Constantly designed baramins and the evolving food chain

I didn't state that "Goddidit". It's an attempt by you to simplify every statement I make. WHy not just take it as written?It's not obtuse. Indeed, for starters a designer, doesn't open the gates for any specific deity. The fact that I have made a detailed hypothesis of consciousness means that my argument is complicated, and based on what I argue MUST be design and purpose in systems. I have at no time stated something as simple as "Goddidit" without a thorough philosophical argument as tp why he is the necessary entity within the principle of parsimony.How about reading my statement again. Food chain = an active designer, evolution = no extra entity needed. But if we look at the fossils as a mass grave then the flood accounts for this. Are you assuming that I would leave that possibility out if I say, " Remember, my premise is that every animal would be in place from the beginning. "?If you want to believe everything a ID creationist says is "Goddidit" then that's up to you. However, the evidence is just as much for an evolving food chain as it is organisms.Edit; To say the argument for the ToE is that "naturedidit" would be dishonest. The conclusion isn't the argument.If I found blood on a monkey, a hammer with it's prints on, and a catalogue of violent behaviour by the particular monkey, then the conclusion of "themonkeydidit" implies that's all there is to the argument.It's dishonest, because all of the information I have provided makes me infer a designer. My argument isn't "Goddidit" but one can conclude he did if it is a valid and most logical conclusion.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-14-2005 06:57 AM

Could you try and be at least coherent if not consistent.Why bother arguing that a designer does not imply any specific deity if you are then going to use the biblical flood as an explanation for the fossil record.If the fossil record is nothing but the result of some sort of flood sorting then why do you even bother positing an evolving food chain, since there is no coherent way of linking particular groups of organisms to a particular time period. In what way is this a 'thorough philosophical argument'? Given your presumption of the equivalence of evidence for both theories surely you can see that your 'designer' is not in the least parsimonious but rather a superfluous entity.You seem to be trying to think up some tortuous rationale by which a designer is somehow more parsimonious than the absence of a designer, and the one you come up with is one for which there is not a shred of evidence, why?If you really have a coherent theory then why don't you address any of the questions I raised in my initial post?TTFN,WK

I refer to the flood as one catastrophy, but I think the "order" of transitionals is man-made circular.There would be a pre-flood chain, but I wouldn't look at the uniformitarianism outlook pertaining to it. He answers for the information present, rather than the mutational saga taken as truth. Infact, he's the only possibility according to the principle, if looked at from a perspective of purposeful functions in systems, and complexity and designs in nature.Loudmouth (in another thread) mentioned the avatar he has as a chance design, but this is not what is meant by design for me. If a Michaelangelo Carravagio appears in the clouds then that will be chance producing a design.How can we tell my avatar is designed if there are no brush strokes? Leanardo Davinci left none on his work, I suppose they could have happened by chance.How can anyone think Monk's lil rapid baba is chance?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-14-2005 07:53 AM

A magic ass wart can be. You're gonna need a bit more specific a definition than that. As it stands, you're just saying, "Whatever caused life caused life."So far, nobody has ever managed to give me a reasonable definition for what God is. I ask, and all they do is tell me his resume.(Edit: Just started a spin-off topic on this. Perhaps we should take this part of the conversation over there when/if it's approved.)This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-14-2005 08:40 AM

---

"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie

yeah, if you stand on your head, cover one eye and squint. Is that the sort of perspective you were thinking of. There are no brush strokes on Leonardo da Vinci's artworks? Have you been using magic mushrooms to heighten your religious experiences? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen brush strokes on da Vinci's paintings.Your talk of chance is meaningless.TTFN,WK

Dan, will take part when I can. Maybe late today.WK.DaVinci, it is known that his works you find no brush strokes on some. Van Gogh, brushstrokes everywhere, but then, that could just be a natural anomoly and those works made themselves. However, it seems "designerdidit" is a good explanation.All this means that if you found one of these paintings in a field, could you establish it was a design? I suppose one would conclude it was chance, like say an infinitly more brilliant design, like monk's baba.I've never actually seen chance produce a painting though, or something as obviously designed as the Sistine chapel ceiling fresco. I can tell even hundreds of years later that someone must have created it, and that it didn't paint itself, like people would have me believe? Oops, "designerdidit" again, I really shouldn't do that. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-14-2005 01:19 PM

quote:

---

Let's say that all the transitionals are a result of the designer modifying unsuccesful species, in order to keep the circle of life going? It's logical because then each organism will have a purpose.

---

Why not just let them go extinct and leave the niche open? This seems to have happened quite a bit throughout earth's history. The recent extinction of mega-fauna and the extinction of the dinosaurs are two great examples.

quote:

---

It's logical because then each organism will have a purpose. It's the same as the other circles in nature, circles work best, and to keep life going, God would surely have to keep the chain going, would he not?

---

Life seems to do just fine without outside interference. Even if we killed off every mutlicelled organism there would still be a lot of life on the earth. What is the purpose of the zebra and the lion? To multiply. That's it.

I think it would be useful if we all got our ecologist hats on and talked about food chains.1. Why exactly is God neccesary to the existence of food chains? This is about the most weird suggestion I've heard on EvC.2. Biologists posit a clear and straightforward model of evolution. The same process influences life at all levels -molecular, organismic, and at the level of the food chain. Can you point me to a biologist who says that the evolution of species requires a different mechanism of evolution to that required by "food chains"? If not, why do you think that your statement that "an evolving food chain... is indistinguishable from natural evolution" is of any interest whatsoever? Has any biologist in recent years stated otherwise?mick[edited by mick to correct typo][edited by mick to correct another typo]This message has been edited by mick, 04-14-2005 03:01 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 04-14-2005 03:03 PM

I'm talking about assigned niches. They may well be left open, but as I said, there are no rules for the designer. It's
likely that the assigned time for replacement baramins would consequently take place. What does the lion eat? What does the Zebra eat? I suggest they're all here to, as you said multiply. However, they
have that goal because of the food chain. Why are there cows? To multiply or to farm? Why are there any animals?
We say so much death in the fossils, yet replacement also. WHy/? I suggest the outside influence is so clever that
an appearance of "self-sufficiency" is apparent, and to some extent, true.But with the ToE, as you said - no outside influence is involved in life, combined with abiogenesis fantasy = trying to
get rid of the most logical conclusion, a designer. 1. Thanks for the compliment of "This is about the most weird suggestion I've heard on EvC." . God is necessary because when catastrophes happen, replacement baramins are needed. Like when the dinos went.2. is an appeal to authority, Biologists aren't interested in a designer hypothesis, so they just collect facts but they're poor story makers, no offense.

What are you talking about? this is just nonsense. What do you mean when you say that Zebras have the goal of multiplying "because of the food chain"? You are talking with zero knowledge of ecology. "Food chains" are a human conceptual invention to help understand how energy moves around in an ecological system. They aren't real as causative agents in biology. They are "emergent" from the fact that each animal has to eat in order to survive. You could easily talk about food webs or food trees rather than food chains. What the hell is an "assigned niche"? Why do you think food chains are even important as far as intelligent design is concerned?mick

And what do you think replaced dinosaurs? I challenge you to point out the baramin that novelly appeared following the extinction of dinosaurs and replaced them in their niches.

Don't you ever get tired of rehashing an argument that is already 200 years old? Not even bringing something new to it, just churning out the same old argument except this time with a painting instead of a watch.TTFN,WK

because then one might not be able to distinguish a demonology from the study of the production of beings.I am tempted to goto Bryant College and see if the baraminologists might not be interested in following up on Mike's suggestion as to a possible reciprocity bewteen occasionalistic propositions and a given pre-established harmony as it makes clear how to re-read the following two paragraphs of Kant's without the all the culture of a difference between ID and Biblical Creationism ( I purposely type them out of sequence so that you might be able to see the difference).Kant Critique of Teleological Judgement &86 (in the publisher Halfner Pub Company's page 294)

quote:

---

Since now it is only as a moral being that we recognize man as the purpose of creation, we have in the first palce a ground (at least the chief condition) for regarding the world as a whole connected according to purposes and as a system of final causes. And, more especially, as regards the reference (necessary for us by the constitution of our reason) of natural purposes to an intelligent world cause, we have one principle enabling us to think the nature and properties of this first cause as supreme ground in the kingdom of purposes, and to determine its concept. This physical teleology could not do; it could only lead to indeterminate concepts of it, unserviceable alike in theoretical and in pratical use.

---

quote:

---

If now we meet with purposive arrangements in the world and, as reason inevitable requires, subordinate the purposes that are only conditioned to an unconditioned, supreme, i.e. final, purpose, then we easily see in the first place that we are thus concerned, not with a puroose of nature (internal to itself), so far as it exists, but with a purpose of its existence along with all its ordinances and, consequently, with the ultimate purpose of creation , and specially with the supreme condition under which a final purpose(i.e. the determining ground of a supreme understanding for the production of beings of the world) can be allowed.

---

I lay awake at night wondering if this is where Mayr derived the difference of "ultimate and proximate" biology from, rather than training the student Gould to extend natural history into a new title called by Kant the archeology of nature. This seems to be the only way to resolve the human population problem by noneconomic force and the use of food chains and baramins might be a human means to this hopefully not final end of human life on this planent Earth.

Thanks for the interesting post Brad, you quoted;now we meet with purposive arrangements in the world and, as reason inevitable requires, subordinate the purposes that are only conditioned to an unconditioned, supreme, i.e. final, purpose, then we easily see in the first place that we are thus concerned, not with a puroose of nature (internal to itself), so far as it exists, but with a purpose of its existence along with all its ordinances.....which is good stuff. Did you go and see if the Bariminologists were interested? I think a better name than the food chain is some kind of intended harmonious correlation of organisms. A chain is a quick term I used,. and I am aware of the ecology pertaining to individual strings so I think it is complex.A look at assigned niches and behaviour would show whether I was talking giberish or whether the natural "harmonious chain of baramins"[insert articulation] is infact in place.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-19-2005 05:59 PM

quote:

---

I've never actually seen chance produce a painting though, or something as obviously designed as the Sistine chapel ceiling fresco. I can tell even hundreds of years later that someone must have created it, and that it didn't paint itself, like people would have me believe? Oops, "designerdidit" again, I really shouldn't do that.

---

Right.A designerdidit.We know the designer. We know exactly how he did the designing. We even have painters today.You are absolutely correct that paintings do not spring up all on their own.OTOH...We don't know who or what your Designer of nature is. We have never seen your creator create any life form the way we have seen people create paintings.Unlike paintings, living things reproduce and create offspring all by themselves.Let the record show that this is the 1,984th time I have explained this fallacious argument to mike the wiz, and he STILL insists upon using it.