Evolutionry/religious nonsense

The problem I have with this is evolution. We know life becomes more organized through time. Our thoughts and perceptions focus in one direction and moments, years, decades later change in the way things are understood. An example is blood circulation. It is now known the driving mechanism for this is the capillaries rather than the heart. Science may or not prove or disprove ID but I'm able to imagine it. Taunt that if you must but our minds are capable of touching upon unknown, expanding into dark realms that don't come into light immediately. Do I have guidance for this type of thinking? Yes and it does come from religious sources but no science theory that exists today disproves my position.

That simply is not true. Could you document something better than we understand the system as it is running and we don't need to understand matter or the system came into existence?

I disagree. I've provided the evidence in the pattern by comparing natural selection to man made algorithms. It is obvious to most reasonable people. Most people believe in a God because it seems obvious to them that the order and complexity they observe in the processes in the universe and life required an intelligence to initiate. You can believe what you want. Just don't force your belief on my children by masquerading it as science. Allow for freedom of expression and belief and allow Intelligently guided evolution to be taught along side atheistic evolution.



Definition:
Anagenesis is an evolutionary pattern defined by a gradual change that occurs in a species without the need for splitting. This contrasts with cladogenesis, which occurs when there is branching or splitting during speciation leading to two or more lineages and resulting in sister species.

Definition:
Edaphic is a nature related to soil. Edaphic qualities may characterize the soil itself, including drainage, texture, or chemical properties such as soil pH. Edaphic may also characterize organisms, such as plant communities, where it specifies their relationships with soil.

Could you clarify this argument. To be opportunistic there needs to be an algorithm in place (life that can evolve adapt and survive) or, intelligence must constantly intervene when the algorithm falls short, to make sure the opportunity is taken when it is provided. That is the pattern of all evolution to complexity we observe today, the past can't be different just because you want it to be.



An ecosystem appears to be a collection of algorithms operating multiple pieces of hardware (planets, stars, plants, animals) all using an operating system (the laws of physics). All hardware, operating systems, and algorithms we have observed coming into existence have been initiated by intelligence. I don't understand why you don't acknowledge the patterns?



There is nearly perfect complex order making up the space inside an atom, and in the false vacuum of empty space at distances from matter where gravity becomes negligible. The disorder of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle where matter and space come into contact, is where all our sensors operate. That is why it is so hard for us to detect the order, we mess the order of the false vacuum up with our sensors, and can't observe the order inside an atom because we can't see inside it without destroying it.

We are missing the extra layers of order built into the universe that are being revealed as we unite QM and Relativity with Entropic gravity. We are missing them because the building blocks of space are arranged so precisely they had to be arranged like a machinist building a planetary gear system inside every atom and every portion of space between those atoms. You cannot unite relativity and gravity and explain anything when you can't envision the basic building blocks of space and matter. For that reason, consciousness is required in the establishment of the initial conditions of the universe. The initial hardware (matter and the Higgs field) is complex. The initial operating system (the laws of physics) are revealed by the structure of the hardware, and the algorithm of ecosystems and life are amazingly complex and appear to have been adjusted many times in the past. And by your following quote Intelligence is still affecting the ecosystem:



Maybe it is a later smaller version of the same intelligence that initiated the whole ecosystem in the first place. Maybe we need to try and learn about the initiator so we can figure out how to diagnose and fix the cataclysmic extinction event. Or, we could be biased (because of a bunch of misguided but well meaning people at the Discovery Institute) and throw that option in the garbage because of unfounded biases and keep shooting from the hip because science doesn't even know where gravity comes from let alone how it affects the Higgs field and the temperature of Earth.

I agree. And the same is true about atheistic science of Stephen Hawking, Alan Gunth, Stephen Gould and their cohorts. Both sides need to quit calling each other names and see if they both can turn out some science that truly gives an explanation of what space looks like and how it operates rather than coming up with math to explain where needles are pointing.

You can't explain an automobile by just measuring the input rpm of the engine and then coming up with math to explain why the speedometer is reading and then calling that good. What's going to happen to the math when it runs out of gas or someone applies the brakes or shifts into reverse. As you pointed out if intelligence doesn't operate the system correctly damage or even a cataclysmic extinction event can be the result that could otherwise be controlled with intelligence that understands the operation and purpose of the automobile.

I think I figured out the structure of the space inside matter and in the Higgs field 15 years ago, but I am not in the game. (yet?) I am not a genius, it isn't any harder than figuring out what is going on inside a transmission without tearing it apart. But you have to admit that there are gears and planetary gears inside the transmission and rear end housings before you can hypothesize how it is built without taking it apart.

They're just babbling now. This is why, after fifteen years, I have no patience with the god-botherers.

But only the one's that are true will be right.


I am fairly sure panspermia is correct because I believe God is extraterrestrial.

Farmer you are an extremely intelligent blogger. I've learned a lot from you but, I think a majority of reasonable intelligent people would disagree with your interpretation of the evidence when it comes to the need for intelligence to initiate.

You keep coming up with this, the ad populum fallacy. It has not been that long ago that the majority of humans thought the world was flat. Did that make it true?

I'm always amazed how people can talk themselves into stupidity.

It's probably best not to assume anything.

Do you see evolution as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills?"

.

No butter please, but I have no doubt tht many people of a specific mindset will insist on ID as a scientific explanation. Why dont they seem to be presenting their evidence? Could it be that there is none?

And, if I understand, you take ownership of possible "seeding" of our planet by life from somewhere else as an example of ID?

Im sure that with the few good examples of abiogenesis from the lab are just examples of possible ways that life could have begun.
"Knowing what's true" without any evidence, is more an ID thing, not science.

This whole discussion reminds me of tobacco science. Doctors could see empirical evidence suggesting smoking was a cause of lung cancer but tobacco lobbyists and false testimony before a grand jury delayed the surgeon generals warning.

I see the ability to understand a theory of evolution by natural selection as evidence of intelligence. I see adherence to the hilariously stupid dodge known as "intelligent design" as evidence of extreme cognitive dissonance on the part of any well-educated person. Are you attempting to say that BJ's use of the argumentum ad populum fallacy is justified? To quote Anatole France, again: If fifty million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

Is there really such a thing as "criminal insanity?" But then... what is the definition of crime?

Where did intelligence come from?

Which has what to do with a theory of evolution? Try to stay on topic; you can start your own thread if you just want to rant about science in general, and allegations of misapplication.

evolution is intelligence

If you don't understand that, it is certainly no burden of mine to educate you. From your screeds here, it appears that education does take well with you.

again... what is criminally insane?

let's start with baby steps...what is crime?

F*ck that snotty remark about "baby steps." Let's stay with the topic. Don't talk to me as though I'm as dull-witted as the god-botherers.

apparently you can't answer

again... what is "criminally insane?"