Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

That is because Stalin is all you know as he is all that you can think of now ... any minute now ... wait ... for it ...

 

~

Now you sound like Dawkins.

[Will Due]

Just now, Illyrius said:

Because they are commies?

 

Finally.

 

 

[SHaYap]

Just now, Illyrius said:

Now you sound like Dawkins.

That is because Dawkins is all you can associate with that noise in your head for lack of other options ...

any second now ... wait ... wait ... any moment now ...

~

[Illyrius]

Just now, third_eye said:

That is because Dawkins is all you can associate with that noise in your head for lack of other options ...

any second now ... wait ... wait ... any moment now ...

~

Now you sound like your third eye is closed.

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

Now you sound like your third eye is closed.

 

Some people have a fourth eye. A brown eye they refuse to open.

Which is why they're full of it.

 

 

[Illyrius]

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Some people have a fourth eye. A brown eye they refuse to open.

Which is why they're full of it.

 

 

[SHaYap]

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

Now you sound like your third eye is closed.

What is the sound of one eye closing ?

~

now ... is here ... wait for it ... any minute now ...

 

~

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Some people have a fourth eye. A brown eye they refuse to open.

Which is why they're full of it.

 

 

Your brown eye is all that will sound ... with volume and volumes ...

~

[Guyver]

14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.

I'm asking why some otherwise intelligent people claim that an animal brain, arm, elbow, wrist, finger and hand were not designed, when robot designs are just copies of them?

Why do they make such a claim?

 

 

As I said before, they don’t believe they were designed because they don’t believe God exists.  You keep asking the same questions even when people give you answers to those questions.  If there is no designer, animals were not designed.  Does that make sense?

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

As I said before, they don’t believe they were designed because they don’t believe God exists.  You keep asking the same questions even when people give you answers to those questions.  If there is no designer, animals were not designed.  Does that make sense?

 

Of course it makes sense. But I'm not questioning that am I. 

I'm not asking what people believe. I'm not asking why people don't believe in God.

What I'm asking has to do with something that's apparently for some, much harder to answer.

 

 

[SHaYap]

~

Designed ...

 

 

[00.01:31]

 

~

 

Oopsies ...

 

~

[SHaYap]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

What I'm asking has to do with something that's apparently for some, much harder to answer.

Not for your brown fourth eye apparently ... Will keep sounding sounds again will sound again 

~

[Will Due]

6 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Not for your brown fourth eye apparently ... Will keep sounding sounds again will sound again 

~

 

The funny thing is, the only one making sounds, is you.

 

 

[SHaYap]

Just now, Will Due said:

 

The funny thing is, the only one making sounds, is you.

 

 

Is my sound moving your groundless noise ? Sorry ... your brown fourth eye was making too much of a racket ... your Father will be pleased with you Will ..

Yes indeed ...

~

[XenoFish]

51 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Right, but there’s also viruses, flesh eating bacteria, starvation, disease, birth defects, serial killers and all kinds of other difficulties and suffering in the world.  

I mean, you must understand that people don’t believe in God because they haven’t had experiences that show he exists.  You believe you have and that works for you, but it doesn’t mean everyone else is going to agree with you.

It's the difference between following a ready made beliefs structure to have some arbitrary meaning in life. Versus, embracing life in all it's metaphorical chaos. 

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Illyrius said:

I think you confuse confusion with fusion.

Your post very clearly described interpretation while the original issue was about creation. There is  no fusion in that discussion.

In the paint can portion of the discussion the spilling of paint was proposed as not being imaginative yet you changed that to an interpretation of the results of a spill.

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Your post very clearly described interpretation while the original issue was about creation. There is  no fusion in that discussion.

In the paint can portion of the discussion the spilling of paint was proposed as not being imaginative yet you changed that to an interpretation of the results of a spill.

The original issue was are computers imaginative or not.

[XenoFish]

The biggest problem I see it that our pattern loving brains want the easy answers for the most part. That easy "answer" for a lot of people is 'god did it'. Which really amounts to "I don't want to think about it". In a way it's shutting off the brain. 

Whenever a new belief or fact is presented that contradicts a current or firmly held belief, the person rebels. They will deny fact and continue to support fiction. Sometimes to terrible ends.

[XenoFish]

I think spiritual beliefs structure have there roots as a coping mechanism. A way of dealing with fear, anxiety, and worry. Which actually makes a lot of sense. 

Afraid of death, there's heaven.

Worried that you won't be able to pay your bills, pray the stress away.

Feel like life is both hopeless and meaningless, let Jesus into your heart. 

Yeah, makes sense. 

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

A digital computer's design is based on the animal brain.

The design of a robotic arm and hand is based on the arms and hands that exist in nature.

In fact they're sort of a copy of them because when inventors try out different designs, they quickly realize nature had gotten it right long before man even had a brain to design with himself.

Yet, some very otherwise intelligent people claim there was no design involved in the existence of animal brains, arms and legs.

How do you explain this?

Humans can use design and testing to find a workable product. Evolution works through  feedback which is survival. Evolution is not goal oriented. What survives is what reproduces.

Animal systems are not always that good. There are lots of problems along with the successes. Sometimes it is possible to find animal or plant systems that are useful for projects humans are working on. Sometimes there are no useful anaimal or plant analogs.

Just because a random process that took possibly hundreds of millions of years to accomplish a form does not mean it is in any manner a designed form.

[Only_]

11 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I think spiritual beliefs structure have there roots as a coping mechanism. A way of dealing with fear, anxiety, and worry. Which actually makes a lot of sense. 

Afraid of death, there's heaven.

Worried that you won't be able to pay your bills, pray the stress away.

Feel like life is both hopeless and meaningless, let Jesus into your heart. 

Yeah, makes sense. 

If you want to talk about your 'psychological' views of religion, please start your own thread.

This is one about the theory Intelligent Design (ID) and Darwinian evolution.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[+joc]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

True that.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be used to think.

 

 

The only reason you can say you have a Mind is precisely because of the neo-cortex surrounding the primitive brain...it is all about the brain...ALL..about the brain.

Basically what you are saying effectively is that Artficial intelligence exists without the computer.

[SHaYap]

It is what is the filling that is the critical factor with the brain here ... what is of the 'breath' of the eye or of Will's brown fourth eye ... oh Will's Father would be so proud ...

~

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Could we keep the comments in this thread civil, sensible and on topic please.

Thank you.

[eight bits]

5 hours ago, Guyver said:

 I think we'd agree that this image is precise, and we can conclude that it's designed.  So, how do we know that this message is designed?  What is it's identifying characteristic?

 

I recognize it as the sort of thing people make, and that I've seen people make. That's also the (main) problem with the "watchmaker" analogy. I think the watch Paley describes is designed for a purpose because I know that people design similar things for that purpose. I even own a few examples myself and use them for that very purpose.

In other words, I am unsure that my recognition of very likely facts surrounding your image is some inherent property of the image or of what it depicts.

 

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

A little something from Wiki.

"Bioelectromagnetics also known as bioelectromagnetism, is the study of the interaction between electromagnetic fields and biological entities."

So in other words, the soul, 'biological entities' and spirit, 'electromagnetic feilds' are interacting to produce an energetic signature - the aura.

Hay - you say tomatoe, I say tomato.

There is no aura. It does not exist.