No sir. Unless I read you incorrectly, you made the argument that only humans could appreciate art and creativity - both of which do not contribute to aiding our survival.
I posted this particular video because it shows many different species of birds, and their various adaptations, which actually play little or no role in survival at all. Those colors and plumages and oddly shaped body parts have adapted based purely on the aesthetic preference of countless generations of avian ladies.
In case you haven't been reading, I have no problem with adaptation. This is what you are talking about here.
But even adaptation has its limits. You assume that all the varieties of all the various species of birds just happened randomly as a result of....what? "Preference"? That is a stretch of anyone's imagination to say the least. That is tantamount to placing tubes of paint in an empty art gallery and going back millions of years later to find masterpieces adorning the walls fully framed and signed.
And I really have to ask what you mean by "aesthetic preference" of the "avian ladies"? How did the aesthetic preference of the female result in more aesthetically pleasing plumage in the males? This is just nonsense to me.
Do you think that the endless numbers of individual plants that have died, or the countless number of botanical species that have gone extinct, did so because the designer hated them or created them poorly, or because mutations to their phenotype at a particular time, and in a particular environment, just didn't happen to work out?
Since the Creator designed thing on earth to take care of themselves and to adapt to changing environments, it appears that some did not survive the adaptation process. Or like dinosaurs, may have fulfilled a role and were no longer needed.
Mutations wipe things out...they seldom have beneficial effects, so those not adapted correctly died out as we would expect.
Why is it that you can't uproot one plant from one part of the world and successfully replant it anywhere you want?
You should come to Australia......we have introduced plants here that not only survive, but flourish and take over the landscape. All they need is the right climate.
Those "elaborate mechanisms" are the result of hundreds of millions of offspring, producing hundreds of millions of other offspring, leaving only the most beneficial characteristics and traits for survival. Sometimes that includes very difficult to reach pollen cores, sometimes it mean having bright colors to attract pollinators, and sometimes that makes them incredibly plain and boring...
That still doesn't explain how a mindless plant can become more colorful or develop the features of fake insects, including their pheromones, because it discerns that brighter colors or fake insects perpetuate their species more effectively....now does it? This is pure fantasy to me.
In the reproduction of the birds, which this point addresses, there is no survival advantage other than the birds preference. That's my whole point. You made the ID argument that beauty is evidence of a creator/designer based on the aesthetic enjoyment of humans. I'm showing you how often times those pretty things hinder survival, even though they are obviously part of some elaborate mating processes.
And I am saying that all that beauty is wasted on creatures who have no appreciation for it apart from their mating rituals.
Have you ever seen a cow appreciate a sunset.....or a dog appreciate the beauty of a forest? To him it is just a bunch of trees on which to leave his calling card.
The patterning and designs on myriads of creatures is nothing short of breathtaking, yet you want us to believe that it is all accidental. That the aesthetically pleasing colors and designs are the product of "preference" on the part of living things?
Take a look at the simple caterpillars of various species and tell me there is no designer......
The caterpillars which mimic snakes, grow spiky spines and eat toxic flowers - all to keep predators away | Daily Mail Online
We have skin and fur - other animals have skin and fur
We have bones and guts - other animals have bones and guts
We bleed when cut - other animals bleed when cut
We are prone to illness and death - other animals are prone to illness and death
We squeeze offspring out of our woo-woos - other animals squeeze offspring out of their woo-woos.
We feed those babies with our boobs - other animals feed their babies with their boobs
We have complicated language - other animals have complicated language
We can invent and learn new things - other animals can invent and learn new things
We are self aware - other animals are self aware
We have the same Creator who used the same raw materials to create all living beings. Similarities do not make us the same at all. There are gulfs between man and animals that can never be breached. Spirituality for example makes us very different. There is no human culture on earth that is devoid of spirituality. Some nations can deny it to their citizens but they cannot stamp it out....it is inherent.
Language is not simple for humans either. We alone can communicate either verbally or with written language. We can convey in writing exactly what we can say with speech.
Our design and engineering skills are not programmed but are the result of years of study. How many years of study does it take for a beaver to build a dam? Or for all the varieties of birds to learn to make the nests that are peculiar to their species? Who teaches them?
Who trained the migratory birds or butterflies in navigation? We do not possess those skills unless we learn them from someone who learned them from someone else. Do you see the difference? Do you want to?
We can enjoy art for art's sake - other animals enjoy art for art's sake
What animals indulge in art without man to provide them with the materials? There is no "art" from animals found in caves, like there is for native people's in various countries. Animals can mimic man.
We kill other people because we don't like them - animals kill other animals for survival (and sometimes resource or turf wars among the greater apes)
Well, actually it is against the laws of God and man to kill someone because you don't like them. We, unlike the animals have a conscience and a sense of morality that is not seen in the animal kingdom.
War, on the other hand has been used for millennia as a lawful way to murder those you don't like.
That's a lot of stuff that's the same, considering we are supposedly so different...
Same Creator...same materials. But the differences remain enormous.
Also, if normal human beings should find violence so repugnant, then why is it such a tenacious part of religious history?
The Bible's explanation for that is simple. Death and violence were never supposed to part of the human experience.
When "sin" (imperfection) entered the world, then violence entered right along with it. The first murder was committed by Adam's son. In one generation, violence and murder became part of life....such is the power of sin.
Even God used murder and violence to spread his message, right?
WRONG! God never spread his message with violence or murder. In the days of ancient Israel, he used his nation to clear out squatters from the land he promised to give them as an inheritance. The Canaanites were the vilest of human beings, who indulged in violence and perverted sex to a sickening degree. He cleared them out like the vermin they were. Their worship was demonic. (Deut 18:9-12)
What if the person training us to take the life of another person was given orders to do so from the Designer himself? Does that make it less repugnant? Regardless of you denomination, it's just blood lust story after blood lust story, isn't it? Or should we only focus on the pretty aspects of "intelligent design"?
God no longer sanctions war. There is no land or territory for his people to protect any more. Christians live in every corner of the globe and were told to be "no part of this world". (John 15:18-21)
Hence no human can tell us to break the laws of God and take the life of a fellow human.
Since God sanctioned his people as his executional force in ancient times, there was no "murder" committed.
Murder is the "unlawful" taking of human life. Since God is the arbiter of who lives and who dies, his perfect justice was served. Just as we would expect from any human justice system. The punishment should fit the crime.
God's sanction made it execution for a capital crime....not murder. The highest penalty one could pay for any crime committed in Israel was death. The authorized executioner was therefore not a murderer.
The Christian message was never spread with violence or murder. Please don't confuse what Roman Catholicism did as something "Christian". They "converted" people at the point of a sword or forced confession with cruel torture. None of that was sanctioned by the Christ. Make no mistake.....Christendom is not Christianity.
If you're going to limit obvious intelligence to just a collection of learned behaviors, then what is human intelligence?
Did I say that animals are not intelligent? They need a measure of intelligence to learn any behavior in the first place. It is how they learn that is interesting. Apes have been taught sign language by humans, yet they never developed it on their own. Art was introduced by humans also, but no apes have art galleries in the wild....nor do elephants.
Human intelligence at present is limited by our loss of perfection. "Sin" (an original language term used in archery for "missing the mark") creates an inability to do anything perfectly, yet we all have a collective expectation that things should be perfect. We find imperfection in ourselves and others, to be very frustrating.
When you observe the abilities of savants, who exhibit a pocket of genius in certain areas like art, music or mathematics, it demonstrates that the human mind is capable of these levels of achievement. We are all meant to be that clever but we lost it when our ancestor disobeyed his Creator. Christ came to give is back what Adam lost.
According to the Bible, one day we will all achieve that level of perfection again and nothing we have in mind to do will be beyond our capabilities. I for one, find that idea very appealing....but that is just me speaking from my own point of view.
