Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

Its hard for kindergartners to act like adults, Farm.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Creationists are dead. No need to bother for them. The Catholic Church is not creationist, and neither are the main Christian denominations out there. In Islam the evolution theory has yet to be accepted by the laymen, but evolution is taught in high-school in most Muslim countries. So it's only the loners and the fools who still take Genesis literally. They are not worth your time.

More interesting a challenge is 'intelligent design'. I think it is quite possible to prove that evolution proceeds not through design but through trial-and-error and recuperation of old organs to do new things. This was an argument made in an excellent little book by Francois Jacob called "Le Jeu des possibles", which I read in the 80s: if god drives evolution, he is not an engineer but a 'bricoleur', because bricolage is the modus operandi of evolution. Nothing in an organ (e.g. a beak) really seems 'designed', when you look at the evolution that led to that organ and the variabilities there.

A beak is made of bones and keratin, i.e. its covering is a bit like aggregated feathers (feathers are made of keratin)... And that molecule (keratin) is also the one mammals use for their hair and and their claws...

Now you would assume that an engineer as smart as God is supposed to be would have tried to develop a new molecule for a new organ, no? Instead, it's all about recycling something pre-existing to fit it for a new purpose, like a bricoleur will not throw away a piece of wood or metal because 'it can always come handy'. Evolution constantly recycle old stuff to make new stuff, and that's not how an intelligent designer would do it. That's how an opportunistic bricoleur without much resources would do it.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I answered your question. Now don't be a weasel and answer mine:

Do you agree that anyone saying "the smurfs do not exist" is making a wild wild guess?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

well, apparently its not you. You guys may think you are making arguable points. Most of what I hear is nyah nyah nyah and insults.
try to act like grownups

I repeat...I am a grown-up...and conduct myself as one.

Olivier challenged something I said...and we have been discussing it. He simply will not acknowledge the obvious.

So I am not interested in a lecture from you, FM...although I would love it if you commented on the question.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I answered your question. Now don't be a weasel and answer mine:

Do you agree that anyone saying "the smurfs do not exist" is making a wild wild guess?

You most assuredly did not answer my question...and you know it. Grow some ethics and integrity.

Here we go again:

Do you agree that the assertion "NO GOD EXISTS"...is a guess?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'll take that as a "yes". You live in a blessed, enchanting world, Frank, full of fairies, unicorns, gods and smurfs and whatnot... Happy you!

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I'll take that as a "yes". You live in a blessed, enchanting world, Frank, full of fairies, unicorns, gods and smurfs and whatnot... Happy you!

Take it whatever way you want to, Olivier.

But you still have not answered my question.

You got involved in yet another thing you cannot handle.

Yes, if you are wondering, I AM punking you...because, Olivier, if anyone in this forum deserves being punked...you are that person.

You'll be here to take more pounding. You haven't finished digging yet. Wink

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

alvaresaurids, discovered by Mary SChweitszer, or the same "soft tissue in T-rex" fame, discovered the beta keratins v Alpha keratins that separate the mammals hemitry of covering from dromeaosurs through birds.
The differences in "hrd" v "soft" keratin involves the accompqnying salts that form crystals and the orodescences of fethers

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Happy happy pucking, Frank!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Yeah but the point I was trying to make is that evolution seems to bricolage its way up the tree of life. Living beings look designed on the surface, but when you look closer, new species recycle pre-existing organs to do new things. And that is not consistent with the idea of intelligent design. That trial and error, constant recycling approach is much more coherent with a stochastic evolution process.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Happy happy pucking, Frank!

Like I said!

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRD_yatJSzxf6ldCheBU1I_mwWBhDPuFtIxbFCCuxYZMBHIzDFe

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Scientists do likewise. They share, publish and investigate gaps and contradictions by experimentation, rather than denying them.

Perhaps you don't understand something - gaps of information and missing critical information for the explanation are very different things ... and you cannot possibly imagine how much different they might be, can you?

FBM wrote:

However, mention contradictions in the Bible and all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations, evasions, spurious re-interpretations and hand-waving is what you get.

Why do I have the suspicion that you are missing the point here - contradiction in the self is a prove for the inability to exist in the real world. Contradiction with the laws of physics means that you are denying the logical construct underlying the basis of your 'theory', you are denying the grounds ... and the assumptions. Do you understand what does that mean?
To claim that the center of the Universe might be everywhere is in contradiction with all the math you have ever had ... and you will ever have. ... and the next question is: why don't all those people, making such mind-blowing 'physical' interpretations lay down some IQ test before to upstart?

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You're not representing your kind very well to the intellectual community.

'Whoo-o aa-are youu-u ... to judge'; 'Do not judge, or you too will be judged' ... and if you have any verifiable evidence about why we are into the center of the Universe (equal red shift in the light spectrum in all directions) ... and how have you measured the 'expansion of the Universe' by assuming that the center of the Universe might be everywhere - just present it ... or simply shut up.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Shove it up yours and it could serve you as a backbone.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Shove it up yours and it could serve you as a backbone.

Yup...no cool at all.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcScBSUpyzlGqHLwdI3MTW_naTaJdBhd1F-6rd7nTBFQGD0JnPbe3A

Oh...and uhhh...

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBeCL1eXPo-PyFQIqB_AvoGs7WsNRcaw50VF8lPg1J4fXV_Fco

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Creationists are dead. No need to bother for them. The Catholic Church is not creationist, and neither are the main Christian denominations out there. In Islam the evolution theory has yet to be accepted by the laymen, but evolution is taught in high-school in most Muslim countries. So it's only the loners and the fools who still take Genesis literally. They are not worth your time.

Unfortunately, In the US, we have a very well funded Evangelistic "anti-science" movement sponsoring all sorts of political activities that include heavy funding by certin extreme factions of the GOP.
We understand that, among scientists and the intelligent public, the argument is dead. However, there is a large enough contingent of "true believers" who are clamoring for Supreme Court reviews and even constitutional conventions to amend the Bill of Rights. So wht appears obvious isn't so much a slam dunk. Guys like Quhog, although hes from UK exist in the US and have a constituency to support them for elected office.

I wish theyd all be like the Quahogs and Heralds, those guys rent the problem as they can be dealt with with fact and evidence. The more savvy types like Richd Johnston or Ed Demski are the ones that need corraling

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I wish theyd all be like the Quahogs and Heralds, those guys rent the problem as they can be dealt with with fact and evidence. The more savvy types like Richd Johnston or Ed Demski are the ones that need corraling

Fair enough, you seem to have some unfinished business, but it's hard for me to take a creationist POV seriously enough to debate it. Eve created from one of Adam's ribs? Really? Like literally?..

Years ago I ordered the 'graphic novel' version of Genesis by Crumb (below). I'm a fan of Crumb and of bible studies, and Crumb was very clear that his version had the entire text, which he only tried to illustrate the best he could. One day my son saw me reading it and asked what it was and I explained. He (circa 6 then) had got no religious education from us but was exposed to it at school and was a bit afraid of missing out on something important. Peer pressure i suppose. He sat next to me on the sofa and i read it to him, showing the pictures, until we got to the point where adam and eve eat the forbidden fruit and become aware of good and evil, and God hates them for it and kick them out if eden... My boy was shocked! To him, God was evidently behaving like an asshole there. Knowing good from evil is important. And I remembered having the very same reaction at about the same age when being told the same story: so unfair!

He never asked for more.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/r-crumb-genesis.jpg

0 Replies

@Herald,

I've already answered your question about the center of the universe in redundant detail. If you refuse to read it, that's not my fault. Similarly, if you're intellectually incapable of comprehending it, it's not my fault, either.

What do you believe that you want us to agree with? How did the uiverse come to be? Represent your people with some positive thesis. Why so evasive? Are you going to "spread the word" or not?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I've already answered your question about the center of the universe in redundant detail.

No, you haven't done anything of the kind. I can also answer your questions in such detail without any problems:
'There is no Big Bang! According to the standard theories of theology the universe started with meta-intelligence (God)' ... 'according to the even more standard theories of agnosticism the issue about the hyperspace and the metaspace and the existence of hyper-intelligence and meta-intelligence are unknown and unknowable ... which is implicitly recognized even by the astrophysicists by introducing into their explanations of the world terms like dark energy, dark matter ... and the dark side of the big bang' ... 'and according to the most standard theories of the math logic designing stereometric constructs in the 3D space that are expanding into some other dimensions or metaspace or whatever there it might be is called misuse with the ignorance of the population'
BTW if two points are expanding against each other what happens with the space between them? ... and if the space between two galaxies is expanding all the time in all directions (whatever this might mean) how do they collide at some point of time - for further details see the data from the collision of distant galaxies.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

the standard theories of theology the universe started with meta-intelligence (God)'

Thank you. Now, why should we accept this first premise?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know