EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Don Penguinoini]

Following a post on page two,

 

[LittleNipper]

How does this differ with what I said?

Man has played the part of DESIGNER in his own right. It would be ignorant to assume there is no design demonstrated by nature or that it hasn't been manipulated by a designer.

 

[LittleNipper]

And we see the same pressures being applied in nature without human intervention. Environment, predation, sexual selection... all do the same thing that humans do, without the need of choice or design.


I think you may be confusing species with a higher level of taxonomy. We have made several species in the lab. We have also made artificial bacteria.

wa:do

If it is artificial, is it real? If the flowers are artificial, do they in fact count to a botanist. Species of what exactly? Do you imagine that you're being natural or playing GOD?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Man has played the part of DESIGNER in his own right. It would be ignorant to assume there is no design demonstrated by nature or that it hasn't been manipulated by a designer.

So, because man exists, and has the capacity to design something, you somehow manage to jump to the conclusion that there must then be a God that designs everything else.

Nice.

 

[LittleNipper]

One might ask that question, if one did not understand that science does not demonstrate that there is no design. Science does not address design. Try to stay on the same page. Your slowing the rest of the class down.


It would demonstrate that the experiment were designed by the scientist to be repeatable.
You are confusing an experiment, which is designed by man, with the claims of design for the universe by a supernatural force (God).

If there is no design in nature, then there can be no rules of nature, and if there are no rules of nature, experiments could not be designed to be repeated because there would be no track record or series of measurable events to consider. Everything would be random and without form or direction.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If it is artificial, is it real? If the flowers are artificial, do they in fact count to a botanist. Species of what exactly? Do you imagine that you're being natural or playing GOD?

I imagine that they are playing "scientist", in a search for knowledge that will help all of us live better lives.

Do you know differently, or are you playing "GOD" now?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If there is no design in nature, then there can be no rules of nature,

Well shoot. You didn't even make it out of the first sentence before you left the path of logic.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[painted wolf]

Man has played the part of DESIGNER in his own right. It would be ignorant to assume there is no design demonstrated by nature or that it hasn't been manipulated by a designer.

More like we have played manipulator... we just tweak the rules that already apply.

You have to figure out what you think design is... is Downs syndrome part of the design?

wa:do

 

[MysticPhD]

That isn't how evolution works. You seem to think it's a progression of improvement when in fact, it isn't. I never use serendipity when I discuss evolution and I only use random when I talk about survivors of natural disasters like tsunamis.

I realize that not every single change that is selected is necessarily better overall than previous versions. It all does appear to be "random" or "serendipitous" . . . whether those words are used or not. That does NOT eliminate the undeniable reality of human evolution and its superiority over preceding versions. Why choose the pessimistic view or the negative view or the purposeless view or the indifferent view and force-feed it into an indifferent model?

That isn't helpful at all. I know how the cells in my body work. I know how they allot resource management and work load and how many of them are essentially immortal. (that is until I die).Individual cells feel no pain, it's only a very specialized few that do and they can act up.

Indeed not all the cells in my body are even mine. I am host to millions of bacteria that I can't live without and who provide me with biochemical services as I provide them a stable environment.

This rendering of the analogy is much too literal, physical and materialistic. I am dealing with higher levels of abstraction involving consciousness . . . not physical things. If it doesn't work for you . . . it doesn't work.

Science can not declare "goddidit". You can not experiment on god.
It is as simple as that.

Why should it be necessary to create a category that cannot be experimented upon as if it were somehow OTHER than what you are already experimenting on?Just because people have ridiculous ideas about what the attributes are (that differ from what we have actually determined they are) . . . no need to accept their nonsense as determinative and reject the whole idea . . . is there?

Individual scientists may believe as they wish. As I do.. but until I can prove experimentally that god is the one pushing the subatomic particles around to change my DNA, then god has to remain out of the publication.
wa:do

And out of the science curriculum too . . . but not out of existence by implication AS IF it is more scientific.

 

[LittleNipper]

There is no question that individuals can intentionally try to twist science to meet their own goals. That is the reason for peer review of studies prior to their acceptance into the community at large.

You would be well served to learn how the scientific community polices itself against such hoaxes. It isn't perfect, but it does prevent the wholesale deception that you would like to believe exists.

Well, acceptance by a community may be simply coercion and the acceptance of secular propaganda that a group is comfortable with.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well shoot. You didn't even make it out of the first sentence before you left the path of logic.

Why am I not surprised?

You don't have a brain?

 

[painted wolf]

If it is artificial, is it real? If the flowers are artificial, do they in fact count to a botanist. Species of what exactly? Do you imagine that you're being natural or playing GOD?

Lives like a bacteria, reproduces like a bacteria.

And they are simply exploring genetics by working from the nucleotides up. No god complex needed.

wa:do

 

[LittleNipper]

So, because man exists, and has the capacity to design something, you somehow manage to jump to the conclusion that there must then be a God that designs everything else.

Nice.

Man was created in the image of GOD.

 

[LittleNipper]

Lives like a bacteria, reproduces like a bacteria.

And they are simply exploring genetics by working from the nucleotides up. No god complex needed.

wa:do

Did they evolve naturally or were they created by humans?

 

[MysticPhD]

Just a "heads up" fo you, Mystic.

Thanks but I had no intention of insulting anyone. Her questioning of why a field is necessary suggested a lack of understanding of a pretty basic aspect of science. I apologize for any misunderstanding. My explanation was designed to be remedial.

 

[doppelganger]

Man has played the part of DESIGNER in his own right. It would be ignorant to assume there is no design demonstrated by nature or that it hasn't been manipulated by a designer.

I think that post accidentally contains a profound truth.

 

[LittleNipper]

I imagine that they are playing "scientist", in a search for knowledge that will help all of us live better lives.

Do you know differently, or are you playing "GOD" now?

One cannot play at something that doesn't exist in one form or another. I don't imagine that man could even evolve without guidance.

 

[LittleNipper]

I think that post accidentally contains a profound truth.

No accident about it...

 

[MysticPhD]

This doesn't answer the question. Why must there be a single unifying field?
Why do those seemingly incompatible aspects need to be reconciled?

So essentially it's needed because you think it is... because "nature would never work that way".

Here you are decrying the use of 'random' and 'probability' and you are holding up the most vague and unsupportable sources of fuzzy math in existence.
It's so theoretical as to be useless outside of metaphysics and thought experiments.

Unified field theory is not a magic key to god. You want to defend it, you have to do better than "I don't think the universe can operate without it".

"I don't think the universe DOES operate without it" . . . would be more accurate. Our mathematics is too ubiquitously useful to be denied and it requires a field. You misrepresent my concern. Our understanding of the REAL NATURE of nature or reality is contingent upon our abilities to explain what is going on consistently . . . not patchwork, piecemeal aspects of it that contradict each other. Otherwise it is just unsupported speculation.

 

[MysticPhD]

I see. So, your theory and philosophy about God are not incoherent or anathema, but others are. Does that really make sense to you?

I am the only one it had to make sense to . . . as it is for each of us. The incoherence remains with my version added to the mix. Each individual resolves that incoherence (or not) as their intellectual needs dictate.

Well, those presumptions are based directly on your comments in said discussion. If you would show something more than the average fundamentalist knowledge of science, then I would think differently. Until then, I'll assume you're railing against something you don't even understand.

LOL . . . I am as far from a fundamentalist as it is possible to get intellectually.

And if you understood science at all, you'd understand that it's already neutral. That's the point.

No . . . it isn't.

They say that an intelligent being is unnecessary for pretty much everything, as in things could very well be the way they are without an intelligent designer. That's not to say they are, just that it's a possibility with the way things work.

They say that . . . but they are unable to prove that or establish it scientifically . . . yet, you are right . . . they DO say it. THAT's the problem.

I see. So, it's just that you're under the false impression that such things absolutely have to be designed. Well, there you go letting your belief get in the way. It seems it is you who are engaging in extreme intellectual gymnastics. Good luck with that.

No . . . it is incontrovertibly a design and functions as one . . . that is not in dispute. Its origins are.