Couldn't design it if you tried

[George-ananda]

Better at what?

Read up on trigeminal neuralgia. Who (in god's name) would run a nerve
that way through the skull?

Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in lecture, lab and library
studying anatomy cannot help but see the way organ systems, well as they
may work, have a distinctly makeshift nature to them.

A infinite intelligence who made such concoctions must have had a lot of other things on his mind!

In the event-would you limit your infinite to one who has to tweak and meddle and mess with things to get them to work? "He" cant make a universe that
can be set going, and it will produce Beethoven's music w/o him meddling?


Evolution is real good at tweaking what is there. Things turn out kind
of goofy a lot of the time, but they work. More or less.

BTW
Watersheds, you know, river systems, seem to work great but nobody
seems to think they needed a designer. The sun seems to work ok,
as an entirely natural thing operating on basic principles of physics.

I was aware of all that when I made my statements.

I do not see any one time in history as the 'end' product of a design, nor do I believe the ultimate purpose of the universe is to create the most anatomically perfect end product. Things happen in stages with intelligent but not all-knowing nature spirits at work. Some trial and error also occurs with these grand but fallible spirits.

And in an even more ultimate sense, from the ultimate God/Brahman design perspective, the universe is intended to be a place where things are continually advancing forward through strife and gain. It is in the success of this this striving by finite creatures that glory is found.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Couldn't design it if you tried

Seems to me, regarding the origins of biological life and subsequent evolution, even the most micromanager of an intelligent designer couldn't possibly have designed the complexity we see today.

For example, how could this intelligent designer have choreographed the structure of the brain with its neural network? Or respiration with its lengthy process of converting ADP to ATP using the energy from glucose?

And what mechanism would this intelligent designer have used to "poke" at the molecules to coerce them to bend to his/her/its will? Pushing them with a metaphorical finger?

It is interesting to note that humans have harnessed the process of evolution to design things, and the results are often beyond the comprehension of us humans.

Dr. Adrian Thompson has exploited this device, in conjunction with the principles of evolution, to produce a prototype voice-recognition circuit that can distinguish between and respond to spoken commands using only 37 logic gates - a task that would have been considered impossible for any human engineer. He generated random bit strings of 0s and 1s and used them as configurations for the FPGA, selecting the fittest individuals from each generation, reproducing and randomly mutating them, swapping sections of their code and passing them on to another round of selection. His goal was to evolve a device that could at first discriminate between tones of different frequencies (1 and 10 kilohertz), then distinguish between the spoken words "go" and "stop".

This aim was achieved within 3000 generations, but the success was even greater than had been anticipated. The evolved system uses far fewer cells than anything a human engineer could have designed, and it does not even need the most critical component of human-built systems - a clock. How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit. In fact, out of the 37 logic gates the final product uses, five of them are not even connected to the rest of the circuit in any way - yet if their power supply is removed, the circuit stops working. It seems that evolution has exploited some subtle electromagnetic effect of these cells to come up with its solution, yet the exact workings of the complex and intricate evolved structure remain a mystery (Davidson 1997).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html#examples:electrical

 

[Audie]

I was aware of all that when I made my statements.

I do not see any one time in history as the 'end' product of a design, nor do I believe the ultimate purpose of the universe is to create the most anatomically perfect end product. Things happen in stages with intelligent but not all-knowing nature spirits at work. Some trial and error also occurs with these grand but fallible spirits.

And in an even more ultimate sense, from the ultimate God/Brahman design perspective, the universe is intended to be a place where things are continually advancing forward through strife and gain. It is in the success of this this striving by finite creatures that glory is found.

You lost me with "intent" and, "glory".
Dueling opinions I guess. Ne'er mind.

 

[Pudding]

Yes, but there is no mechanism available for this designer to use in his designing and creating.

If a designer exists, how do you verify whether there is or there is no mechanism available for this designer to use in his designing and creating?

 

[Kenny]

Still unanswered.

An omni-all god have done it all without breaking a sweat. Anyone who disagrees doesn't understand the concept of omnipotent.

Who said He sweated? Or are you trying to describe an omnipotent God through a finite mind

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a designer exists, how do you verify whether there is or there is no mechanism available for this designer to use in his designing and creating?

it depends. Is this designer competent or incompetent? Honest or dishonest? The work of an honest, competent designer is testable.

 

[Pudding]

it depends. Is this designer competent or incompetent? Honest or dishonest? The work of an honest, competent designer is testable.

Why does the work of an honest and competent designer is testable?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why does the work of an honest and competent designer is testable?

We could check to see if I he design of life reflects competence, or as the theory of evolution predicts just good enough kluges.

 

[Pudding]

We could check to see if I he design of life reflects competence, or as the theory of evolution predicts just good enough kluges.

Whether the functions of life reflects competence or not, depends on the designer's intention (if a designer exists).
Why a competent designer must always intend to design the functions of life to reflects competence?
Why does it must make the designer dishonest if she is competent to always design the functions of life to reflects competence but instead decided not to?

 

[Pudding]

Couldn't design it if you tried

Seems to me, regarding the origins of biological life and subsequent evolution, even the most micromanager of an intelligent designer couldn't possibly have designed the complexity we see today.

For example, how could this intelligent designer have choreographed the structure of the brain with its neural network? Or respiration with its lengthy process of converting ADP to ATP using the energy from glucose?

And what mechanism would this intelligent designer have used to "poke" at the molecules to coerce them to bend to his/her/its will? Pushing them with a metaphorical finger?

If an intelligent designer (who are very capable of micromanager) exists, how do you verify whether or not she cannot possibly have designed the complexity we see today?

It seems like you're saying there are many intelligent designers you believe you can observe. After you compare and examine all of their ability of micromanaging, you then come to the conclusion that even the most micromanager of an intelligent designer couldn't possibly have designed the complexity we see today. Could you please provide evidence to support the premise and conclusion of your statement if i have interpret your statement correctly?

It seems like you're saying you cannot understand how she (if she exists) could possibly have designed the complexity we see today. What are your points? Do you meant to say because you cannot understand, therefor she doesn't exists, or anything else?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether the functions of life reflects competence or not, depends on the designer's intention (if a designer exists).
Why a competent designer must always intend to design the functions of life to reflects competence?
Why does it must make the designer dishonest if she is competent to always design the functions of life to reflects competence but instead decided not to?

The dishonesty would come from the evidence. All of the evidence out there tells us that the diversity of life is the product of evolution. There is no scientific evidence for a designer. That would mean that artificial evidence for evolution had to be planted if it did not occur. A sign of a dishonest designer.

And for competence there are countless body parts that could work better, but because they are the product of evolution, which had to work with what was already there, they are mostly compromises. A competent designer would not need to use poor design. Poor design is evidence against a competent designer. Mountains of evidence for evolution and evolution only would be evidence against an honest designer.

If you want to claim that a designer exists you are in effect calling that designer incompetent and dishonest.

 

[Pudding]

The dishonesty would come from the evidence. All of the evidence out there tells us that the diversity of life is the product of evolution. There is no scientific evidence for a designer. That would mean that artificial evidence for evolution had to be planted if it did not occur. A sign of a dishonest designer.

If a designer exists, maybe the designer responsible to design the process of evolution, artificial evidence for evolution is a trace left behind. For some reason we cannot found scientific evidence for the designer. Design and evolution happen at the same time, there're not mutually exclusive. Also i haven't say evolution didn't occur.

And for competence there are countless body parts that could work better, but because they are the product of evolution, which had to work with what was already there, they are mostly compromises. A competent designer would not need to use poor design. Poor design is evidence against a competent designer. Mountains of evidence for evolution and evolution only would be evidence against an honest designer.

If you want to claim that a designer exists you are in effect calling that designer incompetent and dishonest.

A competent designer would use poor design, maybe because it's boring to always do things right, or it is a cruel/malice designer, it likes to see its creatures sufferring. Whether the functions of the evolution's products be competent or not, depends whether the designer intends it be competent or not.

I do not claim that a designer exists, i discuss about this designer hypothetically. I don't have the belief that this designer exists, i also don't have the belief that it doesn't exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a designer exists, maybe the designer responsible to design the process of evolution, artificial evidence for evolution is a trace left behind. For some reason we cannot found scientific evidence for the designer. Design and evolution happen at the same time, there're not mutually exclusive. Also i haven't say evolution didn't occur.


A competent designer would use poor design, maybe because it's boring to always do things right, or it is a cruel/malice designer, it likes to see its creatures sufferring. Whether the functions of the evolution's products be competent or not, depends whether the designer intends it be competent or not.

I do not claim that a designer exists, i discuss about this designer hypothetically. I don't have the belief that this designer exists, i also don't have the belief that it doesn't exists.

The only "artificial evidence" would be evidence falsely planted by your proposed designer it appears. One has to treat evidence as real unless one has a good reason to suspect otherwise.

You do not seem to understand that if you want to claim that there is a designer, right now we have determined that at best he is rather incompetent, then you need to support your claim. Supposing is worthless.

To make your error more clear think how you would react is instead of using the phrase "designer" someone used the phrase "universe farting pixies" . Go ahead switch the two phrases in one of your posts and see if you would believe in universe farting pixies if one had no reliable evidence at all for them.

 

[Thief]

Couldn't design it if you tried

Seems to me, regarding the origins of biological life and subsequent evolution, even the most micromanager of an intelligent designer couldn't possibly have designed the complexity we see today.

For example, how could this intelligent designer have choreographed the structure of the brain with its neural network? Or respiration with its lengthy process of converting ADP to ATP using the energy from glucose?

And what mechanism would this intelligent designer have used to "poke" at the molecules to coerce them to bend to his/her/its will? Pushing them with a metaphorical finger?

and a God that can set an entire universe into motion would fail.....
tweaking a few molecules now and then?

 

[tayla]

If a designer exists, how do you verify whether there is or there is no mechanism available for this designer to use in his designing and creating?

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Seems we have to approach it via what kinds of mechanisms are available in the physical universe. In my latest thread I propose a way. Also, we should reject ideas involving a micro-manager God needing to perform mathematical calculations for each tiniest interaction of matter.

 

[tayla]

If an intelligent designer (who are very capable of micromanager) exists, how do you verify whether or not she cannot possibly have designed the complexity we see today?

The mathematical calculations are impossible. Also, I find it philosophically unsatisfying that God would be a micro-manager performing these calculations.

 

[Thief]

The mathematical calculations are impossible. Also, I find it philosophically unsatisfying that God would be a micro-manager performing these calculations.

God needs numbers?

I don't think so

 

[tayla]

It seems like you're saying there are many intelligent designers you believe you can observe. After you compare and examine all of their ability of micromanaging, you then come to the conclusion that even the most micromanager of an intelligent designer couldn't possibly have designed the complexity we see today. Could you please provide evidence to support the premise and conclusion of your statement if i have interpret your statement correctly?

I don't believe the mathematical calculations are possible, no matter how many gods are performing the calculations.

 

[tayla]

It seems like you're saying you cannot understand how she (if she exists) could possibly have designed the complexity we see today. What are your points? Do you meant to say because you cannot understand, therefor she doesn't exists, or anything else?

I believe God exists and that he/she/it created the universe and guided evolution. In my latest thread I propose a way this could occur. (But I hadn't thought of it at the time I created the current thread.)

 

[Audie]

and a God that can set an entire universe into motion would fail.....
tweaking a few molecules now and then?

Ah yes, the limits of omnipotence.