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

[shawn001]

I think that's the majority position, that evolution takes place according to a blueprint, belief in 'fundamentalist' creationism or evolutionism are both minority positions right?

"that evolution takes place according to a blueprint"

Please explain?

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes the strike was the final nail, the India traps was erupting as well at the time.

The Siberian traps caused an even bigger extinction, the Permian mass extinction.

I am sure you have seen what they just found under Yellowstone?

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Deep beneath Yellowstone National Park, one of the world's most dynamic volcanic systems, lies an enormous, previously unknown reservoir of hot, partly molten rock big enough to fill up the Grand Canyon 11 times, scientists say."

Hot times at Yellowstone: huge magma chamber found deeply buried| Reuters

Didn't they already know that there was a magma chamber there?

 

[shawn001]

Didn't they already know that there was a magma chamber there?

Yes, but they found an even bigger one underneath the one they knew about, 4.2 or something times bigger and the one they knew about was huge.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, but they found an even bigger one underneath the one they knew about, 4.2 or something times bigger and the one they knew about was huge.

Ah.

Well, I'll make sure to ignore whatever the media says about it, and focus solely on what actual geologists and volcanologists have to say.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We have the ability though to counter a meteor strike and not end up with the same fate they did.

Only if Bruce Willis is available though.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"that evolution takes place according to a blueprint"

Please explain?

As did the formation of the universe, it's specific form and emergent functional properties were not inevitable results of simple laws of classical physics 'given enough time and space' as once believed-
but were specifically determined by a blueprint from the beginning, literal mathematical code- which if altered infinitesimally would have resulted in very little- certainly not a life sustaining planet.

So too with evolution was my point, that life developing emergent functional properties purely by random change and natural selection- is a similarly superficial observation- not an adequate explanation,
because the laws of 'classical evolution' mirror those of 'classical physics' elegant, pleasing, simple, intuitive- but that's their downfall- too simple to overcome the entropy that would collapse the universe and life under classical laws alone.

 

[shawn001]

Ah.

Well, I'll make sure to ignore whatever the media says about it, and focus solely on what actual geologists and volcanologists have to say.

I studied plate tectonics and volcanism in college.

USGS

Seismic research finds two magma storage regions beneath Yellowstone
April 23, 2015
Researchers at the University of Utah and their colleagues at the University of New Mexico and Caltech released a paper in the journal Science on their latest imaging of the crust beneath Yellowstone using seismic techniques. This is the first study to verify what has been long suspected..that magma exists beneath Yellowstone volcano throughout the extent of the Earth's crust, which is 43-km- (27-mi-) thick beneath Yellowstone. Read a summary of the study including further discussion of the implications. The original article can be found on the Science website.

USGS: Volcano Hazards Program Yellowstone Volcano Observatory



Using Seismic Waves to Image the Yellowstone Magma Storage Region

"The deeper magma storage region extends from 20 to 50 km depth, contains about 2% melt, and is about 4.5 times larger than the shallow magma body. Seismologists at the University of Utah, the University of New Mexico, and the California Institute of Technology published the 2015 study in the journal Science, which examines the magmatic connection between the deep Yellowstone mantle plume and its shallow crustal magma reservoir.

USGS: Volcano Hazards Program - Yellowstone Monitoring: Using Seismic Waves to Image the Yellowstone Magma Storage Region

 

[shawn001]

As did the formation of the universe, it's specific form and emergent functional properties were not inevitable results of simple laws of classical physics 'given enough time and space' as once believed-
but were specifically determined by a blueprint from the beginning, literal mathematical code- which if altered infinitesimally would have resulted in very little- certainly not a life sustaining planet.

So too with evolution was my point, that life developing emergent functional properties purely by random change and natural selection- is a similarly superficial observation- not an adequate explanation,
because the laws of 'classical evolution' mirror those of 'classical physics' elegant, pleasing, simple, intuitive- but that's their downfall- too simple to overcome the entropy that would collapse the universe and life under classical laws alone.

Is this another fine tuning arguement?

 

[Riverwolf]

I studied plate tectonics and volcanism in college.

USGS

Seismic research finds two magma storage regions beneath Yellowstone
April 23, 2015
Researchers at the University of Utah and their colleagues at the University of New Mexico and Caltech released a paper in the journal Science on their latest imaging of the crust beneath Yellowstone using seismic techniques. This is the first study to verify what has been long suspected..that magma exists beneath Yellowstone volcano throughout the extent of the Earth's crust, which is 43-km- (27-mi-) thick beneath Yellowstone. Read a summary of the study including further discussion of the implications. The original article can be found on the Science website.

USGS: Volcano Hazards Program Yellowstone Volcano Observatory



Using Seismic Waves to Image the Yellowstone Magma Storage Region

"The deeper magma storage region extends from 20 to 50 km depth, contains about 2% melt, and is about 4.5 times larger than the shallow magma body. Seismologists at the University of Utah, the University of New Mexico, and the California Institute of Technology published the 2015 study in the journal Science, which examines the magmatic connection between the deep Yellowstone mantle plume and its shallow crustal magma reservoir.

USGS: Volcano Hazards Program - Yellowstone Monitoring: Using Seismic Waves to Image the Yellowstone Magma Storage Region

View attachment 9015

Awesome.

However, I feel compelled to quote the final paragraph of that USGS article for anyone lurking who might be getting alarmed that we're all gonna die in a cataclysmic supervolcanic eruption:

These findings do not increase the assessment of volcanic hazard for Yellowstone—the inferred magma storage region is no larger, the research simply makes a better image of the magmatic system. Simply, we have more key information about how the Yellowstone volcano works.

 

[Etritonakin]

Just to throw a few things out there................

Form follows function.

The life forms which we can consider and study -living or dead -are "imperfect" from a certain perspective.

Many have pointed out fraitlies and vulnerabilities, etc in life forms, which they perceive as not very intelligent from a design perspective.

According the the bible, the earthly, physical creatures -including man -were caused to be after God had made much more "perfect" beings.

Forget blind spots in our eyes and spinal issues.... We die! Certainly that should be number one on the imperfection list!

We are extremely vulnerable to our environment in many ways -but even if we manage to avoid all of the dangers in daily life all of our lives, our bodies become less and less functional -and then we die.

Why would God make humans "a little lower than the angels" -yet tell them they would eventually judge the affairs of the angels?

If God is already able to make us immortal, why did he not just do so in the first place?

What possible function could this form perform?

If God could have made our bodies perfect and invulnerable, the function of this body and environment would be to cause psychological effects. Experiencing this environment in this body would have the desired effect on the minds which could eventually be transferred to a perfect "glorious" body similar to the one which enabled the being who became Christ to create the universe and make all things subject to himself.

As we are creative beings, our environment is certainly a training tool to teach us to be better creators -but our perspective of imperfection also creates a drive toward perfection.

According to the bible, we are not the first creative beings created -and not the first to inhabit the earth. The angels inhabited the earth before we did -and their activities are not described in any great detail -but it is possible they had an effect on earthly life forms just as we do -perhaps with greater ability to do so.

(It would also be reasonable to think that God's creative processes involved some sort of research and development/field trials, etc., at some point)

However, the angels were created into perfection/a perfect situation -and were drawn toward imperfection -it was an unknown from their perspective.

Then angels and humans were allowed to interact. The angels witness man's experience, and man strives against "principalities, powers, spiritual hosts of wickedness in high places" -and are also aided by the angels who did not sin as God directs them.

That is the basis of the psychological reasons for our present form, but there are also practical considerations.

While the cycle of earthly life -birth, death, decomposition, recycled materials, etc, actually hints at the fact that life does not have to be of such a nature -that it is not necessarily a temporary state, it also allows for many things to be accomplished in a limited space, with limited materials, and in a specific time frame.

One life form may be composed of material from many other different life forms which once existed, so many individual creatures and men/women can live in the same limited space over time using the same material.

God limited man's lifespan to 120 years at a certain point ( not sure if he allowed any wiggle room), which allowed great numbers of men to live long enough for this form to perform its function, then die and make room for the next generation.

God is quoted as saying he limited man's lifespan so that his "spirit will not always strive with man" -so it limited his frustration with our newbish behavior to that which was necessary to accomplish his purpose.

As we are rather destructive at present -as were the sinning angels who were restrained -this form also limits our ability to destroy things.

When we are of a mindset to no longer be destructive, we may inhabit the universe. Space will not be an issue.

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else"

 

[Etritonakin]

If God is already able to make us immortal, why did he not just do so in the first place?

What possible function could this form perform?

If God could have made our bodies perfect and invulnerable, the function of this body and environment would be to cause psychological effects. Experiencing this environment in this body would have the desired effect on the minds which could eventually be transferred to a perfect "glorious" body similar to the one which enabled the being who became Christ to create the universe and make all things subject to himself.

Relevant scripture....

Php_3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

 

[Ouroboros]

Form follows function.

Or form is function. Sometimes form and function are identical. Like legs. Two legs, for walking, look like legs because legs is the form with which the function of walking can be done.

Many have pointed out fraitlies and vulnerabilities, etc in life forms, which they perceive as not very intelligent from a design perspective.

We perceive them as such because that's how we perceive them. We can think of smarter and more efficient ways, because we're smart human beings. And this also falls into this whole idea of let's look at the world and compare to a watch. You find a watch on the beach. You know it's designed. The world runs like a clockwork, therefore it's also designed. Well, that's all good, but you find a round rock on the beach that looks like a clock but it doesn't work at all. It's a big rock thing made out of rock stuff. So it's a rock, not a clock. It's not designed. So then, the world looks like a world full of rock stuff that's not designed.

Or put it this way, we can't have it both ways. The argument that the world is designed because it's all so perfect and looks designed, and then we look at things that do not look designed and try to wiggle out of it by saying that we don't understand it or just perceive it to be not designed. It's eating the cake and having it too. Either everything looks designed or it doesn't. And the problem is that it doesn't look designed.

According the the bible, the earthly, physical creatures -including man -were caused to be after God had made much more "perfect" beings.

Forget blind spots in our eyes and spinal issues.... We die! Certainly that should be number one on the imperfection list!

Yeah. We die because of perhaps three different reasons, but one is that the telomere at the end of the DNA (I think it's in the mtDNA, but not sure) is getting shorter each time a cell divides.

We are extremely vulnerable to our environment in many ways -but even if we manage to avoid all of the dangers in daily life all of our lives, our bodies become less and less functional -and then we die.

Why would God make humans "a little lower than the angels" -yet tell them they would eventually judge the affairs of the angels?

That we don't know. Perhaps there aren't any angels at all? Have you considered that?

If God is already able to make us immortal, why did he not just do so in the first place?

According to the story, Adam and Eve didn't eat that fruit. They were quite stupid. They should have eaten from the tree that gave them eternal life first, then the good/evil tree.

What possible function could this form perform?

If God could have made our bodies perfect and invulnerable, the function of this body and environment would be to cause psychological effects. Experiencing this environment in this body would have the desired effect on the minds which could eventually be transferred to a perfect "glorious" body similar to the one which enabled the being who became Christ to create the universe and make all things subject to himself.

As we are creative beings, our environment is certainly a training tool to teach us to be better creators -but our perspective of imperfection also creates a drive toward perfection.

That's an interesting angle. This world as the sandbox. Teaching us to be creators. I like that.

(It would also be reasonable to think that God's creative processes involved some sort of research and development/field trials, etc., at some point)

Like evolution. It's a trial-and-error process.

When we are of a mindset to no longer be destructive, we may inhabit the universe. Space will not be an issue.

That's a cool thought.

 

[Etritonakin]

Or form is function. Sometimes form and function are identical. Like legs. Two legs, for walking, look like legs because legs is the form with which the function of walking can be done.


We perceive them as such because that's how we perceive them. We can think of smarter and more efficient ways, because we're smart human beings. And this also falls into this whole idea of let's look at the world and compare to a watch. You find a watch on the beach. You know it's designed. The world runs like a clockwork, therefore it's also designed. Well, that's all good, but you find a round rock on the beach that looks like a clock but it doesn't work at all. It's a big rock thing made out of rock stuff. So it's a rock, not a clock. It's not designed. So then, the world looks like a world full of rock stuff that's not designed.

Or put it this way, we can't have it both ways. The argument that the world is designed because it's all so perfect and looks designed, and then we look at things that do not look designed and try to wiggle out of it by saying that we don't understand it or just perceive it to be not designed. It's eating the cake and having it too. Either everything looks designed or it doesn't. And the problem is that it doesn't look designed.


Yeah. We die because of perhaps three different reasons, but one is that the telomere at the end of the DNA (I think it's in the mtDNA, but not sure) is getting shorter each time a cell divides.


That we don't know. Perhaps there aren't any angels at all? Have you considered that?


According to the story, Adam and Eve didn't eat that fruit. They were quite stupid. They should have eaten from the tree that gave them eternal life first, then the good/evil tree.


That's an interesting angle. This world as the sandbox. Teaching us to be creators. I like that.


Like evolution. It's a trial-and-error process.


That's a cool thought.

Random thoughts....

I do not see evolution as a trial-and-error process, but process which accomplished its intended goal.
Even if one does not believe in God, "evolution" -which is associated with the phrase "survival of the fittest" -is credited with producing life forms which were increasingly "god-like".
An eternal, invulnerable, all-knowing, omnipotent being would be the most fit to survive.

Evolution cannot be a trial and error process if it is not trying to do anything.
If an intelligence is trying to do something by evolution (ensure survival of life without the need for constant attention) -it would be more of a trial-and-success process, because it would have resulted in man -who can (at least) conceive of charting his own evolutionary course toward an increasingly god-like position.

If there is no God, evolution produced man without forethought -and man, in turn, conceived of making all things subject to himself -including evolution.
Doesn't seem logical to me.

The universe and all therein -especially life -seems very much designed to me.
Finding something not designed for comparison is the difficult part.
Knowing the nature of present nature -even if designed -could reveal any further design.
Knowing also the nature of that which preceded "nature" as we know it would reveal the nature of any previous designer.

Just some background info.....
I believe God declared the end from the beginning.
That is to say.... before God had the Word create the universe, the worlds within, the earth, etc... to eventually become subject to him...
the juxtaposition of angelic beings (created before man) moving from perfection and fleshly beings moving toward perfection was already part of the plan.

In other words... "evolution" of earthly life is not the "best" that God could do from a design perspective, but somewhat analogous to such things as the confusing of speech at Babel.

The confusing of speech at Babel was to slow man down.....

Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

...and making man "lower" than the angels was intended to humble man initially -whereas angels were exalted initially.

Similar to this principle....

"Luk 14:11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

To what end? Contentment in any situation. The two positions will essentially cancel each other out -and the realization that any position is temporary, that all can become ever-greater -but that any position or status can be enjoyable -that they are different -not literally lesser or greater -will be the result.

God will exalt humble mankind -and humble the angelic kind -but to the end that all are extremely happy -without false pride, etc.....

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Eze 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
Eze 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
Eze 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

Of course, it is the choice of any to accept God's mercy -but God's mercy never fails.

In reality......All will have forever to become whatever -so one's present position is of little concern
We can only ever be what we are -and never what we are not.
...but forever we can become that which we are not yet.


( I was just thinking of all of the things I once wanted to be -wanted to do, etc...
and now that I believe there is no limit, I appreciate the state of those beings which do not consider what they are not. They just are -and it is awesome.
We transition -and it is more awesome. It is the coveting of something unattainable or impractical which is unpleasant.)

 

[Ouroboros]

Random thoughts....

I do not see evolution as a trial-and-error process, but process which accomplished its intended goal.

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

 

[Jared Jammer]

Ah . . . the infamous "bad design" argument. The argument that if I can demonstrate something in biology is less than optimal, it proves evolutiondunnit. The funny thing about the "bad design" argument is that it's a badly-designed argument. Heh. I think we can all agree it wasn't the product of an intelligent designer.

Anyway, there are (at least) two major flaws with the "bad design" argument:

1. Bad design is still design. There have been innumerous known designs throughout human history, and many of these designs were far less than optimal. That doesn't exclude them from being designs. Further, many of the examples of so-called bad design in biology would more accurately be labeled as harsh designs, yet some of the most harsh designs we know of were produced by some of the most brilliant men and women to ever walk the Earth. Scientists are the ones responsible for nuclear and biological weaponry, after all.

2. It's a double-edged sword. If bad design is evidence against the intelligent design position, then good design must be evidence for said position. The brilliance of life (good design) easily outweighs any flaws (bad design), thus, the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports intelligent design.

The bad design argument, fleshed out and with irrational bias removed, is actually overwhelming evidence for intelligent design. Thank you for bringing it up, Stevicus.

 

[McBell]

Ah . . . the infamous "bad design" argument. The argument that if I can demonstrate something in biology is less than optimal, it proves evolutiondunnit. The funny thing about the "bad design" argument is that it's a badly-designed argument. Heh. I think we can all agree it wasn't the product of an intelligent designer.

Anyway, there are (at least) two major flaws with the "bad design" argument:

1. Bad design is still design. There have been innumerous known designs throughout human history, and many of these designs were far less than optimal. That doesn't exclude them from being designs. Further, many of the examples of so-called bad design in biology would more accurately be labeled as harsh designs, yet some of the most harsh designs we know of were produced by some of the most brilliant men and women to ever walk the Earth. Scientists are the ones responsible for nuclear and biological weaponry, after all.

2. It's a double-edged sword. If bad design is evidence against the intelligent design position, then good design must be evidence for said position. The brilliance of life (good design) easily outweighs any flaws (bad design), thus, the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports intelligent design.

The bad design argument, fleshed out and with irrational bias removed, is actually overwhelming evidence for intelligent design. Thank you for bringing it up, Stevicus.

Except that in the case of the design argument, the designer is claimed to be perfect.
How does a perfect designer design imperfect designs?

Let us go with your idea that design flaws prove a designer.
In doing so, we show that the designer is not perfect.
So therefore we have a designer that is not god.

So who did all this designing now that we have established it was not god?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Ah . . . the infamous "bad design" argument. The argument that if I can demonstrate something in biology is less than optimal, it proves evolutiondunnit. The funny thing about the "bad design" argument is that it's a badly-designed argument. Heh. I think we can all agree it wasn't the product of an intelligent designer.

Anyway, there are (at least) two major flaws with the "bad design" argument:

1. Bad design is still design. There have been innumerous known designs throughout human history, and many of these designs were far less than optimal. That doesn't exclude them from being designs. Further, many of the examples of so-called bad design in biology would more accurately be labeled as harsh designs, yet some of the most harsh designs we know of were produced by some of the most brilliant men and women to ever walk the Earth. Scientists are the ones responsible for nuclear and biological weaponry, after all.

2. It's a double-edged sword. If bad design is evidence against the intelligent design position, then good design must be evidence for said position. The brilliance of life (good design) easily outweighs any flaws (bad design), thus, the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports intelligent design.

The bad design argument, fleshed out and with irrational bias removed, is actually overwhelming evidence for intelligent design. Thank you for bringing it up, Stevicus.

That's a nice trick, but the argument isn't that there is design that is bad. The argument is that IF there is design, then that design is bad (or unintelligent)
I don't mean to speak for everyone here, but no one claiming bad design ever proposed design to being with. It's simply a counter-argument to what you guys propose.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ah . . . the infamous "bad design" argument. The argument that if I can demonstrate something in biology is less than optimal, it proves evolutiondunnit.

No, its just evidence against a position of design (or, at least, against design by the hand of an omnipotent, all-knowing entity).

1. Bad design is still design.

Circular logic. The point of the bad design argument isn't to say "if it's designed, it is designed badly", it is to say "the sub-optimal design can be better explained by evolution than by the existence of an intelligent designer".

2. It's a double-edged sword. If bad design is evidence against the intelligent design position, then good design must be evidence for said position. The brilliance of life (good design) easily outweighs any flaws (bad design), thus, the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports intelligent design.

This is terrible argument that outright ignores the whole point of the bad design argument. It is literally turning a blind eye to the flaws in order to say "but the rest of it all works fine, so we can ignore the flaws as irrelevant". Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Your position is that these flaws were intentionally designed to be as they are, that humans were intentionally designed to use the same thin tube to both eat and breathe through. It simply makes more sense that flaws can be explained through evolutionary processes than by the hand of an intelligent - let alone omnipotent and omniscient - creator.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Any bus journey takes you to and past places you do not want to end up.
It is hard to interpret the plan even when you know where you are going.
It is far too soon to make a judgement.

 

[Stevicus]

The bad design argument, fleshed out and with irrational bias removed, is actually overwhelming evidence for intelligent design. Thank you for bringing it up, Stevicus.

Well, sure, you're welcome. I didn't actually say it was all that "bad," but that, if it was designed, it just didn't seem to be the result of any omniscient "intelligence" or all that well-planned. That doesn't negate the possibility that it could have been designed, but I don't think we have overwhelming evidence for it.

The overwhelming evidence we have at hand is the same evidence that scientists have access to, and they come to a different conclusion. All we can really say is what's here based on our own observations, and science has only just barely begun to learn some of the mechanisms of life and the universe around us. But we can't say whether it was "designed," or if it was "intelligent" or even what was "intended" to be.

You mention the brilliance of life, but isn't that in the eye of the beholder? Sure, we care about human life because we're humans ourselves, so we have a motivated self-interest in embracing the idea of the "brilliance of life." But from another perspective, we could be viewed as "ugly giant bags of mostly water."

I suppose I'd even entertain the possibility that some ancient trans-dimensional aliens were doing some experiments in our part of the galaxy and made a few "happy accidents." There's no evidence for that, but it's no less plausible than Intelligent Design.