|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4825 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: too intelligent to actually be intelligent? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Maybe I don't understand the question. What, exactly, are you asking me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gimelnus Junior Member (Idle past 6245 days) Posts: 4 From: Little Rock Joined: |
I recently attended a lecture by Michael Shermer, editor of The Skeptic magazine and frequent writer for Scientific American. The basic content of the presentation was Creationism vs. Evolution. He raised many interesting points, but there was one thing that bothered me about his lecture. Although the topic was mentioned and discussed from several perspectives, he never really addressed the issue of the beginning of everything.
Shermer talked about Intelligent Design, and said that if it is logical to say that one can look at the earth and claim it must have been designed, then it should be just as logical to look at the intelligent designer and say that he must have been designed as well. Then, it would be equally plausible to look at the “superior designer” (the one who designed the designer) and infer that he/she, too, must have been designed by a super superior designer, and so on. The point he made was interesting, and it highlighted a question I have, as have many, struggled with. To wit, how did everything (the universe or whatever) begin? More specifically, is it logically evitable that something (whether it be God, a superior being, the universe, etc.) be eternal? Mr. Shermer mentioned the idea again when he pondered, “What was before time?” or “What did the Big Bang bang into?” He acknowledged the question, but did not provide any sort of answer. He said that these were “questions with very interesting answers,” but he did not proffer any such answers. The purpose here is not to criticize Mr. Shermer, for I realize that the question under consideration is something that has been investigated for millenia. I do not fault him for failing to provide a solution to the quintessential puzzle of life. If something cannot come from nothing, then something must be eternal. In other words, it is impossible to have a beginning. If there was a beginning, what was before that beginning? This leads us logically to the notion of eternality. Perhaps the unfortunate reality is that, at this time, we simply do not have the mental capacity to observe, comprehend, or explain this ill-defined quandary. The two options that remain are simple: 1. Continue the search, hoping to arrive at the truth, or 2. Ignore the question completely and enjoy life for what it is. I’ll leave that debate for another time. Mercurial Musings | Just another WordPress.com weblog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
When I ask someone else a question, I'll thank you to stay out of it and let the person I asked corrispond with me. And I'll thank you not to speak to me like a child. It's a public forum; I'll reply to any and all posts as I see fit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But you are the one who said, in response to my list of suboptimal design in humans:
quote: You were obviously unaware of the evolutionary explanations for the suboptimal design features I listed. If you don't want to get into a debate about the specifics of the design of human anatomy, then I suggest making fewer claims about what answers Evolutionary Biology is or isn't able to provide.
quote: You wrote, just a few posts ago in message #41:
quote: I agree that you haven't shown that an IDer is responsible for anything. So, given that there is no evidence whasoever for an IDer, and plenty of evidence showing that evolutionary forces can and do design life, upon what basis do you claim that "logic" has anything to do with your conclusion?
quote: So what? I don't have to. You are the one making the positive claim that logic points to an IDer, so you are the one that needs to support the claim.
quote: You claimed it was "logical" to come to the conclusion that "we are the result of an intelligent design that requires an external designer". When presented with examples of rather "unintelligent" design features, you say that neither ID proponents nor science knows how these features could have arisen. Additionally, you claim that the mere fact that there is a lot of life around should point to a IDer. When shown that science actually does have explanations, you pretty much refuse to discuss the subject any longer, and you completely ignore the subject of why your IDer would design so much life to become extict. Lastly, you retreat from supporting your claims by saying that we have only been discussing "opinions" and that science has nothing to do with anything. So maybe you could explain upon what evidence you base your "logical" opinion that "we are the result of an intelligent design that requires an external designer?" From where I'm standing, your opinion isn't based upon anything logical at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4825 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
....I think much of what you say is mis-information,
1/2 truths, outright lies and bias opinion. =================================================== Fossilization is rare. The odds of a single individual being fossilized are fairly low. ==================================================== While the odds are low their are still bountifulfinds on record. Their should be a multitude of creatures that went haywire not just a few. Also, what is the mechanizm that causes random mutations tomake a correct "choice" without having the ability to think. Choice requires the ability to decide which is the better to go with-hense, intelligence. IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4825 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Well I want to hear from other people.
I'm tired of hearing your rhetoric quite frankly!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
GDR writes:
Survival of the fittest doesn't mean only the organisms with the perfect characteristics survive. That's nonsense. Survival of the fittest simply means the organisms with the best available options for the given environment survive. I merely pointed out that it seems to me that if we have non-directed evolution occurring that is largely based on "survival of the fittest" then the flaws should have been bred out of us by now. For example, the human eye is an imperfect design. Compared to the octopus's eye, it's a crappy design. But obviously, I can still drive around without wearing my prescription glasses... during the day at least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Look, let's all be honest here. If there exists a super-powerful, life-creating entity that designed humans, we are talking about God (or near enough compared to humans). Given this, it doesn't matter what humans could or couldn't think up to improve the design of our bodies. God should be able to make it better because it's God.
quote: If it's God doing the designing, God could just make it better without any trade-offs.
quote: Exactly. We continue to evolve.
quote: I don't know if GDR was asking this or not.
quote: They are tradeoffs based upon existing design or based upon factors that were relevant during most of our evolution but not in modern times. This makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint. As far as I can tell, an "intelligent" designer is not a very good one, and in some cases is pretty much an asshole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
....I think much of what you say is mis-information, 1/2 truths, outright lies and bias opinion. Just telling me I'm a liar doesn't mean anything. If you believe that what I'm telling you is false, then why don't you prove it? All I'm doing here is trying to educate you, but the only reply you seem to have is "shut up", and to call me a liar, and biased, and other personal attacks. You repay my efforts by spitting in my face. I don't believe I've ever met someone as ungrateful and rude as you. Is that what you consider Christian behavior, and pleasing to God?
Their should be a multitude of creatures that went haywire not just a few. What makes you think there's just a few? I mean, how many fossils have you gone out to look at, anyway?
Also, what is the mechanizm that causes random mutations to make a correct "choice" without having the ability to think. Who said anything about "choice"? Once again you've confused mutation and selection. Mutation happens at random, with no regard to environment. The results of mutations are good sometimes, and bad other times. It's literally random. The results of selection are anything but random. Natural selection rewards individuals with good mutations with survival, and causes individuals with bad mutations to die. That's the "choice"; it's the environment "choosing" individuals to live and die, based on how their individual traits give them advantages in the environment over each other. Make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm tired of hearing your rhetoric quite frankly! You know what would really shut me up? Proving me wrong by responding to rebuttals and introducing new evidence. I don't get you, IC. You're the one who sent all those emails to me, begging me to debate you, and now that we are you're telling me to shut up and that you don't want to hear from me. What's wrong with you, exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Well, you certainly did hear from me But I guess I'm not worth responding to, either. Hrmph! Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No. There could be an Intelligent Designer. If there is, though, He pretty much sucks.
quote: So, what you seem to be saying is: "If a design is perfect, that is evidence for an Intelligent Designer." and "If a design is flawed, that is evidence against Evolution." Well, that's a pretty much iron-clad, unfalsifiable hypothesis, GDR! I strongly, strongly, STRONGLY suggest you read Gould's The Panda's Peculiar Thumb here. It is easily the most famous Evolutionary Biology essay and is all about how "flaws" and "imperfections" are signs of evolution. It will help you clear up your drastic misunderstanding of how evolution works that you have just demonstrated in the statement above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nator writes: If you don't want to get into a debate about the specifics of the design of human anatomy, then I suggest making fewer claims about what answers Evolutionary Biology is or isn't able to provide. I'm not questioning the answers that evolutionary biology provide except when the answers are in reality philosophical or theological and not scientific.
nator writes: I agree that you haven't shown that an IDer is responsible for anything. I agree that scientifically I have not shown anything. I did say that I have come to the conclusion that an intelligent designer is a more logical conclusion than is a universe that just happened without any an intelligent designer. I have never suggested that it is scientific so I cannot show or prove it to be true.
nator writes: So, given that there is no evidence whasoever for an IDer, and plenty of evidence showing that evolutionary forces can and do design life, upon what basis do you claim that "logic" has anything to do with your conclusion? Because there is something rather than nothing.Because of the complexity of all life. Because of the complexity of our world and the universe. Because I have consciousness. Because I have self awareness. Because we have a moral code. Because love exists. Etc. You see the same things and come to a different conclusion. I see evolutionary forces as part of the design but I don't see them creating the first cell, and although you may come up with a theory of how the first cell was formed I would suggest that there is no empirical method of proving it, just as there is no empirical method of proving my conclusion. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2958 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Parasomnium writes:
Not to nitpick (and nothing to do with my misspelling ) but seastars, like all good deuterostomes (echinoderms, chordates, and a few others) have a complete digestive system with a mouth on the oral surface and an anus on the aboral surface. My starfish beats your Pleco, because its mouth is its bottom. Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Well, you want to hear from others.
It is obvious to anyone who even just casually peruses the relevant literature that the resulting 'design' of living organisms is based upon the history of that said organism, not on the micromanagement of any supposed deity. Otherwise, such designs would be optimal as opposed to jerry-rigged, as is observed in nature. Don't get mad, get educated! Edited by anglagard, : signature Light things float and heavy things sink - any unbiased kindergardner The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God -Spinoza
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024