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

Hi jar, Careful now you are getting close to what I believe.I believe the universe has always existed in some form but not nesecerally as we see it today. I believe that man was on earth billions maybe even trillions of years ago.I also believe this universe will melt with fervent heat and then God will create a New Heaven and New Earth. What would that change?The universe began to exist the way it began to exist.
It makes no difference what we believe or whether we are right about anything or wrong about everything. Isn't that exactly what Deist believe?I personally believe the account God gave of how He designed and created the universe.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

That's nice, you and yours are fine and to hell with everyone else.Obviously your wife did not carry or give birth to a child with a 14.7" head.She had some fine words to say about perfect design during the process, most of which are unprintable here.Fine example of Christian empathy from you, so-called ordained preacher and Hebrew scholar.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Yes, it's very mechanical, just like all chemistry. Again, it isn't a "blueprint". It isn't separate from the structure of the molecule like a blueprint is separate from the structure of a house. The "information" is the shape of the molecule. All molecules do the same type of thing in every reaction they do. I've told you several times already, the only "information" is the structure of the molecule. It "comes from" the molecules that joined up to make it. There is no separate "blueprint". Not at all. All of the "information" required in the reactuions that you described comes from the shape of the molecule. That's all. It's the same principle as two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combining to form water.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can\'t find it.

Hi crash, Then why do you keep responding to gobbledygook? Great but that is the problem.The instanton requires a vaccum for it to pop into existence in. If they only reside inside the universe how did the universe begin to expand from one of the instantons popping into existence and expanding into our universe. Sure it is.The alternative is non-existence.And non-existence could not exist because we exist.Unless you can explain how the universe could begin to exist out of non-existence.The universe could not have always existed according to science because if it had it would be dead now, therefore it had to have a beginning. That is the reason the universe is dated at 13.7 billion years old.Non-existence is hard to conceive with our finite mindsI can see no way that the universe could begin to exist out of non-existence.Therefore there had to be eternal existence. That eternal existence is the intelligent designer that created this universe.This turkey is done.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Are jar and I the same person to you?That is quite flattering to me, perhaps you should check with jar as to his opinion.BTW, jar is a Christian and I am currently somewhere near the critical point where Spinoza, Campbell, Deism, and Universalist Unitarianism meet.Not the same person.You do realize you are arguing with, at least in our case, believers (of a more Socratic skeptical bent than you may be used to).Edited by anglagard, : add 'not the same person'

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

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?

I counter posit that there are people who can't understand this subsequent link because it goes over their headsPage not found | ScienceBlogs Then it is obviously reasonable that 50% of the US population should learn Chinese, since with such an anti-science attitude, they will soon discover their new masters are exactly what they have been begging for, especially considering they share the same RWA anti-Constitution traitor belief system.I helped eliminate the USSR back in my US Army Intelligence days, of course I can expect no respect from any anti-USA RWA (no insult is suitable enough to counter such anti-enlightenment crap) Perhaps you should discuss what ifs, since you obviously believe the Flintstones are a documentary. So what if the Flintstones is true fact? Argue that.Rock n' roll (sarcasm deleted)Edited by anglagard, : use 'subsequent link' instead of post for clarity

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

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.

Because choosing a design adaptation that is good enough is a whole lot easier than remaking the entire design.

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

If that was grammatical and meaningful, it would probably be wrong.

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

Somewhere in between those two sentences there should have been some reasoning.