Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!

[wynn]

wynn doesn't like to talk about science as far as I can tell. As soon as I went that route it was like all the burglar alarms went off. All of a sudden I'm being pursued by attack dogs.

Mostly wynn comes across as a she, but once or twice I've concluded that wynn must be a rules-based inference engine with a speech module. Imagine you're having a jolly good time here on Sci posting away to your heart's content, and you lose track of time and next thing you know you'e nodding off slobbering on the keyboard. Ouila! wynn-AI awakes and takes over. And seamlessly too, that's what's so amazing. For all I know wynn is somebody's PhD project, studying our responses, gathering statistical features, classifying them, and storing them as sample sets. I've even had occasion to wonder what the acronym might represent: Wool & Yarn Neural Network, something like that.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

 

[Neverfly]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Small brainz is fun.

It's ok, Wynn. If it helps, I'll think of you as a "she."

In fact...


You're kinda cute...

 

[Balerion]

wynn doesn't like to talk about science as far as I can tell. As soon as I went that route it was like all the burglar alarms went off. All of a sudden I'm being pursued by attack dogs.

Mostly wynn comes across as a she, but once or twice I've concluded that wynn must be a rules-based inference engine with a speech module. Imagine you're having a jolly good time here on Sci posting away to your heart's content, and you lose track of time and next thing you know you'e nodding off slobbering on the keyboard. Ouila! wynn-AI awakes and takes over. And seamlessly too, that's what's so amazing. For all I know wynn is somebody's PhD project, studying our responses, gathering statistical features, classifying them, and storing them as sample sets. I've even had occasion to wonder what the acronym might represent: Wool & Yarn Neural Network, something like that.

Nothing she's ever said has been clever enough to be anyone's PhD project.

At any rate, I've always thought of her as a Tautological Roving Opacity Lorenz Laser, which, when pointed at the interwebs, evokes chaos theory and mass facepalming.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grumpy,

The points I illustrated(and you ignored)show that we DO NOT appear designed to those who actually look beyond the superficial appearance. And the only purpose Nature gives you is to reproduce the next generation. Any other purpose is self chosen.

I didn't ignore your points, they're just pointless and irelevant, not to mention premature.

By the results. Our bodies are horribly designed(again, given design).

At best, that's just you're opinion, IMO, one that you are forced to arrive at due to your beliefs (and yes I mean beliefs)

What we see in Nature is that there is no intent, no goal, no final product. Just an ad hoc collection of traits and structures inherited from previous generations and modified(slowly and badly)for current conditions by the survival of those traits and structures in current conditions.

Are you sure you have SEEN this, or again, is this what you believe?

Your skeletal system is over 400 million years old, it is shared by everything from amphibians to birds to frogs and lizards.

Are you refering to Haekels embryo's?

It is far from perfect(in some cases even barely marginally useful), one size does not fit all, and in the case of humans it is crap as design.

That's your opinion.
It's ironic that you are totally reliant on your body in order to make such opinions.

But it is all Nature has had to work with for several hundred million years. Intent has nothing to do with evaluating results of the product. You may intend to design a perfect breakfast, but your intention means nothing if you burn the toast, fry the bacon into carbon and leave the eggs with runny whites.

What is a perfect body, in your opinion?


jan.

 

[AlexG]

What is a perfect body, in your opinion?

No one is talking about a perfect body, just one that doesn't kill itself.

Is that too much to expect from a supernatural designer?

 

[Jan Ardena]

superstring01,

We "look" designed?

Yes.
You think we don't?
Why?

We are a cluster of massive amounts of useless "junk DNA", we have left over genetic material for fur, Vitamin C production, tails, immunity to HIV (yes, it's in our DNA but turned off) and a host of other weird flaws like--say--the appendix and the laryngeal nerve. We have to wipe our ass because our anus hasn't caught up with the fact that our gluteal muscles have to be gigantic to support us while standing on two feet.

Read my response to Grumpy.

This gets even weirder when we're talking about cetaceans, avians and bats, all of whom contain crazy DNA for things they no longer use. Monotremes (one of two extant survivors of which is the platypus) has the DNA for a full stomach, despite not having it. And the list goes on and on.

How does any of this convince you we aren't the product of intelligence?
If I design a washing machine with parts that will only last 2 years, 3 at best, before self-destructing, how is that NOT DESIGN?

If there is a creator god, he's pretty damned uncreative and goddamned lazy. He sure left a lot of evidence for the many related clades that bind us, a fossil record that demonstrates speciation and mountains of shitty traits that we are all stuck with.

Again, this is just your belief. One which you must maintain so your other belief can flourish (mentally).


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Do you see evolution as a means for the designer to achieve their aim? Or do you see evolution as wrong?

Depends what you mean by ''evolution''.
I don't see evolution as one form turning into a completely different form.

Then assume I'm asking how you think you would know the difference.

I've already told you. Based on other things that are designed, complete with blueprint instructions.

Because there is no evidence for it.

What would convince you that something was designed by intelligence?

If you want to make claims, even "think" things - I'd have thought you'd do so with more than guesswork?

You're the one who needs to do more guesswork, not me.

And you don't see how this might be a matter of the society that we live in rather than an inherent, objective purpose?

And you don't see the ability to build societies as a part of the mental construct of our design?

I used to believe God created Adam and Eve, and that we were all descended from them.
Then I used to believe that God created the initial lifeforms, and that evolution took over from there until the culmination of His plan... humanity.
Then I turned 14 and came to realise that other than the "initial cause", there is nothing that I thought required God... and that the initial cause is unknowable. So why believe in God rather than anything else? Why not just admit that I don't know and say "I don't know", rather than claim something for which I can see no evidence?

Why do you refer to ''we'' instead of ''I'' or ''me''.
You are limiting human understanding, and comprehension of things, to a worldview which holds that everything can be explained by matter. Hence, you don't accept anything else.

As for evolution - Darwin's is just one of a number of theories.
I certainly accept evolution as the most plausible explanation behind the fossil record and our arrival on this planet. But that's because of the evidence.

How do explain the ''cambrian explosion''?

But why equate natural creation with design, which is what you're doing?

Why do you separate design from natural creation, which is what you're doing.
If I design something, isn't that a part of my nature, the nature which operates within nature?



jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No one is talking about a perfect body, just one that doesn't kill itself.

Is that too much to expect from a supernatural designer?

Why would you expect a designer of whatever nature, to necessarily comply with your request?

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

Jan Ardena,

Your response to the evidence that we are not intelligently designed, which is well supported by a lot of evidence gathered from many fields of study which you do not understand- But which also goes against your personal belief:
"It's pointless."

Your response to being asked to support any claim you make, including, "Well it looks designed to me." :
"I don't have to."

Seems that wraps itself up.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

Your response to the evidence that we are not intelligently designed, which is well supported by a lot of evidence gathered from many fields of study which you do not understand- But which also goes against your personal belief:
"It's pointless."

I don't think there is evidence that shows we're not a product of intelligence, and the idea that we are not designed because the design is not fitting of a supernatural agent, is nothing more than an opinion.

Yes, it may go against my personal belief, but the idea of intelligent design goes against your personal belief. So we are in the same boat, which is why I want to try a different approach as we are in the religion forum.

Your response to being asked to support any claim you make, including, "Well it looks designed to me." :
"I don't have to."

Seems that wraps itself up.

I can easily draw the same conclusion if we turn the tables.
But what's the point in that?

Why can't we just have a chat about these things, and leave the heavy arguing to the threads which call for it.


jan.

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly,
I don't think there is evidence that shows we're not a product of intelligence, and the idea that we are not designed because the design is not fitting of a supernatural agent, is nothing more than an opinion.

Yes, it may go against my personal belief, but the idea of intelligent design goes against your personal belief. So we are in the same boat, which is why I want to try a different approach as we are in the religion forum.

Wrong and yes, this is a typical claim made by Creationists in hopes of making it look like Evolution is just a faith based Belief; like the creationists hold.
Evolution is not a belief. It is a Theory- Well Supported by strong evidence.
Creationism is a Belief- that is supported by No Evidence except for an inaccurate Bible.

You are not in the religion forum. You are in a Subforum on a Science board.
But why you push this excuse so hard is spelled out below...

Why can't we just have a chat about these things, and leave the heavy arguing to the threads which call for it.


jan.

Why can you not address post Number 17, Jan Ardena?

The reason why you cannot is because you are afraid.

Deep, deep down, your body is aware that you're lying to yourself. Your subconscious mind is always trying to reject that lie. You are afraid that if you have to confront the really hard questions, you will have to confront the problem of overwhelming evidence for evolution and none for intelligent design and creationism.

You avoid the hard questions like plague- acting cool and casual, but doing everything you can to shun that problem.

 

[Epictetus]

Good job NeverFly. Why can't these creationists admit that they counter sound theory backed with sound evidence with personal opinion backed by myth and legend? I don't know whether to admire you for keeping up the good fight or tell you that you are wasting your time on close-minded self-delusional yobs.

When I read any of their posts I remember them as merely saying: "I do believe in fairies. I do believe in fairies. I do believe in fairies. I do. I do I do!"

 

[Balerion]

Neverfly, I can tell you from years of personal experience, Jan has had the differences between belief and theory explained hundreds of times over the years. You're simply the most recent, and it's not going to make a difference.

 

[Neverfly]

I don't do it for Jan.
I do it for those kids that hit this thread on a google search and have fresh material to read...

 

[Epictetus]

Then there is a special place in heaven for you NeverFly.



Oh wait! There ain't no heaven! I forgot.

 

[wynn]

Nothing she's ever said has been clever enough to be anyone's PhD project.

At any rate, I've always thought of her as a Tautological Roving Opacity Lorenz Laser, which, when pointed at the interwebs, evokes chaos theory and mass facepalming.

What senseless adoration!

:xctd: :xctd: :xctd:

 

[wynn]

The reason why you cannot is because you are afraid.

Deep, deep down, your body is aware that you're lying to yourself. Your subconscious mind is always trying to reject that lie. You are afraid that if you have to confront the really hard questions, you will have to confront the problem of overwhelming evidence for evolution and none for intelligent design and creationism.

You avoid the hard questions like plague- acting cool and casual, but doing everything you can to shun that problem.

Spoken like a true Southern Baptist!

And a miserable guy.

 

[Sarkus]

Depends what you mean by ''evolution''.
I don't see evolution as one form turning into a completely different form.

So you don't think humans evolved from a common ancestor that we share with the apes, for example?

I've already told you. Based on other things that are designed, complete with blueprint instructions.

And if this is achieved through a natural process with no designer: how then would you be able to tell the difference between the designed and the undesigned?

What would convince you that something was designed by intelligence?

It would be something not otherwise found in nature and with no means of being created by nature, and ideally with a stated purpose up front.

You're the one who needs to do more guesswork, not me.

Well, given your assumption that I was "fixing for a 'where is the actual evidence' discussion", I took your reluctance to go down that path as indication that you were basing your position on guesswork.

And you don't see the ability to build societies as a part of the mental construct of our design?

Part of our mental construct... yes... arrived at through the blindness of evolution. I see no reason to invoke design.

Why do you refer to ''we'' instead of ''I'' or ''me''.

You asked what I believed previously... I believed that we were all descended from Adam and Eve. If my belief had been limited to just me being descended I would have used the singular.
It's nothing more complicated than that. :shrug:

You are limiting human understanding, and comprehension of things, to a worldview which holds that everything can be explained by matter. Hence, you don't accept anything else.

No, I accept that some things can not be explained at all.
I don't make up answers where there are none to be confirmed.

And yes, I only accept things that can be evidenced. That is not to say there are not other things... but I won't accept them as truth. I will merely say "I don't know".

How do explain the ''cambrian explosion''?

I don't.
I know there are numerous theories for it which seem plausible given our current understanding, but it is an area that we will not likely be able to provide anywhere close to a definitive answer, unless we discover other life-bearing planets at a similar stage.
But I guess "God did it!" works. :shrug:

Why do you separate design from natural creation, which is what you're doing.

The distinction I'm making is that there is a difference between designed and undesigned (natural) creation, even if only in the need for the former to have a designer.

Your view otherwise appears logically flawed, in that you're affirming the consequent. You are following:
If P then Q.
Q
Therefore P.

i.e. If we are designed, we'd look like we do.
We look like we do.
Therefore we are designed.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

So what you're saying is, size matters.

Now: just what are you discussing there?

 

[wynn]

So what you're saying is, size matters.

Now: just what are you discussing there?

Ideas vs. events vs. people.

Some people refuse to discuss ideas, and instead go for the ad hom.
But then again, perhaps this is part of their idea.


:bugeye: