Was It Designed?

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



Quadrivium

AbleEndangered
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


I disagree, The Holographic Universe theory bloated. Theory of Evolution and Creationism will both fall under the Simulation, Electric or Living Multi-verses...

A unified field....A Unified Theory!!

How did the Simulation get started?


Touche'

This guy...

Matrix Architect Scene
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKpFFD7aX3c
www.youtube.com...
edit on 16-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added quote




posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   

AbleEndangered
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



Quadrivium

AbleEndangered
reply to post by Quadrivium
 



I disagree, The Holographic Universe theory bloated. Theory of Evolution and Creationism will both fall under the Simulation, Electric or Living Multi-verses...

A unified field....A Unified Theory!!

How did the Simulation get started?


Touche'

This guy...

Matrix Architect Scene
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKpFFD7aX3c
www.youtube.com...
edit on 16-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added quote

Hmmm.........I always thought he would be...um, you know.....bigger.
edit on 16-10-2013 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Broom
reply to post by alfa1
 


You seem to digress further and further from the OP, and have added nothing to the thread. Is that the point of your posts?

Again you seem to be above what you are doing. Perhaps not. Perhaps you may pretend to know who or how another person believes or feels. But you really don't, unless first you get to know them.

Remember that our world-view is narrow and restricted to our own personal experience, and that is quite scanty and limited. To try to narrow people into a world-view you have, without understanding others exist is quite ignorant, but understandable. Usually those who have the most fanatical ideas about a subject, or who are most vehement, are the least informed. Religious or otherwise.

Yet you have not added anything of value to the OP, and it is curious that that is how this board is run.


Actually, I think Alfa, quite succinctly, addressed the OP.

What is the purpose of debating your "evidence", if it has been refuted many time over?

Your beliefs were given away by the "evidence" you chose to include and the title you chose "Was it designed?". The simple answer to your title is no, it was not. The answer to your many open-ended questions is they evolved over thousands, if not millions, of generations through natural selection coupled with environmental pressures. The fact that you don't understand how evolution works is a very important point. How could you propose design if you don't understand how those examples came to be through natural means?

There are many studies out there . . . if you actually looked . . . that show that biological processes don't arise through design. There are, however, no studies that show that they do. Outside of conjecture based YouTube videos, essays, and religiously inspired fallacies, like "irreducible complexity".

For instance, let's look at John Long's Bio-Robots at Vassar College. He set out to study how the spinal column could arise naturally, giving rise to vertebrates, from a simple collagen based notochord. He built robots with a notochord and several different spines of varying numbered vertebrae. When these Bio-bots were set in an environment to test fitness (their ability to swim, rate of swim) in being able to get to food (fuel for survival) and flee from predators (in order to pass on their DNA model), he found that it was not the bot with the most vertebrae or those with the least vertebrae that was the most fit to survive. It was a model with an intermediate amount that swam with the most efficiency and was able to beat the competitors to the food source.


To test whether physical characteristics evolved in response to certain selection pressures, the team builds each robot slightly differently. To test theories on the evolution of the spine, for example, Long’s lab built several robots with different numbers of vertebrae. In a sort of “evolutionary Olympics,” as Long calls it, the scientists developed a judging scheme to assign points to different robots depending on how well they evade predators while feeding and procreating.

By building TadRos with varying tail shapes and lateral line systems the team also tested how selection pressures might have affected those traits. Even this simplified model uncovered potentially complex evolutionary patterns: as evolution of vertebrae slowed down, for example, tails got bigger and the oscillations of the lateral lines changed. Long says the bio-robots and the companion computer program enable him to connect evolution to behavior, biomechanics, and genetics.


TadRos evolutionary experiments
John Long - Vassar College

As not all vertebrates have evolved equal (amount of vertebrae per organism) and the number vertebrae changes with that organism locomotive characteristics, it seems quite unlikely and rather inconsistent with design principles. It actually speaks to natural preference based on those organisms that were the "fittest" for their individual environments. We also see the morphological changes in the ancestors of these organisms (fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, etc.) in the fossil record, which backs these findings on the evolution of the vertebral column.

So, too, for the rest of the characteristics that are unique to each organism. We clearly see that there is no need for an "intelligent" designer, as intelligence is not needed for an organism to develop and perfect the mechanisms needed to survive.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Hey Solomon,

What does every "known" living thing have??
edit on 16-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added: "known"



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Broom
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Interesting perspective. And one can understand why you would come to such an assumption, the one where you take it that millions, or even billions of years, is enough time to come up with the variety of life that exists.

But isn't it interesting that if you take something like a human cell and look at it, you realize that the odds you give to variety don't add up.

The human cell needs three main components to exist. The DNA the RNA and chromosomes. We all know this. Of course the DNA is the genetic blueprint written out in digital code with an alphabet that contains all of the information of a person. RNA is needed to replicate DNA and it uses chromosomes to do this.

Now there are, perhaps, 50,000 chromosomes in the human body. Each of these are folded onto itself in a certain way to provide the function it needs. What were the chances of one single chromosome folding upon itself correctly? 1 in a billion billion billion. That is, you would not only need some prelife organic soup to get this to come about by chance, the size of the earth, but the size of the entire universe, and then it would be longer than the entire existence of the universe before you would get one to come about, by chance. Of course you may say it is not so blind, but also we should probably refer to it as Chance (just replace it with God) because this Chance, is given God-like qualities, and fairytale like abilities.

The thing is, that is just one chromosome. And you need all three, the DNA, the RNA, and chromosomes, all at the same time. You see, one won't work without the other. It is called irreducible complexity.

The minute amount of time you give life on earth to form by Chance, any thinking person, who isn't blinded by an agenda, has to come to grips with the impossibility of it happening.

This is the short of the matter. Huge threads could be written on it, but this brief example seems to sum it up.

Extraordinary designs exist in the world. The OP was made, not to force an idea into anyone. Or to create argument. Rather to explore ideas and possibilities. To reason on the complexity behind these things, and think about it logically.
edit on 16-10-2013 by Broom because: (no reason given)



This post just shows more ignorance of how evolution works . . .

It is a fallacy that "there wouldn't be enough time" for even the simplest cells to form. A fallacy that is propped up by religious advocates and design promoters that haven't taken the time to ask an actual biologist or chemist why this isn't true.

Evolution does not start from scratch with each mutation or "try", so you need not multiply by all factors, as is required to come up with the huge timelines design proponents speculate on. Evolution is like building with blocks . . . if the top of your structure falls over, you don't need to destroy the bottom half to begin again . . . just start placing more blocks on that part of the structure that remains.

Your classic examples of RNA and DNA show just how much you don't know, yet throw out as an impossibility.

RNA and DNA didn't just form complete one day . . . yet even if they did, chance had nothing to do with it, so calculating odds means nothing to the actual probability.

DNA is simply the binding of RNA, which couldn't come about without RNA being complete. RNA is simply a complex strand of sugars (Ribose), however RNA would have to come about through something simpler like TNA (Threose Nucleic Acid). TNA, while much simpler, still couldn't form without Threose first being formed. Luckily, Threose is a very simple sugar and forms organically with out any great intelligence or design needed . . . or astronomical odds.

It's simple chemistry . . . which leads to simple biology . . . all organic and based on natural laws.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   

AbleEndangered
reply to post by solomons path
 


Hey Solomon,

What does every "known" living thing have??
edit on 16-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added: "known"


A carbon base. DNA . . . RNA . . . What answer are you looking for?

Your not as "smart" as you think you are . . .

If you are going to start in with your DNA is a computer language mumbo-jumbo . . . you are barking up the wrong tree.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 



solomons path

AbleEndangered
reply to post by solomons path
 


Hey Solomon,

What does every "known" living thing have??
edit on 16-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added: "known"


A carbon base. DNA . . . RNA . . . What answer are you looking for?

Your not as "smart" as you think you are . . .

If you are going to start in with your DNA is a computer language mumbo-jumbo . . . you are barking up the wrong tree.


Thank You,

Below is some of my regurgitated Dogma from another thread...
 


These Nobel Prize winners discovered a whole

For their discoveries of machinery regulating vesicle traffic,
a major transport system in our cells:
www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2013/press.html
www.nobelprize.org...

www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2013/med_image_press_eng.pdf
www.nobelprize.org...

ENG - Traveling inside a cell: avoiding traffic jams and accidents (I) - 2010
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPU3SMeg4hQ
www.youtube.com...


Inner Life Of A Cell - Full Version.mkv - (Also available with Narration)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKW4F0Nu-UY
www.youtube.com...


DNA Replication
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8
www.youtube.com...


Yeah, how long does the DNA molecule stretch out after unraveled??

That sure looks like a bunch of accidents all working in harmony don't it??

Reference Video, no embed to improve web page loading.
Eukaryotic Cell Cycle | Biology | Genetics
www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3_PNiLWBjY
www.youtube.com...
edit on 16-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: additions



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


That fact that you keep referring to the evolution of DNA and the structure of a cell as a series of "accidents" just shows your lack of understanding in the evolutionary processes involved and chemistry, in general.

There is no such thing as an "accident" in the process. Things happen for very specific reasons in chemistry (and biology, as well).

While you are choosing those links (examples) to show the complexity of bio-chemical mechanisms, the people responsible for those presentations are not promoting design. They are simply describing the natural mechanisms, so you are misrepresenting those findings and explanations as a crutch for your pseudo-science. Your argument is nothing more than the thoroughly debunked/refuted fallacy of "irreducible complexity" . . . And, I'm not even sure you realize you are regurgitating this fallacy. Your whole argument (complexity) is nothing more than an argument from incredulity, AKA an argument from ignorance . . . a logical fallacy, which boils down to a lack of imagination on your part.

You simply chose to believe in explanations provided by pseudo-science because it seems more "interesting" and placates you philosophical ideology.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


You and I both know as soon as the word "design" flies out their mouth they are fired!!



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Broom
 


I think all of the things we see are images of concepts. Most people probably see a woodpecker's abilities as echoed actions, but I see the actions as echoed concepts.

instincts - concepts
potato - potato

The engineering is the construction of perfect imagery for perfect concepts.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   

AbleEndangered
reply to post by solomons path
 


You and I both know as soon as the word "design" flies out their mouth they are fired!!


No . . . Actually, you believe that and I know that not to be true. I know those that suggest design are challenged by their peers to produce evidence beyond conjecture and they never can.

I also know that design proponents like to promote the persecution fallacy of people being "fired" for their beliefs, yet those that have lost their positions have no evidence to back up their claims and, in fact, the evidence shows they lost their positions for quite benign reasons which have nothing to do with their beliefs.

If this is the part where you post examples . . . especially, any that were featured in the propaganda film "Expelled", just know that I will not engage in your derailing of this thread. The only example that I cannot thoroughly refute is the biologist from Cal St Northridge (Mark Armitage). While it is true that Armitage is not on faculty at CSUN this semester, Armitage did not claim is finding was evidence of design/creation or that he was let go for his beliefs or findings. And, the only source that claims he was no longer in his position for his findings is a Creation Science website. This claim makes absolutely no sense though, as Dr. Mary Schweitzer found the same soft tissue previously and still holds her position. You also previously posted a misrepresentation of the "ridicule" she received, which even she admits went away after peer confirmation of her findings, and the "threats" she received, which have only come from creationists that want her to claim that her findings back creation/design.

So no . . . we "both" don't know that . . .
edit on 10/16/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 

I understand what you're saying here but there is always a flaw in these experiments.
An intelligent being was behind them.
He MADE the bots in order to study how the spinal cord COULD have developed naturally.
Large parts of the "Theory of Evolution" are based on assumptions, what ifs, could haves and would haves.
If you do not realize this, then perhaps it is you who does not truly understand the theory.
Did his study show how the spinal cord evolved or did he show how they COULD have evolved?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 



solomons path

AbleEndangered
reply to post by solomons path
 


You and I both know as soon as the word "design" flies out their mouth they are fired!!


No . . . Actually, you believe that and I know that not to be true. I know those that suggest design are challenged by their peers to produce evidence beyond conjecture and they never can.

I also know that design proponents like to promote the persecution fallacy of people being "fired" for their beliefs, yet those that have lost their positions have no evidence to back up their claims and, in fact, the evidence shows they lost their positions for quite benign reasons which have nothing to do with their beliefs.

If this is the part where you post examples . . . especially, any that were featured in the propaganda film "Expelled", just know that I will not engage in your derailing of this thread. The only example that I cannot thoroughly refute is the biologist from Cal St Northridge (Mark Armitage). While it is true that Armitage is not on faculty at CSUN this semester, Armitage did not claim is finding was evidence of design/creation or that he was let go for his beliefs or findings. And, the only source that claims he was no longer in his position for his findings is a Creation Science website. This claim makes absolutely no sense though, as Dr. Mary Schweitzer found the same soft tissue previously and still holds her position. You also previously posted a misrepresentation of the "ridicule" she received, which even she admits went away after peer confirmation of her findings, and the "threats" she received, which have only come from creationists that want her to claim that her findings back creation/design.

So no . . . we "both" don't know that . . .


Digging yourself a hole??

Yeah, Armitage went a step further and proved the current model is wrong.

So no more fat checks for him...
edit on 16-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added quote



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   
The answer is simple and miraculous at the same time... let's take the woodpecker example.

The woodpecker LOGICALLY must have a head/brain perfectly protected against those forces because otherwise he would not exist. (Or he would not be able to peck wood as he does, he wouldn't be a woodpecker). SIMPLE.

It would be entirely non-logical if a woodpecker would exist that experiences G forces in the range of 1200 or so Gs BUT his head/brain would be so fragile that it would shatter the first time he'd try to pick a hole into a tree. It would, obviously, be a paradox and a 100% impossibility.

While the entire evolution is indeed "miraculous" seeing the complexity and variety of life, I can explain everything by "logic" and don't need a crutch in the form of an old book to "explain" to me how such things came about. For example, the woodpecker may indeed be sort of "miraculous" how he developed and got those abilities...but there is NOTHING "mysterious" or esoteric about it where I would need a "paranormal" explanation.

The idea that an intelligence/entity "designed" the woodpecker is abstruse because I could then ask 1000s questions why whatever other (non existing, hypothetical) beings have not been created. For example, why don't birds exists that fly at the speed of sound? (It would be a huge advantage, for sure). Why can't our eyes not extend or have some sort of optics built in to see things in detail, say, 100km away? Why can't we jump 500m high and land safely? All those hypothetical but nevertheless awesome things never made it from the designer's notices...WHY? But why then create a woodpecker..why not....give him powers so he can punch ONE hole with one punch...as opposed to have him spending hours making a hole? Or why not give fish wings and a lung so they can exit the water and also fly when they wish so...etc.
Why not make us immune from diseases...and why the need to eat, drink, breath?
Why can we lose limbs? Why can't we fly? Why can't we communicate telepathically? Why do we need sleep? Why can viruses attack us and cause a disease?

Nothing there hints at "intelligent" (speak: INTELLIGENT) design, but rather that species developed and got abilities in a natural way.
edit on 32013RuWednesdayAmerica/Chicago57AMWednesdayWednesday by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Brilliant thread,
Whats troubled me about evolution is the idea that some components of life must have occured/evolved at the same time. Im no expert and i hope someone can explain , how can the differnt sexes evolve? Did the sperm and egg evolve seperatly? Or did the beating heart cell and blood and arteries and veins all evolve in isolation? Was the parasite whoms life cycle involves numerous hosts was a fluke,pardon the pun,of nature?
The complexity of a single cell hurts my brain.
edit on 16-10-2013 by symptomoftheuniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
You've read the post... so now.

Appreciate the brilliance of nature. And make your own mind up on why/how it developed.

Nothings changed, make up your own choices as you always have.

The OP never mentioned God... you did.

All the best.


alfa1

Broom
Was it Designed?


Long posts, and yes I did read them, but I think a shorter version would be:
God did it.
Looking at your previous posts, its clear that's the answer you want.
Edit - actually it would also have saved time if you'd just written: Watchmaker argument, William Paley, 1802.





Broom
... is it reasonable to conclude that blind chance did it?


"Blind chance"?
Oh dear, once again we have somebody who is either deliberatly misrepresenting evolution, or is simply misunderstanding of it.
Either way doesnt look good.
edit on 16-10-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

AbleEndangered
reply to post by solomons path
 


Digging yourself a hole??

Yeah, Armitage went a step further and proved the current model is wrong.

So no more fat checks for him...
edit on 16-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added quote


How am I digging myself a hole . . . ?

You're severely misrepresenting the situation, in order to fit your persecution fallacy.

Armitiage did not "prove" the current model wrong. Schweitzer's work already modified the "current model". The only thing Amitage's paper did was corroborate Schweitzer's work, which was accepted years before Armitage published.

Your assertion is absolutely false. There is also no evidence that Armitage is no longer on faculty due to his beliefs, for all you (or Logos, who started the fallacy) know Armitage took a job elsewhere or in the private sector.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Quadrivium
reply to post by solomons path
 

I understand what you're saying here but there is always a flaw in these experiments.
An intelligent being was behind them.
He MADE the bots in order to study how the spinal cord COULD have developed naturally.
Large parts of the "Theory of Evolution" are based on assumptions, what ifs, could haves and would haves.
If you do not realize this, then perhaps it is you who does not truly understand the theory.
Did his study show how the spinal cord evolved or did he show how they COULD have evolved?



Evolution is merely the mechanism organisms use to change over time, in order to ensure survival . . . And, this study shows how and why that happened. I understand Evolutionary Theory quite well. All of the concepts that you call "assumptions, what ifs, could haves, and would haves" are based on volumes of empirical evidence, which were acquired through observation and experimentation. They are repeatable and falsifiable . . . unlike the mere conjecture of design. They are only "assumptions" to those that would rather deal in superstition and pseudo-science.

There is no "flaw", unless you are starting from a pre-supposition that is was designed/created.

Your argument holds no merit and shows your lack of understanding in this study's findings.
edit on 10/16/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

solomons path

Quadrivium
reply to post by solomons path
 

I understand what you're saying here but there is always a flaw in these experiments.
An intelligent being was behind them.
He MADE the bots in order to study how the spinal cord COULD have developed naturally.
Large parts of the "Theory of Evolution" are based on assumptions, what ifs, could haves and would haves.
If you do not realize this, then perhaps it is you who does not truly understand the theory.
Did his study show how the spinal cord evolved or did he show how they COULD have evolved?



Evolution is merely the mechanism organisms use to change over time, in order to ensure survival . . . And, this study shows how and why that happened. I understand Evolutionary Theory quite well. All of the concepts that you call "assumptions, what ifs, could haves, and would haves" are based on volumes of empirical evidence, which were acquired through observation and experimentation. They are repeatable and falsifiable . . . unlike the mere conjecture of design. They are only "assumptions" to those that would rather deal in superstition and pseudo-science.

There is no "flaw", unless you are starting from a pre-supposition that is was designed/created.

Your argument holds no merit and shows your lack of understanding in this study's findings.
edit on 10/16/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

Ah......I see the problem now.
Any one who does not agree with you is dumb and can not understand the theory.

What if you're too blinded by what you think you know that you can't see the truth?
Question:
How did his experiments PROVE the spinal column evolved naturally?
The only thing it actually proved is that the experiments were CREATED/DESIGNED by an INTELLIGENT souce. In this case it was the scientist conducting the experiments.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Your hate for the Divine borders on obsession. When you look at the mist in the trees, or an awe inspiring sunset that causes all sentient beings to get that feeling that there is more to this world than what the veil reveals what do you feel? Mechanical? Such a sad way to see the world.

I am also curious about your user name. Is that a twist on Alpha1? If so why?
edit on 16-10-2013 by LoneGunMan because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join