Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2018 12:16 AM
199 online now:
LamarkNewAge (1 member, 198 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,752 Year: 13,575/29,783 Month: 1,021/1,576 Week: 233/303 Day: 1/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Have complex human-made things been designed?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 46 of 85 (481023)
09-08-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by AlphaOmegakid
09-07-2008 5:28 PM


Complex human made gods.
AOkid writes:

You assume that we invented God.

I said we invent gods. Do you disagree?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-07-2008 5:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-08-2008 4:56 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 771 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 47 of 85 (481032)
09-08-2008 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by bluegenes
09-08-2008 3:37 PM


Re: Complex human made gods.
bluegenes writes:

I said we invent gods. Do you disagree?

Absolutely, we have invented small "g" gods. But I disagree that we have invented the large "G" God. He invented us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 09-08-2008 3:37 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 09-08-2008 10:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 593 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 85 (481070)
09-08-2008 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid
09-08-2008 4:56 PM


Re: Complex human made gods.
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.

AOkid writes:

Absolutely, we have invented small "g" gods. But I disagree that we have invented the large "G" God. He invented us.

I agree with you.

But, it's interesting to note that our concept of God has "evolved" over time, just as our technological concepts have "evolved" over time. For instance, did you know that the Old Testament Hebrews did not believe in heaven or a resurrection until they were taken into Babylon? After this is when the ideas of a glorious afterlife began to surface in the Hebrews. It's curious (and somewhat suspicious) to note that the Babylonians did believe in an afterlife, and that, after the Israelites came in contact with the Babylonians, they believed in an afterlife, too.

Here is a source for this, but it isn't the source that first introduced this idea to me (which is a Mormon source and isn't online, so I'll leave it off in an effort to remain non-partisan). I have not actually read this online source completely yet (I've read to the section called "A Transformed Cosmos").

It's interesting to me that religion has followed much the same pattern as all other technological and cultural paradigms: it has "evolved" from other, pre-existing paradigms. To me, this suggests that design (the concept, not the individual object or project) also follows an "evolutionary" pattern.

-----

On a side note, this shouldn't cause you to lose your faith in religion, though: just as science is getting closer and closer to learning the truth about nature, so could religion be getting closer and closer to learning the truth about the divine. Of course, this mindset only works if you don't ally yourself to a sect that refuses to allow change of any sort.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-08-2008 4:56 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by bluegenes, posted 09-09-2008 4:10 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 50 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-09-2008 10:12 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 49 of 85 (481085)
09-09-2008 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
09-08-2008 10:55 PM


Analogies !
Bluejay writes:

AOkid writes:

Absolutely, we have invented small "g" gods. But I disagree that we have invented the large "G" God. He invented us.

I agree with you.

But do the two of you believe in the same God/god? :)

Bluejay writes:

It's interesting to me that religion has followed much the same pattern as all other technological and cultural paradigms: it has "evolved" from other, pre-existing paradigms. To me, this suggests that design (the concept, not the individual object or project) also follows an "evolutionary" pattern.

You've brought us neatly back on topic there. I agree, the design does follow an evolutionary pattern. So much so that successful gods are like successful prototypes in biology, and they will diversify and branch out. The Abrahamic god (seen here with a small "g" Alpha ;)) is like the original cat ancestor of all cats. Judaism might be whichever modern cat is closest to the prototype, Christianity and Islam encompassing the rest, with Islam as a specific sub-group, like the big roarers, and so on.

So these Abrahamic gods do fit both the pattern of human invention described in the O.P. and the branching tree of biological evolution.

Bluejay writes:

On a side note, this shouldn't cause you to lose your faith in religion, though: just as science is getting closer and closer to learning the truth about nature, so could religion be getting closer and closer to learning the truth about the divine.

Unfortunately for this view, religion doesn't fit the pattern of science, which, when there are divisions of opinion, will always eventually unite in the direction of the evidence. Large successful religions result in continuous branching, and your Mormonism obviously illustrates this. A recent branch and an obviously viable species, it is already successful enough to be spawning sub-species within itself.

One way in which religion and other human inventions differ from biology is perhaps that "abiogenesis" equivalents are more common, and "hopeful monster" leaps are much more common. Scientology is arguably the former, and the births of Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism, the latter. Analogies, of course, can be taken too far :rolleyes:!

It's curious (and somewhat suspicious) to note that the Babylonians did believe in an afterlife, and that, after the Israelites came in contact with the Babylonians, they believed in an afterlife, too.

Belief in the soul and some sort of "afterlife" is the one basic religious belief that seems to exist in all known cultures, so it seems unlikely that the Israelites were an exception, don't you agree? I think that if we had a time machine and could go back to any point in the history of our species that we could find this kind of belief, but I don't know if I could present evidence for this.

One line might be that Neanderthal have been found buried with possessions, and that current thinking puts our common ancestry with them at about 600,000 years! Such developments could be biological and/or cultural convergence, or even, fascinatingly, cross-species cultural influence, though. If not, religion, with or without gods, may have existed in our non Homo Sapiens ancestry. Interesting, but only on topic if religions are "complex human made things", which I think modern ones are. When complex, they are products of both "design" and "evolution of design". But their simple base, the tendency to invent and design them, is in non-designed biological evolution somewhere, IMO, whether as something that was directly selected for, or byproduct, or a bit of both (+ drift?).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 09-08-2008 10:55 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-09-2008 11:58 AM bluegenes has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 771 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 50 of 85 (481091)
09-09-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
09-08-2008 10:55 PM


Re: Complex human made gods.
bluejay writes:

But, it's interesting to note that our concept of God has "evolved" over time, just as our technological concepts have "evolved" over time. For instance, did you know that the Old Testament Hebrews did not believe in heaven or a resurrection until they were taken into Babylon? After this is when the ideas of a glorious afterlife began to surface in the Hebrews. It's curious (and somewhat suspicious) to note that the Babylonians did believe in an afterlife, and that, after the Israelites came in contact with the Babylonians, they believed in an afterlife, too.

I agree with you also, however, my agreement is very limited. Our ideas do "evolve" over time. And those ideas are downward and erroneous evolution, just like the evolution we observe in nature.

My father gave me some great words of wisdom as I was growing up. He would say to me, "Believe only about one third of what you read, and about one half of what you see." I am a much greater skeptic than most in this forum. As far as doctrines, I study multiple sides rather than just accepting the one I "grew up" within. As far as science is concerned, the evidence and the observations I accept as real and valid. It is the "suggestions" of those obsevations or the interpretations of those observations that I have a problems with.

Having said all of that, your source for the Babylonians being the first to have a concept of heaven and an afterlife are just plain wrong. If you had consulted the Bible first rather than man's evolved thoughts you would know this.

In Gen 1 the Hebrews are introduced to God who creates the heaven(s). In this chapter the Hebrews are introduced to the concept of eternality, soul, body, and spirit. The dwelling place of God is established from many early scriptures, but it is referred to as "heaven" in the context of the heaven beyond the earths atmosphere (heaven). If you want citations, I can provide plenty. In Genesis the Hebrews are also introduced to the concept of death... the end of life and how and why it enterred the earth.

The Hebrews became a nation with the Exodus from Egypt. Shortly after this God introduced them to two books. One was the book of the law which has many reference in the OT. The other is a book that God was writing. The Book of Life.....

Exo 32:30-33 writes:

30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.
31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Now even though it is not directly referred to as "the book of life", it is clearly understood by the Hebrews as that. David later writes in the Psalms:

Psa 69:27-29 writes:

27 Add iniquity to their iniquity, And may they not come into Your righteousness.
28 May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded with the righteous.
29 But I am afflicted and in pain; May Your salvation, O God, set me securely on high.

The concept of salvation was introduced in Genesis 49. The word is yeshua...Jesus.

The concept of the entertwinement of spirit/soul/life are well founded in the Torah.

And finally, in Ecc 12 Solomon refers to our bodies returning to dust and the spirit returning to God. He also refers to our eternal dwelling.

All of this is well before the Babylonians, so I would think that just maybe, the Babylonians copied their ideas from the Hebrews...???

Now that you have more evidence on this, what do you think?

bluejay writes:

It's interesting to me that religion has followed much the same pattern as all other technological and cultural paradigms: it has "evolved" from other, pre-existing paradigms. To me, this suggests that design (the concept, not the individual object or project) also follows an "evolutionary" pattern.

Again, I agree if you are talking about religion in general. However, I believe that the biblical faith is unique in that it is the first to present a single all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent creating God. And it is God doing the presenting through the ages with over 3500 years of documented history as well as 40 writers from just about every walk of life. There is no other religion that compares.

bluejay writes:

On a side note, this shouldn't cause you to lose your faith in religion, though: just as science is getting closer and closer to learning the truth about nature, so could religion be getting closer and closer to learning the truth about the divine. Of course, this mindset only works if you don't ally yourself to a sect that refuses to allow change of any sort.

Well your erroneous source certainly isn't going to erdode my faith. The truth is ever changing and ever eluding in science. It isn't with God or nature for that matter. I believe science does lead us to the truth of God and nature. I also believe we will find this truth quicker if we rely on the source of truth, logic, and widom in the first place. That's what creation scientists do.

I don't know why you think biblical creationists are not unchanging in their beliefs and understandings. Mine sure have over the years. I used to be an OEC. It is the truths of God (and of nature) that are unchanging. My understandings of both faith and science are just a part of my journey while growing in the faith an knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 09-08-2008 10:55 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 771 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 51 of 85 (481107)
09-09-2008 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by bluegenes
09-09-2008 4:10 AM


Bad Analogies !
bluegenes writes:

You've brought us neatly back on topic there. I agree, the design does follow an evolutionary pattern....

I am going to show you the problem with you analogy in this one sentence. Your analogy works only if there is an intelligent designer. If there is an intelligent designer then your analogy makes sense.

However, you don't, nor does science believe that there is an intelligent designer. There is no design in evolution. Zilch, nada.
Organisms aren't designed. They are randomly generated by nature.
Many have written that organisms have the "appearance" or the "illusion" of being designed. Herein lies the magic. It is the illusion of design that comes from the slight of hand of millions of years. There is no magic with the designer. Only the evolutionist.

Emmergence is the "poof" of evolution. There is no "poof" with a designed product. The product is produced according to a designed plan of pre-existing elements. Emergence is the "poof" of millions of years and spontaneous generation.

bluegenes writes:

Unfortunately for this view, religion doesn't fit the pattern of science, which, when there are divisions of opinion, will always eventually unite in the direction of the evidence.

This is only true for the non- religious elements. With the religious, even though scientific evidence may show one thing, they will still believe their religious convictions irregardless of the evidence. Note: this doesn't mean the religion is false. Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation has never died even though it was disproved 150 years ago. It is a religious default philosophy in light of the discovery of the law of biogenesis.

bluegenes writes:

Belief in the soul and some sort of "afterlife" is the one basic religious belief that seems to exist in all known cultures, so it seems unlikely that the Israelites were an exception, don't you agree? I think that if we had a time machine and could go back to any point in the history of our species that we could find this kind of belief, but I don't know if I could present evidence for this.

Of course, because the Bible must be discredited as evidence, because it is the only recorded history back to the beginning when the concepts of body soul and spirit first originated and are well documented in the book.

No the Israelites were not the first to understand immortality. Adam understood it very well until he wasn't allowed to eat from the tree of life any longer. But this is just mythological fables, and it cannot be allowed as evidence.:rolleyes:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by bluegenes, posted 09-09-2008 4:10 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by bluescat48, posted 09-09-2008 12:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 09-09-2008 2:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 52 of 85 (481109)
09-09-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid
09-09-2008 11:58 AM


Re: Bad Analogies !
Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation has never died even though it was disproved 150 years ago. It is a religious default philosophy in light of the discovery of the law of biogenesis.

What does it take to get it through your head that spontaneous generation & abiogenisis are not the same thing. Spontaneous generation implied that one substance ie. rotting meat became maggots. Abiogenisis is life coming from organic & inorganic chemical substances coming together with the help of catalists such as lightning, ultraviolet radiation & nuclear radiation.

as for the creationist view what is more abiogenetic than "God said...

Edited by bluescat48, : spelling and added line.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-09-2008 11:58 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AdminNosy, posted 09-09-2008 12:39 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 54 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-09-2008 1:49 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 53 of 85 (481113)
09-09-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by bluescat48
09-09-2008 12:11 PM


Topic Warning!
This is not the topic of the thread. Not even close. Please stay to the topic.

Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by bluescat48, posted 09-09-2008 12:11 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 771 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 54 of 85 (481119)
09-09-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by bluescat48
09-09-2008 12:11 PM


Re: Bad Analogies !
bluescat48 writes:

Abiogenisis is life coming from organic & inorganic chemical substances coming together with the help of catalists such as lightning, ultraviolet radiation & nuclear radiation.

What does it take to get through your head that "life coming from organic & inorganic chemical substances coming together with the help of catalists such as lightning, ultraviolet radiation & nuclear radiation." is exactly the same thing. It is the concept that chemicals can spontaneously organize (generate)to create life. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of microbial life, not maggots. Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are synonyms. There is no discernable difference that you can show.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by bluescat48, posted 09-09-2008 12:11 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-09-2008 1:50 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 56 by AdminNosy, posted 09-09-2008 1:50 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 771 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 55 of 85 (481120)
09-09-2008 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by AlphaOmegakid
09-09-2008 1:49 PM


sorry nosyned
Sorry, I didn't see your post until after I replied. It won't be discussed further.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-09-2008 1:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 56 of 85 (481121)
09-09-2008 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by AlphaOmegakid
09-09-2008 1:49 PM


The topic
The topic is human made things. Please stick to that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-09-2008 1:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by bluegenes, posted 09-09-2008 2:15 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 57 of 85 (481124)
09-09-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid
09-09-2008 11:58 AM


Re: Bad Analogies !
AOkid writes:

I am going to show you the problem with you analogy in this one sentence. Your analogy works only if there is an intelligent designer. If there is an intelligent designer then your analogy makes sense.

Analogies tend to have varying degrees of quality, rather than being right or wrong, so your title description of my analogy being bad would be more appropriate than saying it doesn't make sense. If there were intelligent designers of biology who, as individuals, designed bits and parts life on earth in a scatty way, with none of them having an overall plan, then my analogy might be even more fitting.

The thing is that, although we invent gods and they undergo numerous modifications due to individuals redesigning, no one designer has any overall picture of the ways that the gods will evolve, so the end effect is very similar to the apparently directionless view of biological evolution that you object to so strongly. The other similarity is the branching, so that if you start off with one original Christian god, his success as a prototype means that he speciates regularly, filling in numerous cultural niches, and 2000 years later there are the innumerable different Christian gods of innumerable sects and differing theological interpretations within sects.

So although gods are the product of "intelligent designers", human beings, there is no overall comprehension or understanding in the process. St. Paul didn't know his god would transform into that of the Jehovah's Witnesses along one of its many future evolutionary twigs, or that an earlier branching would produce Allah and his many branches and twigs.

In fact, to compromise, gods could be seen as examples of the evolution of unintelligent design. :)

AOkid writes:

However, you don't, nor does science believe that there is an intelligent designer. There is no design in evolution. Zilch, nada.

Science is not a conscious entity, and has no beliefs on that subject or any other. It has a method that requires evidence to work on, and I see no reason why it couldn't study intelligent designers of biology once presented with evidence for them. Indeed, we can study intelligent modifiers of life that we do have evidence for, and that's ourselves as animal and plant breeders, and recently as more direct genetic modifiers. No problem.

So, if there are other intelligent designers involved in life on earth, they are not ignored on principle, but because of lack of evidence for them, direct or indirect.

Organisms aren't designed. They are randomly generated by nature.

So it appears, but that depends how you use the word "design". After all, in the English language, nature has been known to abhor, love, hate, choose, and select, so there's no reason why she shouldn't design. So we could say nature produces designs at random and selects designs that work.

And of course, it could all be happening with intent. The universe could have been created by a team of nine goddesses in the knowledge that its nature would lead to such processes as abiogenesis and evolution on certain planets, and that would give them pretty gardens to look at. Who knows? There are infinite such possibilities, and you're wrong if you think science in some way rules them out.

AOkid writes:

Many have written that organisms have the "appearance" or the "illusion" of being designed. Herein lies the magic. It is the illusion of design that comes from the slight of hand of millions of years. There is no magic with the designer. Only the evolutionist.

Emmergence is the "poof" of evolution. There is no "poof" with a designed product. The product is produced according to a designed plan of pre-existing elements. Emergence is the "poof" of millions of years and spontaneous generation.

Magic? The mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory can be observed in action, and they could certainly give an appearence of intentional design, because nature tends to select any chance mechanism that works, so it can appear to have been deliberately designed for its function, although close inspection can show rather odd or clumsy routes to problem solving. And aren't there a few "poofs" at the beginning of your magic book?

This is only true for the non- religious elements. With the religious, even though scientific evidence may show one thing, they will still believe their religious convictions irregardless of the evidence. Note: this doesn't mean the religion is false. Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation has never died even though it was disproved 150 years ago. It is a religious default philosophy in light of the discovery of the law of biogenesis.

You could describe what was known about the early earth 150 years ago in three words like "very little or nothing". :) I've explained to you before that Pasteur was only demonstrating that some of the claims used to back up the idea of extant life forms appearing spontaneously from non-living matter were false. Read up on his experiments, and you'll see that none relate to the first origin of life itself.

Life started at some point in space time, so that means abiogenesis, whether supernatural beings like my nine goddesses were actively involved in the process or not.

Can we describe you as an eternal life-young earth creationist?! It's a lovely oxymoron.

You seem to find it bizarre that life, made from chemicals, should come from non-living chemicals via chemical reactions, a view involving nothing but common phenomena well known to exist (chemicals and chemical reactions). There's no evidence for my nine goddesses, which is why they're not included in any of the current hypotheses, along with the rest of the infinite supernatural possibilities we could unintelligently invent (and then evolve via further unintelligent design :)).

AOkid writes:

Of course, because the Bible must be discredited as evidence, because it is the only recorded history back to the beginning when the concepts of body soul and spirit first originated and are well documented in the book.

No the Israelites were not the first to understand immortality. Adam understood it very well until he wasn't allowed to eat from the tree of life any longer. But this is just mythological fables, and it cannot be allowed as evidence.

That's a great last sentence, and I agree entirely. ;) All creation mythologies of all cultures should be treated as mythologies, just like non-creation mythologies. There may have been a King or Kings on whom Arthur was based, but we'd be superstitious fools to really believe that one of them had a magic sword, wouldn't we?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-09-2008 11:58 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 58 of 85 (481125)
09-09-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by AdminNosy
09-09-2008 1:50 PM


Re: The topic
Ned writes:

The topic is human made things. Please stick to that.

I didn't read beyond the post I'm replying to, but I'm counting gods as human made things and discussing their design, so half of the above post is on topic, at least!

Edited by bluegenes, : trivia


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by AdminNosy, posted 09-09-2008 1:50 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 59 of 85 (503246)
03-17-2009 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 11:43 AM


Re: many errors in your comments
But windows didn't "appear". It was designed and produced in many steps. It did not emerge. There is a big difference in the two concepts.

Certainly.Those guys are just too stupid to think that those things just emerged.They used complex reasoning with idiotness.hahaha.

I think you just jumped off the cliff. Every new invention, patent, or production process has "never existed before". And these invention, patents, and processes are all done by individuals or groups of human beings.

So true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 11:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4495
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 60 of 85 (512315)
06-16-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by andorg
09-02-2008 8:09 AM


All inventions in the world are actually very small steps based on something that already exists. No invention can create something much more complex than currently existing.

So the conclusion is that all human-made complex things have been evolved and not designed.

And if it is true from human-made complex things - why should it be wrong for the natural complex things (the living organisms)?

Would you go as far as suggesting that the word "design" be dropped from the English language?

Would that make the anti-IDers feel secure in assuring the supremacy of the word "evolve" ?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by andorg, posted 09-02-2008 8:09 AM andorg has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018