Constantly designed baramins and the evolving food chain

Brad, we were told off by the admin, so here's the offshoot concerning baramins and the evolving food chain which fits the evidence and removes the ToE.All the transitionals from the fossils are simply evidence that the food chain has evolved to be kept. Rather than mutation answering for improvements into niches, positions are assigned to baramins via supernatural design and creation, ex nihilo for all of time.However, we do see species die off, and we know that they weren't fit enough. It might look like they evolved, but what if evolution is infact based on the food chain? We see that the chain is needed for the circle of life. So if an important species dies off - the 'transitionals" would infact be the designer making improvements on the previous model. This would show an active creator, keen to the task. It would mean that the food chain evolves, but mutations via natural fantasy, would not be the case.Homo ergaster to homo sapien? No, but rather, the necessary entities in their assigned parameters untill God creates man ex nihilo as his intended and seperate spirit being of the earth.So species would be all creations. Some left to adapt within baramin standardization parameter possibilities. But then, the big changes would be a new design. We didn't evolve, we are all baramins. It just depends on how much God leaves the baramin to adapt, and when it dies out, there is the design via the new baramin!So the food chain would be that which evolves!!!!! Oh the irony! That all the evidence leads the scientists to evolving organisms but not an evolving YET fundamental and constant necessity and system called the food chain.Standard baramins would be left to adapt untill death. This means no rules, but that you think niche bahaviour is possible. But really bahaviour = assigned niche. Thus we see evolution, we really do, but not of animals via natural means, but evolution of the food chain, which would show the same evidence.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-12-2005 03:19 PM

Hey Phat, this should go in ID no question. There's no problems with it. I think many will understand what I mean. That evolution of species is indistinguishable from evolution of the food chain. The evidence favours both. But Phatboy good buddy, does it matter? I think their job and hobby is to refute this kind of topic. I enjoy it, they enjoy it, why not let us get on with it? I think they will give it some thought as I did, then refute it or try. If you open the topic I'll clarify anything you don't understand. I'm razor sharp today as well. OK Mikey...I'll remember what you said. Off to I.D. with you then.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-13-2005 06:00 AM

Thanks. I desire refutations from Hambre, lil miss Shraffy, Crashfrog, and clever Dan.

Because of the degenerating world. In the beginning it was good, but not now.Probably poorly designed human chairs for your back(sitting at the internet) and bad food for your teeth, not recommended by bible God. Don't eat any animals and sugar or have ANY sexual activity for fifteen years sayeth omni-mike. That means no more Eliza dvds, or you'll go blind.

Oh that was just a recommendation from omni mike, I was making suggestions for you. While that was amusing, the difference is that an ass wart isn't a conscious designer. I can show you a definition of God if you want, but basically he's defined as the creator of all life, but I didn't find this definition for ass warts.

"Goddidit" is the biggest strawman, and it gets used on me verytime. Infact it's a distraction from the true fact that an evolving food chain, where God IS a necessary entity, is indistinguishable from natural evolution, where God isn't needed, because the evidence is the same.I ask, just why should I believe in evolving organisms instead of an evolving food chain? Have you an instance of no food chain? Remember, my premise is that every animal would be in place from the beginning. Exactly. It's a belief - that we either came naturally, or that all the design we see, is infact design by the designer. But why? Let's say that all the transitionals are a result of the designer modifying unsuccesful species, in order to keep the circle of life going? It's logical because then each organism will have a purpose. It's the same as the other circles in nature, circles work best, and to keep life going, God would surely have to keep the chain going, would he not? Otherwise a decrease in his intended organisms would happen, and less abundance.If many critters die then there would be a cambrian explosion of God's design.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-13-2005 06:17 PM

I didn't state that "Goddidit". It's an attempt by you to simplify every statement I make. WHy not just take it as written?It's not obtuse. Indeed, for starters a designer, doesn't open the gates for any specific deity. The fact that I have made a detailed hypothesis of consciousness means that my argument is complicated, and based on what I argue MUST be design and purpose in systems. I have at no time stated something as simple as "Goddidit" without a thorough philosophical argument as tp why he is the necessary entity within the principle of parsimony.How about reading my statement again. Food chain = an active designer, evolution = no extra entity needed. But if we look at the fossils as a mass grave then the flood accounts for this. Are you assuming that I would leave that possibility out if I say, " Remember, my premise is that every animal would be in place from the beginning. "?If you want to believe everything a ID creationist says is "Goddidit" then that's up to you. However, the evidence is just as much for an evolving food chain as it is organisms.Edit; To say the argument for the ToE is that "naturedidit" would be dishonest. The conclusion isn't the argument.If I found blood on a monkey, a hammer with it's prints on, and a catalogue of violent behaviour by the particular monkey, then the conclusion of "themonkeydidit" implies that's all there is to the argument.It's dishonest, because all of the information I have provided makes me infer a designer. My argument isn't "Goddidit" but one can conclude he did if it is a valid and most logical conclusion.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-14-2005 06:57 AM

I refer to the flood as one catastrophy, but I think the "order" of transitionals is man-made circular.There would be a pre-flood chain, but I wouldn't look at the uniformitarianism outlook pertaining to it. He answers for the information present, rather than the mutational saga taken as truth. Infact, he's the only possibility according to the principle, if looked at from a perspective of purposeful functions in systems, and complexity and designs in nature.Loudmouth (in another thread) mentioned the avatar he has as a chance design, but this is not what is meant by design for me. If a Michaelangelo Carravagio appears in the clouds then that will be chance producing a design.How can we tell my avatar is designed if there are no brush strokes? Leanardo Davinci left none on his work, I suppose they could have happened by chance.How can anyone think Monk's lil rapid baba is chance?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-14-2005 07:53 AM

Dan, will take part when I can. Maybe late today.WK.DaVinci, it is known that his works you find no brush strokes on some. Van Gogh, brushstrokes everywhere, but then, that could just be a natural anomoly and those works made themselves. However, it seems "designerdidit" is a good explanation.All this means that if you found one of these paintings in a field, could you establish it was a design? I suppose one would conclude it was chance, like say an infinitly more brilliant design, like monk's baba.I've never actually seen chance produce a painting though, or something as obviously designed as the Sistine chapel ceiling fresco. I can tell even hundreds of years later that someone must have created it, and that it didn't paint itself, like people would have me believe? Oops, "designerdidit" again, I really shouldn't do that. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-14-2005 01:19 PM

I'm talking about assigned niches. They may well be left open, but as I said, there are no rules for the designer. It's
likely that the assigned time for replacement baramins would consequently take place. What does the lion eat? What does the Zebra eat? I suggest they're all here to, as you said multiply. However, they
have that goal because of the food chain. Why are there cows? To multiply or to farm? Why are there any animals?
We say so much death in the fossils, yet replacement also. WHy/? I suggest the outside influence is so clever that
an appearance of "self-sufficiency" is apparent, and to some extent, true.But with the ToE, as you said - no outside influence is involved in life, combined with abiogenesis fantasy = trying to
get rid of the most logical conclusion, a designer. 1. Thanks for the compliment of "This is about the most weird suggestion I've heard on EvC." . God is necessary because when catastrophes happen, replacement baramins are needed. Like when the dinos went.2. is an appeal to authority, Biologists aren't interested in a designer hypothesis, so they just collect facts but they're poor story makers, no offense.

Thanks for the interesting post Brad, you quoted;now we meet with purposive arrangements in the world and, as reason inevitable requires, subordinate the purposes that are only conditioned to an unconditioned, supreme, i.e. final, purpose, then we easily see in the first place that we are thus concerned, not with a puroose of nature (internal to itself), so far as it exists, but with a purpose of its existence along with all its ordinances.....which is good stuff. Did you go and see if the Bariminologists were interested? I think a better name than the food chain is some kind of intended harmonious correlation of organisms. A chain is a quick term I used,. and I am aware of the ecology pertaining to individual strings so I think it is complex.A look at assigned niches and behaviour would show whether I was talking giberish or whether the natural "harmonious chain of baramins"[insert articulation] is infact in place.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-19-2005 05:59 PM

Maybe harmony is the wrong word. I'm finding it hard to find an articulation of my thoughts at the moment. I can say that as I firstly said, the transitionals do show the baramins. There IS an big food chain IMHO, but its just a bit "more" than just a food chain, in that there must and surely is a whole plan pertaining to what species are on earth at any time.

Shraff, name the fallacy then. So you only come to a conclusion he doesn't exist because of your ignorance? An argument from ignorance?But those evidences you call "transitionals" could be said to be many designed proves of the ultimate truths.I think the absolute nature and truth of designer information in DNA is irrefutable anyway. You miss the point, which is a logical one I thought you might apreciate. The point is that, we know they were designed (the paintings), but a man in a field in a thousand years doesn't and might come to the conclusion that they happened randomly (like you).Hey lil miss Shraffy - Brad likes it. Hah! Time to get your food chain baramin studies in biology. "wiz biology". Lmao.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-19-2005 07:20 PM

No worries Brad, I'm glad of your interest, I feel you know a lot more than me, and I do have wild creative ideas. I had a "hunch" you might like this, as you Americanos say, "a hunch".

Have you tried some cream on it? I have a bump on my knee.(back when I can)This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-22-2005 09:42 AM