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

I was going to suggest that you save your false dichotomies for when you really need them; but then I remembered that creationists have an infinite supply.

Let's go with sissy then?

Hi anglagard, No.Sorry about addressing the post to jar instead of you. The sand man was getting in my eyes.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."

Actually, anglagard, it was ICDESIGN All I said is that I am happy with how my skeletal system is doing the job it was designed for. 56 years and it still performs as intended.
If I happen to open a franchise of 'The Fred Astare school of Tap Dance' I'll be sure and give you a free membership. In the mean time, I will be waiting to see if anyone can answer my questions from post 231.Edited by ICDESIGN, : had the wrong post reference

No. And the last part of this sentence makes little sense to me, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

......anyone?

It didn't. There was no intended purpose, there was what worked. Because it's beneficial to have a skull that can house your brain. They developed alongside eachother. Because it's advantageous having them where they are of actual use. Not really no. It is what you expect to find if evolution was the cause, however. Well, since there was no purpose, that would mean natural selection and random mutation could have come with it. And wadda you know! It did!

The point is that it was not constructed for any purpose. It was not constructed at all. Try the fact that the brain fits do to its evolution. It fits the skull because the skull is at its size.Evolution is not directional, what works stays what doesn't , doesn't. that is Natural selection and what survival of the fittest actually means, best genes not the strongest individual.Edited by bluescat48, : typo

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Thought is an electrical process as much as (or more so than) a chemical process. Chemistry can alter the electrical processes of the brain but it doesn't "produce" thought.You need to let go of your romantic "ideas" about "thought" and really 'think" about it.Edited by Ringo, : Fixed quote.Edited by Ringo, : Fixed quote again.

---

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

None of your answers hold up to the common sense test. First of all how did "it" know anything was working without being able to think about it. Everything within the skeletal system has a purpose.
To say it doesn't is is being completely out of touch with reality. What knew it was beneficial and how did it know? What knew they were of actual use in those positions and how did it know? No it isn't! I would expect a non-thinking dumb source like evolution to come up with a dumb design that makes no sense.

So? I've common sense to be exceptionally bad at determining truth. "It" didn't. There is no "thinking about it. If it helps your survival it stays, if it hinders your survival, it will not be propagated. But not an intended one. Which is why I never said that. Nothing. The pressures from outside determined what was beneficial and what wasn't. Again, nothing. Evolution is not a conscious process. See, that's what I mean with comon sense being exceptionally bad in these cases.Tell me, is this a bad design (thank you Subbie):

Thats' cool... That's insane, illogical, and unsupported nonsense. The fact that you even say this shows that you are not interested in what empirical evidence tells us about our human evolution. Why anyone here would waste a second of their time trying to help you understand, while you insist on making ridiculous claims, baffles me. And no one on this planet has any clue how this happened, they are still far from knowing that. Why do you insist on applying your limited/barely any knowledge on the subject to questions that even the most experienced of physicist couldn't answer? In your own words: "It makes no difference what we believe..."- Oni

It did not know it worked. The critter simply lived long enough to reproduce. That is all it takes. Nothing knew it was beneficial. If the skull was not large enough to hold the brain the critter died. Evolution does not "come up with a design". If something works just good enough that the critter lives long enough to reproduce then it is successful.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi, ICANT. Well, no, it wasn’t intended as a trick question. I guess, from a certain point of view, you may still think it is when this post is done. But, it was asked to clarify what you meant my the information being separate from the structure (which you now seem to deny).So, we are in agreement that the information in a molecule is indistinguishable from the structure of the molecule?So, if an intelligent designer was involved in putting information into a DNA molecule, then this must mean that the designer was actually putting together the structure DNA molecules, right?Now, I ask, why does one molecule look, to you, like it had information put into it, when another doesn’t?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, ICDESIGN. This begs the question of what you consider "intended purpose."I say that the unintended products of many rounds of culling may very well look just like they had some "intended purpose" to them.Would you expect an organism with a bad skeleton to survive very long?
Would you expect the genes responsible for giving organisms bad skeletons to continue very long in a population?
If you would not expect these two things, then what would you expect the surviving organisms to have for a skeleton?
Good skeletons?Fascinating.----- What do you think is the perfect position for any given joint?Let’s go with the knee, just to keep it simple.
What is the perfect position for the knee?----- So, the basic idea is that, if it works, it must have been designed?I don't think you have successfully demonstrated this to be the case.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.