Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

Peter,Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Time constraints forbid indepth reply at this time. Suffice me to sum (hand-wave) for now:1) The intonations may or may not be developemental vs. genetic; I'm not sure.
2) Intonations and music, in my less-than-trivial opinion, seem perhaps exponentially different in their complexity.
3) Intonations, I think, require a biological mechanism. Written words, thought-concepts, science-constructs, music, and music constructs exist SANS a biological mechanism. Rebut me, cause I may be wrong.
4) Computers, presently weak, have some characteristics of pattern recognition: Speech programs like Dragon Dictate for example.Respectfully,
Philip

Science-falsely-so-called is purpetrated by all of us? Even you Frank.Your response seems to manifest extreme bias in you last sentence. Obviously, you have a biased definition based on naturalistic beginnings and endings of the creation. I accept the definition(s) based on the search for mechanistic truth, even as stated on the bigotted talk-origins (ToE) forum.Why not go back to your older non-naturalistic dictionaries, Frank, and see what paradigm you are inferring with your biased modern dictionary definition of science.Respectfully,
Philip

John,Thank you for your indepth reply. Much of my own life has been as a professional student as well, with minors in art, philosophy ... Associate in electronics engineering technology; 13 or 14 different colleges; extreme academia, and an extreme passion for medicine, which prompted the redundant post-graduate and masters studies in biology, biomedical science, etc., and finally podiatry (I was too old for the preferred traditional medicine after doing time in the military, and my former vanities).I've found this forum the most challenging because, well face it; naturalists (and empiricists) are less-stupid than philosophers (in my opinion), and I evangelize better using in their clever mechanistic terms.Surely none of us are really that gifted here, except perhaps the Borg, whose mysterious ploys, I admit, sends me reeling in my bio-genetic ignorance. How long he can stand to play here (like Chase Nelson), and contend with our bigotries, I don't know.I find you empiricists vicariously and graphically stimulating in your use of language, albeit your empirical and gappy premises seem to me as insane as our sophistication can get.You already know I'm a fool. Hope we can continue the discussions as feasible.Sincerely,
Philip

John,Thank you for your indepth reply. Much of my own life has been as a professional student as well, with minors in art, philosophy ... Associate in electronics engineering technology; 13 or 14 different colleges; extreme academia, and an extreme passion for medicine, which prompted the redundant post-graduate and masters studies in biology, biomedical science, etc., and finally podiatry (I was too old for the preferred traditional medicine after doing time in the military, and my former vanities).I've found this forum the most challenging because, well face it; naturalists (and empiricists) are less-stupid than philosophers (in my opinion), and I evangelize better using in their clever mechanistic terms.Surely none of us are really that gifted here, except perhaps the Borg, whose mysterious ploys, I admit, sends me reeling in my bio-genetic ignorance. How long he can stand to play here (like Chase Nelson), and contend with our bigotries, I don't know.I find you empiricists vicariously and graphically stimulating in your use of language, albeit your empirical and gappy premises seem to me as insane as our sophistication can get.You already know I'm a fool. Hope we can continue the discussions as feasible.Sincerely,
Philip

Pardon my grammar (below):What Shraf, you'd have me debate like Spock?Shall I endeavor to hide my bias, like the Borg.Now you know I directed the term "cruddy" (or was it "nutty" professor to everyone but your husband; don't pin that on me, along with other paranoid accusations of my lack of scientific inquiry.You presently don't seem to want to accept science if it relates to metaphysics.True, I am trying to save face as I suffer what appears to be the death blows against my YEC scheme, cowering in my jilted semantics, as WaWa (my Mollucan Cockatoo), sleeps on my shoulder.Try reading my scientific inquirie(s) before hand-waving them. Give me the traditional unbiased definition of science, not the naturalists.As for hords of scientists crying mega-evolution; they're all nutty professors, gapping away in gleeful ignorance of their gaps in their grand scheme. I wouldn't appeal to their quantity or their majority. They are all not-so-brilliant idiots, and the world knows it. Face it. They are wrong about mega-Evolution.For evolution to design us (if you will): Each and Every supposed tiny new addition to a genome (mutation) must vicariously aid survival. You want me to believe that? Try manipulating the ionic force-vector on the active site(s) (i.e., experimentally) on any enzymes (or their families) that way. It seems logical enough that the active site will lose its catalytic effect with one supposedly insignificant atom out of wack; you will end up with an enzyme that is no longer an enzyme, no? (Any expert enzymologists wish to comment?)As for being cruddy; you know we are all guilty. I respect your respect for your husband. Are you betraying your feministic biases in order to overturn my YEC scheme? But, alas, I betray my YEC scheme (and other failures) continously; which is part of my resolve to post and learn (by you and others).You don't convince me that your resolve is to educate the lurkers. What kind of education are you ploying:
1) Live humanistically and die?
2) Redemptive observations are futile in determining the grand scheme?
3) Have fun, don't look for redemption during devastating heartbreaks?
4) Watch Star-trek and learn from Spock, Data, Kirk, and Jane-Way?
5) Don't whisper to much about redemptive observations; you might be thrown out of your science class, your (cursed) research grant, your medical school?
6) Never be inspired to mix faith with bias and bias with hypotheses?
7) And never, no never hypothesize a science of Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-grave as a redemptive designer? The Supreme Court would fart you away into a McDonald's house of zombies.Give it up Shraf? The mega-ToE is a worthless crutch for a gappy and botched up science-falsely-so-called.I can't wait till someone comes up with a ToE mechanism to build a a mere kinase enzyme, let alone a repair-DNA-ase. What about you (-all)?Respectfully,
PhilipP.S.
In respect to the topic of "Exactly 'How' Intelligent must a Designer be?"; I apologize for our drifting? Yet, this seems perhaps to be doting question, anyway. I don't mind exploiting this thread talking about music, pysches, etc., if you all don't.

Pardon my grammar (below):What Shraf, you'd have me debate like Spock?Shall I endeavor to hide my bias, like the Borg.Now you know I directed the term "cruddy" (or was it "nutty" professor to everyone but your husband; don't pin that on me, along with other paranoid accusations of my lack of scientific inquiry.You presently don't seem to want to accept science if it relates to metaphysics.True, I am trying to save face as I suffer what appears to be the death blows against my YEC scheme, cowering in my jilted semantics, as WaWa (my Mollucan Cockatoo), sleeps on my shoulder.Try reading my scientific inquirie(s) before hand-waving them. Give me the traditional unbiased definition of science, not the naturalists.As for hords of scientists crying mega-evolution; they're all nutty professors, gapping away in gleeful ignorance of their gaps in their grand scheme. I wouldn't appeal to their quantity or their majority. They are all not-so-brilliant idiots, and the world knows it. Face it. They are wrong about mega-Evolution.For evolution to design us (if you will): Each and Every supposed tiny new addition to a genome (mutation) must vicariously aid survival. You want me to believe that? Try manipulating the ionic force-vector on the active site(s) (i.e., experimentally) on any enzymes (or their families) that way. It seems logical enough that the active site will lose its catalytic effect with one supposedly insignificant atom out of wack; you will end up with an enzyme that is no longer an enzyme, no? (Any expert enzymologists wish to comment?)As for being cruddy; you know we are all guilty. I respect your respect for your husband. Are you betraying your feministic biases in order to overturn my YEC scheme? But, alas, I betray my YEC scheme (and other failures) continously; which is part of my resolve to post and learn (by you and others).You don't convince me that your resolve is to educate the lurkers. What kind of education are you ploying:
1) Live humanistically and die?
2) Redemptive observations are futile in determining the grand scheme?
3) Have fun, don't look for redemption during devastating heartbreaks?
4) Watch Star-trek and learn from Spock, Data, Kirk, and Jane-Way?
5) Don't whisper to much about redemptive observations; you might be thrown out of your science class, your (cursed) research grant, your medical school?
6) Never be inspired to mix faith with bias and bias with hypotheses?
7) And never, no never hypothesize a science of Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-grave as a redemptive designer? The Supreme Court would fart you away into a McDonald's house of zombies.Give it up Shraf? The mega-ToE is a worthless crutch for a gappy and botched up science-falsely-so-called.I can't wait till someone comes up with a ToE mechanism to build a a mere kinase enzyme, let alone a repair-DNA-ase. What about you (-all)?Respectfully,
PhilipP.S.
In respect to the topic of "Exactly 'How' Intelligent must a Designer be?"; I apologize for our drifting? Yet, this seems perhaps to be doting question, anyway. I don't mind exploiting this thread talking about music, pysches, etc., if you all don't.

I find your posts annoying to read philipThe theory of evolution is no gappy crutchI can not believe that anything supernatural was involved in human creation, when as much as 98 percent of our genome is shared with chimpanzees, and when most of what is shared has no function. Creationists can claim all they want that we don't know for sure that the DNA is functionless. Until they demonstrate that all the homologous DNA has a function, they haven't got a leg to stand on.

quote:

---

I can not believe that anything supernatural was involved in human creation, when as much as 98 percent of our genome is shared with chimpanzees, and when most of what is shared has no function. Creationists can claim all they want that we don't know for sure that the DNA is functionless. Until they demonstrate that all the homologous DNA has a function, they haven't got a leg to stand on.

---

Belief that nothing supernatural was involved in human creation is just as much a religion as any other. Junk DNA is a problem for evolutionists just as much as for creationists. From evolution theory, it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly, and harmful to it. Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations (neutral theory). Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known.There is growing evidence that "pseudogenes" are involved in gene regulation (silencing or enhancing gene activity) or as acting as a receptor binding site.The very persistence of "pseudogenes" indicates that they do something.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]

Now you are simply babbling.I suppose that is the only thing that you can do if you can't discuss specifics.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[B]

quote:

---

I can not believe that anything supernatural was involved in human creation, when as much as 98 percent of our genome is shared with chimpanzees, and when most of what is shared has no function. Creationists can claim all they want that we don't know for sure that the DNA is functionless. Until they demonstrate that all the homologous DNA has a function, they haven't got a leg to stand on.

---

quote:

---

Belief that nothing supernatural was involved in human creation is just as much a religion as any other.

---

One belief is based upon evidence, the other is not.One belief is subject to change when additional evidence is encountered, the other is not.

quote:

---

Junk DNA is a problem for evolutionists just as much as for creationists. From evolution theory, it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless,

---

Not necessarily. If there is no particular selection pressure against it, it might persist for a long time.

quote:

---

since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly, and harmful to it.

---

Is this really the case? Something about this statement doesn't seem right to me.

quote:

---

Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that ?old? pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations (neutral theory). Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known.

---

So, now you are saying that it CAN be removed, when above you said it couldn't!Mutations are random. Why would pseudogenes be expected to have more "scrambling" than any other genes?

quote:

---

There is growing evidence that "pseudogenes" are involved in gene regulation (silencing or enhancing gene activity) or as acting as a receptor binding site.

---

So? This is not a problem for Evolutionary Theory.

quote:

---

The very persistence of "pseudogenes" indicates that they do something.

---

So, the fact that hairless apes still get goosebumps is an indication of...what?

quote:

---

Your response seems to manifest extreme bias in you last sentence.

---

Bias? Opinionated? Having firm convictions? Phrase it however you like, I can agree. Maybe a reason for participating at this site. So, exactly what do you have a problem with here?

quote:

---

Obviously, you have a biased definition based on naturalistic beginnings and endings of the creation.

---

Not so obvious at all Phillip. Forgive my "bias" for assuming you have absolutely no idea at all of what my thoughts on creation are. Please present some form of coherent argument.

quote:

---

I accept the definition(s) based on the search for mechanistic truth, even as stated on the bigotted talk-origins (ToE) forum.

---

I have not yet been to this site and really don't feel comfortable in commenting about the content there.

quote:

---

Why not go back to your older non-naturalistic dictionaries, Frank, and see what paradigm you are inferring with your biased modern dictionary definition of science.

---

You didn't like the definition of psychology that I used?Clear Skies !Frank

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
I've found this forum the most challenging because, well face it; naturalists (and empiricists) are less-stupid than philosophers (in my opinion), and I evangelize better using in their clever mechanistic terms.

---

Philosophers can tend to be hyper-specialized to be sure.

quote:

---

I find you empiricists vicariously and graphically stimulating in your use of language, albeit your empirical and gappy premises seem to me as insane as our sophistication can get.

---

Ya know, Phillip, I am painfully aware of the problems of empiricism-- not in the details, as in evolutionary sequences and such, but in the logical and theoretical underpinnings of it. I just don't see an option (with fewer problems that is).------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Homology and correlation don't imply causation. This is an old debate dealt with on other threads.Not to hand-wave you off about the 98% genome sharing with OWMs and chimps, but this implies nothing against creation and nothing for mega-evolution, SANS circular reasoning.Not does mega-evolution explain the celestial and anthroplogical cursed-redemptive observations we (you and I) expect to see.(Welcome to the forum).

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Now you are simply babbling.

​

I suppose that is the only thing that you can do if you can't discuss specifics.

---

--Oh please pray tell; give me a specific and we'll try again if you wish.Philip

I regret I forgot your definition of psychology (a very subjective term perhaps don't you think)? My extremely biased definiton includes the psyche, humanism, para-pyschology, etc., as well as yours perhaps.I have nothing against your bias(es) whatsoever; or at least I'm not supposed to in a bigotted manner. When I am construed as bigotted, I've failed in the debate.Speaking of biases, Frank, the ToE would operate, methinks, in a unbiased naturalistic selection: ID would not be allowed, nor would a qualitative designer be acceptable in any gap of the creation.But it's the innumerable gaps, not just the one or 2 we can debate about, but innumerable ones (I've posted elsewhere if your interested) that also support a God-of-the-gaps if you will.The 2nd Law itself (assuming the universe is a closed system) seems to require intelligent intervention as well.But, the bottom line is, my own extreme faith-biases invoke a great deal of bias and error on this forum.I.e., I want to believe I have a soul, a God, a Redeemer, and eternal life. If I can realize science supports my extreme faith-hypotheses (e.g., YEC or peradventure OEC), than I will rejoice in the truth.Empiricism is fair science; I'm willing to use empiricism to disprove empiricism (e.g., the 2nd Law, fortuitous monster theories, etc.)Do you or anyone on this forum have any idea how an enzyme (say a simple kinase enzyme) could have evolved with its delicate active site force-vectors? I see IC written all over the phenomenon.