too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

I don't think it is but if you are right it may well be. I agree. I'm out of time. Cheers

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

quote:

---

Let me know though when you find scientific proof of love or hate, beauty or ugilness, joy or sorrow, pride or shame etc.

---

Strangely enough, this thread isn't about any of those things.But since you asked, I'm letting you know right now.There are, indeed, scientific explanations for why we have those emotions and appreciate aesthetics.Clearly, you are ignorant of them.Clearly, you still, after being repeatedly shown to be in error about what science does or doesn't know or can or cannot discover, you contine to make bold statements about science's capabilities.If you would like to start a thread to discuss them, I'd be happy to, but only if you are truly interested in learning.I'm not willing to do a lot of research that you should really be doing, only to have you handwave it away or ignore it and "yeahbut" me to death.Advice for you GDR:Just because you don't know if science has explanations for something, don't assume that it doesn't, particularly since you are a self-avowed science neophyte. You might avoid looking quite as foolish as you have in this thread.

I posted on this thread in order to suggest in a reply to ICDESIGN that evolution was not incompatible with ID or Christianity for that matter. For whatever reason you decided to interject.I have not pretended anywhere in here that I am the least bit knowledgeable about biology. I have no problem with evolution. I agree that ID is not science. I said that I doubt that science will find out how the first cell was formed but allowed that it might. The same holds true for why we have consciousness and experience love etc. Even if science determines how these things happen I suggest that it can't tell us why. Of course you don't agree because you don't believe that why enters into it, or if it does then it is unknowable to us. Sure I'm ignorant of them, but are you telling me that you have empirical proof of why we have emotions?As I pointed out I agree with Darwin's Position. I pointed out that my position is consistent with Francis Collins the head of the Human Genome Project. I have to doubt that you would think that your knowledge of biology, or any other form of science exceeds his. I am not suggesting that this is proof of anything except that it is possible to be well educated in biology, not be a complete imbecile, and come to the conclusion that there is a designer that created us. At some point most of us learn to have a civil discussion without the use of patronizing put-downs, and I expect that some day you will as well.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I posted on this thread in order to suggest in a reply to ICDESIGN that evolution was not incompatible with ID or Christianity for that matter. For whatever reason you decided to interject.

---

I "interjected" because you made the following statement in message #42

quote:

---

I agree with you in that I think that by far the most logical conclusion to come to about our existence is that we are the result of an intelligent design that requires an external designer.

---

To postulate the existence of an IDer is necessary and required to explain human complexity is certainly not "by far the most logical conclusion to come to about our existence".That is not, as I and others have argued, a valid position.

quote:

---

I have not pretended anywhere in here that I am the least bit knowledgeable about biology.

---

And yet, by repeatedly insisting that an IDer is needed to explain various human traits (then quickly backing off to cells and the first life), you are making rather bold claims about biology.If you don't know anything about biology, then why do you keep insisting that an IDer is needed to explain it?

quote:

---

I have no problem with evolution. I agree that ID is not science.

---

The problem is that many of the the claims you are making are scientific claims, though the idea that an IDer is responsible for this or that is not scientific.I also think that you don't understand enough about evolution and current research. I say this because you state your assumptions, repeatedly, that there is no evolutionary explanation for a given phenomena, when there actually is an explanation and research is ongoing in that area.You assume that we don't understand these things from a scientific standpoint, or why they might have evolved, but that is not true. This is why I said that you should be doing your own research into the evolution of emotions, or the evolution of why we appreciate beauty and find things ugly. Look it up, find out what science has to say, before you claim that science doesn't have a clue.Arguing from a position of ignorance is never a good idea.

quote:

---

I said that I doubt that science will find out how the first cell was formed but allowed that it might. The same holds true for why we have consciousness and experience love etc. Even if science determines how these things happen I suggest that it can't tell us why. Of course you don't agree because you don't believe that why enters into it, or if it does then it is unknowable to us.

---

Correct. That's why it isn't logical or rational to then go further and postulate an IDer.That's a religious belief, and as such isn't based upon logic or rationality.

quote:

---

Sure I'm ignorant of them, but are you telling me that you have empirical proof of why we have emotions?

---

Yes. There are scientific explanations for why we have emotions and appreciate aesthetics. By definition, something that is "science-based" is based upon empirical evidence.A good place to start would be with Damasio, who is a behavioral neurologist and neuroscientist who has done quite a lot of ground breaking research on the neurological basis of emotion.From his Wiki page:

quote:

---

I have to doubt that you would think that your knowledge of biology, or any other form of science exceeds his. I am not suggesting that this is proof of anything except that it is possible to be well educated in biology, not be a complete imbecile, and come to the conclusion that there is a designer that created us.

---

Francis Collins, according to his wiki, rejects Itelligent Design. His position seems to be similar to that of the Catholic Church, in that God is responsible for the "spiritual" aspects of humans, but goes no further. It is also worth mentioning that he came to his religious views after dealing with dying patients. So, mentioning Collins, a scientist who rejects your position, doesn't seem to have helped your argument.Anyway, I have never claimed that smart, well-educated people can't come to religious conclusions.However, those positions are not based upon logic, nor evidence.Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Fantasising about people who disagree with you is not a substitute for a valid argument against them.

There's a forum called something like evolutionfairytale.com where they recite stuff like this when they want to make reality go away.It never works, but that doesn't stop 'em from trying.The cult leader is called something like Fred Johnson or Thompson or something like that. IIRC, he posted briefly on EvC forums and then ran away as fast as his cowardly little legs would carry him.If ICDESIGN sounds like this "Karl" chap, the most parsimonious explanation is that they've both joined the same potty little creationist sect, and have both been taught to recite the same gibberish by Fred What's-his-name.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, I did get the domain name right.Have a look at their stuff about giraffes, it's hillarious.And here's their stuff about "evo-babblers".That's quite funny too, especially the whine about "asks you to quote from the proper scientific literature".Yes, that's a true symptom of a scientist. Wait, what am I saying, I mean "evo-babbler".So my bet is that ICDESIGN has learned to recite this stuff whenever all the facts are against him, same as this "Karl" chap.I mean, they have to do something, and they are incapable of admitting that any part of their fantasy world is unreal.

Don't you find it hilarious that theirs is the position that asserts the literal existence and historical accuracy of:1) a talking snake responsible for all sin
2) a magic Sky-Man who grants wishes if you just ask hard enough
3) an 800-year-old man who builds a boat, single-handedly, big enough for an entire planet's-worth of species
4) an Egyptian with the power to part the Red Sea
5) a man who rode around inside a whale for three whole days
6) a tower so tall that it could have been heaven's basement
7) and so onand, yet, the position supported by mountains of scientific evidence is what they choose to call a "fairy tale?"It's an endless source of hilarity for me, I guess.

Crashfrog,I was going to move on to a different thread but I think
I'll just say my piece here instead. I'm not into spending
hours of my time answering a bunch of questions and
addressing dead end issues when I can clearly see the
intention of all these evo-babblers. I have a lot of things
going on and I will not waist my time going down senseless
roads. To me all I can see is an endless murky sea of phony
intellectualism. Seems like a bunch of Thurstin Howell lll
wanna be's to me. Know what I mean "luvie"?I would like to focus on one question or answer at a time-
if you could do that with me please?I would like to go back to the start of this thread and finish
talking about the statement you made back in the previous
thread- post #37.( you know, the one where you keep pounding
yourself in the face over and over again?)===============================================
"If the best- the absolute, tip top best design-is unable to match
the complexity and effectiveness of the human body, isn't that
proof that its too complex to have been designed?"
===============================================I still contend you are a complete moron to make such a statement!
And sense they allowed me to open the thread with that comment,
It must be more truth than insult!!!Then on this thread post #31 you said :
===============================================
"There's no known DESIGNER with the INTELLIGENCE to
design the human body. Therefore we need to look for a source
of design that is non-intelligent.
===============================================Here you clearly admit the human body IS an intelligent design
but that because you evolutionists don't know God you have to
look for "a source of design that is non-intelligent"!We can't put God in a test tube and "prove" he is there but to
say " their is no 'known' designer" is a false statement. I know
Him and millions upon millions of other people know and
have known Him!I am in full agreement however that YOU don't know Him.
IC

Yes, we're all very aware of the low esteem in which you hold my intelligence, but that's irrelevant.Can you show me how the statement is wrong, or not? Do you understand how just calling me a moron isn't an argument? It's just playground antics? You're committing a logical fallacy of equivocation on the word "intelligence." An "intelligent design" can mean two things:1) a design created by an intelligent entity
2) a design that exhibits cleverness or "intelligence" in terms of complexity and functionso when I say the human body is "intelligent", I only mean that the human body obviously has complex functions. Since there were no intelligent entities on Earth during the origin of humanity, we know that the intelligent design of the body can't be the result of intelligent entities designing it.However, we do know that natural selection and random mutation was operating at that time, and that those processes can create designs that are "intelligent"; thus, we conclude that the human body is the result, like all other living things, of natural selection and random mutation.

================================================================
) a design that exhibits cleverness or "intelligence" in terms of complexity and function
================================================================
CLEVERNESS
1) The power of creative imagination
2) Intelligence as manifested in being quick and witty
3) The property of being ingenious. "a PLOT of great ingenuity"DESIGN
1) The act of working out the act of a PLANProve to me how natural selection or random mutation can be
responsible for cleverness or design!A 'PLOT' and a 'PLAN' require thought from an intelligent source.IC

By creating random designs, each closer or farther away from a successful implementation; then selecting from among those designs only those closest to the successful implementation, then creating from those designs copies with random changes that bring each copy closer or farther away from the successful design, then doing it all over again, over and over.Natural selection and random mutation is a way to search the design space, in other words. It's the way this radio was created - completely by accident.Surely a radio counts as something clever? If natural selection and random mutation can't account for complex design, then where did the radio come from? Read the article - none of the researchers were trying to build a radio. Where did the radio come from, if not selection and mutation?

Here we go again with man-made computers and computer programs
again. I admit Crash- that their are a zillion technogogy feats
that blow my mind and are very impressive. I can't answer
how 'this radio' thing happened. Heck, I could go on for pages
listing things I don't understand.This much I DO know- their were no computers when your 'proposed'
evolution started life. Prove to me how you can generate design
with NATURAL (being the key word) selection and RANDOM mutation.
show me how the 'laws of physics = a computer in any way shape
or form (as you claimed one time).Name one thing that appears random about the human body. IC
purposeful intent and design with every aspect from the top
of our head to the tip of out toes. Again, their are 112,000,000
links at Google that testify of a design with purpose and
intelligent genius. These are the true facts!Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

There are 160,000,000 that testify to design and random.So what?

It isn't. Natural selection is responsible for the appearance of design.You question is like challenging us to produce the painter who painted the wings of butterflies. He didn't. There wasn't one. And it isn't paint.---PS: was I right that you're reciting stuff you learnt from Fred What's-his-name?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.