Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another "New" View of Creation
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4746 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 10 of 64 (515580)
07-19-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Will Seamus Ennis
07-19-2009 10:01 AM


Intelligence = Unitelligence
and in one of those 'inspirational moments' I responded. "My favorite creation story only has three words:
...It's still happening."
Even though I never saw the young man again, the words have had significant impact on me and my views.
Wow! Even though I never saw the young man at all I'm inspired by my own use of "Wow" just now.
It looks to me that I need to define what I mean by "intelligence."
You've just defined intelligence as having an inability to not fall into a hole. Blind adherence to environment is not exactly one of the better definitions of intelligence. A really intelligent lamb would have the good sense to be a wolf every once in a while.
without addressing the personal biases.
As some of the personal biases likely include things like reason I'm thinking you should.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-19-2009 10:01 AM Will Seamus Ennis has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4746 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 15 of 64 (515611)
07-19-2009 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Will Seamus Ennis
07-19-2009 4:42 PM


For Me?
For me, they are synonymous.
For me chocolate ice cream is white and flavored with vanilla.
For me the speed of a car is measured in calcium acetate.
For me yellow is the tensile strength of oxygen.
For me Rasputin is a Bolivian folk dance.
How is one supposed to have meaning if one can define anything as it pleases them to do?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-19-2009 4:42 PM Will Seamus Ennis has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4746 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 44 of 64 (516196)
07-24-2009 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by crawler30
07-23-2009 11:11 PM


Re: Consciousness?
For instance, bacteria are not considered to be very intelligent yet they, (or God, or I suppose somehow "natural selection) has found a way to build a rotary engine (with out fossil fuel consumption) to propel themselves around
This only applies if the engine was built with intention.
their tiny little insignificant existance.
If the log volume of a bacterium is given as 0, people have a log volume of 13 and the observable universe has a log volume of 93. Whose existence are you calling tiny, little? You're pretty much the same size as they are.
Yet, society believes we are the most intelligent beings in the universe.
Only those who give it little thought. Why would anyone give much credence to those who give little thought to what they believe?
Because of the fact that it seems to be alot more complicated than evolution can explain, it leads me to believe that it was designed.
Firstly, It's not evolution that can't explain it, it's you.
Secondly, that you don't know everything gives you reason to believe that there is something else that does? Does your inability to jump over the moon give you reason to believe something else can? Generally, is your inability to do something evidence that it can be done?
I say it was God, although this may upset some of the posters who have replied here, I would gladly hear of another theory if it can even come close to explaining such a design.
Why would that upset anyone? Some religious types might care if you didn't believe God did it, but most folks could care less what you think did it. It's enjoyable to dicker it out for folks who like to dicker things out. But I don't think you'll find many folks put a lot of emotional investment into what you're thinking.
I would gladly hear of another theory if it can even come close to explaining such a design.
Ever hear of the Theory of Evolution. Ya' see, back in Eighteen Hunnert and Fiddy-nine an Englishman name o' Charles Darwin wrote a book detailing his reckonings of the wonders he'd seen on his voyages of the Southern Seas aboard the Beagle.
But keep in mind that evolution would have to add or take away attributes slowly over time
No it doesn't. Evolution could care even less about how you think things should be done then folks care about what you think God has been doing.
You're just full of misconceptions. Could be you need to ask more and tell less.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crawler30, posted 07-23-2009 11:11 PM crawler30 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 10:35 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4746 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 51 of 64 (516246)
07-24-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crawler30
07-24-2009 10:06 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
because if there were not imediate changes to some spieces they could not have survived.
PICTURE OF DINOSAURS NOT SURVIVING
It goes without saying that this is not the first time it has been captured on film.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 10:06 AM crawler30 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 10:45 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4746 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 58 of 64 (516320)
07-24-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crawler30
07-24-2009 10:35 AM


Equivocation?
you believe society to be ignorant for believing humans to be the most intelligent beings in the universe yet you do not believe in a higher state of being? That seems rather contradictory.
Not society, individuals. The Borg aren't here yet.
My acceptance of the possibility of a more intelligent form of life existing elsewhere in the Universe is a whole 'nother matter then believing in a specific intelligence. Life exists here. There is nothing about it that appears to constrain it to here. The rest of the Universe appears to be like here. Therefore, for it to be thought that life, and by extension intelligence, is unique to 10-90% of the Universe would be kind of silly. On the other hand, to believe that a supermind for which there is no evidence created the Universe to keep me as a pet is kind of silly. A contradiction doesn't exist because the two cases a completely dissimilar.
If it is aliens you refer to as being the higher intelligance than you too believe in something that you can not see, touch, smell, taste, measure or show empiricle evidence of so would that not be faith?
(Secretly, I was referring to Dr. Adequate.) I don't believe in an alien intelligence. I understand the potential for an alien intelligence is probable enough that to dismiss it is silly. It is not faith because I don't believe in a specific entity or event.
I come home to find my door has been broken down. For me to believe that I have had an intruder is reasonable. For me to believe it was Miley Cyrus rummaging through my underwear drawer is silly. If I can see, touch, smell or taste Miley I'll give you a hundred dollars*.
and if it is the organizms themselves that are making the changes to themselves in order to create a result then is that not still a form of intelligent design? And if you do not believe it happened to achieve a purpose than why do you believe in evolution? If everything happened on accident then we more than likely would not organizms that change to fill a certain niche of life, especially not every niche.
This is currently being answered on more appropriate threads. I'll see if I can find one and give you a holler.
AbE: *That rings a lot creepier in the reading of it than in the writing of it.
Edited by lyx2no, : x

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 10:35 AM crawler30 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Perdition, posted 07-24-2009 3:41 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024