Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another "New" View of Creation
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 46 of 64 (516200)
07-24-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phage0070
07-23-2009 1:42 PM


Re: Consciousness?
Hi Phage,
Your earlier comment was,
quote:
The optic nerve connections were very close and never diverged.
I replied,
quote:
That's not what happened according to the article. Are you claiming that this was a convenient happy accident?
And you replied,
quote:
That is exactly what is described in the article. "...rewired itself during development when she was still in her mother's womb." One lobe managed to cope with receiving stimuli from both visual fields. The brain is able to cope with and adapt to many different conditions, which includes unexpected nerve arrangements. It was a convenient, happy accident.
I don't know enough about how the brain develops to be able to say that what actually happened was that the optic nerve connections never diverged, but your reply above chimes with what the article says -- that however it was accomplished, the fact is that "one lobe managed to cope with receiving stimuli from both visual fields."
However, a "convenient, happy accident" is your interpretation. It seems very odd that this girl had a condition for which this "accident" was so highly "convenient." Surely the logical conclusion was that the girl's brain detected the problem and adapted. My question was how it did this, because rewiring vision in this way is not what a normally developing brain does. How does it detect the problem, and how does it "know" how to fix it? My own belief is that cells in the body have a basic kind of consciousness, and you go up through groups of collective consciousness with individual organs, systems, and the body as a whole. You could maybe add after that, humanity as a whole, and carry on and on. Some kind of collective universal consciousness is perhaps a good way of summarising my beliefs.
One example of how a collective bodily consciousness could be demonstrated is that mathematics student:
Is the Brain Really Necessary?
Now you said,
quote:
The amazing part is that those component parts can operate in many different configurations than the "normal" one.
Take the brain loss to an extreme, though, and this doesn't fit (bold emphasis mine):
quote:
Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man with a larger than normal head. He was referred to Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty. Although the boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had "virtually no brain". A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness. The rest of his skull was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The young man continues a normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.
I can't see how an explanation of adaptation of existing brain systems could apply to a thin layer a millimeter in thickness. IMO the logical conclusion is that consciousness is in the body, not just the brain. Dr. Bruce Lipton, a cell biologist, has been studying this concept via epigenetics and quantum physics, and its applications in holistic health.
Pardon the pun, but I think the best way to deal with information like this is to be open-minded. Sometimes the most important discoveries are made when, whichever way we study it, a phenomenon does not match with existing paradigms.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phage0070, posted 07-23-2009 1:42 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Phage0070, posted 07-24-2009 7:01 AM Kitsune has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5275 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 47 of 64 (516210)
07-24-2009 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Will Seamus Ennis
07-23-2009 10:35 AM


PATTERNED RESPONSE
Hi Will
OK. I think I can see where you are coming from on this. I haven't had time to read anyone else's views, but here's mine.
I would say there is a distinct difference between the affect certain conditions or stimuli may have on inanimate objects (of any size) and the affect they may have on organic life. Inanimate objects do not "make a response" to anything. They do not have any kind of self-interest. They do not react. They are simply pushed and pulled by the laws of physics, like pebbles being washed up and down a beach.
Simple organic life (such as a single celled bacteria), can make a "patterned response" as you call it to certain stimuli, but these are simple types of reflex action; they cannot truly be expressed as self-interest as they have no sense of self. There is no congnitive or conscious thought behind these responses. The organism has no idea of its own existence and no will to live.
Complex organisms like human beings also respond to conditions and stimuli all the time without the cognitive or conscious brain being aware of this. In that sense you could say we make a "patterned response". But we also have cognitive and conscious minds that operates on quite a distinct and different level, with a true self-interest. We have the ability to DECIDE what kind of response to make. Now it may be that when you break down all the processes that make that decision, you would find that they were a complex accumulation of patterned responses. But I don't accept that each of those patterned responses in isolation represents an kind of intelligence, any more that a wire or a bolt makes an engine.
So, in summary, I would say this:
- Inanimate objects make no patterned responses and have no intelligence.
- Simple life forms make patterned responses but have no intelligence.
- Complex life forms make patterned responses and have intelligence.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-23-2009 10:35 AM Will Seamus Ennis has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5275 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 48 of 64 (516211)
07-24-2009 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Will Seamus Ennis
07-23-2009 10:35 AM


PATTERNED RESPONSE
Will
Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'd better point out that I realise I didn't explain something correctly in my last message!
I chose the wrong word when I said inanimate objects do not react to anything. Of course, atoms and molecules do make chemical "reactions". I should have just stuck with your word "response".
This doesn't affect my argument though. Inanimate objects can only react according to the laws of physics. They have no interest in the matter. Organisms have evolved to react/respond to their own benefit, even if they are too simple to know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-23-2009 10:35 AM Will Seamus Ennis has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 64 (516225)
07-24-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Kitsune
07-24-2009 3:19 AM


Re: Consciousness?
LindaLou writes:
It seems very odd that this girl had a condition for which this "accident" was so highly "convenient."
Again, you are thinking of it like multiple crazy coincidences. It isn't like that. How about this example:
There is a forest on a slope, where the vast majority of trees point straight up, putting them on a 45 degree angle with the ground. One strange tree points straight out from the ground though, at right angles. This obviously is a hindrance to the tree, but it amazingly manages to function just fine. Do you consider it an amazing coincidence that all the limbs are still attached to the trunk, even though that trunk is significantly out of position?
Of course not. The same goes for the roots of the abnormal tree; some trees need to cope with weak soil, and the fact that this tree developed an abnormally strong root system isn't impossible (although somewhat abnormal for this forest).
LindaLou writes:
Surely the logical conclusion was that the girl's brain detected the problem and adapted.
No it isn't. We have no evidence of conscious developmental reaction of any organism, anywhere, at any time. It is all an automatic part of the functioning of the organism.
LindaLou writes:
Some kind of collective universal consciousness is perhaps a good way of summarising my beliefs.
And while I am sure your imagination is quite comforting, it isn't real. These studies do not support your preconceived conclusions, which brings me to my next point:
From your link:
quote:
"Skeptics have claimed that it was an error of interpretation of the scans themselves. Lorber himself admits that reading a CAT scan can be tricky. He also has said that he would not make such a claim without evidence. In answer to attacks that he has not precisely quantified the amount of brain tissue missing, he added, "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms.""
There are serious issues with his ability to perform the study accurately.
LindaLou writes:
I can't see how an explanation of adaptation of existing brain systems could apply to a thin layer a millimeter in thickness.
And there we see the crux of your argument: "I don't understand how it really works, and I understand my concept of magic. Therefore, I declare it much more likely to be magic!"
This is referred to as an "Argument from Ignorance", and is not logical.
LindaLou writes:
Dr. Bruce Lipton, a cell biologist, has been studying this concept via epigenetics and quantum physics, and its applications in holistic health.
If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck... QUACK!
Bayblab: Quack of the week: Healing Water Online
QUACK!
Bruce Lipton, quack - Atheist in a (Metaphorical) Foxhole LiveJournal
QUACK!
John H Armstrong : Science
QUACK!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Kitsune, posted 07-24-2009 3:19 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Kitsune, posted 07-24-2009 11:48 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
crawler30
Junior Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 15
From: Florida
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 50 of 64 (516242)
07-24-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Kitsune
07-24-2009 2:44 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
actually, my point was that I believe God gave everything what it needed to change itself as needed within a set of boundries. DNA is this programed set of boundries wich is free to change as needed. I just think that these things at times do not happen slowly over millions of years, because if there were not imediate changes to some spieces they could not have survived. If I were to "design" a computer program I would prefer it to change with its environment rather than have to download updates evry few hours in order to insure its survival, its called artificial intelligence. What then would we call it if it was programed biologically? I just cant believe that it was just a random set of mistakes and mutations that caused all of the complexity that is our eco system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Kitsune, posted 07-24-2009 2:44 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by lyx2no, posted 07-24-2009 10:23 AM crawler30 has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 51 of 64 (516246)
07-24-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crawler30
07-24-2009 10:06 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
because if there were not imediate changes to some spieces they could not have survived.
PICTURE OF DINOSAURS NOT SURVIVING
It goes without saying that this is not the first time it has been captured on film.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 10:06 AM crawler30 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 10:45 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
crawler30
Junior Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 15
From: Florida
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 52 of 64 (516249)
07-24-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by lyx2no
07-24-2009 12:21 AM


Re: Consciousness?
you believe society to be ignorant for believing humans to be the most intelligent beings in the universe yet you do not believe in a higher state of being? That seems rather contradictory. If it is aliens you refer to as being the higher intelligance than you too believe in something that you can not see, touch, smell, taste, measure or show empiricle evidence of so would that not be faith? and if it is the organizms themselves that are making the changes to themselves in order to create a result then is that not still a form of intelligent design? And if you do not believe it happened to achieve a purpose than why do you believe in evolution? If everything happened on accident then we more than likely would not organizms that change to fill a certain niche of life, especially not every niche.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by lyx2no, posted 07-24-2009 12:21 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by lyx2no, posted 07-24-2009 3:32 PM crawler30 has not replied

  
crawler30
Junior Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 15
From: Florida
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 53 of 64 (516251)
07-24-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by lyx2no
07-24-2009 10:23 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
I did not say that all spieces would be able to change enough all the time. But it also goes without saying that life would have ended if there were not a huge amount of spieces that did in fact survive the same occurance that killed the dinosaurs. And the fact that there are still crocodiles and many other lizards and birds which came from dinosaurs should also point out that it is possible for life to make imediate changes (compared to millions of years) in order to insurer the survival of life on earth. Have you ever seen a picture of a bird? Of couse some spieces must go extinct in the proccess if they can not change quickly enough, but that does not make the other changes invalid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by lyx2no, posted 07-24-2009 10:23 AM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Perdition, posted 07-24-2009 11:16 AM crawler30 has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 54 of 64 (516261)
07-24-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by crawler30
07-24-2009 10:45 AM


Re: Intelligent Design
I did not say that all spieces would be able to change enough all the time. But it also goes without saying that life would have ended if there were not a huge amount of spieces that did in fact survive the same occurance that killed the dinosaurs.
There are many mass extinction events throughout history. There's the Permian Extinction, the Cretaceous Extinction, just to name a few. Some of these events have wiped out upwards of 99% of all extant species. The fact that a few survive isn't too surprising though, because small creatures require small amounts of food, and can find something somewhere on which to live until the environment heals.
In fact, that's what happened after the dinosaurs, mammals were all pretty small, mouse sized for the most part, and could survive on the scraps left after the asteroid hit. Birds, likewise, were pretty small. Animals have a will to survive, and will do all within their power to find food, water, and a mate. The animals that can't, die, the ones thast do, live.
It doesn't take a huge amount of species, it only takes a handful, and they will quite rapidly (in evolutionary terms) expand to fill all the available niches. That's how mammals could rise to supremacy, the reptiles who had been in charge mostly died out, leaving a lot of open niches to fill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 10:45 AM crawler30 has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 55 of 64 (516266)
07-24-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Phage0070
07-24-2009 7:01 AM


Re: Consciousness?
Hi Phage,
quote:
The same goes for the roots of the abnormal tree; some trees need to cope with weak soil, and the fact that this tree developed an abnormally strong root system isn't impossible (although somewhat abnormal for this forest).
Sure, I can imagine a tree growing an abnormally strong root system in order to cope with the conditions you describe. The key word here is "abnormal." The the girl's brain rewiring itself, the tree is adapting to unusual circumstances. I have been asking what that process is, exactly. How does the tree detect those circumstances and adjust? How does the brain? Where is that missing piece between stimulus and response? I take it that this question is not something that you find interesting -- or perhaps you believe it is not a valid question? IMO it seems clear that something is going on in that moment that we don't yet understand. This is one thing that Bruce Lipton and Deepak Chopra talk about. Forgive me for baiting you gently by posting a link to Lipton's site but you responded exactly the way I'd anticipated based on your posts here. If you want to call thousands of years of Eastern medicine, religion, and holistic health quackery, you're not alone on this board. However, a) rubbishing Lipton lends nothing to what you are arguing here, and b) it's off topic. I don't have the time or the desire to go to the Coffee House and get into that subject, it's huge.
quote:
We have no evidence of conscious developmental reaction of any organism, anywhere, at any time. It is all an automatic part of the functioning of the organism.
. . . yet, empirically. Though I'm not so sure that's true, I don't have the world of scientific studies of organisms at my fingertips. The second sentence is an opinion. You are entitled to these same as me but at least recognise it for what it is.
quote:
And while I am sure your imagination is quite comforting, it isn't real. These studies do not support your preconceived conclusions
Again, opinion. I was an agnostic for a long time and altered my beliefs in the past few years. No doubt you think it's delusional and wishful thinking. Again, you are entitled to this; but if you are an atheist as your words seem to indicate, then at least recognise that for what it is -- also a belief. I'm not trying to convert you to what I personally believe in, nor do I hope so desperately that my own beliefs are true that I would go along with anything in order to defend them. If that's what you think then you've been talking to creationists too long. I'm simply willing to consider other options; and if the conventional one seems right, I will go with it. I'm not sure it is here and I wish more research were done on this so we could learn what's going on.
quote:
There are serious issues with his ability to perform the study accurately.
Surely that means that more studies should be done. The facts themselves remain: some people who are missing substantial parts of their brains can live normal lives. (There's another question here too: why do some others not -- and why does that not apply to everyone as we'd expect?)
quote:
And there we see the crux of your argument: "I don't understand how it really works, and I understand my concept of magic. Therefore, I declare it much more likely to be magic!"
This is referred to as an "Argument from Ignorance", and is not logical.
You don't need to tell me that, I debate with creationists too. How about this one: your claim that I am invoking magic is a straw man. Look again at the facts: a thin layer a millimeter in thickness is all this man has for a brain, yet he has an above average IQ and can function normally. We would expect him to be more or less a vegetable. This isn't a case of simple adaptation, this is profound restructuring. For example, he's obviously missing part of his brain stem, which controls things like breathing, heart rate, digestion, sleep. He got an honours degree in mathematics yet the left side of his brain is to all intents and purposes nonexistent.
Don't you think this is worthy of study? It's extraordinary.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Phage0070, posted 07-24-2009 7:01 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Phage0070, posted 07-24-2009 1:41 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 64 (516291)
07-24-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Kitsune
07-24-2009 11:48 AM


Re: Consciousness?
LindaLou writes:
I have been asking what that process is, exactly. How does the tree detect those circumstances and adjust? How does the brain? Where is that missing piece between stimulus and response?
No you have not, it does not, and there isn't a missing piece! You have not been investigating the biological action behind why a stomach grows to the size it does and stops, while not sticking to the sides of the abdominal cavity but mating its ends to the esophagus and the duodenum. You have not been asking why a femur grows into the shape of a femur, rather than just keeping adding bone randomly. And finally, you have not been asking how an eye distinguishes itself from the surrounding tissue and links up with other parts of the body.
What you have been asking is how the brain commands such things to happen, which is plainly ridiculous; it does not command it to happen at all. Surely you would think it ridiculous for the brain to command the construction of three eyes, or the growth of only one, and yet you think it perfectly acceptable for it to command the divergence of nerves from one lobe to the other!
Here is a hint toward understanding what happened: The eyes normally connect to both lobes of the brain. Both eyes. Each lobe normally interprets the opposite field of vision (the same side of the retina, remember that vision is flipped). It seems that the remaining lobe simply assumed the duties of the other lobe in vision, as it obviously did in other areas.
LindaLou writes:
The second sentence is an opinion. You are entitled to these same as me but at least recognise it for what it is.
Everything is an interpretation of evidence, and thus an opinion. Some are better than others, despite what your kindergarten teacher says.
LindaLou writes:
Surely that means that more studies should be done. The facts themselves remain: some people who are missing substantial parts of their brains can live normal lives. (There's another question here too: why do some others not -- and why does that not apply to everyone as we'd expect?)
Of course it does, but we don't need this example to keep science marching on. The study of the brain is ongoing, and would continue even without such examples. For example: Phineas Gage
Phineas Gage - Wikipedia
This guy had one or both of his frontal lobes destroyed by an iron rod driven completely through his head; it completely changed his personality and who he was. He managed to keep on living more functionally than many people even after his accident and, as his doctor relates:
quote:
Mr. G. got up and vomited; the effort of vomiting pressed out about half a teacupful of the brain, which fell upon the floor.
LindaLou writes:
This isn't a case of simple adaptation, this is profound restructuring.
Define the difference with something other than incredulity or rarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Kitsune, posted 07-24-2009 11:48 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-24-2009 2:36 PM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 61 by Kitsune, posted 07-25-2009 3:41 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Will Seamus Ennis
Junior Member (Idle past 5357 days)
Posts: 13
From: Huntsville, AL
Joined: 07-08-2009


Message 57 of 64 (516308)
07-24-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Phage0070
07-24-2009 1:41 PM


Restatement of concept
"The stream of knowledge is heading toward a nonmechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter . . . we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter." Physicist Sir James Jeans
Ok Y'all, I'm tired of pussyfootin' around here and attempting to fit my observations of the Universe into somebody else's materialistic paradigm. If form is all some people can see, I can't help that.
I see that there is a triune nature of the Universe, and the material is only one part of it. As it's explained, there are three parts to all that exists: idea, energy and form. Energy is ubiquitous and doesn't care what it forms. Idea is the differentiator, form is the result. If we can see beyond the physical form to the idea behind it, we can see that the Universe is nothing but the result of thought.
Steps into quantum mechanics have seen that consciousness changes the actions of the form, without direct mechanical intervention. It actually can change the "natural" responses of charged particles.
So with that, I have been rethinking the "intelligence" statements that I've been making. (I, at least, am open to evolution, unlike some other rigid thinkers). Maybe the definition of intelligence is too narrow to see it in an atom or cell. So I've been looking for another term.
The basic unit of intelligence is an idea, a thought, expressing as form. It's not only that, but is the basic unit of existence.
The receptivity of particles to observation, to being influenced by a thought, is evidence that the particle itself is made of the same stuff. In order for a particle to resonate with thought, it must be, at least in part, made of thought.
The materialists can't see it, but even they have had experiences of thought experiments, if they would admit it. Like thinking of a song and hearing it immediately on the radio, or thinking of an old friend and getting a call from them. Or, after much thought about a problem, they go for a walk and an inspired idea hits them "from out of nowhere" unrelated to their original train of thought.
Quantum mechanics also points towards the interconnectedness of energy, by showing that the same thought (action on a particle) can change the motion of another matched particle.
The patterns of thought may be considered by some as beginning (or continuing) in the mind of God, or simply existing as the fabric of the nonmaterial universe. But that's not important as we can see the effects of thought in our lives now.
In the people whose brains rewired themselves to take up the slack of damaged or missing brain tissue, there was an overarching idea of function, a pattern of wholeness that directed the reconnections, done apart from any will of the people involved. No conscious volition by an individual was used to make those reconnections; they didn't even know there was a problem. But the pattern re-established itself with the available brain cells. The idea of "sight" brought the connections into being to create sight.
Is the idea of function located in the cell? In the Mind of God? It surely was not in the conscious volition of the individual, but where was it? Does it matter? What matters is the pattern itself, influencing the direct activity of cells in their part, or atoms in the quantum experiments or in the connections we make with old friends.
The pattern of Life is more than than the individual intelligence that expresses it. The patterns of wholeness and intelligence are more than the individual bodies or minds that express it.
Edited by Will Seamus Ennis, : No reason given.
Edited by Will Seamus Ennis, : grammar, y'all

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Phage0070, posted 07-24-2009 1:41 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Kitsune, posted 07-25-2009 3:19 PM Will Seamus Ennis has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 58 of 64 (516320)
07-24-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crawler30
07-24-2009 10:35 AM


Equivocation?
you believe society to be ignorant for believing humans to be the most intelligent beings in the universe yet you do not believe in a higher state of being? That seems rather contradictory.
Not society, individuals. The Borg aren't here yet.
My acceptance of the possibility of a more intelligent form of life existing elsewhere in the Universe is a whole 'nother matter then believing in a specific intelligence. Life exists here. There is nothing about it that appears to constrain it to here. The rest of the Universe appears to be like here. Therefore, for it to be thought that life, and by extension intelligence, is unique to 10-90% of the Universe would be kind of silly. On the other hand, to believe that a supermind for which there is no evidence created the Universe to keep me as a pet is kind of silly. A contradiction doesn't exist because the two cases a completely dissimilar.
If it is aliens you refer to as being the higher intelligance than you too believe in something that you can not see, touch, smell, taste, measure or show empiricle evidence of so would that not be faith?
(Secretly, I was referring to Dr. Adequate.) I don't believe in an alien intelligence. I understand the potential for an alien intelligence is probable enough that to dismiss it is silly. It is not faith because I don't believe in a specific entity or event.
I come home to find my door has been broken down. For me to believe that I have had an intruder is reasonable. For me to believe it was Miley Cyrus rummaging through my underwear drawer is silly. If I can see, touch, smell or taste Miley I'll give you a hundred dollars*.
and if it is the organizms themselves that are making the changes to themselves in order to create a result then is that not still a form of intelligent design? And if you do not believe it happened to achieve a purpose than why do you believe in evolution? If everything happened on accident then we more than likely would not organizms that change to fill a certain niche of life, especially not every niche.
This is currently being answered on more appropriate threads. I'll see if I can find one and give you a holler.
AbE: *That rings a lot creepier in the reading of it than in the writing of it.
Edited by lyx2no, : x

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 10:35 AM crawler30 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Perdition, posted 07-24-2009 3:41 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 59 of 64 (516323)
07-24-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by lyx2no
07-24-2009 3:32 PM


Re: Equivocation?
If I can see, touch, smell or taste Miley I'll give you a hundred dollars.
Interesting turn of phrase...do you think crawler is her pimp?
Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by lyx2no, posted 07-24-2009 3:32 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 60 of 64 (516496)
07-25-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Will Seamus Ennis
07-24-2009 2:36 PM


Re: Restatement of concept
Hey Will Seamus, I like your posts here more and more. You also seem to be open-minded in a way that many religious people aren't -- at least in the West -- so best of luck with your studies.
If you've never heard of Rupert Sheldrake, you should look him up. (**Covers head in anticipation of virtual-reality projectiles being hurled by resident materialists**)
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Will Seamus Ennis, posted 07-24-2009 2:36 PM Will Seamus Ennis has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024