How close are you in believing ?

a reply to: TzarChasm

That is interesting, but isn't evolution about evolving into a more perfect specimen?

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: doclec

Logic?

To whose understanding, ours? What parameters? Our own?

I understand that may seem simplistic to some but is it?

We are but one specie, on one planet, trying to not only figure out our own existence but to define life and all it's secrets and significance based on one tiny blue marble worth of experiences out of Billions or even 1e+120 of combinations of experiences.

Yes, but it may very well also be true that the universe, at bottom, is holographic and non-localized by nature, and thus our own human experience represents the culmination of the entire cosmic evolutionary process and being last or most recent in the long span of things, perhaps the first are last and the last, first? What I mean by that is that our own evolution as a species might not be an entirely localized phenomenon according to Cartesian Newtonian materialist monism, with a small blue billiard ball rolling around on the table, which modern physics is revealing doesn't really describe the reality of our existence.

Does this mean that we would be the most advanced technologically, spiritually or whathaveyou? No, but it's not out of the realm of possible that our own design could represent in its physical manifestation or phylos, the very crowning glory of all creation in a being that in truth stands next to the very Godhead and who was made to contain nothing less than the Spirit of Life, Light and Love, at least in potentia.

The wisdom of Jesus then would not only represent a type of practical joke told at the expense of human ignorance and jealousy and judgementalism, but simply the place where the great cosmic joke begins and ends and begins again, since the (last who is first?) is a type of monkey-man that God created as a beloved and intended to be in communion with Him in Spirit and "koinonia" (intimate, participatory relationship, as between a husband and wife), while black almond-eyed aliens look on, oh where is their mirth and charm?

I am reminded here of the parable of the Lost Son or the Prodigal Son, but not of the son who blew his inheritance on wine and prostitutes and ended up in a desolate land, only to come to his senses when eating with the pigs (not a great position to be in as a Jew), and not even the father who ran to him with open arms and symbols of his inclusion in the family - but that elder brother who stayed around and worked the farm but for whom not even a goat was slaughtered in celebration, whereas here this "son of God" went running all over hell's half acre before at last coming to his senses as to his true place in the family, and thus, in the grand scheme of things.

If "they" didn't know God before, then they would come to know Him as a great humorist, when the whole story is taken together in totality, and if there's a biting irony to it that cuts to the heart all the better since the best defense is a good offense.

sci-fi aside:
I've liked to imagine great alien warships dispatched with speed and hurled to that high and lofty blue jewel of the creation both as a great center and source of cosmological, evolutionary intelligence (and thus, their interest in us), but also as a spiritual center and source of great evil, like some great fortress of power where what was loosed on earth was loosed in heaven also, only to arrive and discover that a mere 25,000 years ago we were sitting around the fire and a mere 150 years ago riding nothing but horses. How embarrassing! Armed to the teeth to fight the highest power, only to find out that the last are first and the first, last..

In other words when Jesus Himself said "all with ears to hear let them hear" there was no telling how far and wide the news might travel, which he was well aware of at the time.

It would suck though for atheists to discover that all advanced alien civilizations were converted Christians simply because they had the intelligence to at last get the joke that God is telling, and that's why they lovingly and playfully buzz our planet, probably to no limit of #s and giggles (or alien equivalent) as they bob around our primitive aircraft.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: TzarChasm

That is interesting, but isn't evolution about evolving into a more perfect specimen?

Actually no. Evolution is about adaptation, primarily to the current environment and circumstances. There is no pinnacle evolution because the world is always changing. no perfect evolution.

originally posted by: doclec
a reply to: Raggedyman

All those things that you mentioned are evolutionary developments rather than instantaneous designs though. I could do all the research you want me to but the conclusion would point to stages of animal development that are leftovers from previous anatomies. Looking for an intellegent design in these structures is just...illogical.

Whale pelvic bones are very important to whales, I have read they were vestigial, thats not true, without those hipbones whales would be extinct. But to you they are vestigial, though they most definitely are not, a common lie by evolutionists
Wisdom teeth as well

You wont research, to lazy and you dont think you are wrong

I have an answer for that that is as obvious as it is unspecific, The Creator of All creates Primordial DNA.

Math actually gets in the way of understanding most of the time.

a reply to: Balkanization

As someone of faith...

I completely disagree.


Math/science explains how all the "Great architect" created whats before your eyes.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm not worried about being wrong.

I'm sure whale hip bones are very important to whales, that has nothing to do with whether they could be leftover from previous structures or part of an "intellegent design". For instance you have fish sinuses and a lizard brain underneath your primate brain. Either of these structures you couldnt live without.

The point is, what you bring up still does not support instantaneous design. These previously mentioned structures were formed over a long timespan. Besides there will always be two versions of explanations: nature took a long time to do it or god created it. I just go with the one that seems the most feasable.

originally posted by: doclec
a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm not worried about being wrong.

I'm sure whale hip bones are very important to whales, that has nothing to do with whether they could be leftover from previous structures or part of an "intellegent design". For instance you have fish sinuses and a lizard brain underneath your primate brain. Either of these structures you couldnt live without.

The point is, what you bring up still does not support instantaneous design. These previously mentioned structures were formed over a long timespan. Besides there will always be two versions of explanations: nature took a long time to do it or god created it. I just go with the one that seems the most feasable.

I agree go with the most logical but at the least don't run others down if you cant prove anything is valid
No dramas

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Actually no. Evolution is about adaptation, primarily to the current environment and circumstances. There is no pinnacle evolution because the world is always changing. no perfect evolution.

It's an interesting theory.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

If you can justify bringing my children into this argument
All the better for you

Admittedly I do apologize for bringing your children into this, but when I read some of the nonsense that you were positing I began to think about how such nonsense could potentially harm the intellectual potential of the next generation of people. I then thought that you may be teaching the same nonsense to your children, which is why I responded as I did. Again, I apologize for bringing them into this.

Please reflect on the fact I was taking your comment to its only logical conclusion and I wasn't serious

What logical conclusion are you talking about, exactly?

Truthfully, I am of the opinion you are the character with the serious flaw

Why so?

How I bring my children up is not your buisness, I will teach my children both storys,

Both stories? What "stories" are you talking about, exactly?

you in fear will only teach yours the one story you want them to believe

No, it is not about belief or "fear"--I am going to educate my children on what the science shows and will likely not include any religion at all in my teachings/stories of creation because they're not relevant whatever. I will teach them to question everything, even some of the decisions that I make. I will teach them to seek truth and not hold on to silly belief because it makes them comfortable.

What bothers me is you demand others believe what you do, that's what Stalin, Hitler and Mao dos in the past, and then forced it

Where was I demanding that others believe as I do? Secondly, why did you bring those three tyrants up in this conversation?

originally posted by: Raggedyman


I agree go with the most logical

You don't seem to follow your own advice.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: doclec
a reply to: Raggedyman

All those things that you mentioned are evolutionary developments rather than instantaneous designs though. I could do all the research you want me to but the conclusion would point to stages of animal development that are leftovers from previous anatomies. Looking for an intellegent design in these structures is just...illogical.

Whale pelvic bones are very important to whales, I have read they were vestigial, thats not true, without those hipbones whales would be extinct. But to you they are vestigial, though they most definitely are not, a common lie by evolutionists
Wisdom teeth as well

You wont research, to lazy and you dont think you are wrong

Do you have any actual research of your own to share?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: doclec
a reply to: Raggedyman

All those things that you mentioned are evolutionary developments rather than instantaneous designs though. I could do all the research you want me to but the conclusion would point to stages of animal development that are leftovers from previous anatomies. Looking for an intellegent design in these structures is just...illogical.

Whale pelvic bones are very important to whales, I have read they were vestigial, thats not true, without those hipbones whales would be extinct. But to you they are vestigial, though they most definitely are not, a common lie by evolutionists
Wisdom teeth as well

You wont research, to lazy and you dont think you are wrong

Do you have any actual research of your own to share?

I'm guessing he/she doesn't.

a reply to: Raggedyman

There is nothing I have to prove. I initially posted because the intelligent design/er of existence that this post references seems to be neither intellengent nor designed.

The best argument you could come up with is about vestigial whale hip bones...

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
If otoh, it's just a number's game and a total fluke, then how to explain those design parameters except perhaps by some sort of sacred geometry also arising from a first cause which once again amounts to a type of design hypothesis by anticipation from a first cause, or we would not be here.

It's called coincidence. Obviously life adapts to the conditions of the universe. To suggest the universe was strictly set up ahead of time for our type of life is looking at it backwards and honestly there is no evidence of such. One can find patterns anywhere they look. It doesn't prove anything.

That our single giant moon perfectly eclipses the sun and is the same visible diameter, that's something that can only be potentially meaningful and significant to an earth-based observer and measurer, if one is to assign any degree of significance to it at all in the first place but which, by virtue of our ability to notice it, as we are, makes it meaningful and significant because we would not be here to observe it otherwise.

It is only meaningful because we give it meaning. There is no reason to think that we are special because of a coincidence related to the size we see the sun and moon in the sky.

The design principals imbedded into everything we experience as life, right down to the quantum level, these cannot be so easily dismissed by saying simply that "it's just the way it is" or by invoking a multi-worlds strong anthropic principal. That just doesn't do the sword of reason justice and it's not the least bit scientific to begin with.

Design is not scientific to begin with. What "design principles" are embedded into life and the quantum level? Can you prove this without assumptions?

The strong anthropic principal simply renders the question meaningless and absurd on the basis that if it were any other way, we wouldn't be here, and that therefore we simply MUST have gotten exceedingly "lucky" to be in the position that we are, and even the universe that we find ourselves in or in other words that we are at the very very farthest end of a great universal lottery where everything just so happened to coalesce in a certain way such that we are here.

If the parameters of the universe were slightly different, the universe would be different. That doesn't mean life wouldn't exist or a different type of life couldn't emerge. You are delving into philosophy, when it doesn't really apply. Do you consider it lucky if you roll a pair of dice 50 times and roll a 2? Nope. It would be lucky if you rolled the dice ONCE and got a 2. It's the same concept with life. No matter how rare the chance are, there are simply so many rolls of the dice, that it becomes not only possible but almost inevitable. Obviously we haven't observed other life in the universe yet, so we don't know those odds at this point, so arguing about luck is pointless because we really don't know.

If we were in fact included and not excluded from the blueprint for life, then again, we would not be here to appreciate it and may therefore conclude that the Universe is actually friendly to our being part of it.

Huge assumption here. You are assuming there is a blueprint for life. The fact that we ARE here, doesn't explain how we got here, so your guess is as good as mine.

There is nothing cold, dead and impersonal about it, about the experience of being alive, which by it's very nature, cannot be isolated but is intrinsic to the whole of it all, with a design and a plan and a purpose. Life is itself that which makes it valuable, meaningful and significant, with we ourselves of immense value since our own inclusion is integral to it's larger plan and purpose, whatever that may be..

Sorry, but this is just more assumptions. Life has value because WE GIVE IT VALUE. Life has meaning because WE GIVE IT MEANING. Stop using philosophy and assumptions to suggest design. It doesn't work like that. You need evidence. Our brains, which have evolved and become more complex over the last 3 million years are the reason we can even ponder such things. To claim purpose and design, just because we are here and conscious is ridiculous.

Who can stand apart from themselves and their own experience and proclaim that it should not be what it is, or that it could have been anything other than what it is, since that's obviously not the case.

This doesn't even make sense.

Thus, the problem with the "skeptic" is that they simply MUST abide by the "fluke" or coincidence hypothesis or make a last ditch appeal to the strong anthropic principal which really amounts to nothing but an infinite ocean of absurd possibilities; absurd, because none of those came to pass.

That's BS. Skeptics scrutinize every claim they hear and look for evidence or proof of such claims. That doesn't mean they to believe everything was a fluke or coincidence. It is at the very least disingenuous to claim skeptics think life must be a fluke, just because they are skeptical about other people's unsubstantiated claims of design. That's kind of a false dilemma there.

Even if all possibilities at one time came to pass in the fullness of eternity, and our actuality is the byproduct of that trial and error process, then how could that not be described as a form of intelligent design where after trying everything that didn't work, a way that it would was worked out in some sort of epiphany of creation which might even have began, on a whim.

Again with the buzz words like "on a whim". Trial and error doesn't have to be a conscious process. When people use that phrase they are asking what the chance is of life arising in any given solar system. There are hundreds of billions of stars in the milky way alone, do you realize how many "chances" that is for the right conditions for life to arise? You keep appealing to buzz words like "lucky", "fluke", etc when you have no idea what the odds are for life arising.

a reply to: Barcs

I sometimes like to think, that maybe, just maybe, earth is the only planet that can sustain life, i mean advanced lifeforms of our type.

BUT, in the far future, billions of years later, the cosmos is full of complex lifeforms, and it all started from here. from this piece of rock, drifting somewhere in space.

A nice thought, is it not?

How does something become extinct, then evolve into something else?

Like after an extinction event?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: TzarChasm

That is interesting, but isn't evolution about evolving into a more perfect specimen?

Actually no. Evolution is about adaptation, primarily to the current environment and circumstances. There is no pinnacle evolution because the world is always changing. no perfect evolution.

true that,

I thought of many questions before I fell asleep last night, but forgot them all.

a reply to: Barcs

The creation and evolution of life as we know it was/is imbedded right into the first cause, on that I'm sure we both agree, since what is, is and is a byproduct of that entire process.

The only question then that arises then for the believer, and the skeptic/atheist, would then be whether this was the result of a random occurrence, a "coincidence", "fluke occurrence" and "nothing special" or "just the way it is" (can't question it's purpose or design, there being none of either, as an assumption.), or, the life we know and experience and our evolution was itself it's purpose and intent right from the get go or in other words a blueprint for life with everything fine-tuned and weighted in favor of it, where what could have been otherwise, simply did not occur unless our universe is housed within an ocean of absurdities or of every other possibility wherein no such universe would ever or could ever arise (thus an island in the middle of an ocean of absurdities).

I did say that, at the quantum level, we need to note the recent discovery that the higgs boson particle had a mass that was trillions of times smaller than expected and appears to have undergone a breathtaking number of reductions and fine tuning in order to, presumably, make this reality possible. In other words, if that's a random occurrence (in the non-believer paradigm), then the infinite universes, strong anthropic principal, is immediately evoked at this point, wherein every other possibility was/is also expressed and we just happen to be in the right one ie: life as a coincidence or a fluke ie: it just is what it is and any evidence for design, and purpose who's aim is life itself including our own life and experience, that's just a selection bias on our part or a reading into it and projecting something upon it (intelligence) that it does not possess being without mind or an originating conception (whim) of a mind, because, according to the strong anthropic principal, we simply would not be here if it were any other way, so to even ask such a question or pose such an idea (intelligent design) from the POV of a subjective observer, is absurd and meaningless, where anything we see that appears to possess design elements is just looking for patterns, when those patterns, including life itself, is just a mindless artifact of a random occurrence that does not really posses any intelligence, any purpose, or intent.


I say that's unscientific because it ascribes to life, and the occurrence of life, and our experience of it, a meaningless absurdity who's uncertainty is absolute, which is not to say that such absolute uncertainty is not a very high state of mind and being.


For me, in the face of the evidence, I don't see why the appeal to a mindless random occurrence or fluke with life as an accidental artifact, framed within the context of the multi-universe strong anthropic principal, is the better argument.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
How does something become extinct, then evolve into something else?

Like after an extinction event?

It doesn't. When an extinction level event occurs, it simply kills off all of the organisms that can't survive it. The ones that can, go on and they are the ones that evolve. A good example is dinosaurs and birds. It's not like birds didn't exist before the dinosaur extinction. They were already there, but they survived it likely because they could fly and could find little niches to shelter themselves from all of the fall out and devastating effects of the earth.