  As Mark said, you are quoting out of context, darwin (and others) refer to people as a bad design only in the context of ID being correct. This is an argument against ID, saying that things are so badly designed they cannot infact have been designed, since anyone creating, for example, a human, would have done a much better job, with no evolutionary traits such as the appendix.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes I am reading. Are you reading?
  
  I said evolution has design and patterns, not that it is already designed. If I knew claimed it was already designed, I would have to list a designer. I do not know what or who the designer is, only that it has design. For you to prove it doesn't have design, you would have to prove every part of evolution random. If all was random, it wouldn't be evolution.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But for there to be a design there must be a designer.
  
  Evolution is the accumulation of positive mutations and genetic traits, of which many are unpredictable.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That is a bogus argument. You do not have to know the designer to understand that something is designed, nor do you have to know the future of that design to understand it has design. Many are unpredictable, many are predictable, the ones the understand the design of are predictable while the ones we don't understand, we call random.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But by that argument you are claiming that it has been designed, which means it must have had a 'designer.
  
  You know a building was designed, but a single building did not start off as one rock which huddled next to another rock for protection. Where as animals did learn to group together for protection, they did survive and reproduce because of their advantages, there is no design involved here, it is simply natural selection, a process, at work.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know what is a bad design or a good one when you are just a dot in a vast canvass of the universe? It is stupidity to think that your mortal minuscule participation in the universe is adequate in assessing the worthiness of a design that is a billion times larger than your ego (however big it is)
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is no such thing as chaos in a timescale. It's all a work in progress. And I am saying that from a mathematical perspective.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A baloney perspective.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well if you think 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 is baloney, then you're entitled to your opinion.
  
  I find it in vogue among the ignorant to say "i don't believe in that" or "it's baloney". Knowledge threatens those who can't wrap their brains around things like FRACTALS or DEPTH PSYCHOLOGY or NEUROBIOLOGY or (recent insights on)GENETICS.
  
  Atheism coupled with a preoccupation with ghosts show that you are in a psychological state of feelings of powerlessness and being cut-off from everyone else. This is lower brain functioning. Raise your spine, take a deep breath and run a couple of blocks around your neighborhood. Your medial pre-frontal cortex responsible for thoughts of altruism and the concept of harmony with others will be restart and perhaps, you will have the mental faculties to understand this :
  
  if your mind is set, you don't learn and therefore you are already stupid and will always be stupid and ignorant.
  
  But you are intelligent enough to rise above your phony attitude problem. Your hub shows you are a humanitarian with a great capacity for enlightenment.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What a pathetic argument. This has been religion's argument for centuries: "You are to small minded to understand." But with increased knowledge and education and proof that religion does not have any answers, we are moving on.
  
  So - you speak for yourself, sweetie pie. You may be too small minded to understand, but we are not all at your IQ level.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
I would like to see someone put numbers 1-10 in order from least to greatest without a pattern, design, or order. This is impossible. This would be like putting fossils in place out of order trying to prove evolution.
reply report
1. 79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is a difference between creating a list of items and the items themselves.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Did everyone get tired of me being repetitive or does everyone accept the obvious that evolution has design?
reply report
1. 55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Just getting tired of you not reading up and becoming familiar with the topics you criticize.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What am I criticizing? I agree with evolution.
  reply report
2. 69
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But I don't really see your point. Evolution has a design, in the sense that it has repeating patterns and processes, and laws and mechanisms. No-one disputes this. Even the Arch-atheist himself (Richard Dawkins) who I don't like much actually, in many ways, would say the same...
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol Everyone disputes this. Have you not read the thread? How many science books admit that it has design? They do not say this because it will give the religious something to use. He would never admit that it has design, I guarantee he would use different wording much like many on this thread have said it just "is".
  reply report
  69
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But YOU have defined design in an odd way, a way that is not really used in everyday language. and for the purposes of my comments (including the ones I have made above... if YOU have not read the thread), I am adopting your definition. You can't hop back and forth on this... Either you define it one way (if only for this conversation) and stick to it, or you define it the other way... hopping back and forth makes the whole exercise pointless
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Defined it in an odd way? lol What the hell? What do you mean hop back and forth? I am talking about the design of evolution. Evolution is understood by understanding it's design. It's design is understood by putting together fossils in the order in which they evolved. If it had no design, the fossils wouldn't follow an order, all would be random.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOL
  
  Just not getting that you cannot "design" it backwards are you?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If it has no design, you cannot understand the present.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOLOLOLOLO
  
  Ah - Religion. Without a design the present means nothing. If there is no design I might as well kill myself.
  
  Pleeze beleeb me that there is a design.
  
  Just too lazy huh? OK - I don't blame you. Watch sum TV. S'eezier.
  
  ciao
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You just couldn't contain the animal impulses could you? You know there is design, this is why you can't disprove it.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  His face has a design doesn't it? That's proof there is a design/
  reply report
  69
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have already agreed with you on all of this, further up this thread.
  
  That is what I am saying. I accept your definition the way you have laid it out here...
  
  ...But you know of course that there is a large camp of people ploughing the idea of Intelligent Design, and they are using the word in a different way (to imply that it is not just evolution that affects the process, ie, not just its regular rules, patterns, processes and mechanisms... a collection of "algorithms" that could together perhaps be called a "design", but some mysterious outside force).
  
  As I wrote above, if you want to define the word design as a coherent collection of processes that, together, form a predictive system, no problem...
  
  ...But all evolutionary biologists see evolution as exactly just such a system of regulated processes... they just don't use the word "design" in the way that it is being used here; which is why they don't use the word design in textbooks (that and it implies a God, at least to some, and of course biology and theology are separate domains of inquiry)
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Design of how we evolved from other animals does the opposite of giving religious ammo, Religious design is that we were created separate from animals, Evolutions design shows that we were created from animals. Is it true science when scientists are afraid of words?
  reply report
  69
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You'd have to defend the statement: "It is not true science when scientists avoid using certain words" I guess. Or, "It is not true science when scientists avoid using certain words in a way that most of us who speak English as a native language use those words"
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is not true science when scientist fear to use words because of religion.
  reply report
  69
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But you're talking about the word design.
  
  If they do not use the word because their worldview (at least when they have their biology hats on, who knows what they believe when they go home of an evening, if you see what I mean) does not allow for a designer, this is not for reasons of fear, this is because a designer is not in their world view.
  
  Why should they use the word design, which obviously implies a designer to many (I mean, there is only one letter different), I mean, it is a VERB, which means, you know, an ACTION, if this muddies the waters.
  
  Academics are supposed to make things CLEARER to their readership (Oh, wait, sorry, I made myself laugh too hard with that last comment )
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol What does their personal view have to do with facts? A designer doesn't have to be part of someones worldview or religion to recognize and admit when something has a design.
  
  It does have a designer. The conditions that life can evolve under. If those conditions don't exist, the design ends. The water only gets muddy when people assume things. I have only said it has design, not that I know the destination of the design or the overall designer. You do not have to know the designer of something to understand and observe that it has design.
  
  Make things clearer? This is why all the atheist have said that it just "is" without design, right? This is to make things clearer? Try again.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We clarified the 'is' comment as soon as you questioned it, please read our responses rather than continuing to quote out of context.
  
  By doing that you are simply proving that you have lost the debate.
  
  For something to have a design it must have a designer, evolution has a pattern, not a design.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  scientist use the word design quite a lot, they might design an experiment for instance. They don't use the word design for something which was not designed.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, it is annoyed science when people use words incorrectly, without even understanding the meaning of the word they keep using.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are saying it's incorrect because you don't understand it and it goes against your religious scientific belief, not because the words are incorrect.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think you kind of screwed most of us by saying 'evolution' and 'intelligent' in the same sentence. Adaptation is surely independent from whatever may have been implied in this thread. I like to call it progress of mankind... Like I said a few days ago (damn, this has went on a long time), you should have rephrased this freaky question!
  If everything is controlled, predicted, or designed, then what the fu*k is the point for anything? Why don't we all just lay in the floor and sing Kumbaya? Ha-ha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am not trying to imply that the design is predestined. I am talking about design up to our current point.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What, did God put a freeze-point on your point? Do you mean that our designer and chief editor of mankind will quit dropping down for edits, at any givin' time? What about later? When are we set free? LOL!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol Who said anything about god?
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It was a joke, numbnuts! Ha-ha!
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  By saying evolution has a design you are saying it is predestined, because it is following a design.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This should be titled "the thread that is never dead." If if wouldn't for these crazed religious beliefs, there would be less of these debates. Mr. Marine will be back tomorrow, and he'll tell us how he has changed his 'train of thought'...into something more deranged. Who knows, maybe he'll be a Buddhist...next week. Ha-ha! Just teasing...
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It would be no fun if you already knew the design.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You won't have to worry about that; there is plenty of room to explore...just a wild guess. What you haven't done this far, is rephrase the question? It is obvious that evolution can neither prove or disprove intelligent design, so what is the point in this query? You might as well ask, is a grape more of a fruit than an orange? It makes no sense. But then again, these threads have proved senseless, but fun for most. What in the hell is your point, if I may ask candidly? What is your actual beliefs, Mr. Inquisitive Marine? I don't think it is fair to throw out all of these unanswerable questions and proclamations - without at least informing us uneducated ones about your current system of beliefs. Ha-ha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I was just trying to get past the point of it having design first, it is hard enough getting this point made without throwing in personal opinion of whether or not it is intelligent or ignorant. I gave my reasons why I still believe it is intelligent, no religious affiliation. Another point was that scientists and atheists like to hide the fact that it has design. Everyone that got defensive got angry because the science books doesn't refer to it having design and I clearly showed that it does have design. My current belief is always open and learning evolving everyday. Thanks.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It sounds like you slowly schlepp like the rest of us humanoids, as nobody clearly knows anything outside of their current realm... I'll leave this thread with this: Have fun & enjoy your life to the fullest......
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You never said what you believed?
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You have clearly failed to show that it has a design, you have clearly shown that you do not understand the words you are using.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You have clearly showed that you worship atheist science books and do not have an open mind to separate and think for yourself.
  reply report
  76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Define Open Mind please.
  
  If I listen to your view and agree with it makes open mind ?
  
  If I listen to your view and found out obvious flaws(as clearly they're without any evidence/reference but more of sweeping statements) then that person is not open mind as he trashes your claims with rational points ?
  report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I just follow reason and logic, I do not worship scientifc books, I read from a variety in sources, including the bible, and extract my own thoughts from reason and logic.
  report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, it is understood by it's patterns, not it's design. You can follow how evolution works by looking at fossils and seeing how a species has advanced, there is no 'design' anywhere in that.
  
  The fossils evolve in the patern of evolution, a design would suggest that somebody planned that exact trail of evolution to happen right from the very first evolutionary step. Instead evolution is the adaptation of creatures to the world around them.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The patterns is what makes it a design. If no patterns, it would all be random. You say suggest, this means you are making assumptions. I am suggesting it has design, not what the designer is.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Argh, right, English 101.
  
  A design may have patterns, but this does not mean a pattern must have a design.
  
  Evolution is not completely random, natural selection is the pattern which shows how certain evolutionary traits have a greater chance of survival and leading to reproduction. This is a pattern, not a design. For it to be a design, someone must have sat down and said this is how evolution WILL work. That would have been the design, before the first animal was spawned. If it was a design, there could also have been a design which said the weakest would have survived. This would still have been a design, it might not have worked though.
  
  A pattern can occur without a design, you could look at weather patterns, there is no design in these, but you can spot patterns in the weather to predict a future. You could design a weather model to predict the coming weeks weather in battersea. However the weather itself could do something completely different, because the weather was not designed, only the weather model was designed.
  
  In the same way, someone could gather all the facts surrounding evolution and design a model using evolutionary patterns to predict the future of evolution. But the model would be designed, not evolution itself. Evolution happens, and we have discovered this by looking at past patterns. This does not indicate in no way that evolution was designed.
  reply report
  76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This post clears lot of your doubts marine, have you checked it up ?
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I see, the doubt is that it has any direction at all. So problem is the paradigm that you will adopt. Because as I said the trajectory is reflected in the global message of religions. It is clearly pointing towards altruism and love thy neighbor we are one message. I find campbell's work really fascinating that it is saying that myth evolved to fashion and direct human thought towards a direction. Myth as expressed by our artforms influences habits and therefore genes. Memes operate in this level. The copy traits without necessarily using genes as a venue. Take for example the macaques who learned to wash their potatoes.
  
  Religion evolved too, it served a function in our evolution from disorganized communities to civilized nations that increased in populations. So we must view it as an element of evolution not a threat to sense. Its there and it evolved within us as well.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We said it just 'is' and then you queried this and we gave you a more definative explination, which like every other explination on this thread, you ignored.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Because "is" doesn't have patterns and design.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "is" can have a pattern, but not a design. You can have a pattern without a design, you can spot a pattern, without what you are spotting being designed.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A pattern is random and not a pattern unless it has a design. "is" is not a pattern or design, "is" is random.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody said Is was random, Is could easily mean a process which occours naturally. which Is did in the context of that argument.
  
  I have just got a huge job in which means I really have no further time to continue thiis futile discussion which you seem to love driving in endless circles.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The circles are all on you. I gave you the definitions and you still refuse to admit it has design. You think to be a design, it must be predestined or know who/what the designer is. These are your false assumptions. If something has patterns, it has design. Not hard to understand.
  reply report
3. 79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are repeatedly ignoring what people tell you, and you are repeatedly showing your own ignorance on a subject, which is admittedly tiring.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Another point I would like to add and see anyone disprove.

You can't trace life of something created from thin air. You can only trace the life of something if it is evolved from somthing else.

So, you either believe evolution has a design that can be traced to find our origins or you believe we were created from thin air. Which one?
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, but you can't trace everything. This planet has been spinning for quite some time now. Who knows how many times life has started and re-started again. Molten lava can remove a lot of evidence, if ya know what I mean. Besides, carbon dating testing can still be altered by atmospheric radiation and other test-altering conditions that may have been present in the past. It's a crazy world, but how long will this debate continue, is possibly the answer to our own current confusion.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  When I can get everyone to admit the obvious that evolution has a design or it wouldn't be evolution. lol
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You just defined infinity...since that is how long it would take! Ha-ha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol This is true, it has been fun conversation nevertheless.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you think anyone would admit to an unfounded assertion like that?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Because it's logically flawless and only a person defending faith would disagree.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, I see. Good luck with that.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's right, Mr. Marine. You should have just told him that you used to roll marijuana joints with biblical papers! Ha-ha! Personally, I always thought they made, since they are so thinly sliced, for great toilet paper. I usually got 1 wipe per 9 verses. LOL!
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think evolution has a design Marine!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You! I'm sorry that most of the Atheist will say you are just defending God and don't have an open mind. Predictable.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nah, he has taken the archetypal form the destructive shiva. He enables us to discuss our passionate views. Without his insulting remarks it will be just intellectual jabber to the point of boringdum nauseum. We need Q's obnoxious ignorance and faux-intelligence (matched with real and actual admirable wit, a speck of light in the darkness of his comments) to highlight and give opportunities to further our intellectual exchanges. Like feces, he serves a higher purpose in the grand scheme of things.
  
  I think its fun, personally. I am kinda waiting whatinsulting thing he says next so I can insult him back. I do have work to though, so maybe he really is the devil personified.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Because design indicates a predetermined process, not a natural occurrence.
  
  You wouldn't say a tree grows with it's leaves in the air because of design. You would say a tree grows with it's leaves in the air because the trees that tried growing the other way round all died out.
  
  You would say a printer could print a picture on to some paper because it was designed. Since somebody sat down, and designed a device which would do just that.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You can't give predetermined outcome when something is still living and changing everyday. But, the more you know about the design of the past, the better idea you can get about the design of the future.
  reply report
2. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But I think you can trace life that was created from thin air.
  
  Air is made up of
  1. Carbon
  2. Oxygen
  
  These two things were created by the sun. The sun's light generated the natural elements and chemicals that now make up our natural world. Carbon and Oxygen is in all of creation. Carbon Dioxide creates Oxygen, Oxygen and Carbon together enables life to grow!
  
  What the primitive called magic, we call science.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Huh? The atmosphere is comprised primarily of oxygen and nitrogen, carbon dioxide is a mere trace element.
  
  No, they weren't. Oxygen is made by phytoplankton in the ocean and plants on land.
  
  What you call science, I call baloney.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  oh sorry I forgot nitrogen.
  
  and argon, and neon, and methane, and helium and krypton and hydrogen and xenon. But newsflash, they are all products of the stars. oxygen existed before phytoplankton, phytoplankton. (wow q, yer so smart)
  
  Its my fault, I forgot there's simpleton outofcontextons here who always leaps at a chance to feel like he knows what he's talking about while missing the POINT entirely.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Lest you forget your own posted quote:
  
  "People who think they know everything are an annoyance to those of us who do"
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, you reminded me of that quote with your inspiring vacuous word salad meaning absolutely nothing.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I do wish you would demonstrate your actual/fictional superior knowledge. Sadly all you can do is say baloney. We would be happy to be put in our place in the midst of your genius if you would kindly demonstrate in a single sentence your thesis statement on your case that evolution is completely random.
  
  Or was that your case? Because I tried to search your initial point in this whole exercise and you have no message other than YER ALL DUMB!
  
  But I guess like me, this is just fun. It's a way to pass the time. So feel free to yap away. It doesn't make anyone move to your case.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps, if you didn't just offer baloney, you might not hear about it as often.
  
  And, I did in fact correct your baloney, so saying so isn't all I can do. It doesn't require a genius to see through your baloney.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  well, why is the point baloney? Do you have an actual stand? What disciplines of science are you getting your perspective from?
  
  It doesn't take a genius to add a few more elements in air composition. you can google that and its there.
  
  What takes genius is actually having a coherent insight that sifts through the deluge of information out there that might potentially move the discussion forward towards understanding.
  
  Yesterday you were fun because i was feeling mean. Today, i think its about time you state a strong case for EVOLUTION IS RANDOM. or maybe, just stick to your expertise according to your two hubs...THERE IS NO GOD BUT THERE ARE GHOSTS.
  
  You may be very well informed. But nobody is seeing that. People think you're rude and mean, though.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's nice, I'd rather be that than misinformed and spewing baloney all the time.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  mean is misinformed and spewing baloney all the time.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  also, i was just being polite when i said "you may be well informed" you are not.
  reply report
3. 79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That argument makes no sense, and is combining two seperate topics, the creation of life is completely different fromteh theory of evolution.
  
  Evolution is regarding how life has improved upon itself since its inception, if you want to read up on how life came about there are hundreds of books out there which you might find fascinating.
  reply report
55
(Q)posted 15 years ago
You know there are unicorns and leprechauns, this is why you can't disprove them.

Works for me.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That might actually have bearing if I didn't list any examples to make my point.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Me thinks he doesn't even read the points we are making.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Me thinks the points are baloney.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  me thinks you are full of baloney and ghost preoccupied.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We have disproved every single one of your examples.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mine? I think you are having illusions.
  reply report
60
Shlomo SL Abrinposted 15 years ago
Evolution is a fact. It is a process by which life develops and changes over time due to the unpredictable confluence of various interacting influences.

It is neither intelligent nor ignorant. It's just a very good idea, based upon lots of really good evidence, about how things came to be as they are.

If religions isn't already obsolete, it should be.
reply report
1. 72
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree entirely.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You have no understanding of religion in a biological context. Religion is a symptom, and like everything else, it evolved in our culture as an interim resource for higher understanding. That statement just goes to show that religion has already done its job in raising our consciousness to a level where some of us don't need it as much. But as you can see, many people still rely on it to make sense of the world.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
I apologize to any Atheist's I have offended with my generalizations, nothing personal. It's just that you guy's put up better arguments when your feathers are a little ruffled.
reply report
1. 60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Be honest sweetie pie - you are too lazy to educate yourself. It is far easier to misuse words and make sweeping generalizations than do any home work. I don't blame you - this is a big subject.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think after reading 1 evolution book and talking about it here in the forums, I know evolution in more detail than you do. Afterall, you didn't even know and still fail to acknowledge the obvious that it has design.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Like I said.........
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Explain the parts of evolution that you understand better than me. Don't take the easy way out and say all without listing any examples. Don't be predictable this time.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sweetie pie - you are just being lazy. I am not about to educate you if you cannot be bothered.
  
  Talk about predictable.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Educate me wise one. I will read everything you write, education is not agreeing with everything you or science books says.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Education would have taught you the meaning of the word 'design'
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  even we can't fully predetermine the design of everything. something happens in the creation of things that makes it mutate into an entirely different thing from what you originally conceived.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Did the scientologists give you the book?
  
  even after all these posts you have still failed to aknowledge not only that evolution does not have a design, but that you dont even know what design is. Infact the only quotation from an evolutionary book that you have made is quoted out of context, and was infact used when Darwin hypothetically showed that if religion, or creationism were true, then it's results would have been a lot better.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Design is consisted of patterns that give it design. I'm sorry you can't understand this. Read more science books.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So, you're telling others to do what you clearly have not done yourself? How very disingenuous of you.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Is fractals really not common knowledge to you people?
  reply report
51
servingyahposted 15 years ago
Something to consider evolution is based on scientific study. If we use the scientific method to study anything, we see a trail, cause and effect.Example Apple tree = Apple = Seed = Tree = apple and so it goes. Parent = Child = Parent to infinity and beyond. What about Mountain = Rock = stone = pebble = sand = dust or mud = Sediment layer = Mountain. Every new begining is some other beginings end.
The cycle of Life. A continuous loop of creation and destruction. A closed loop yet there is increase?
The simple unanswerable question,(Which came first the chicken or the egg?} can be applied simply and directly to anything within this cycle of life.
Cause and effect follows all things right back to the same point,[ Nodda,Zip,00,zilch ] all + all = Nothing? Or does common sense truth prove that everything is derived from nothing like the bible says?
Change and adaptation are apparent. Evolution and the men who have worked to understand it are also part of this same cycle and can be traced back to the same zero, as every thing else. For change to occur we must multiply or divide by something other than zero.
What science sees as nothing is in fact everything. Do the math.
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well this demonstrates that you don't know what the bible is saying. You are reading the comic book version. Read the one written in ARAMAIC. You just quoted it.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sweetie pie - you can barely speak English - yet you expect us to believe you can read and understand a long dead language that you could never have heard spoken. And you are telling people to learn this long dead language so they can read the bible properly?
  
  Do it sez god dunnit?
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, that was my fault. I can't expect people who are not even updated on evolution and yet claim to know it to learn a language not in use.
  
  But if your brain can manage it, why not. You'd need to study two kinds of Hebrew and understand Egyptian Heiroglyphics.
  
  and No, it doesn't even talk about a god in the western bastardized version. It is saying that the collective GD (or El, which is defined by its letters as a Directional Force (spirit/wind) ) that we are fashioned in the same way the universe evolved. Like a kind of singularity of its history.
  
  I don't speak aramaic (why would I do that?) but i can read aramaic from the proto-sinaitic pictographs. Its very time consuming because each letter has a mathematical and conceptual role and it interchanges depending on the context.
  
  Bereishit Bara Elohim hashamayin et ha-erets is not saying :
  In the beginning Gd created the heavens and the earth.
  
  Its saying TWO BEGINNINGS (or TWO HEADS) created ELOHIM.
  (the collective Gd, defined as the force that leads focus of the active (or "I") consciousness.) from fiery waters and the strong first need (sucking force), four pictographs, that translators read as earth. the letters describe the word earth not as a planet but as matter.
  
  It is essentially saying that a collective consciousness created the universe and that consciousness is within us and is evidenced by our anatomy. This is the blueprint of all of creation, accdg, to the text. It is an ever repeating cycle of seven stages of manifestation that traces the descent of consciousness from light to life.
  
  We all know fetal development mirrors events in evolution of the species.
  The migration of neurons from the brain stem does mimic the big bang.
  
  The point is, our ancient literatures have offered a cosmic view that we are grappling with now and we have bastardized to the point of absurdity.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Quite happy to admit I have no expertise in ancient pictographs.
  
  But - this is where all people like yourself fall down. The "you are too ignorant to understand what I know," argument no longer works sweetie pie. I can spot a charlatan a mile off. And I do not need to pretend some hidden knowledge to do so.
  
  Judging from your assault on this forum, I suggest you need help - or at least a few days off. I know that pounding out reams and reams of meaningless gibberish in the hope of confusing people is the way people like you pretend to have superior knowledge, but - no sorry. You are particularly mean - which leads me to suggest you have no esoteric knowledge and no - I do not want to you cut and paste my name from a website that translates words like "knowles" into Egyptian hieroglyphs.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have no expertise in ancient pictographs too. I just have a working knowledge. Expertise means that is your main arena.
  I never said you were too ignorant to understand what I know nor that I have superior knowledge. That's Q.
  
  I erased that thread because I thought it was too much. But I guess, you read it when it was only up for a couple of minutes.
  
  I apologize if you thought I was mean, but every body is mean here.
  you did say I can barely speak english and now you're saying I'm a charlatan. That's mean too. And I just answered your question. Did it say god did it. I answered that.
  
  To be serious. There is no hidden knowledge, there is just generations of mistranslation.
  
  I am just telling the people who like to punctuate their point with insults that the case of intelligent design has basis and infact, even the source of the bible has said this.
  
  Mark Knowles:
  
  Mem Resh Kaf Nun Vav Lamed Shin :
  Consciousness Head Receive Miracle/Seed Expands Direction of Fire.
  
  The phonetics of your name suggest that you are spiritual man whose goal is to enflame passion.
  
  It's a good name, up to you to live up to it.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOLOL
  
  ciao
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOL is code for "i don't have anything clever to say"
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No - it is plain speak for laughing at what you said.
  
  LOLOLOL
  
  See? Not that hard to understand - is it?
  reply report
2. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My dear, zero is not nothing. It is the starting point of presence which in turn creates a concept of absence. what 0=infinity means is this, at some point in value, the presence of value is no longer discernable, just like it's point of origin. It represents that at some point our universe will expand until its values can no longer be discerned.
  
  Nil means not measurable. But I'm not surprised you took that mathematical equation literally.
  
  I was too lazy to mention it earlier.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
There is no way to understand how something works without understanding it's design.
reply report
1. 79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You do not study a design, you study facts, you study an item directly, in no way does that incorporate studying a design, unless for instance you were studying the plans for a building or similar, where a design was created for future construction.
  
  Because lets face it, a design is a pre planned scenario, it is not the result, or even the process.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes you do study design. There are many design courses out there, precisely because it is NOT always a PRE PLANED SCENARIO. the design course helps you work with what's there to express a function you wish to materialize.
  
  Even science cannot be designed, it can be explored. What you call design is manufacturing...and nature has that. Nature is very good at manufacturing copies.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "marinealways24 wrote:
  
  There is no way to understand how something works without understanding it's design. "
  
  In the context of this quote I think it is important to point out that I am arguing against the fact that marine claims that you cannot research something without researching it's design. However in most science, it is the facts which are researched, design rarely comes in to it.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You can research it all you want, you will still not understand how it works unless you understand it's design. You are truly lost. The theory of Evolution followed a design of thoughts, yet, you don't comprehend evolution has a design. Amazing.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with marine.
  reply report
2. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is a contradiction from 'marinealways24' from 5 hours ago, when he said: "There is no way to understand how something works without understanding its design."
  Well, 25 hours ago he told me: "It would be no fun if you already knew the design. "
  
  WTF?
  
  I've just proved again how erratic, uncertain, and deranged his comments have been on this thread.
  I've also proved to myself, and I don't think I'm alone here, how tiresome this stupid query is!
  I wasn't planning on coming back to this particular forum, but I get tired of seeing the "updates" on my "hubtivity" upon signing into this lovely joint.
  I'm with 'thisisoli'...when he implied that he has other things that he needs to be doing; same here! But, I think many of us are either trapped here by stupidity or simply feel the urge to comment due to the ignorance that is floating amid this crazy thread of insanity.
  Lets do us all a favor and drop this nonsense...
  Mr. Marine: Rephrase this asinine question!!!
  reply report
76
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Okay the book that you're referring to for this design-discussion and whatever, I would like to know the credibility of that author. How many journals and evolutionists are supporting his work on evolution as self-serving-design ?
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
I don't know why this is so hard for some to comprehend, either something has patterns and design or it is completely random.
reply report
1. 79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No something can have patterns without being designed.
  
  The moon circles the earth for a variety of reasons, it was not designed to do so, but you can see the pattern of it going around in every lunar cycle.
  
  You can design a model to predict the moons cycles, or you can just look at the patterns of the past to know that the moon will continue to do the same as always, without design, but with a regular pattern.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Gravity and Relativity design the moon circling the earth. If there was no design, there would be no previous patterns to observe. Design and pattern are related, whether you refuse it or not.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You have just proved my point that you do not understand the meaning of the word 'design'.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As a matter of fact the word DESIGN has multiple uses in the design world. Design as a deliberate act of fashioning in order to perform a specific function or Design as making patterns that look pleasing to the eye not necessarily having a specific function.
  
  Sometimes design is caused by the way your arms can stroke paint onto a canvass. Its not premeditated, its what evolves from the act of expressing an emotion. You can plan it your head. but what comes out is different.
  
  If you go to webster's for definition of design you'll get about the shallowest definition possible. But go to design schools and you'll see that design in itself has many rules that mirror nature and how nature works. It evolved from our desire to copy nature.
  
  Although Gravity and relativity does not design the moon circling the earth, I agree. Gravity and relativity are symptoms of the design of space-time continuum.
  
  Its like saying the paper designed the drawing.
  
  The solar systems and star systems in universe, just like the chemicals that produce our ecosystem balanced itself to achieve stability in such a way that even if it does change, it will remain stable. The universe is filled with systems that are self-stabilizing and self-replicating.
  
  I think the real question is, is that a single continuous force that stabilize these systems or are these systems accidentally organizing themselves based on random energy interactions.
  
  The focus on semantics distracts from the points being made.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I've been looking at that statement trying to make some sense of it, but the more I look at it the more it looks like baloney.
  
  Gravity is a property of mass. Relativity is a set of postulates on how physics works from various reference frames.
  
  I have no idea what you're trying to say.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "I think the real question is, is that a single continuous force that stabilize these systems or are these systems accidentally organizing themselves based on random energy interactions."
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Design is of course a complex subject, and a dictionary will only give you a basic definition, however, you can say the same about any subject, not just design.
  
  It is a misuse of the word design to suggest that something was designed, but that it did not have a designer. Suggesting that design of the space time continuum causes the moon to circle the earth again suggests that somebody designed it, which leaves you with either a God, or an intelligent being of similar power. In either case, it is still talking about theory, not the process itself.
  
  If you want to call something designed, then it either is a design by someone, or an artistic design. That is simply what the word can mean, and the argument over the semantics of the world is frustrating and futile.
  
  I wouldn't say the paper created the drawing, after all art is expressed in way more forms than simple paper and drawing, paper could just as easily create the paper airplane.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "somebody"?
  
  You are anthromorphosizing. (that is so circa medieval ages)
  
  SOMETHING conscious or not.
  
  I say the paper and drawing in relation to gravity designing the moon to go around the earth. Gravity is a behavior that is a consequence of the laws of physics. Laws that in my opinion ARE DESIGNED to stabilize energies in self-organizing systems.
  
  meaning the form exists to perform a specific function.....DESIGN
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  paper cannot create the paper airplane, it can be made OUT OF a paper airplane, the folding action that has the intent of folding it in such a pattern so it fly created the paper airplane. it could be a hand doing it or a machine.
  
  this is the perfect portrait of the flaw of current evolutionist thinking. they think the paper plane was made by the paper.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Haven't read anything on evolution either, I see. But, like marine, you feel the need to pretend you did.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh my dear, was it Dawkins you read? Which one of his angry books? Have you ever bought one new piece of information on Genetics from Nature Journal or Jstor? You cannot just read up on evolution, you have to study it along with other disciplines. See the minute its on the books or commercial magazines, its old. A writer takes about two years to publish it and by the time its out, new information has already arrived. You need to talk to experts and be in that circle to know what you're talking about.
  
  I have been writing for 15 years, being paid to read complex research from top universities so doctors can understand them. I know where to get scientific papers and have the technical skill to read them, without another person translating it in lay man's terms for me.
  
  Boskops once walked on this earth and had religion. They had their own elders who were buried facing the sun. They were altruistic and everything we wish we were but they died out.
  
  Neanderthals however did not show any signs of this reverence to something higher, because their brains were primed to think only of social dominance and survival. Yet, they died out too.
  
  I'm sure the two extremes interbred with humans and one of them was your ancestor.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are sadly like Dawkin's most famous victim...Jeffrey Skilling, "Darwinian" manager of Enron.
  
  All your quips are OLD.
  reply report
79
thisisoliposted 15 years ago
I am going to leave this thread well alone now, I have work to do, and this argument is going nowhere when you are failing to accept what I am telling you about basic vocabulary, before even going in to the theory of evolution.

Until you realise the actual meaning of the word design your arguments, and misunderstanding of the counter arguments this thread will go on indefinitely.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The argument goes on because you can't comprehend that a word has more than one meaning.
  reply report
79
thisisoliposted 15 years ago
Please read.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Please comprehend what you pretend to read.
  reply report
79
thisisoliposted 15 years ago
in·tel·li·gence
/ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒəns/ Show Spelled[in-tel-i-juhns] Show IPA
–noun
1.
capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships,facts, meanings, etc.
2.
manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3.
the faculty of understanding.
4.
knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5.
the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
6.
Government.
a.
information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
b.
the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
c.
an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence; naval intelligence.
7.
interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.
8.
Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or infinite Mind.
9.
(often initial capital letter) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one, as an angel.

This might come in useful too, I have just given you the definitions of design, none of which mention what you are saying. Design may include patterns, but patterns do not need to be designed.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do you even know what you are quoting, this is the definition of intelligence which you clearly show you lack upon observation of your post up top. "Intelligence doesn't come into it other than to say that more intelligent animals are more likely to survive and reproduce."
  
  Yes, you are very intelligent aren't you. Design and patterns are closely related if not the same. If there is no pattern there is no design, if there is no design, there is no patterns. Keep trying webster.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have already disproved this, you gave me some bull about misunderstanding the word design, I have given you the dictionaries definition of the word design, how are you still rationalizing this in your own mind?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I could post the same dictionary definitions where it says pattern has design and design has patterns. Why is it out of your comprehension that words are related?
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Then why don't you, I am not talking about my comprehension of the words, I am talking about official, scientific, and gramatically correct use of the words.
  
  The closest definition I have seen supporting your argument is to do with knitting patterns, which admittedly do need to be designed, but bear little resemblance to evolutionary patterns.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  b. A design of natural or accidental origin: patterns of bird formations.
  
  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pattern
  
  6. A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development: the overall design of an epic poem.
  
  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/design
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Again this is talking about imagary rather than scientific patterns in things such as evolution.
  
  Your quotes in full should have been,
  
  4.
  a. An artistic or decorative design: a paisley pattern. See Synonyms at figure.
  b. A design of natural or accidental origin: patterns of bird formations.
  
  b. could also have been the pattern of frost on a window.
  
  These are both visual patterns, which as with knitting, are often called in artistic circles 'designs'. Unfortuantely the visual and scientific use of the word is different.
  
  For your second quotation, on the design of an epic poem, it is again talking about how a pattern can affect the design of something, in rather the same way as rotation of the moon would affect the design of a moon landing.
  
  I don't see how either of these back up your claims at all, especially, however I do find it interesting that you claim I am fixated on one definition of a word, when i can quote entire lists of definitions supporting me, however you have to pick and choose (And mis-quote) your own single definitions of each word out of context to the discussion we have been having.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol, A dedicated atheist you are. Evolution is imagery genius, you observe the fossils, genius aren't you?
  
  Why don't you explain how the visual and scientific uses of the words are different.
  
  You asked for the words, their definitions and how they relate. I gave you clear evidence and you still try to run your atheist faith protecting circles.
  
  The words i'm using aren't out of context, you are out of context for being mad that design and pattern is one of the same.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Design and patterns in the context you mentioned was to do with the aesthetics of a subject, the design a pattern creates. Hence how you could call the pattern of frost on the window a design.
  
  You are trying to use the word design in a scientific way, in which it just does not fit.
  
  I have not mentioned atheism at all, and yet you bring that back in to this? what is going on in your mind?
  
  You have completely failed to provide the proof I requested, and it says a lot that you have failed to even see that.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol, you say "the design a pattern creates", then you ask how could you call a pattern a design. If you look at the pattern of the snow on the window, you are also looking at the design. You are clearly a know it all atheist. I would be surprised if you have even considered that it is design before you started quoting and defending your scientific heroes. I provide proof, then you ran away saying my definitions weren't the right ones.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is a very shallow definition of design. I said that before and will say it again. Webster's will not give you a comprehensive idea of what it is. It is a very broad topic that's why there are people who take design for four years and then go further into master's to master it. Go to a design school, you'll see what design is.
  
  Better yet, grab a pen, then copy the mona lisa. I'm sure you'll come up with a great design. BUT IT IS NOT going to be MONA LISA. You intended it to be so, you went towards that direction but it didn't come out the same way.
  
  This is evolution, the desire to copy while at the same time mutating it in order to give that lifeform an advantage in survival. Whether it works or not, depends on the ability of the organism to adapt. That's where creativity steps in and its all over nature. Its all over the cosmos. Forces adjust to balance itself and it does so creatively. that to me, is intelligent design in evolution.
  reply report
  79
  thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I know there is a lot I do not understand about design as a subject (an artistic predisposition is required for this which I do not possess), I have a design partner who I work with on a day to day basis, I build sites, he designs them. In the same way that he is artistically gifted, I am gifted in other areas. I would definitely say he designs, and he is good at it.
  
  However intelligent design is something which is designed, and evolution is a natural process much like one object orbiting another. calling it intelligent would be like calling it conscious, or the result of something conscious.
  
  Evolution is simply a word that is used to encompass the factors in the advancement of a species, how manor differences can boost one above the other, and lead it further and further.
  
  While it did take an intelligent man to uncover this against the flow of thought at the time, that does not mean what he discovered was intelligent itself. Talking about whether evolution is intelligent or ignorant is like questioning whether two objects circling each other is intelligent or ignorant. Sure, it would be stupid if they just crashed in to each other, but it would not have been a conscious decision on their part.
  
  Again, design is a lot of things, and as a subject it has a huge scope. However this is not regarding the subject of design, it is to do with the subject of evolution. you might as well say 'the whether outside is great' or 'I found a book which teaches me Polish so I can clean my dresser'.
  
  While this was not initially an argument about semantics it has unfortunately become one, because the word design in the respect of evolution is very important, since it absolutes that the entire evolutionary chain is predestined.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Um, are you conscious? I don't think you are. Do you even comprehend what you write?
  
  We are the product of evolution, we are conscious. To say evolution isn't conscious must mean you don't have the self awareness to realize you are conscious.
  
  The evolutionary chain is predestined by the conditions that allow life to evolve.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with this statement a thousand times. Ofcourse it's conscious. Dawkins wrote an entire book about how altruism is a product of the genes' desire to protect its own interests...meaning, it has a collective consciousness outside of the individual consciousness.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We are only beginning to define consciousness...it is still being studied, Oli.
  
  First of all, what makes us conscious is the alternating alpha and theta states of mind. Meaning we have micro sleeps and wakefulness at a very fast interval within our wakefulness. Then we have blinking (women blink more than men) the we have actual sleeping and waking...
  
  then we have night and day, the seasons, black holes and galactic bulges.
  
  This repeating patterns of seeing and not seeing can be observed in various levels of reality.
  
  SO if alpha and theta states are that which makes us know things and remember things...what the h does the macroscopic and microscopic versions of these patterns mean? Many many questions about consciousness and what it is.
  
  We are only beginning to understand it. So to say that something is NOT conscious without an awareness of what it is is callous thinking...it leads to ignorance.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  IT DOES NOT MEAN predestiny. it only means intent. Intent to create in response to the changing environment. the RESPONSE is enough to suggest intelligence.
  
  Is it responsive or accidental...we all know it's responsive.
  reply report
79
thisisoliposted 15 years ago
I read a lot of science books, which is why I can not only talk about a word, but also back up my use of the word with this thing called the dictionary.
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is not about anybody's intelligence. Although people want it to be about that. Its about discussing what the knowledge this century presents mean.
  reply report
2. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oli, I can tell you are a design of atheist science books, you don't do any of the designing of yourself. Another words, the books think for you, you don't think. If Dawkins said it was design or had design, you would believe it without a second doubt.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL!
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Explain how evolution has no design when the theory has design. There is design to the theory, but no design of the theory?
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
You elitist atheists make perfect sense. Maybe I will reach your level of elitism one day when I read enough science books, then I won't have to think for myself anymore because I will have atheist heros to think for me.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Another contradiction by 'marinealways24' as he states up above about his sarcastic hatred for atheists. 2 days ago he said: "lol Who said anything about god?"
  
  Dude, just what the hell are you from one day to the next?
  
  Personally, I think Mr. Marine just loves us so much, that he can't let us go. Sort of like a forum Cupid, if you will...... Ha-ha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do you know what a contradiction is? The first one you listed was also wrong. You assume I believe in God for making a generalization about atheists?
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You have got to be kidding me?
  A contradiction is anything that is contrary of what is said or denies the truth therein. You'd have to be a flaming fool to not understand the concept of 'contradiction'...especially since it would require you to know your own self, as you do it so well.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  lol, you are digging your hole deeper and deeper. First, list my contradictions and explain why you mistakingly believe they are contradictions, Second, explain how you know myself better than I know myself along with how you know I don't know myself.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You did, dig your own hole.
  I already listed 2 of your obvious contradictions in this thread.
  I never said that. I implied that out of all people, you should know what a damn contradiction is, since you make 'em all the time!
  Oh, okay. I've met your type before.
  I'm starting to get your vibe.
  You are the type of person that could complicate a fu*kin' bologna sandwich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  I could tell you that 2 + 2 = 4 and your moronic ass would probably say otherwise!
  Get a G-D dictionary, since your comprehension skills are obviously lacking beyond belief!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I didn't think you would want to repeat your mistakes that you believe were contradictions.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You said: "There is no way to understand how something works without understanding its design."
  Well, 25 hours ago you told me: "It would be no fun if you already knew the design. "
  
  WTF? Do you even know how you sound? You might as well said, "There is no right way of thinking unless it is my way of thinking." "It would be no fun if we could already think." What in the hell does that mean?
  
  My other example of, yet another, contradiction by you, is not even debatable or worth posting again, as you are hating on every possible reason from an atheist and a believer of god. Ya make no sense, boy! Pick a side or be like some of us, and admit you don't know a damn thing and enjoy yourself.
  I'm signing out until tomorrow; I got too many other things to do besides argue about what 2 + 2 is!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How is that a contradiction? Yes, you have to understand design to understand how it works, and yes it would be no fun if we knew everything of the design without having to explore. Where did I say it would be no fun if we couldn't think? I like atheists and god believers, I like to get both sides riled up when I challenge their faith. I believe nothing and everything.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, that was real productive. You contradict yourself all the time, as your last sentenced proved it once more.
  Is English your first language? If not, this makes more sense. I'm trying to figure out why you have such a hard time conveying your ideas. Unless, you are being preposterous just for spite...and with the motive solely being to invoke arguments.
  This is a forum, so it is all good, I suppose...
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I do not contradict myself all the time. You are making things up. Your contradictions are wrong. Nothing I said contradicted the other. I really don't think you understand what a contradiction is. I am having a hard time relaying my ideas because no one believes them because the atheist scientists didn't put them in the science books, so now atheist defend the science books because evolution is not called a design in the science book bibles.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I see where you are coming from, totally. It does look, act and talk like it has design and intelligence. It is responsive, reactive, creative and its main motivation is to increase maximum stability and self-sustainabiltiy.
  
  Scientists would never say it is DESIGNED. They stay out within ten miles away from that word, precisely because science (independent thought) was persecuted and hindered by religion and is just barely breaking free. The stigma attached to suggesting that there is intelligent design is like the end of peer respect.
  
  Many scientists are closet supporters of intelligent design.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Many scientists? You're absolutely sure about that?
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I wondered about this also, Q! How does one find out this type of information? I'm sure she will post some links to back up her claim, though.
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps, by applying #29 & #30 of the Woo-woo Credo:
  
  Keep trotting out the one "respectable" scientist who might possibly have said something that could be construed as perhaps giving a hint that it may theoretically support your position. Even better if said scientist has said it outright. Ignore all complaints that the work is 50 years out of date, the scientist has no experience in the field in question or that other experts in the same field think said scientist is a complete loony (and they can prove it, too).
  
  Dig out one reference that supports your position. Complain when someone presents a reference that refutes yours. Say that this means they can't think for themselves and your reference proves it. Ignore all queries on why you hold this hypocritical position.
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Most of the ones I've talked to wouldn't go on record. But the ones who seem like they are but are not saying it outright are these guys:
  
  1.Fred Alan Wolf and Bob Toben : space time and beyond, in conversation with a kabbalist. (you guys know what that is? kinda not I think)
  2.Chaisson : Seven Ages of the Cosmos. (followed the arrow of time in seven ages beginning with particle to culture)
  3.F. Clark Howell :Berkley, evolutionist Biologist. AND I QUOTE:
  "there is no encompassing theory of human evolution."
  4. Bryan Sykes :Seven Daughters of Eve, expert in DNA. AND I QUOTE:
  on DNA "not just chemical, but our most precious of gifts'
  5. Carl Sagan He quotes Thomas Aquinas in his book SHADOWS OF FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS. "it is possible to know the end of things if we know their beginning"
  
  Plus two famous ones you might know, you know, the ones who are not considered loonies...namely EINSTEIN AND NEWTON.
  
  http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ … /einstein/
  
  Newton used to count the skips in the Hebrew Bible at the end of his career, searching for the code.
  
  I didn't even research that, those are the ones I know from memory.
  
  AND MANY MANY MORE
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How one finds out about this information is having friends and contacts who are scientists, doing actual research. That and actually knowing it from reading more than you guys.
  report
  72
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You even know what everyone elses knowledge reading and history are?
  Why that is pure genius.
  
  We will all just crawl away and hide now. You have such an obviously superior mind!
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well I don't know yours. I'm sure you have good reading history as well. I was talking to Q and the other guy. But feel free to beat me down to submission. I really don't care. I care about the point that not all scientist agree with Dawkins. I am agreeing with Marine and giving supporting data.
  
  If you look at the history of this thread. Q and I have been exchanging childish insults, out of sport. That was not meant for everybody. Certainly not you, I don't even remember anything you said.
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The former does not jive with the latter. Marine is using faith based logic to support his argument, not science. If you agree with him, you too are supporting faith based logic, not science.
  
  So far, you've been providing everything a Woo-woo would provide using words such as 'paradigm shift' and dropping names like Newton and Einstein and of course telling us you are "paid to read complex research from top universities so doctors can understand them" - it's all so much thinly-veiled claptrap that few, if anyone here is actually buying any of it.
  
  But, do please continue, it's quite entertaining to check off one by one your posts with a copy of the Woo-woo Credo. You're almost halfway through it already.
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's ok, I don't expect you to get it. I do expect you to have a witty jabber and that really is your purpose.
  
  As far as I can tell I'm the one mentioning real sources...you have not mentioned not even one, other than err...what's his name...Q.
  My point is, you attack me but you don't have any real counter argument or sources to disprove what i said. You're only saying woo-woo.
  report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're only offering woo-woo. That's the point. You've offered nothing to support your position or Marines'
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The cellphone is woo-woo to a primate. LOL
  report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I can understand that a person is an idiot, without me understanding how that imbecile was designed. How's that, for clarification?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong. You may assume someone is an idiot based off one idea before analyzing what designed their ideas. Also, idiot is not absolute, someone that is considered an idiot to you could be intelligent to someone else. Hows that for clarification of another one of your multiple errors?
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Now, that's funny.
  report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You seem to be the one in error, with all of these complaints you're getting here...ha-ha! Okay, more clarification: I can understand that a person is not very good with English by discerning their misuse of the language, without me understanding how that doltish being was created.
  report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Dear, confused Marine: I've had these 'absolute' conversations before..with other people. Once you start going the direction you're going, nothing ever is anything...but a bunch of psycho-babble bull-s**t. I was right when I said it before, "you could complicate a bologna sandwich!"
  You need to branch out and write a blog about the "theory of nothingness." Hey, it could be the niche for you...that suits your current mentality! Ha-ha!
  report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you don't believe in god, but you detest atheists, what are you?
  Maybe my joke the other day, was true. Maybe you are a Buddhist...after all! Ha-ha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Where did I say that I detest atheists? Why do you assume so much?
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In your obvious sarcasm, several posts ago by you towards other people, up above... Talk to ya tomorrow, Ha-ha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why does someone get offended about comments about their non belief title? Is this because they religiously non believe? Have a good night.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. Some atheists are bitterists or don'tgetitrists. Real atheists don't even bat an eyelash and accept the differences in paradigm. Religion doesn't threaten them because they know it from top to bottom and have deboned it of its nonsense.
  
  Fact is, if you study biblical symbology along with biblical history, you will see that the bible's roots are shared all the way to the Vedic Aryans and Sumerians.
  
  At this level of Semitic Language, presented in pictograph. The language interpretation of the bible becomes increasing mathematical, formulaic and definitely its own version of scientific.
  
  Case in point.
  
  Classical saint james:
  
  In the beginning, God created the heaves and the earth, (totally bull right, we all know that the earth does not get formed until after the sun is, so bull? read on)
  
  The actual pictographic Message from Hebrew is:
  
  Bereishit Bara Elohim ha-shamayim et ha-erets.
  
  MEANING,
  
  Two beginnings created the Elohim{strong directional focused active consciousness/waters}. -(grammatically, the collective god, as in like water is collective) the fiery waters and the strong first need.
  
  fiery waters - plasma
  
  But to be more specific MAYIM(waters)which shares the root word of SHAMAYIM (heavens) can be even more spelled out in meaning as:
  
  the consummeable chaos/waters and the active chaos/waters.
  
  this is already speaking of potential and kinetic charged waters. The thing that's inside a battery and creates a spark when the two conduits meet.
  
  Ok that's just ONE passage.
  
  When you go all the way down to the end, you'll see that its talking about how the human brain was formed in the exact same functions as the "Elohim{strong directional focused active consciousness/waters}"
  
  I am not kidding or inventing this. It really is there. You just have to read the bible in Hebrew, convert them to proto-sinaitic pictographs--representing
  the mathematical phonetic writing that it was written in(and a leading biblical scholar confirmed this when I contacted him.)
  
  So the basis for religion may have been all along some post ice age version of science. Serious scientists are saying that we have undergone a great forgetting, that we knew something we lost again. It's crazy how much we are not piecing together (intelligent as we are) because we are blind to what this generation's knowledge is saying. We are more interested in the bible is a myth, its a lie....Most people don't even know what MYTH means. Myth is a metaphor (according to leading mythogist) that anthromorphosizes energy consciousness, and when I say this, I mean awareness of relational forces at an unconscious level.
  
  Most atheists are strange in that they position their thinking always in contrast to the concept of Gd.
  
  Why can't it just be about science, plain science--the use your powers of observation, connect facts and form a hypothesis sort. Then test if it will hold.
  
  Dead end claims are not science. Science continues to question and test and gain feedback. "I don't believe it" only means, you don't have the mental rigor to check the facts or learn.
  
  I never say "I don't believe it", I only say I disagree....not believing means you are willing to ignore facts to protect your challenged world view.
  Atheists who have made up their mind are not intelligent, they are ignorant.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  geez i made a hub, sorry guys.
  reply report
  76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I've already explained this.
  Also, I don't claim to be an atheist...but I don't believe in organized religions, either.
  But I know one thing that you've done in this thread:
  You make agnostic beliefs, look better everyday.
  Go take some English classes, maybe ease off the PCP and LSD usage, gather your thoughts, and come back and see us. Ha-Ha-Ha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How do I make agnostic beliefs look better everyday when I don't believe in a specific God? I think you are using the LSD, maybe this is why you are seeing contradictions that aren't there. lol
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, numbnuts. Agnostic is the belief that the existence of God is unknown and probably unknowable. I relate your enhancement of this belief, due to the fact that you don't seem to know anything. I admit, I do not know of alternate realities featuring a divine being. I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not making asinine queries like you have made in this thread.
  
  On second thought, you need to take more LSD. In your case, it may balance you out. Ha-ha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have given clear logical examples to back my claims. I apologize if your faith keeps you from being logical.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I never ever mentioned anything about faith, you disconcerted dolt!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't have to. You have faith the mob is right and I am wrong.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What does the 'mob' have to do with you? I think you are on your own plateau...in which you discombobulate all sensible logic. I still think you need to start that blog about the 'theory of nothingness'... I may drop by and comment on that one, as well.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  nothingness doesn't have design. Is evolution nothingness to you?
  report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Have you had prior brain trauma?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think you are asking me questions that mirror yourself. You have already made countless drug references while you hypocritically ask me if I have brain trauma.
  report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is fun to be nasty and not be punched on the face. That's why people go to forums like this one.
  report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
I thought atheists claimed to be logical. It's not very logical to get upset over a religious non belief title unless you believe religiously. Religion isn't logical.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not an atheist and I'm not into crazed organized religions. I get pissed when I see you being illogical. I like logic, you evidently do not.
  I have a low tolerance for ignorance, that's all.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Saying I am stating contradictions when i'm not isn't very logical in hopes of a logical conversation.
  reply report
  76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you go through whole thread then you'll notice that you posted a lot of contradictory stuff. For example, design & pattern arguments.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Design and pattern are not contradictory, they are complimentary. This is what the angry atheists are missing.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Gee, I didn't know it was my anger that couldn't tell the difference between design and pattern. I had always assumed it had something to do with an education. Silly me.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not all atheists are pathetic, only the ones who have no idea how much they don't know.
  reply report
0
china manposted 15 years ago
This is about the sum of this thread - it is all about the logical contradictions of unplanned patterns or the illogical contradictions of planned patterns. Either way as Spock would say "it is illogical Captain".
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes it is hard to pin down. there are many paradoxes, showing the current paradigm is incomplete. We need to shift paradigms.
  
  The world is not flat sort of paradigm shift. We may need a bulgier forehead for that.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, the neanderthals would have understood!
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, neanderthals, have a bulgier occipital bun... their brain has a larger cerebellum and an undeveloped frontal brain which makes them very reptilian and therefore incapable of higher functions that humans and Boskops are capable of.
  
  They have a large brow, not forehead.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That would be # 11 of the Woo-woo Credo:
  
  "Two more words: Paradigm shift."
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, you need one. Like the one where you think you know anything.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
I would like 1 person to quote an Atheist scientist saying that evolution has no design. Many will say it has no intelligent design, I haven't seen any saying it has no design. Have fun trying to find one of your atheist science heroes saying that.
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Also quote the scientist saying that evolution has no cause. If something causes it to happen, it designs it happening.
reply report
1. 76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  that's very bold claim you made here as usual without any evidence. so with this line of reasoning big-bang becomes creationism. bravo, again without evidence one more claim.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So evolution has no cause? I am not a creationist or an atheist, I am an unabsolutist.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm, a creatheist, huh!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! atleast he's really funny
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL!
  reply report
  76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Something new from you now Marine. First you failed to prove that "evolution is self-serving". No empirical evidence just sweeping statements. Second, you failed on that design-pattern claim as well and after that on evolution-population claim. Third bait is about "cause of evolution" by relating it with self-serving design, right ?
  
  You do like to get answer by provoking, huh ?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Depending on how you look at things, nothing is or could be empirical evidence, but it is logical. You were asking for evolution predictions, I am not Ms. Cleo. I said the current design can be understood, not the prediction of the design. If you say there is no designer of evolution, it would have to be a self serving design. Provoking sometimes has good intent.
  reply report
  76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nah i pointed you that evolution isn't predictive and it is you who claimed that evolution is predictive by giving example of population. **cough amnesia i guess** , you came up with vague reasoning with your claims and avoid empirical evidence when asked for it and the way you're coming up with the evolution-as-design claims from that book(which you mentioned earlier) attracted you to such an extent that to get better answers for claims in it that either trashes it or clears up your confusions about it, we have made all this mess in thread right ? I think i'm very close with purpose of this thread now. Anyway,i'm watching how stretching claims without evidence leads to.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes and I pointed out that you don't have to know a prediction to know something has design. Is this hard to understand? Because I can see somthing has design doesn't mean I can predict what the design will do. The purpose of the thread is to show evolution has design, I have clearly done that and the Atheist mob refuses to accept it. Not my problem.
  reply report
2. 69
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oops, I just designed my coffee all over my desk
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Freud would have a say on that matter.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Obscurely Diverseposted 2 minutes agoin reply to this
You seem to be the one in error, with all of these complaints you're getting here...ha-ha! Okay, more clarification: I can understand that a person is not very good with English by discerning their misuse of the language, without me understanding how that doltish being was created.

I am bringing the complaints myself. You don't think I thought about and knew that every atheist would argue me for calling evolution a design? You don't think I knew that they would get angry at me for challenging their scientific faith? I am not misusing language, you are misusing understanding of the language.

Like religionists, atheists are predictable.
reply report
1. 60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You have really turned into a kook, now. I understand the language; you seem to not know how to use it. The title of this thread proves that one...
  I hope you thought you'd get an argument from this absurd question of yours. A moron could have figured that out. You are very predictable, as I've had arguments with ones with 'absolute' theories of nothingness, before. You make 'insanity' seem predictable. Ha-ha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You say I am predictable, how many times have you had to ask and assumed wrongly of what my beliefs are? Why do you lie so often? Explain how something that isn't absolute is predictable.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What is your beliefs? Lie? I don't lie. That, once again, proves your misuse of the English language. I've never ask for any advice from you, trust me. But, I have made queries...as in trying to probe the meanings from your senseless proclamations. You are predictable with your runaround replies and your responses have that same pattern. You have actually, said several things that I have already heard from certain calibers of clueless folks that I've talked to in person - in the past. It is like having, for example, that special misfit that we occasionally run across...spewing opinions out at an astronomy forum, physics blog, or science site, that never seems to have any solid ground for anything, other than hyped up personal hogwash from being too bored or clueless. Most of the time, these same people rarely study any one field, in depth. They often pull this psycho-babble out of their anus, because they can't ever prove any of their ideas.
  
  How come, you just can't seem to tell me, the mob, or the majority, just what it is that you are trying to prove here, in a clear fashion?
  
  You said: "Explain how something that isn't absolute is predictable."
  Yeah, your existence is currently absolute, and you keep making the same type comments, over and over again. I agree that you are moronic. I'd say you are very predictable, in that sense. But, nothing is absolutely predictable, as who knows what crazed religious lunatic will be the one to set a nuclear missile off to start a global cataclysm?
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Funny, again you say I am predictable and are still asking what my beliefs are along with your childish insults. I have backed all my claims with logical examples and explanations. It isn't my fault you can't comprehend it the first time.
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Take a poll. Who's the idiot, you or me...and you'll see.
  Childish? Ha-ha-ha?!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well, maybe only an idiot would suggest a poll asking if others think you are an idiot. Do you believe you are an idiot if the poll didn't go your way?
  reply report
  60
  Obscurely Diverseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe only an idiot truly knows the philosophy of what represents an idiot, as you claim to know! Ha-ha!
  Well, I'm about to get off of this glowing contraption, so feel free to save your all-knowing knowledge for me, tomorrow or take cheap shots while I'm gone... Hell, I may grow wiser over some sleep, and not ever come back to your stupid page of moronic madness. Ha-ha! Either way, you have proved to many, just how clueless you really are. Cancel the poll idea; read the threads; the votes are already in. Ha!
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes and none of you in the faithful mob have answered how the thoughts that put together a theory has design when the theory doesn't.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That would mean they would have a working knowledge of the brain, which they don't.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
"Cumulative selection is the key to all our modern explanations of life. It strings a series of acceptably lucky events (random mutations) together in a nonrandom sequence so that, at the end of the sequence, the finished product carries the illusion of being very very lucky indeed." -Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker"

Notice he uses the words "nonrandom sequence", wouldn't it have been easier to say a designed sequence?
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
I will throw a dart and make a generalization that the atheists don't believe evolution has design is because we have the ability to recognize the flaws. Great reasoning.
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Richard Dawkins "Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive."

A guided process is a designed process. If it wasn't a guided process, it would be a random process.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-R … wkins.aspx
reply report
76
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Another wild claim without even understanding what design isn't it contradictory ?

From the way you generalize and made claims just for getting answers by provoking people to debate with you, yes it is hard to understand.

Lol, now you contradict your own views posted earlier that "evolution-as-self-serving" design as predictive.

Nah, purpose of thread right now is diverted. You didn't accepted that you were wrong with your evidence-less claims and you are now making new claim per post by even contradicting your own earlier views. Sometimes you don't need mob to find where you're wrong, some individuals can do that
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see how that contradicts. DAWKINS is stating clearly that evolution is designed for survival. He doesn't believe a god did it nor a higher power. A continuous force is designing evolution and its intelligent and it has its own language and way of talking. Through the genes.He's just an angry author who got hassled by a couple of people from the bible belt. He's so 1976! Although Susan Blackmore couldn't have made the MEME MACHINE without him. So yeah, he's got a purpose.
  reply report
2. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are also ignoring the fact that evolution is heading towards the direction of whatever will increase its chances of long-term survival. LONG-term, meaning generations in the future, where conditions are unknown and therefore irrelevant to the genetic vessel.
  
  Altruism exists even among bees. It does not have a genetic advantage for that bee, but it sacrifices itself for the good of the other bees in the hive, which actually contradicts DAWKINS.
  
  The MEME Machine shows that we can actually copy survival traits without transferring genetically. So it only takes one BEE to start this heroic stunt, in order for it to become later on, a genetic trait that can be passed on from be generation to bee generation.
  
  Which goes to show that anomalies and mutations are sometimes caused by purely products of the consciousness. Which leads me to think that consciousness is the thing that nudges and pushes evolution towards a fine tuning of the genes for win-win scenarios in our ecology.
  
  There are luminaries that emerge throughout history that has changed the direction of our evolution towards mutual tolerance and increased our chances of survival.
  
  But as in the case of the placid lizard that is genetically programmed to eat his own kind when the tank gets full, the explosion of humans in the earth is bound to make us backpedal into our reptilian states...such as HItler, Saddam Hussein. Too many people and too little resources means a tyrant is going to emerge. I don't know guys. I find the insights of Joseph Campbell on collective consciousness based on his study of world mythology makes sense more than Dawkin's interpretation of his own work.
  
  Religion evolved as a product of consciousness to aid evolution through the MEME Machine to help us move towards a greater chance of survival.
  This is proof that there is a kind of intelligence ushering evolution forward.
  For, why else would these luminaries arise from evolution in regular successions. Appearances of luminaries come in chains, where as one dies, another is born. Their parents are not like them and yet they are born with irrefutably superior talent or insight. BORN with it. The serve a function to inspire a PARADIGM SHIFT. The Meme Machine is the cultural equivalent of genes and as real in its role as genes are in passing information for long term survival of not just one species but all.
  
  If life has never had a paradigm shift then we all look like lizards still andwe still eating our babies like our reptilian ancestors did--plus women won't have boobs. The Paradigm shift made the boobs.
  
  No isn't that a case for intelligent design, imagine all us looking like men.
  reply report
72
earnestshubposted 15 years ago
What we have here is a major google it intellectual.
reply report
0
china manposted 15 years ago
This brings up the possibility of loads of new words - Gibberised
Googledom
Googlish
Googlomulated
Googliferous
Googlised
egogoogler
googolum

is this worth a new thread ?
reply report
1. 72
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Worthy of consideration I would suggest!
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, you guys get to it. I learned a lot form you. Sufi was right. it is a futile discussion. People who stay on, stay on for the banter, not for legitimate points. I'm out.
  reply report
2. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  really? try googling what I just said. I have 6 books around me.
  1. 25 big ideas, robert matthews -summarizes the evolution of evolution as a theory along with other new fields.
  2. the selfish gene richard dawkins 30th anniversary edition -introduced the meme
  3. the virus of the mind, richard broadie - discusses meme and its cultural implications
  4. new york times best seller "the case for a creator" lee strobel discusses the gaps of evolution (not a scientist though, a journalist with an agenda)
  5. Big Brain by Gary Lynch an Richard Granger - discusses brain expansion
  6. The Evolution of Morality Richard Joyce. - discusses the evolutionary purpose of morality.
  
  you can read them too and maybe then you'll get it that unless you know what to google, you can't arrive at what I just said. That's proof that you guys as most guys are will not see sense and will use insult to distract from the point.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Have you tried reading any of them?
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No I didn't that's a good suggestion Mark. I will try to read them. Better yet, I'll try to get an education in a good school and get good grades so I can be as smart as you and have as many fans as you have.
  reply report
  55
  (Q)posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Great idea. Go for it.
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Aww, thanks for the encouragement Q. You're so sweet.
  reply report
  72
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't believe you have ever owned 6 books!
  reply report
  69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That's ok. I congratulate you for trying but you're not half as funny as Q. (who I don't like very much.)
  reply report
76
skyfireposted 15 years ago
It contradicts when you say that population is predictive in one post and then try to cover it another post that it is not. Are you following this thread or picking up random replies in his defense ?

"Survival of the fittest" & "adept to fit" and "evolution as design allowing survival for fittest" are three different viewpoints i hope you get marine's contradiction when he posted all three views differently. Besides with all respect to dawkins views, environmental changes are very slowly makes impact on species so calling evolution as designed as per dawkins view is something i failed to get when people who contradicts their view in various post about him.
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm... No, I am pretty consistent in that in my view evolution is reactive and that reactive nature is a sign of intelligence. I mentioned Bruce Lipton's breakthrough about the cell and the DNA, don't know if you've read that. I mean Marine said a couple of things I don't get myself but I don't remember the post you mentioned. I mean Dawkins really made a big impact but his views particularly that we are robots to the genes was not well accepted by fellow scientists, his study of memes though paved the way for the MEME MACHINE, which to me has many many interesting insights on how organisms collectively design their survival skills.
  
  I am really interested in the subject matter. Its such a shame there's so much inane remarks. (my participation included) I really want to understand predominant resistance to intelligent design and have learned so much about attitudes of people to the topic. It's been interesting.
  reply report
76
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Where in my earlier post i ignored this ? My stand is that evolution is not predictive and many parameters that affect evolution are unknown.

It may be proof for you but i disagree as i don't see it fit to answer many questions that i have.

It isn't at all, if it was intelligent there was no need for paradigm shift at first place, no need for common ancestor either. Any intelligent process which tries to correct itself will not give slow results and have dependence over environment. How much humans evolved with help of that intelligent design last 100 years ? "Evolution-as-self-serving-design" concept that you and marine are trying to put here is just attempt of taking advantage of gaps in evolution.
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The design is self corrective by awareness. This could make it self serving and also with intelligence considering it has awareness. I'm not trying to take advantage of any gaps, I believe evolution. I just think the atheists scientists stay away from the word design when in fact it does have design or all would be random. If it had no design, there would be no patterns to observe and understand.
  reply report
2. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well first of all, we had a lot of hiccups about definition of terms. Like the fundamental problem of the discussion is what people think design is or even the very understanding of intelligence varies...I'm losing interest but yeah, I like to talk about the topic and you are doing that so hello sense.
  
  Oh and that question that you asked about the last 100 years, I really wished I kept a copy of that magazine. As a matter of fact, I think I still have it. It was last year's issue of Discovery....I'll try to look if its still somewhere here. It says that believe it or not human race is evolving away from each other! I want to find it to take note of who made the study. According to this writer, we are still diversifying, I really wish its here. It's such an interesting piece. But "evolution as self serving design" is from Dawkins, Selfish Gene. It said altruism is there to protect the herd at the expense of the individual. Isn't that self-serving?
  
  Even our brains and biochemicals adjust to suit the environment its in.
  Another case in point, genomic imprinting. Psychology today made an article about how the genes fashion itself in response to the experiences and environment of the mother! There are many levels of awareness. Reflex , the awareness of movement--this basic skill of responding to possible threat is an awareness of potential danger. its limited but it is awareness nonetheless.So that said, perhaps the cell is aware. I don't know,seems logical. But feel free to poke holes on that as I am also curious as to how that will hold as an argument.
  reply report
76
skyfireposted 15 years ago
As i said, topic lost it's track way earlier. All that remains here is either denial of evidence or bashing,personal remarks, new random claims etc etc. Let's move on to another thread.
reply report
1. 69
  ceciliabeltranposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. wouldn't have been a good discussion. but well. I got sucked into it.
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
skyfireposted 7 hours ago
Another wild claim without even understanding what design isn't it contradictory ?

From the way you generalize and made claims just for getting answers by provoking people to debate with you, yes it is hard to understand.

Lol, now you contradict your own views posted earlier that "evolution-as-self-serving" design as predictive.

Nah, purpose of thread right now is diverted. You didn't accepted that you were wrong with your evidence-less claims and you are now making new claim per post by even contradicting your own earlier views. Sometimes you don't need mob to find where you're wrong, some individuals can do that

It is not contradictory to claim something has design without knowing what or why the design was caused. I never made absolute claims like you are lying about. I didn't say it was a self serving design, I said it could be. I also didn't say it was predictive, I said it could be. You are not thinking individually, you are part of the mob. You are simply quoting leading atheists in your claims that someone can't know something is designed unless they know who or what designed it. This is not true.
reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Design of Atheist Thoughts = Relate any idea you hear having to do with intelligent design or design to religion because this is what the Atheist Scientists say about design.

Guess what, they are wrong along with their faithful mob. I have no religious affiliation or defense of a God. If your scientists are wrong on one thing, they are wrong on others. They are wrong for not admitting that evolution has design.
reply report
1. 76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Who said you've religious affiliation ? And why you even take it that way ? Play the game why care for players ?
  reply report
59
marinealways24posted 15 years ago
Darwin had a "pattern" to his thoughts leading to the theory of evolution. These "patterns" gave his theory a "design". Without the "patterns" leading to the "design", it wouldn't be a theory, it would just be a lot of "random" words written down.

Explain how evolution does not have "design" when the theory that explains evoution had to have "design".
reply report
76
skyfireposted 15 years ago
Really ? Who claimed about population with vague reasoning ? Who claimed about design & pattern ? So let's see who lied about it ?

*cough* *cough*

Really ? So asking for empirical evidence makes a person part of mob, i see. Anything else up sleeves ?

And where i quoted for leading atheist, care to show me ?
reply report
1. 59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I said previously that I can't predict evolution, you asked and I gave an example, not an absolute. In my previous comment, I just explained how it has pattern and design. I just gave you empirical evidence in the comment above. It is impossible for evolution to not have design when the theory that explains it must have design.
  reply report
  76
  skyfireposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That was not empirical evidence, period.
  reply report
  59
  marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work."
  Richard Dawkins
  
  Even he says it has to be a theory of "design" to work. You would never catch him using the word "design" though.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 4 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies