Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists

The first bikes came out without brakes. The had to try and use their feet on the ground or going uphill to try and stop the bikes. Or just loose momentum by falling off!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

The next 50 years are going to produce what will be known as the "Great Awakening". This transition will eliminate religion (in educated countries) and promote Humanism and Spiritualism. It is the next developmental phase of Man. It's 13.8 billion years after creation and here is what we now know. 1. The Creators never told us anything about themselves. 2. The Creators apparently must use large numbers of events to accomplish anything That is why there are 100 sextillion stars in this universe and 10^500 multiple universes, so that at least one planet would have the right conditions for life to develop. There is no direct engineering involved. 3. Because of this statistical shotgun approach to life, they could not control bad outcomes like smallpox which killed 500 million people, cancer, polio, etc. This is the proof of the large numbers approach to creation. These bad outcomes up until now have been blamed on Sin. 4. Because of no. 3, the Creators are not Altruistic. 5. Birth and death is the mechanism that created humans. The only reason you die is to further the evolution of man. This evolution makes life easier for Man by clearing memories of past events for the new persons created. It makes it easier to change 6. So, there does seem to be a plan for Man to use his knowledge to solve the problems that the Creators indirectly created. 7. Because of the statistical approach of Nature, there is only a small percentage of very intelligent humans. It is up to these humans to improve the life of all mankind. 8. Highly intelligent people have a well-developed prefrontal cortex and that people with well-developed prefrontal cortex's have a lot of empathy. It is clear that highly intelligent people should be the leaders of society. Stupid people cannot contribute anything now that their brawn is not required. The bottom line is, get down on your knees and praise Man for your present good life. To summarize, the Creators used the laws of physics and large numbers to create an outcome that they desired. What is the ultimate goal? We don't know.

Just to set my mind at rest, what do you propose happens to the stupid people ?

Green goods?

Why, thank you. As my first act of rulership I banish you from this thread. Begone!

I don't know, but since I have a lot of empathy, I hope it is something humane.

I wonder why general anesthesia works on the soul?

vimesey.It's easy to answer.They never learn what a paragraph is supposed to be. After that they start writing huge essays under names such as FLRW and trolling evcforum. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

with some "onesies" there is no freewheeling, so pedals linked directly to wheel.

Ouch

I see mikey tried to start a new thread to commit the same silly logical fallacy as in this one.Mikey, mikey, please try to think of a new mistake.

And again.

Although Genomicus may not respond or be aware of this response, the argument itself is worth pushing forward.The argument is that biology "looks" designed because it "looks" like machines and codes. That simply isn't true. Here is ATP synthase, the molecule we were discussing earlier: If you made a 3D model of that molecule, blew it up to human scale, and placed it on the sidewalk, what would people say as they walked by it? Would they say, "Oh, look at the machine!"? No. They wouldn't. No one would. It doesn't look like a machine.That pretty much ends the ID argument right there.We could also look at DNA. Here it is: If we placed that on a sidewalk, would someone walking by say, "Oh look, there's a code!"? No. They wouldn't.The entire ID argument appears to be stretches of imagination towards a conclusion they have already drawn.

Or indeed if you took a rabbit and placed it on the sidewalk would anyone say --- "oh, look, there's a whole lot of machines!"

I still think that the best argument against inteligent design, is the stupid designs we find in nature, stuff that a child would design better, Like nerves and blood vessels run trough the inside of the eye blocking light from reaching the sensors at the back of the eye, and a blind spot because of the same idiotic idea.Its equivalent of placing the lens of a camera behind the wires and chips, and then writing a computer progam to fill in the missing pieces of the picture.