When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

"Your quote never once mentions the word "silicon". Now you're even imagining words that aren't there."ARTICLE, you stupid wanker, ARTICLE. Not quote! You have to actually read the articles!! I can't sit here and teach you every new word, now can I??Are you the new surrogate babysitter for Granny now? What, Dr. A was busy? If you are going to argue for her too, you ought to do a little better job.

And yet YOU believe that natural selection chose those (foolishly in your opinion) whose ribs didn't have the support, over those that did, and thus caused us to sag.I wonder why natural selection chose the inferior design.

First, there is no primary proponents of "intelligent design". There are simply many types of people who happen to feel that, given the incredible synchronicity of so many aspects of living things, and the utter lack of evidence for giant pools of advantageous mutations to select for and shape a vast amount of body plans, as well as the insufficient explanations in science for how to "build" a complex machine which is dependent of so many parts working in unison, many of which need to come into existence in tandem (if tandem means two, we need a more powerful word for groupings of hundreds, thousands of things appearing simultaneously) in order to function at all; that ultimately an un-intelligent origin for such a complex system just makes no sense at all.That's a pretty reasonable conclusion I would contend, and it is why at least 50% of all Americans also happen to feel something similar-this despite being told their entire educational life that this is not the case-that only naturalistic causes can explain everything.Secondly, you propose a lot of "what ifs". So do you believe that "what ifs" are a suitable tool for drawing some possible conclusions about the world, or are "what ifs" only acceptable tools if the people using them claim they are believers in science?

What is the shape of a thought molecule?

Well, just ONE of the problems with this network theory of evolution is how did the network come to be? Before you can get a network, you first need a population. So how did that happen?Of course that's just one of the many problems with telling a just so story such as the article does, because there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support this idea that all the variations already exist in the population, and then a combination becomes useful.Secondly, everything else you wrote seems the product of a mind addled by PTSD or acute syphilitic brain damage-so forgive me if I cross you off the list of possible sources of new knowledge.

So are you saying that an unsupported rib cage is BETTER than a supported ones for humans are not? You'all can make up your minds. Edited by Bolder-dash, : for simplicity

Grammar is for sissies, or those who lack imagination.Which is yous? Edited by Bolder-dash, : Its more funnily

Let's go with sissy then?

Well, if the tea had actually started a gas stove, and then began boiling a kettle of water, and then watched the kettle of water to decide when the exact right temperature had been reached, and then placed itself into a cup and saucer, and then slowly poured the hot water all over itself (twice to clean off any impurities first), and THEN fit itself into the size of the cup it put itself in, and then signaled to someone that it was ready for drinking, then your analogy would be ever so slightly closer to being comparable to the brain fitting exactly inside a skull. You are still in school, correct? Is there a possibility you can get a refund?No one should ever have to answer this silly question. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

I disagree with you, his response was well worded and thought out, and answered a lot.Now, does the fact that TWO people believe his ideas are valid make them more worthwhile? Because that is basically the technique that every evolutionist uses on this site. One guy says something however unsubstantiated,, and then 3 other evolutionists chime in that, "Hey, yea he is right, you don't know what you are talking about.."..and then that claim that because everybody agrees, they must be correct.Because all you have done with your post is to try to jump on a bandwagon, while saying nothing. That is not a fair debate.

Bluejay, the primary reason I did not respond to this post is simply because I don't believe it is not grounded in anything true, so the most I would be able to say is essentially, 'That's not true."For instance: As far as I am concerned this is simply not true at all.The theory of evolution most certainly does try explain every one of these aspects of life. if you know of another alternative theory that is attempting to answer how and why these things in lfe are the way they are, please cite those theories. I would be very curious to see how they are separate from the ToE. Again, just not true. The ToE is meant to deal with what mechanisms lead to that fitness. If it wasn't meant to deal with this, than Lamarck-ism would be just as compatible with your theory as would Darwinism. Likewise a divine intervention controlling those mechanisms would fit your theory just as well also.So all I can say is I don't agree that what you are saying it true. What are these other theories that deal with the finer details?

I thought before the Big Bang there was no time, so in order for the Big Bang to use this general relativity of spacetime there would need to be time. But since there was none, so how could it begin to use it?

I say that the question of the non-materialistic world can not be answered because you are using the wrong language.If one asks what causes supernatural phenomenon, I just say-"that is just the way it is"I say "It isn't "like" anything and everytime we try to get around that with analogies people end up more confused when the analogy breaks - as it must. "I mean "Let's face it we can't satisfactorily describe samsara in prose, and unless the questioner is prepared to learn the only language in which the answer makes sense (or is even coherent) - the language of a clear mind- then they are asking a question with no hope of understanding the answer. "I say "Don't whine because you can't understand Suddhavasa worlds and then crow because an attempt to analogise it to you results in the nonsense of a dead/alive cat which you think shows it is wrong....It isn't." !!

When did I say they were?I said if you don't have time, how can you begin a Big Bang?By the way, it is you using our language, to say that something came into being from non-being.

Can your squiggles say how something came into being from not being? Can it predict when it will once again return to not being?