Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

I never said that vibration were only associated with life, but with all phenomena within the universe, it was you who said that a kirlian camera picked up an energy sig from an inaminate object, I simply pointed out that nothing is inaminate, in the sense of being stagnate, non-moving, resting without any animation.. This is what I meant -everything is vibration, animated.

I was specifically using the term inanimmte as in non-living which should have been clear from the sentence in which it was used. 

So let me be clear - a Kirlian photograph even shows an aura with things that were never alive.

Secondly, a Kirlian camera does NOT pick up energy from any object. I stated quite clearly that Kirlian cameras use an energy source that creates the glow. In fact, I likened it to a flash in a camera.

Your claim that nothing is inanimate is a bald faced lie. Almost everything in the universe is inanimate. Here is a definition.

Quote

Definition of inanimate

1 : not animate:

a : not endowed with life or spirit

• an inanimate object

b : lacking consciousness or power of motion

• an inanimate body

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inanimate

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Will Due said:

I'd like someone to explain why some claim that there is no design involved in the existence of animal brains, arms, legs, fingers and toes, while humans design robots modelled after and based on what nature already has, instead of designing something unique based on an idea NOT already existing in nature.

I'm curious why you claim there is design when it absolutely clear that there is no design.

It could simply be your close minded belief  in the hoax perpetrated in Chicago all those years ago. It might simply be your lack of understanding of biological processes. I frankly can't figure out yet what has you so messed up.

Systems can evolve without design. It is all around us. Living systems have been so successful at it that there is a class of algorithmic development in computers called genetic algorithms that benefit from the same approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

[jmccr8]

3 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Can you tell me something about the future from electro-chemical memory in your brain?

Hi Illyrius

I forcast a redundancy of discussion of time and space in this debate by using my electro-chemical memory.

jmccr8

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Yes, some portion of the brain must provide the capability, via behaviour which in turn comes from an intention - that is a movement of mind.

So mind creates the new structure of the brain to develope another part of the brain.

Mind controls the brain, not the other way round, otherwise how could someone learn to talk again if there ability to talk was completely mashed in a car wreck for example. How can another part of the brain recreate the already damaged bit?

How can a brain create thought? New thoughts create new neurological pathways, the more the thoughts are practiced, ie playing the piano, then the stronger those pathways become. Mind/thought/action/new neurological pathway. Thats the order.

 

There is no "movement of the mind". The mind does not "creates the new structure of the brain to develope another part of the brain." This not correct either "Mind controls the brain"

Before fumbling around you need to look into the subject matter. It prevents this sort of fumbling error after error.

You guessed that someone can learn to "talk learn to talk again if there ability to talk was completely mashed in a car wreck" That was a bad guess because that cannot happen. There is a limit to neuroplasticity.

When the portions of the brain are gone, they are gone. Think of these other portions that attempt to compensate as backups that give some degree of compensation for the lost ability.

 

[Guyver]

59 minutes ago, eight bits said:

 

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.

 

The image reflects human deign.  And we recognize it because we speak that language.  We recognize patterns and often interpret them to design, which is why people often see Jesus in the clouds or their coffee.  Nature doesn’t make SOS messages large enough for people in planes to read, or any discernible messages at all.....people do that.

Yet, there are designs in nature, you mentioned circumference divided by diameter, someone else mentioned the snowflake but we could add many more.  I see a pattern in the periodic table of elements, with the elements themselves following a pattern based upon their atomic number.  It sure seems to me to be either specific design or remarkable chance perfectly expressed.  

[MauriOra]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

There is no "movement of the mind". The mind does not "creates the new structure of the brain to develope another part of the brain." This not correct either "Mind controls the brain"

Before fumbling around you need to look into the subject matter. It prevents this sort of fumbling error after error.

You guessed that someone can learn to "talk learn to talk again if there ability to talk was completely mashed in a car wreck" That was a bad guess because that cannot happen. There is a limit to neuroplasticity.

When the portions of the brain are gone, they are gone. Think of these other portions that attempt to compensate as backups that give some degree of compensation for the lost ability.

 

Howsit,

The brain can be rewired, via another route ..yes.?

Mo..xx

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Bodies and shapes change through time soul travels through this bodies to gain earth experience.

Remember that individuals do not evolve. Species evolve.Souls are a belief and any claims about souls are beliefs since souls are just beliefs.

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Ummm... well it isn't connected to a body anymore. Spiritualy minded individuals do not claim that soul stays with the dead body and that it plays with it any longer.

Spiritually minded people make up stories based on their beliefs. There is zero evidence that souls and any stories about souls have any truth to them.

[psyche101]

On 24/02/2018 at 2:55 PM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

You should read this one too, if you want the flip side of the coin:

 

DAVID BERLINSKI has a Ph.D. from Princeton University and has taught mathematics and philosophy at universities in the United States and in France. He is the bestselling author of such books as A Tour of the Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm, and Newton’s Gift. A senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and a former fellow at the Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, Berlinski writes frequently for Commentary, among other journals. He lives in Paris.

https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266

That seems hypocritical advice, you certainly do not know both sides of the coin as you put it. Physics is clearly well beyond your understanding and it would appear deliberately so.

A person who pretends to be a mathematician who is not and uses imaginary enemies for shock value to sell a book. Well, not much of an obvious agenda is it...... (sarcasm in  case it went over your head) 

If this book is not utterly rubbish and just preaching, then what are the pertinent points that make it worth reading and how does it refute the physics that support the view of new atheism? 

You post book covers a lot instead of being able to defend your alleged point of view. 

And I strongly suspect you have not read the books you tout as you can never use them to support your claims or promoted ideas on superstition. 

Have you read any of the books covers that you have posted at all? Do you even know how this one supports your view  or is it just a common enemy thing? 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by psyche101

[Harte]

10 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Actually science has looked into this, Sheldrake for one, its what we have been talking about for the last few pages..

But by all means, show me a study from Dawkins et al, from a strictly materialistic scientific approach..

You asserted they won't.

Your job to back up your claims.

Harte

[MauriOra]

18 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I'm curious why you claim there is design when it absolutely clear that there is no design.

It could simply be your close minded belief  in the hoax perpetrated in Chicago all those years ago. It might simply be your lack of understanding of biological processes. I frankly can't figure out yet what has you so messed up.

Its not absolutely clear ..

Its been defined that way , through the Tests etc in Science .. Physical, Material testing ...

If it was absolutely clear, there would not be this discussion .

Wills Mind is Amazing.. He thinks outside the Triangle..

Biological understanding for Me, is what I must learn..too ..

I know, spirit, energy .. Just need to learn the others, from a spiritual perspective, which I will ...

What happened in Chicago..?

Mo..xx

[MauriOra]

6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Remember that individuals do not evolve. Species evolve.Souls are a belief and any claims about souls are beliefs since souls are just beliefs.

Nope ..

Souls are True ..

The belief is, it isn't ..

Mo.xx

[Harte]

9 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Exactly.

That is what I just said..

Mind is immaterial, we can express mind via our actions, we can make stuff with our mind, but physicality and mind are two different things.

Materialistic science treats it as something emerging from the brian, yet, unless you programme a computer to do something, and then imput direction, then the computer/brain is just going to sit there looking pretty.

And my point is that both are material, but not physical, since both can be measured and analyzed, and neither exist as a physical thing.

Harte

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Illyrius said:

Can you tell me something about the future from electro-chemical memory in your brain?

Yes. The Sun will rise tomorrow.

[MauriOra]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Spiritually minded people make up stories based on their beliefs. There is zero evidence that souls and any stories about souls have any truth to them.

Nope ..

Spiritually Feeling ppl , know ..

Its the Brain thinking ppl that dont know ..

Mo..xx

[jmccr8]

3 hours 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?

 

 

Hi Will

I would think that most of the why has been covered in the last 70 pages. At some point it would seem to appear that everyone has stated their position are you somehow thinking that people are not sure of what they have said?

jmccr8

[MauriOra]

Just now, stereologist said:

Yes. The Sun will rise tomorrow.

And the Moon will rise tonight ..

Mo.xx

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Sure, to admit that something is designed is to admit its designer.  Since many do not accept the existence of God as a real thing, it follows they will not accept that nature was designed.  Many do admit that existence has the appearance of design.

Or, did you already know this and you’re simply asking rhetorical questions for dramatic effect?

It is not admitting that existence has the appearance of design. People just mistake the natural processes as design. It's a common failure especially for those that believe in a god. They wish to assign jobs to their god, jobs which do not exist.

[MauriOra]

39 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There is no aura. It does not exist.

Yes it does .

Mo.xx

[Harte]

9 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

No, it wasnt me who constructed this antagonist idea, that was Aristotle, I am just pointing out the shortfall within this limited way of seeing things. Some thing doesnt have to be either, or, but both at the same time.

And yes, snowflakes are unique, and yes they are made of water, but where does this "either, or" assumption come into play? I am not saying they are either all unique, or that there are all water, what I would say is that they are both. So this idea that snowflakes are either, or, doesn't hold any water so to speak, you just proved my point.

So we use different categorisations, so what, that has nothing to do with the point that I am trying to make.

The point was this, that we can say contradictory things about the same thing, and that they are both true. 

Are there different catergories of human beings? yes and no, so it is not either, or, but both.. To try and reduce life down to 1s and zeros is very limiting, and divisive, and untrue as well..

And how about my other example, of someone loosing money, and somebody else finding it? One action, two truths?

I made the same argument elsewhere about good and evil. It's a subjective thing and not absolute.

But yes, humans are subject to the same "contradictory" categorizations.

Humans are all the same - bipedal mammals with big brains and a language.

Humans are each unique - with different genetic coding for each individual (just one example.)

Since these two categorizations are not the same, there is no contradiction here and you have no tangible argument.

Harte

[Harte]

11 hours ago, Harte said:

This is a result of our inability to explain the values of the dimensionless constants mentioned earlier.

It may well be that these constants are simply what they have to be, maybe they can be nothing else.

One argument is the Anthropomorphic Principle - that if they weren't what they are, we wouldn't be here to measure them.

If there are multiple universes, like is possible with M-Theory, then that would account for it - we are here BECAUSE those constants are what they are.

I don't know if questions such as why these constants have these particular values will ever be answered. But maybe they will.

Harte

Sorry. For people looking into this, the above should read the Anthropic Principle.

Harte

[Harte]

8 hours ago, Illyrius said:

If it paints then it is imaginative.

Is that your claim?

If you knock a can of paint over, the spilled paint on the floor also looks "imaginative"

hahaha

see where this leads?

It leads to more information for readers here concerning your inability to seriously consider the implications.

Harte

[psyche101]

On 24/02/2018 at 5:08 PM, Crazy Horse said:

Im bored, I'm gonna go watch some paint dry, its gotta be better than reading this stuff....

Of course, you only like facts when you think they support you, soon as you find they do not you turn your back on them, I've seen this from you before  and if the spiritual people of this thread have illustrated anything it's that people with religion or spirituality are the most closed minded people around, pretending to be open minded by following and touting the illogical. Believing in somthing ridiculous and illogical is not open minded, its believing in something ridiculous and illogical. 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by psyche101

[jmccr8]

19 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Its not absolutely clear ..

Its been defined that way , through the Tests etc in Science .. Physical, Material testing ...

If it was absolutely clear, there would not be this discussion .

Wills Mind is Amazing.. He thinks outside the Triangle..

Biological understanding for Me, is what I must learn..too ..

I know, spirit, energy .. Just need to learn the others, from a spiritual perspective, which I will ...

What happened in Chicago..?

Mo..xx

Hi MauriOra

Chicago is the birthplace of the UB

jmccr8

[MauriOra]

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi MauriOra

Chicago is the birthplace of the UB

jmccr8

Atamarie Mr Jay ..

Thankyou for that ....

Mo..xx