Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UNintelligent Design.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 




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?


Maybe it's because we were never meant to rely so heavily upon physical sight. All of our superficial desires, all of our hatred and our fears, are derived from physical sight. Have you never wondered why the wise men in fairytales are often blind?


And why award the superior eye (or in the case of the cat or bat, also the ear) to the inferior species?


We like to stroke our egos. Don't ask me, I have never said our physical design is superior. If I had to choose a superior design, I would say the worms win the award. They can regenerate, they feed on waste, and they give back to the earth every second of their brief lives. They are the simplest of creatures, and therefore the happiest.

But why are we comparing ourselves with animals?

Everything was created by Source...why would Source create an animal that doesn't work, or an animal that is unable to fend for itself?




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 





But why are we comparing ourselves with animals? Everything was created by Source...why would Source create an animal that doesn't work, or an animal that is unable to fend for itself?

the comparison between ourselves and animals is because we too are animals, only difference, we are a bit more intelligent. not much of a difference in ourselves and chimps. in fact, they have the upper hand with some things.
for example, the chimp can breathe while swallowing food, us on the other hand, choke as a result of not being able to breathe when something is stuck in our throat.
as for the second question, i can not answer that, because i am arguing that we are not created by a source (creator), but instead we were formed by random chance.. natural selection and random mutation.
edit on 2-5-2012 by TheCelestialHuman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
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.


How do you know there was nothing before the big bang? Are you omniscient? No. So you don't know what there was before the big bang. Is it my goal to prove something that requires faith? I don't think so. Just like it takes faith to say there was nothing before the big bang, as you demonstrate. Because you simply, DO NOT KNOW.

See how easy it is.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Iam not mocking you at all I just told you what I do with Gods, I make them up.
You talk like everything you say is fact but it isn't is it? it is your opinion, It's cool that you see beyond normal peoples ideas and you are soooo enlightened but at the end of the day my God Bod is as true or as false as anything you believe.
You can not prove what you say and neither can I disprove anything that you have said.
Thats what makes it all so fun to talk about but don't assume Iam mocking you when I was doing nothing of the sort.
edit on 3-5-2012 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I think the whole problem started when adam and eve ate from the tree of ignorance

imho



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
The real question is not one of a creator deity, but if the ordered compositions of reality is emergent or systemic.
On the one hand we have the propensity for things to progress toward entropy,
on the other there are systems that complexify.

I am of the belief that there are systemic unmanifested 'design patterns', but much of the creation are emergent results of harmonics and catalysis. (evolution)

I think the concept of einsof represents something interesting.

giving rise to Monistic Panentheism



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


Intelligent design isn't automatically right, simply because scientists can't create genomes yet or grow an eyeball. That has absolutely nothing to do with a designer. It has to do with humans using science to expand their base of knowledge and learn how things work. What, do you think we're at a pinnacle of human ingenuity and won't ever learn how to do things like that? By your logic, 50 years ago you would have said things like the internet, cell phones, and digital music was impossible (or reference the hundreds of others things science couldn't do at the time), but now look at what we have. I don't understand why people think a creator would have the exact same intelligence level as humans beings right now on earth. That's absurd. Humans weren't created, we have found a large portion of our ancestors and if their evolution was genetically "accelerated" there is no evidence at all for it.

Also we have partially grown eyeballs in a lab. It's not that far fetched an idea.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 3-5-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 





How do you know there was nothing before the big bang? Are you omniscient? No. So you don't know what there was before the big bang. Is it my goal to prove something that requires faith? I don't think so. Just like it takes faith to say there was nothing before the big bang, as you demonstrate. Because you simply, DO NOT KNOW. See how easy it is.


the big bang theory states that the big bang was the beginning of the universe.. therefore, nothing before the big bang.. the universe is constantly expanding outward, if you watch this in reverse it is all going infinitely inward to the point where there is nothing.. that is one example of evidence for the big bang, and according to this, there was nothing before the big bang. until you can prove the big bang wrong, there is no need for your creator in the universe. it works without that assumption. At this point in time there is no way for me to say 100% sure that there is no god. But, with modern science, everything works without the assumption that god is apart of it all. I believe it was Socrates who was said, "An educated person is someone who knows how little it is they really know." At this point in time, we do not know enough to confirm the existence or nonexistence of god, but we do know that a god is not required for everything to work. All your work is still ahead of you or any other creationist in proving the existence of a creator. good luck in doing so.
edit on 3-5-2012 by TheCelestialHuman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


You have a point here. The definition of the big bang was not originally "something exploding from nothing to form more something out of nothing", but it changed over the years, just like the Bible did.

I think it's safe to say that we can't rely on evolution or Judaism for a clear answer of how we got here. I also think it's safe to say that considering the brevity of our individual lifetimes, as compared to the long-standing span of Earth's existence, dictates that it doesn't matter where we came from, nor where we're going...

It's how we get there. Come up with a plan and a theme to answer that question, get to work on it, and improvise as necessary without sacrificing your integrity.

No religion. No big bangs. Just your life, and how you live it. That's all that matters. Is that so hard to come to terms with?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 





I think it's safe to say that we can't rely on evolution or Judaism for a clear answer of how we got here. I also think it's safe to say that considering the brevity of our individual lifetimes, as compared to the long-standing span of Earth's existence, dictates that it doesn't matter where we came from, nor where we're going...

Though we can not rely on either for a 100% clear explanation (at this time), would you agree that evolution and the big bang is the best explanation we have right now?



It's how we get there. Come up with a plan and a theme to answer that question, get to work on it, and improvise as necessary without sacrificing your integrity.

i am not quite sure what you meant by this.. "it's how we get there". get to where? elaborate please. you just said "it doesn't matter where we're going", then you said "it's how we get there".



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 



Though we can not rely on either for a 100% clear explanation (at this time), would you agree that evolution and the big bang is the best explanation we have right now?


That's like saying a horse and buggy are the best way to travel.


They work, but there is a much better explanation, if you have the patience and the faith to wait. Let science catch up.



i am not quite sure what you meant by this.. "it's how we get there". get to where? elaborate please. you just said "it doesn't matter where we're going", then you said "it's how we get there".


The only "there" we all have in common...Death. How we reach the finish line. Looking back with no regrets, or looking back and croaking "I wish I would have - *dies*"

That's what I mean.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I used to read a lot of threads with the aetheists fighting the religious, going back and forth. Like what came first " the chicken or the egg" well you can't have an egg without a chicken and you can't have a chicken without an egg. Do you ever stop and think that we are just on the birth or beginning of understanding in the 21 st century, and maybe you shouldn't have any strong beliefs or judgements in any way. Try to stay open to possibilities or accept that anything can be possible and we may never know. Why are we here why is anything here, where did we come from. Well you can't have a chicken without an egg and you can't have an egg without a chicken. Evolved from what if there was no life in the first place. And we are pretty dam* advanced nowadays.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BladeRunner5050
 


Actually the egg came first. According to evolution, the egg would have produced the chicken, while the creature who laid the egg would be ALMOST a chicken...but not quite.

The mate's DNA would have finished the very last touches on the genetic process producing the world's first chicken.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   



Mr. Tyson can sum it up for you in a few minutes if you like.



-Birth defects
-Genetic mutations that lead to various diseases such as parkinson's or huntington's and cancer.
- Inability to detect or distinguish between without technology, multitudes of chemical compounds or gasses that are lethal.
- our bipedalism is disadvantageous to a great degree, often the source of back and some birth problems.
- drinking salt water is lethal, planet is 70% salt water.
- how easy it is to penetrate the skin, and succumb to blood loss should an artery be hit.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I agree with your assertion regarding `perfection`...

no perfect way of seeing the world,
no perfect way of discussing/describing the world,
no perfect way of research/experimentation,
no perfect way for formulating proofs...

I think you will agree with me that this `imperfection` also applies to science and the various methodologies in use.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted
 


Actually, I would like to offer my definition of perfection...

Perfection: the complete absence of desire or requirement.

If you don't want anything, your life is perfect. If you don't want to add anything, the soup is perfect. If the species is autonomous, benevolent, and efficiently progressive, it is perfect.

We are only autonomous...none of the rest. Therefore, we are imperfect as a species.
edit on CThursdaypm343411f11America/Chicago03 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
If time represent a progression toward entropy (3rd law of thermodynamics), winding back the clock we arrive at 'perfection', being an infinitely ordered state of non existence.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rom12345
 


Considering the staggered state of creation, you would actually be in a world of constant "semi perfection", or imperfection.

Futile attempt, but clever reasoning.
edit on CThursdaypm363628f28America/Chicago03 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
With all our intelligence, while looking at a physical singularity, we find only three properties. mass, electric charge and angular momentum. This is where information, and thus our intelligence ends. I feel, that in order to have belief systems that are not derivative, we should look at the implications of these seemingly inherent properties more closely.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman

A quote from the start of your piece,

Look around in the world, do you see any perfection, do you see anything that would serve as evidence for an intelligent creator? I see disease, hunger, poverty, war, and natural disasters.


from this I took it to mean nature has no perfection thus man has no perfection...I agree, where we seem to differ is on the subject of `imperfect rational/logic`, a product of humans used extensively by scientists to substantiate a proof, albeit an imperfect one.

I was just wondering if other cultures would accept your definition of `perfection` and the values contained within.?
edit on 3/5/12 by ironbutterflyrusted because: adding





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join