Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Some people say that it is a fact that the human race is 2 million years old. Some say 4 million years.

In all that time there was no Biblical, mythological, metaphysical clap-trap until about 3000 years ago. Before that there was nothing but primitive groups with life expectancies in the early twenties.

Have you an explanation for our emergence onto the present plane of life in the absence of the development of Biblical, mythological, metaphysical clap-trap.

No, people who fabricate others' statements and opinions are dishonest (among other things).

The language I read for the latest 'stickers' (or whatever they turn out to be) is even worse. Rather than merely implying that 'theory' in science means 'guess', they go so far as to imply that there's actually controversy within the scientific community about evolutionary theory in general.

could you perhaps post a link to the Miss reference. ? Im interested in the format they plan to use.

Dear Farmerman,

I will not elaborate on how Spendi or you see each other, as I have plenty of illustrations of it, since the moment I noticed this thread, years ago.

Being an amused observer of human nature, and even though I'd not define myself as keen, I've noted that the behavior of the posters here is very similar to that of pupils in a schoolyard.

There's one little guy that pretends that your algebra is wrong. Then all the others start shouting at him.

And it goes forever...

All kinds of arguments are raised, from both sides, some of them not very well thought.

It's with great pleasure that I read this thread as it is always a relaxing moment.

Now, talking specifically about your post, Farmerman, I would like to point out that I'm in awe at the profundity of your analysis of my comments.

The inferences you make from my few short sentences is beyond whatever a simple human being expects.

You imply that I'm somehow in agreement with Spendi's views about ID. What can be the foundation of such, I'll never figure out.

Another assumption that you lightly made is that I, somehow, am impressed with Spendi's literary style. I'll ponder on the origins of that extraordinary sally.

Maybe because of my poor expression skills in English language, which can be misleading in a poor understanding. This obviously would be far from the truth.

I'll just add that I appreciate you and all those posters you cited, each one for a different reason, maybe with the notable exception of Sira, with whom I feel no connection, having not seen in him any peculiar skill.


Now, I'd like to say that I'm an agnostic, born and raised in an evolutionist culture.

It means that I had the time and the leisure to think about evolution theory, dismissing creationism as a fairy tale.

However, I have some concerns about the validity of some points of the evolution theory.

Like, what beauty, and specifically the beauty of a lady, inserts itself in the theory (the survival of the fittest).

What's the purpose of beauty in evolutionary terms and what's its influence on the cells?

Take care of not making this a matter of laugh or take it lightly.

Regards

Francis

That was a brain flub, I meant self-evident. Can you show me a point, any point, by any person, which isn't an assertion?



I'd lecture you on what possibility means, especially in philosohpical topics (where I can invent a possibility), but I don't really feel like it. It has nothing to do with the actual subject at hand, I will gladly point out that you've offered no evidence of any conspiracy and leave it at that.

"Circumstancial evidence" is that which you can rationalize to fit your invented conspiracy, or at least that's all which is implied by your examples. None if it points to the conspiracy on its merits.

Since you seem hung up on this idea of assertion, this would be the point where you recognize that yes, I do have an assertion, and it's based on my reading of our examples and statements. A reasonable person acting in good faith would then agree with my summary or disagree and offer exact and discrete reasons for how your examples are different.



Wait... are you honestly trying to tell me that you don't deviate? Do you not notice your random references and ramblings, or are you just lying to me?

I suppose there's another possibility: you still cling to the idea that these random deviations aren't actually deviations. Perhaps you think that the Mona Lisa is terribly relevant to the discussion of a scientific topic.

Or by "it" did you mean the evasion of questions? See, it's tough to see your lack of response to a number of my questions while you spout off about something irrelevant as anything but evasion.



Then maybe in the future you'll do what I do and put one of those maybes or perhapses in front of your declarations of what *I* "need".



Funny, most of those ideas would be justified as 'live and let live', but this is yet another deviation. Do you honestly not notice that you haven't answered my central questions?

I've asked you to present your argument, to back it up specifically, and to stay on-topic. Whenever you actually *are* on-topic and seem to be making an attempt, I've asked you to clarify. Those requests seem to have been ignored.



Really, how is it you can make that declaration? Do I need to call you dishonest again? I'll remind you that I actually answer specific questions, unlike you. That's not an invitation for you to deviate from the topic, by the way.



Is that the entirety of the "evolutionary point of view"? If so, it's definitely a misleading term.



This sentence needs another clause to make sense...



Starting from where? The "evolutionary point of view", where physical sciences apply to life? I'm hoping there's actually a point there somewhere, because again it seems like a clause is missing. ("All you need is X, Y, Z [in order to?])



Yeah, I really don't care about your attempts at literary wit. Say what you mean in plain, direct sentences.

I still have little idea of what this "evolutionary point of view" or yours is supposed to be or what most of that paragraph was supposed to be about.



Says the person making referencing to "a mad captain" and Emma in a paragraph where I assume you thought you'd half-assedly explain what you mean by "evolutionary point of view". I suppose I'll spell it out: a textbook case of bullshit.



Then I won't expect you to give a shite about my style of "debating" you, either.



I ask you direct questions, you repeatedly ignore them and make nonsense deviations. That record says that you don't give a damn.



Quote them in full and I'll gladly explain.



I have no confusions. See above. See all along the threads. That statement is an evasion. I'm avoiding nothing. It's you lot who do the avoiding. Head in soundproof bag avoiding is in use. (Not you though Shira.)[/quote]

I did "see above", you gave a stupid ramble about Emma and a captain and an open-ended and vague idea of what an "evolutionary point of view" would be. If I take it at face value, your idea is clearly a misrepresentation of what it would be to have a point of view that took what was actually implied from evolutionary theory.

I won't be doing much with whatever you're trying to say about my "lot" avoiding anything. I can't tell whether you're trying to be insulting or are just careening off onto another subject matter. I'll note that I at least have the decency to plainly answer your questions, even though I strongly suspect trolling.



First, tell me how it's relevant to the point you are supposed to be making and supporting, while remaining on-topic. I don't see how it is. Do you blame me for not getting into every apparent deviation that you present?



Funny, there's another explanation that's often cited by us "lot" and it isn't a preoccupation with penises and tits. Could you quote someone here brushing aside that fact?



Nope. I couch my guesses in uncertain language because I present my statements honestly. Note that guesses are not simply assertions. Note also that whenever I am challenged on an assertion, or get any real feedback, I offer more support. If you have any complaints about *my* lack of being forthcoming, I think you'll find a fairly obvious flaw in how you handled the situation, whether it be making an unclear statement (for which I asked clarification) or by completely ignoring what I said.



I will answer those questions when you settle on what your point actually is and state it plainly. I thought it was your claims about sex and teaching evolutionary theory, which has no clear connection to Descartes.



Funny, I thought you had a rather expansive idea of what was on-topic, extending to nonsense about art and literature in a discussion about the status of Intelligent Design.

So, what's the topic, spendius? What is your point? It's clear that merely accepting what you presented as your point was wishful thinking.

Yup, it's a very accessible claim.



It's an assertion, one which is easy to back up. Do I really need to point out yet again that Francis *invented* claims and put them in my mouth? Is this something you can't figure out on your own and need to have explained to you, like a child?

It wastes the time of the legal system of the *state*'s employees, the laywers who will need to defend the stupid creationist nonsense if it gets into schools and legally challenged and the judge(s) who will have to yet again go through the bunkum.

As I expect you will still try to pretend like this wouldn't be a waste because the judge and lawyers will be getting paid, my point is that the taxpayer's money and their interests re: their state's legal system taking on useful and necessary cases.



What a low opinion of teachers you must have. How many do you personally know?



Yes, and?



Good to know. I will still advocate for them.

Sure! I thought it would be easy to find, but it took some google-fu to get the proper documentation: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2009/html/HB/0001-0099/HB0025IN.htm

It's predictably stupid. It's always amazing to me, how many people will simply lie about what they want and what they're doing.

It depends on what you mean by beauty.

If you mean attraction, say in the example of a beautiful woman, then there are many hypotheses about the purpose, some of which are fairly well-established. To begin with, there's the sturdy idea of using visual (and aural and olfactory) cues to judge the well-being of a mate. To tie this to natural selection (which is only part of evolution and its mechanisms), you can think of inherited variation in which these cues are enhanced or given priority (with acceptable costs). Say, 'flashier' peacock feathers or a better capacity to deal with ramming your head into another, in the case of bighorn sheep.

If you mean beauty in an abstract sense, a particular aesthetic, then it gets much more subjective and more difficult to tie to a purpose. There isn't necessarily a purpose, in that case.

You are really asking about the existence and the quantitative value of sexual dimporphism, or intercommunity polymorphism in evolutionary terms. Beauty is just our species term to describe humankind's sexual dimorphism. Several people responded to this very question in its many reappearannces. ASKED and ANSWERED in my opinion. If its of deep interest to the crowd, Id have believed that a lively side debate would have issued. Noone has jumped up to continue the discussion. I am almost certain that everyone except maybe spendi understands the biological imperative of dimorphism and polymorphism, so, in summary, I dont think that "we" people are as impressed with the profundity of the perennial spendi question as you seem to be. Im sorry if Ive offended you but, we understand his references and appeals to tangents, its just that many of us arent buying his crap.

I dont understand the letter style of your post , a memo would suffice.

The paucity of this tentative explanation is much less than what I would have expected from such a fierce defender of a theory..

Have you something less lame?

Ok, I'll take that as evading the real question..

So? Somebody's stupid. So what? It proves nothing except that some stupid people are stupid. And to have reached your age and still be amazed at how many people lie discovers for us all how observationally and curiousitily challenged you must be.

Every advert is a lie. Most articles. Most everything. Have you had the ******* world on Ignore? What about the "beauty" industry. $$$$trillsworth of it. All bareassed lies. I'd be amazed to find somebody telling the truth. Sheesh!!



If you will take the time to study carefully your words there you will find that they mean sweet **** all. A bunch of trite mealy-mouthed froth.

And obviously there is no purpose in it from even an elementary atheism point of view. From the atheism pov there is no point in anything and that includes atheism itself.

We have to give ourselves a purpose. Bamboozle ourselves. We have a need to swoon in ecstatic aesthetic delights in the contemplation of the reflection patterns emanating from such as Manet's Olympia, as Manet saw her, whilst casting from our minds the scientific facts as understood by modern anatomical science. What we see now is the record of the the work of a light wizard sternly dedicated to his task of causing light patterns to alter emotional states either in the psychosomatic realm or as is done with a Furby or a receptor on a remote controlled up and over garage door. There isn't really much else to choose from apart from wooly drivel.

Imagine the "sitter" to have been Elton John. But I suppose a remote control could be programmed to react aesthetically to arrive at the same place.

Beauty is what we are drawn towards. That's Aquinas isn't it. But are we conditioned to be drawn towards the same things. It is in the eye of the beholder. I saw a You Tube thing once where somebody had a female monkey posed a bit that way but the eyes were all wrong. It was still funny though.

We are certainly drawn towards laughing as well. Rabelais recommended laughing. That ROTFLMAO but I mean the real thing. Not pretending for effect. Charlie Drake and a few others of our comics could do that. Stan Laurel too.

You know it when you see it. Or hear it. Or smell it. (Ahem--editor).

In what way? Ive answered the point precisley and succinctly. You just dont want to admit it. Do you understand the ramisfications of sexual dimorphism? If not , look it up and you will see that, among its subsections is the concept of "beauty" (since we are the only ones with a written language, we can name it as we see fit).
You wish to know what evolutionary purpose this dimorphism plays( aspects of beauty, size, robustness, intelligence etc). EVolution studies would rather know, what was the cause of the dimorphism and polymorphism. In the Pliocene and Pleistocene, Australopithecenes and Homo, sp. reduced the species sexual dimorphism from 50% stature to about 10 %. where it stays pretty much unchanged from erectus to sapiens.
You want to know why is there beauty, Im more interested in How is there "beauty". I dont thi nk thats any less a pursuit (I acknowledge that spendi needs his pursuit of understanding), instead my search is different and imposed with differing rules and aspects of evidence.

We all were quite respectful of spendi in the early days of his participation. It just turned out that many of us quickly felt that he wasnt interested in anything other than diverting the thread. Weve all resisted and now spendi seems to be whining about it. Hes resorted to name calling and baiting (all of which constitute trolling). So when people respond in kind, maybe HE should understand when hes not welcome.

I hope that Ive answered your points and since its been focused through some lens that points at spendi, Ive accomodated. Ive got him nicely on my ignore list and I dont know what hes jabbering about except when others quote his posts. Ill try to keep with this subject and not divert it further.
PS, the concepts of sexual dimorphism and beauty are well discussed by Darwin himself, Futuyama, Mayr, E O Wilson, and even Dawkins. They develop the subject much better than I. I

effemm evades every real question and has been doing for four years. The laugh is that he must think we are not going to notice.

It would be nice if you could stop patronizing about differentiation.

I've read most of what you suggest me to read and my question still remains unsolved and unanswered:

In what way does beauty contribute to the amelioration of the species, other than metaphysically?

We know that it has a behavioral effect but how this affects the evolution of the species?

In sunsets? In music? In a frothing pint of John Smith's Extra Smooth after a hot day in the steel furnace casting department. In a tapestry? In a cathedral? In a page of writing?

Dimorphism is explained on the division of labour principle. When you're holding all the aces you have no need to look good. See The Venus of Willendorf.

What possible difference does it make effemm that "several" people responded to this sort of question and lost interest. Are we being enjoined to follow in the same footsteps as them. Did they set a precedent or something.

I would think I am one of the few who does understand the biological imperative of dimorphism. (see above). And polymorphism is usually related to humans although some cows can be seen at it but it might be anthropomorphic to think it's a sexual act. No cow has ever been to confession.

I notice you have now begun premptive character assassination. That's because you know nothing about art and you don't fancy me proving it so you get your cheap shots in first to thrill the claque. Ever since you listed the powerful minds arrayed against me you are no longer "you lot". You are the claque.

That doesn't take long effemm. 7 minutes in the US according to a well funded scientific study in about 2005.



How droll.



We all would wouldn't we? One can't confuse what one would rather know with what it is impossible to know. What one would rather know can be used for career purposes.

What does Evolution have to say about monomorphism. A flower may be said to be reacting sexually I suppose but what about the bee? Is he an extension of the Queen's sexuality?

And a rabbit's tail taped to a stick can be used to achieve a flower's sexual satisfactions.

Would multi-directional mono-polymorphism be a suitable term for a flower?

Would a gardener make more sense saying the fruit was beautiful with which he won first prize at the show, irrespective of the flower's qualities, than a poet contemplating the flower.