Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Rick O'Shez]

It was REALLY DARK!

I've experienced that in a cave, pitch black. It's quite strange really. Apparently our visual sense is usually dominant in forming our perception of the world.

 

[Thief]

I've experienced that in a cave, pitch black. It's quite strange really. Apparently our visual sense is usually dominant in forming our perception of the world.

Indeed it is.
I've read estimation....90% to vision....then hearing and touch....then taste and smell.
The last ten percent lean to reflex of things not in our vision.
Loud sounds makes us jump as do hot things to touch.
Taste and smell guard the entry of throat.

Intelligent design would lean to such construction.....do you agree?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Intelligent design would lean to such construction.....do you agree?

I think evolution explains it well enough in terms of a survival mechanism. So like many creatures we have two ears to aid direction finding and two eyes to aid distance-judging, all crucial in finding prey and avoiding becoming prey. Smell and taste help us to judge what food is safe to eat. And so on.

 

[Thief]

I think evolution explains it well enough in terms of a survival mechanism. So like many creatures we have two ears to aid direction finding and two eyes to aid distance-judging, all crucial in finding prey and avoiding becoming prey. Smell and taste help us to judge what food is safe to eat. And so on.

I prefer my take on it.
Seems in terms of collected knowledge.....It was done by sight.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Seems in terms of collected knowledge.....It was done by sight.

Sight is certainly the primary sense organ, but it makes sense for it to be that way in evolutionary terms.

 

[Thief]

L

Sight is certainly the primary sense organ, but it makes sense for it to be that way in evolutionary terms.

Let's keep to the perspective of a Creator and see how it gels.
Your first creation was light.
It exposes the reality you have made on the small scale and the large.

To share this existence your 'fleshy' creation might live for centuries before it learns to use light for more than an immediate visual.....BUT....that evolutionary development MUST precede the more detailed events.

There was an interesting documentary devoted to the evolution of sight....not just our own.
Too much detail for this brief posting.....
But when you consider the huge variety of vision and then the manner of which we use ours....
I have no doubt, there was intention in what we have mounted in our skulls.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Your first creation was light.

You could certainly describe the big bang like that, but we have no way of knowing how and why it happened, or even whether "how" and "why" had any meaning prior to space-time emerging.

 

[Thief]

You could certainly describe the big bang like that, but we have no way of knowing how and why it happened, or even whether "how" and "why" had any meaning prior to space-time emerging.

Knowing how would be nice and we get to ask Him when we get there.

For now, the design of the creation makes it obvious.

Anything more simple than a sphere?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Anything more simple than a sphere?

Nature is very elegant.

 

[Thief]

Nature is very elegant.

Simply don't believe the elegance is a sign of intelligence?

 

[savagewind]

I think elegance in people is ALWAYS a sign of intelligence.

 

[Thief]

I think elegance in people is ALWAYS a sign of intelligence.

A different facet.....but it works as well.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Simply don't believe the elegance is a sign of intelligence?

Why should I? I just appreciate the elegance for what it is, it's, well, so natural.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think elegance in people is ALWAYS a sign of intelligence.

But let's not get too anthropomorphic here.

 

[Thief]

But let's not get too anthropomorphic here.

So a God that creates light.....'sees' no need that you have sight?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So a God that creates light.....'sees' no need that you have sight?

Like I said earlier, I think evolution explains all this perfectly well.

 

[Thief]

Like I said earlier, I think evolution explains all this perfectly well.

oh behave!..... that circles back to my previous post.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

oh behave!..... that circles back to my previous post.

And probably mine too. The whole thread is rather like that.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I suggest you read a bit too: Dr. Stephen E. Thompson holds a Ph.D. degree in Egyptology from Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. He is the second LDS scholar to earn a doctorate degree in Egyptology. In a paper given at the 1993 Sunstone Symposia in Salt Lake City (August) and Boston (November) Dr. Thompson presented his reasons for concluding that Joseph Smith did not produce the Book of Abraham by translating it, as he claimed, from an Egyptian papyrus scroll he had obtained in 1835.

Excerpts:

"In the entry on the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, we are told that the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice. This a truly remarkable statement in view of the fact that those Egyptologists who have commented on Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles have stated emphatically that his interpretations are not correct from the perspective of the Egyptologist who attempts to interpret Egyptian religious literature and iconography as he or she believes the ancient Egyptians themselves would have. For example, in the famous pamphlet compiled by the Rev. Spalding in 1912, James H. Breasted, the first person to hold a chair in Egyptology in America, stated that Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of the documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization. More recently, Klaus Baer, speaking of Joseph Smith's interpretations of the original Facsimile One in the accompanying text, noted that the Egyptologist interprets it differently, relying on a considerable body of parallel data, research and knowledge."

* * * * * * *

"First, it is of vital importance to note that the originals of these facsimiles of the Book of Abraham were created for a specific purpose to provide for the successful transition to the afterlife of the deceased. While it is possible that some of these figures might appear in other contexts, and take on other meanings in those contexts, in the context of funerary papyri, their interpretation is limited to funerary purposes. The approach taken in attempting to support Joseph's interpretations of these figures is to compare them with figures found in other historical and textual contexts. It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography in an attempt to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed or linked to attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations."

* * * * * * *

"One way to judge whether or not the Book of Abraham derives from an Abraham holograph is by whether or not the text of the book contains anachronisms. Of course, the first thing that has to be determined is when Abraham lived .... Many scholars would place this sometime during the first half of the second millennium, i.e., 2000 to 1500 B.C., while others would narrow the time frame within this period. In our search for anachronisms it would be safe to say that anything occurring after 1500 B.C. is definitely anachronistic to Abraham's lifetime. And since Abraham is portrayed as the first patriarch, anything occurring at the end of this period is probably anachronistic. What then are the anachronisms which I believe can be identified in the Book of Abraham?"



* * * * * * *

"From the foregoing discussion it would appear that if one accepts the date of sometime in the first half of the second millennium for Abraham, then there are four anachronistic names in the text; Chaldea, Potiphar, Egyptus, and probably Pharaoh. Pharoah squeaks in there in the end. If you want to put Abraham in the very, very last possible period that you could squeeze him into you might be able to get him in there under the wire for Abraham. So that one is a probably. Since these are names it is not likely that they are translation equivalents of other words in the original text. If they are translation equivalents, they don't carry much meaning for us because they don't increase our understanding of the text. They certainly aren't good translation equivalents if they are such. I don't believe them to have been. I believe that there is sufficient evidence of anachronisms in the text of the Book of Abraham to conclude that it cannot be an actual Abraham holograph, i.e., that it was not written 'by Abraham's own hand upon papyrus.' "

* * * * * * *

"In the preceding I have argued that: Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles are not in agreement with the meanings which these figures had in their original funerary context, anachronisms in the text of the book make it impossible that it was translated from a text written by Abraham himself, and what we know about the relationship between Egypt and Asia renders the account of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham extremely implausible."

The problem is that matter does exist. It exists on the quantum level as fluctuations. Its just the next level down in terms of what makes it up.

The rope looks like a snake. But it wasn't a snake. It was a rope. But "rope" exists and "snake" exist all independently of each other. We are saying that there is a wall. The wall is made of bricks. Those bricks were made from mud. Therefore the wall was at its lowest form made of mud (it isn't it goes further but bear with me). Does that mean that all along there was no wall? Or does the wall exist and now we know what its smallest properties are?

 

[Thief]

There was someone posting to whom I would say....
bang your head til it bleeds then tell me it's not real.