Proof of evolution!!!

Guidosoft writes:Hello, I am an alien, and I have come to earth recently after seeing a horrendus explosion destroy half the human race. I have come with archeologists who have dug up some interesting objects.

Guido, the Alien writes:What we found was mind boggling!
We picked up complicated and structured objects made of silicon that transmit electricity to perform calculations.

Alien writes: Pretty interesting how they were created! There is some speculation... It was unbelievable. But I knew that humans couldn't have created it, even though it seemed pretty convincing.

Alien writes:Just because it looked like an intellegent design didn't mean it was. So I had a theory, this computer evolved from simple forms. In order to prove my theory I had to find these simpler forms.

Guido/alien writes:As we dug deeper and deeper we did indeed find simpler computers. Unbelievable!!! My theory had so much evidence now!!! We found a Comadore 64 preceeding long before the Gate way. We knew that the commadore much have progressed over trillions of years of Natural Selection into a Gateway! I mean DUH!!!

Guido/Alien writes:We found knifes, and simpler knifes and simpler knifes. Some were made of rock. It was obvious that evolution took place. At first I was foolish enough to believe that the computer was intellegently designed, but after much research we have concluded that since the humans are too stupid to have created the computer and since we have overwelming evidence of its evolution that it has indeed evolved from the calculator, which evolved from an even simpler device.

NWR writes:I expect that some people will be arguing that biological organisms are very different from digital electronic equipment, and that while there may be a good case to be made that digital electronics is designed, the inference does not carry over to biological organisms.

Guido, now not an Alien writes:Let them argue as they will. Just as things made of silicon do not link up and form next generation composites, protiens do not have this ability.
The first cell must already exist before it can replicate.

Omnivorous writes: The first replicator need not be a cell.

Guido the enforcer writes:I will ingnore the rest of your post since it need not be debated, it is known to be false just as evolution IS false.

Modulous writes:Now, you need to develop a Theory for your inferred phenomenon of computers changing throughout time. I doubt its going to be the same as the biological theory of evolution (which you are trying to lampoon), you don't even have the starting observations of Darwin, no reproduction, no fecundity, no population stasis, no heredity. There are also no later observations, there is no mechanism that one computer can use to pass its design onto offspring. If you dig through the dirt long enough you'll also find computer factories, blueprints and design specifications. Perhaps you'll even find a computer that has not been fully built yet, a tremendous aid to your research.

Guidosoft writes:Yes I will be defending intellegent design.

Crashfrog(who never coddles anyone) writes:The reason we reject intelligent design for the origin of life is because there are no known designers except for humans (and some other modern organisms), and none of them were around 4 billion years ago. It's pretty simple, really.

Infoplease.com writes:Intelligent Design is the theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution, and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development.Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree. The theory does, however, necessarily reject standard science's reliance on explaining the natural world only through undirected natural causes, believing that any theory that relies on such causes alone is incapable of explaining how all biological structures and processes arose. Thus, despite claims by members of the intelligent-design movement that it is a scientific research program, the work of its adherents has been criticized as unscientific and speculative for inferring a pre-existing intelligence to explain the development of biological structures instead of attempting to develop adequate falsifiable mechanistic explanations.

bkelly writes:How do you know the designer?

bkelly writes:Before you reply, please allow me clarify how I am reading the word “know” and maybe preempt some misunderstandings.
Know: as in have substantiated information as to something being true.
Believe: as in hold the opinion that something is true.
Know: as used in the phrase I quoted: to be an acquaintance of.
By saying that you know (acquaintance) the designer, you imply that you know (have substantiated) that the designer does exist.

bkelly writes:What makes you certain that the designer exists as opposed to just believe(ing) it?

bkelly writes:The bible is known to have errors and inconsistencies.

The handed down word of our parents and of religious leaders is known to have errors and inconsistencies.

By what logic are you certain that the designer exists?

bkelly writes:Have you personally communicated with the designer? If yes, please specify what type of communications you have had:
1. designer to Phat 2. Phat to designer 3. two way communications

Modulous writes:Stars evolve, companies evolve, music evolves.

Understanding Media writes:Pope Pius XII was deeply concerned that there be serious study of the media today. On February 17, 1950, he said:
It is not an exaggeration to say that the future of modern society and the stability of its inner life depend in large part on the maintenance of an equilibrium between the strength of the techniques of communication and the capacity of the individual's own reaction.Failure in this respect has for centuries been typical and total for mankind. Subliminal and docile acceptance of media impact has made them prisons without walls for their human users. As A. J. Liebling remarked in his book The Press, a man is not free if he cannot see where he is going, even if he has a gun to help him get there. For each of the media is also a powerful weapon with which to clobber other media and other groups.The result is that the present age has been one of multiple civil wars that are not limited to the world of art and entertainment.In War and Human Progress, Professor J. U. Nef declared: "The total wars of our time have been the result of a series of intellectual mistakes . . ."

McLuhan writes:McLuhan makes a profound distinction between percept and concept, assigning their difference to human understanding. We say one is perceptive when some thing is penetrated, extracting uncommon insight. Perception is enhanced when attuned to the 'secondary' senses, the tactile, olfactory, and acoustic.Only when all the senses are at work, can the eye see. Percepts function via the sensory world, not by concept. Percepts are participatory, involved. Percepts feel. The tribal mask for instance is sensory, and transmits subliminal energy.Concepts in contrast are detached systems that neutralize participation by explaining the world. Concepts distance us from objects by relying on the passivity of the eye. The visual unlike the tactile tends to stand back and inventory the situation from a safe distance. Concepts lead one to viewing life as the eye surveys the terrain, without involvement.To explain we generate concept after concept, and then more concepts, as we get further away from our powers of perception. These powers diminished at every step, surrendering common sense, instinct, intuition and free thinking. We become literal, deprived of participation and insight.Perception is mercurial, comes out of nowhere suddenly. It is instantaneous, boundless, and involving. Conceptualization is static, repetitive, detached, and self-enveloping. Inside the system, we are unaware of their blinding properties. Percept advances and recedes like a gestalt, with a foreground and background, attuned to depth. Concept traps meaning by concentrating only on the surface, the foreground, while substituting itself for the missing ground.Concept preempts the gestalt. It is an invisible arbiter of all things in the absence of true ground. As a kind of bogus background that fixes everything in an illusory pseudo-context, concept ultimately tricks the perceiver out of his senses. The 'play' in figure and ground is McLuhan's strategy for reversing the order of premise and conclusion, cause and effect, content and medium. We go from effect to cause, and not the other way around, by proceeding from a preconceived notion (conclusion), to get to a premise that is embedded, putting the cart before the horse.We concoct a premise from preconceptions. Likewise effects often precede causes because they have created the conditions for a new situation well in advance of the so-called causes, which are in fact a result of a long but undetected process. When we perceive something we grope for words. By introducing subtlety to such assumptions, by uttering something unusual yet plainly observable, preconceptions yield to perception. ''The medium is the message'' is more than an observation; it's a slogan for perception.Watch the invisible medium shaping what you say and think. Perceive the invisible ground by playing it off against the foreground. McLuhan's aphorisms, or probes, involve play as a tool for perception. It is a genre associated with the Logos tradition, the ancient school that utilized paradox, enigma and satire.

ramoss writes:When the I.D. proponents come up with a valid method of testing their ideas, then it can be considered. They are more interested in the politics of getting it in schools rather than the science of making it predictive and testable.

Guido, responding to ramoss writes:You say that we don't know much about evolution but you basically know nothing about Intellegent Design.

Guido,the humorous post writer writes:This is all like freeken politics. The two theory peoples are just mudslinging each other.

Jar writes:Okay so far.Then could we compare two systems?

• one that is internally self-correcting.
• one that needs constant operator involvement for correction.
  

can you say that one is a better design?

Guido,Gods precocious child writes:I personally know the designer and his name is Jesus Christ, the son of God, and God himself.
God spoke, and Jesus created.

nwr, the teacher writes:The argument isn't over whether we are designed. The argument is over whether ID is science.
However your argument, the argument for this thread, is over whether we are designed, and so far you haven't provided any persuasive evidence.

Guido the inquisitive writes: OK, well close this topic because I just got a nutso crazy wac idea that I am about to post in the proposed new topics.

Guido, off on a wild tangent writes:The concept of the following statements together cannot possibly be possible because it has logical errors. 1. There are an infinite number of universe in which each and every possible possibility has occurred. 2. We can reach those other universes. If every possibiltiy has occurred, than the possibility of someone or something destroying all the other universes from their own has occurred, and thus we cannot possibly exist. Therefore, you cannot communicate with these other universes, or they don't exist.

Jar writes:You have more than enough on your plate Guido.

Guido the honest seeker writes:I would prefer that you don't close the topic so we could continue, but if you truly wish to close it, then o well.