UNintelligent Design.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


Well, the most intelligent being we are aware of right now is Homo Sapiens, and despite all of our intelligence, we are still unable to build a tree from scratch. I mean create the entire genome from starter kit.

And yet it happened on its own? Unlikely, considering we have not witnessed a single animal carrying more information in its dna than the rest of the species. Wouldn't that be changing right about now? Especially in us. We have not evolved. We have mutated, but not evolved.

What does that tell you? Evolution has a dozen holes in it on a good day. If not evolution, then what? Would you believe that a different version of evolution was designed by a creator? Or is that not clear enough?

Is there something wrong with saying, "This is obvious, but beyond that, we don't know"? Because right now, that is YOUR best answer.




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
The human body is incredibly complex to be an accident or just random. Evolution from microscopic bacteria to the point where your have a brain become self aware form language to communicate with others. All life on this planet is incredibly complex from the cellular level. Even if time gave the bacteria billions of years to evolve and grow there are 50 million different animals here, all evolved differently? Before us was the dinosaurs and if they got pushed into extinction and the skies turned dark life still found a way. Evolution says we all came from the water then fish grew legs and walked on land, amphibian s and frogs. That we evolved from monkeys at the zoo and some got left behind for " some" reason.

DNA and the mapping of entire organisms is incredibly complex and probably not some just random accident.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 





We have not evolved. We have mutated, but not evolved.

we have evolved into homo sapiens from neanderthals... with evolution and genetic mutation, there is no need for a god, it works without that assumption.. the atheist proposition is as follows: it may not be said that there is no god, it may be said that there is no reason to think there is a god..
the universe and everything in it can work without the assumption that there is a god..
However, i will agree with you that evolution and mutation being the cause of the universe is not very probable.. the random chance of the universe coming from nothing is very little... but before the universe there would have been nothing.. and in this nothingness there would have been an infinite amount of time for the randomness to cause something from nothing... i read this somewhere, but i can't remember where.
as of right now, evolution, the big bang, and mutation best explain things... god, on the other hand, we can do without.. it works without that assumption.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BladeRunner5050
 

99% of the species on earth have lapsed into extinction at some point... humans almost joined that list before they were smart enough to migrate out of Africa where they almost died out from extreme heat.. who designed that? what kind of a creator would almost let his creation completely slip into non existence? a very careless creator.. then there is still the unanswered question as to why god would create the coming nothingness that is certain to happen at some point.. from heat death, the sun dieing out, or from the galaxies colliding... our nothingness is evident. some design..



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
You could say that it was to give life a chance to experience. Whether you believe god to be space aliens who landed here or the man in the sky or something we can't even comprehend. You wouldn't appreciate the sweet without the sour, who is to say that something didn't love us enough to give us this life even if everything is gonna end one day, not today. An end could give greater meaning to our time here.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


Yes, but if you study the evolutionary line, there are staggers to the timing. Certain stages took mere hundreds of years, whereas other stages took thousands upon thousands. Scientists are missing key links.

Something bolstered the evolution of man...what did it, we do not know.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


Well, the most intelligent being we are aware of right now is Homo Sapiens, and despite all of our intelligence, we are still unable to build a tree from scratch. I mean create the entire genome from starter kit.

And yet it happened on its own? Unlikely, considering we have not witnessed a single animal carrying more information in its dna than the rest of the species. Wouldn't that be changing right about now? Especially in us. We have not evolved. We have mutated, but not evolved.

What does that tell you? Evolution has a dozen holes in it on a good day. If not evolution, then what? Would you believe that a different version of evolution was designed by a creator? Or is that not clear enough?

Is there something wrong with saying, "This is obvious, but beyond that, we don't know"? Because right now, that is YOUR best answer.


Despite all our intelligence we didn't know how to make a light bulb not so very far back. But for me when I say let there be light and flick a switch...so I don't see any significance in your first point.

Nope, evolutionary theory is not complete, we may never have the full picture, but it is consistent and has ever increasing evidence to support it. But to counter that with the hoary old " HA! a gap in knowledge..therefore.....god did it" (substituting the word creator is simply disingenuous) is not even funny anymore.

Isn't it about time we as a species took credit for our achievements, and failures, and stopped attributing everything to one or another imaginary friend for adults?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
Free will does not require a creators permission for us to have it... our free will does not in any way prove god's existence.


From your opening post its clear that you neither understand the premise of theology nor the content of my post. This response has nothing to do with what I posted.
edit on 2-5-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are an embarrassment to Atheism. Their reasoning is as dumb as it gets. For example they`ll superimose their own view of what "perfection" is and then take that as evidence of imperfection.

A dark alley is a perfect dark alley. And idiots like this are perfect idiots.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

Interestingly enough, your comment illustrates a lack of understanding of what an everyday atheist is.
They are , if to anyone, only embarrassments to themselves and their personal viewpoints.
The only thing any atheist has in common with another is the lack of credible, empirical or otherwise, evidence of deities.
Beyond that simple point each individual has their own opinion. There is no doctrine, no rulebook or ritual. That is the province of a religion.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Some good points in your OP heck S&F (no stars so I felt sorry for you).

Here is another example of how badly designed we are..The fact that we humans can not eat or drink and breath at the same time, which causes around 3000 deaths a year due to choking, our evolutionary brothers the Chimp can do both at the same time but us humans can not...why design the highest being on the planet with this flaw but design the Chimp with the abilities to eat and drink and breath all at the same time?...I guess God just likes us to choke eh?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


I agree with you, make your own God
I make a new one up every week and simply disbelieve my last God...my latest is called Bod...all Hail Bod cos Bod is God



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I did not intend for you to mock my sentiment, nor was it appropriate for you to do so. Shame on you for such posts.

Make your own god as in come to your own understanding. The Christians weren't the only ones to have a god...and so, I doubt that if we were to suddenly have a complete understanding of god, it would be in that age.

Come to your own understanding. There is no need to follow anyone else.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


Yes, but if you study the evolutionary line, there are staggers to the timing. Certain stages took mere hundreds of years, whereas other stages took thousands upon thousands. Scientists are missing key links.

Something bolstered the evolution of man...what did it, we do not know.


Well, environment dictates evolutionary change directly, specifically large changes and mass extinctions. Of course there will be some time periods where change is faster than others.

I don't see the sudden change in man's evolutionary history. Where is it?
edit on 2-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 



The idea of intelligent design is unintelligent


You quote a piece about the eye and how seemingly unintelligent the build up seems to some random person. But if you take a closer look at DNA you will see that a certain kind of programming is needed - tadaa - intelligence.


The best explanation (that we have right now) is that the origin of the universe was the big bang, and instead of being caused by a creator, it was random.


No, that is the best explanation to you. Not to me though. If that was the origin of the universe...then what was there before the big bang? And why can't the big bang work together with an intelligent creator?

Also, one thing you would be good to note and always remember; we humans are insanely small on a universal scale...so small that our perceptions of intelligence might be completely irrelevant in the bigger picture. In fact, our perceptions of intelligence might be holding us back in areas where we could have advanced long ago.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Interesting how someone says "The eye isn't engineered efficiently. This means there isn't intelligent design," when our scientists have failed to grow an eyeball by constructing the genome from a starter kit.

Until our scientists can do that (assuming they are intelligent) then we're gonna have to go with intelligent design.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 





No, that is the best explanation to you. Not to me though. If that was the origin of the universe...then what was there before the big bang? And why can't the big bang work together with an intelligent creator?

there was nothing before the big bang.. the big bang was the beginning. the big bang could work with the idea of a creator, but as i said earlier, all your work is still ahead of you in proving this.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 





Interesting how someone says "The eye isn't engineered efficiently. This means there isn't intelligent design," when our scientists have failed to grow an eyeball by constructing the genome from a starter kit. Until our scientists can do that (assuming they are intelligent) then we're gonna have to go with intelligent design.

what i am saying is that if the designer is so intelligent then why is the eye so inefficient? wouldn't a designer do a better job? though it is true we are the highest and smartest animals, ospreys have eyes we have calculated to be sixty times more powerful and sophisticated than our own and that blindness, often caused by microscopic parasites that are themselves miracles of ingenuity, is one of the oldest and most tragic disorders known to man. And why award the superior eye (or in the case of the cat or bat, also the ear) to the inferior species? The osprey can swoop accurately on a fast-moving fish that it has detected underwater from many, many feet above, all the while maneuvering with its extraordinary wings. Ospreys have almost been exterminated by man, while you yourself can be born as blind as a worm and still become a pious and observant Methodist, for example.
you said that until we can construct an eye, intelligent design is the only possibility. this is not true, the eyes are formed through a long evolutionary process.
From god is not great, by christopher hitchens:



Evolution also posits that modern organisms should show a variety of structures from simple to complex, reflecting an evolutionary history rather than an instantaneous creation. The human eye, for example, is the result of a long and complex pathway that goes back hundreds of millions of years. Initially a simple eyespot with a handful of light-sensitive cells that provided information to the organism about an important source of the light; it developed into a recessed eyespot, where a small surface indentation filled with light-sensitive cells provided additional data on the direction of light; then into a deep recession eyespot, where additional cells at greater depth provide more accurate information about the environment; then into a pinhole camera eye that is able to focus an image on the back of a deeply-recessed layer of light sensitive cells; then into a pinhole lens eye that is able to focus the image; then into a complex eye found in such modern mammals as humans. All the intermediate stages of this process have been located in other creatures, and sophisticated computer models have been developed which have tested the theory and shown that it actually "works." There is a further proof of the evolution of the eye, as Shermer points out. This is the ineptitude of its "design":



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


What if, before the universe existed in its current form, there was nothing but energy at its most basic shape? What if that energy had some level of consciousness and decided to experiment, forming the world we see now?

What if it became curious and introduced free will, to see what would happen? What if all it wants is for us to learn of it and come back to it, by a path of our own choosing?

We do not have the science to say for certain that energy is not conscious on some level. For all we know...it could be very conscious, and we simply haven't learned how to measure it yet. And for that matter, some things cannot be measured. We need to find a way to discover or verify things without measuring them. We will not always have the tools needed...sometimes, faith is what it takes.

But not faith in a tyrannical dictator. That's just unreasonable. But hey, to each their own, yes?

edit on CWednesdaypm020243f43America/Chicago02 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


I could agree with that idea... but until there is any evidence to support this idea, it is only an idea. it sounds reasonable though



We do not have the science to say for certain that energy is not conscious on some level. For all we know...it could be very conscious, and we simply haven't learned how to measure it yet. And for that matter, some things cannot be measured. We need to find a way to discover or verify things without measuring them. We will not always have the tools needed...sometimes, faith is what it takes. But not faith in a tyrannical dictator. That's just unreasonable. But hey, to each their own, yes?

actually, if i am not mistaken, scientists are on their way to proving that electrons, and water have a low level of consciousness. i think it is called the double-slit experiment.. not sure though
edit on 2-5-2012 by TheCelestialHuman because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join