If it was designed, was it really all that "intelligent"?

[Unification]

You really should submit your research.
I mean, if you know what giraffes, snakes, rabbits, and whales are all talking about around the water cooler....

It would be highly beneficial to submit

Not you, of course, rather Unification.

There is nothing to address, really. We can both go back and forth addressing what we think/assume hinders or benefits these living organisms, by reading articles and scientific opinions for both cases, which may or may not be both valid, truly is a waste of time chasing the mind in circles. We simply do not have the knowledge at this time, and likely never will, and it essentially does not matter. I know that your mind is aware of this. If you'd like to tackle this task, you've listed the things you assume are flawed, but not much as to why you feel that they are flawed. For example, the giraffe and their long neck, yet they are very balanced, have super tough skin on their legs, and have the perfect sized heart to compensate for any potential nervous system deficiencies "if" those deficiencies even exist. What remains is that even with all of our technological advances and intelligence, the giraffe, snake, and whale are highly complex and sophisticated beyond most of our current understanding.

Rabbits were already too far down a given path given the rapid changing of environment which has never remained constant, and subatomic particles of energy from celestial bodies of the cosmos directly affecting all paths.

 

[Unification]

???

No worries, he still loves you, as do I.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no "argument for chance v design" that is a stawman invention of the creationists.

which is your money on? and why?

 

[idea]

Chance vs. design? It's a little of both I suppose.

 

[Sapiens]

It's been said often enough, chance in the form of random mutation supplies the raw material and natural selection does the rest.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The part in red is the same old argument for chance v design is it not?

It is, but it is not suggesting that bad design is evidence AGAINST design as you have claimed - it is that bad design is better explained as a result of evolutionary processes than of conscious design. An easy get-around to this is simply saying "God designed life, but they did it through evolution".

I agree with the first part, the Giraffe's nervous system must make a detour, and that this not a mistake, as the detours in our lives are necessary.

How is the detour taken by the giraffe's neck necessary? It adds no benefit whatsoever and yet can cause a myriad of problems. Please demonstrate that it is "necessary" for the giraffe's nervous system to take this detour.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

science hasn't the faintest idea how everything you see around you originated, far less how it was designed. I'm no Bible scholar but I don't think it has much to say about using leeches as medical treatment, it does have something to say about healthy living, resisting temptation, appreciating the gift of life, your body.

What I mean is that life is better because we don't trust our bodies to the ravages of superstition.

We have done more, on our own, to make our lives and our environment habitable than a god ever has.

Science appreciates life in a direct and meaningful way, bodily flaws or no. It will continue to do so regardless of what you believe as part of god's evolutionary plan.

 

[McBell]

which is your money on? and why?

Well, assuming your false dichotomy has any merit (which for the record it does not), I would have to go with chance over design.
Mainly because outside the wishful thinking of the design advocates, I have not seen, read, or even heard anything to indicate that it was design.

 

[Etritonakin]

Chance by design? Design by chance?

I keep noticing evolution being essentially credited with intelligence (decision-making toward a goal or for a purpose....."the ability to perceive and/or retain knowledge or information and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models" [from Wikipedia]) -even while those who do so see no reason for a "designer".

Evolution IS a designer. It IS an intelligence of sorts. However, it is not aware that it is -and it, in itself, does not have all of the characteristics of a self-aware designer.

Humans are self-aware designers -and we can design things which design other things, but which are not aware of that fact.

So... there is no reason that the direct influence of "God" -or any other self-aware designer of any description -would be immediately apparent. Direct influence could be quite far removed.

More later -gotta go do stuff...

 

[Etritonakin]

You might not see it as a trial-and-error process, but it is.

To explain what I meant earlier.....

The only thing which could not possibly be logically modeled or known beforehand would be independent decision which was based on nothing in particular.
Otherwise, all that would be could be known given enough memory/processing power, etc.....

It is written that It repented God that he had made man upon the earth, because the imaginations of men were upon evil continually.

It might seem that God made a mistake in design or planning, but in deciding to create independent creative beings, he gave over the power of decision and determination to them.

God intentionally created unknowns. There would inevitably be undesired results from his perspective because individual courses could be chosen by individuals -not by God.

(Even things God could know beforehand, he can potentially decide not to
consider for various reasons.)

The end result of the plan was to bring those with independent decision to willingly choose to obey the universal law -based on the nature of all things -which would ensure the well-being of all -while still allowing independent creation.

Individuals would have to choose to do so. It is God's will that all do so, but they must choose to do so by their own will.
Still -God does affect their environment to affect their will -and it may be that he is able to bring all to the point of willing acceptance by reason and experience.

As for previous life forms being bad designs, that would depend on the intent of the designer and purpose of the design. If God designed evolution, for example, but limited it to plant life -and planted a garden on some planet simply for beauty and enjoyment.... Evolution/adaptation could make the garden self-tending, if you will.
Adaptation would ensure the garden not only continued/survived without constant attention (short of catastrophic events), but was also a source of new variations which would make it more interesting and beautiful.

That would have to do with the psychology of God -and life forms on earth (as my puppy just reminded me by jumping up and interrupting me) have an effect on human psychology -so they are good for that purpose.

Biblically, God caused animals to be harmful to man for a psychological purpose outside of the state of "Eden" -and will eventually change their nature again so that the lion eats straw like the ox, etc....

 

[Sapiens]

To explain what I meant earlier.....

The only thing which could not possibly be logically modeled or known beforehand would be independent decision which was based on nothing in particular.
Otherwise, all that would be could be known given enough memory/processing power, etc.....

It is written that It repented God that he had made man upon the earth, because the imaginations of men were upon evil continually.

Then why not call the cosmic exterminator and start again?

It might seem that God made a mistake in design or planning, but in deciding to create independent creative beings, he gave over the power of decision and determination to them.

There goes all-knowing, omnipotent, etc.

God intentionally created unknowns. There would inevitably be undesired results from his perspective because individual courses could be chosen by individuals -not by God.

(Even things God could know beforehand, he can potentially decide not to
consider for various reasons.)

That's god as a trickster ... is Loki in charge?

The end result of the plan was to bring those with independent decision to willingly choose to obey the universal law -based on the nature of all things -which would ensure the well-being of all -while still allowing independent creation.

Why? Sounds rather dumb when the same could be accomplished with a less that a wave of the hand.

Individuals would have to choose to do so. It is God's will that all do so, but they must choose to do so by their own will.
Still -God does affect their environment to affect their will -and it may be that he is able to bring all to the point of willing acceptance by reason and experience.

affect their environment? affect their will? acceptance by reason and experience? Sorry, that makes no sense.

As for previous life forms being bad designs, that would depend on the intent of the designer and purpose of the design. If God designed evolution, for example, but limited it to plant life -and planted a garden on some planet simply for beauty and enjoyment.... Evolution/adaptation could make the garden self-tending, if you will.

No, evolution would guarantee that the garden would, in time, be over run with weeds and then flip from climax community to weed bed and back again forever.

Adaptation would ensure the garden not only continued/survived without constant attention (short of catastrophic events), but was also a source of new variations which would make it more interesting and beautiful.

Clearly you know little of evolution and neither garden nor farm.

That would have to do with the psychology of God -and life forms on earth (as my puppy just reminded me by jumping up and interrupting me) have an effect on human psychology -so they are good for that purpose.

Sorry, that makes no sense.

Biblically, God caused animals to be harmful to man for a psychological purpose outside of the state of "Eden" -and will eventually change their nature again so that the lion eats straw like the ox, etc....

First the lion would need an entirely new set of teeth, canines and carnasials don't work on plant material. BTW: no one eats straw, it has no nutrition, they eat hay, they sleep on straw. Guess you didn't ranch either.