Was It Designed?

Now, the Infinite...

The Importance of Pi
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RldHTtd3O8
www.youtube.com...


^I have used this video a bit, but i can't see it enough. It is so inspirational...

And the potential of this number...

A Night of Numbers - Phi's The Limit
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD-ZiqDvnKo
www.youtube.com...


The British guy makes it sound important!!

How many more clues you want??

AbleEndangered
reply to post by solomons path

 

Don't hate the player....Hate the game!!

― Mahatma Gandhi
“Hate the sin, love the sinner.”

Sholom Aleichem
Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor.

Well, Gandhi was a wise man . . . However, I had a few of other quotes in mind . . .

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
-Thomas Paine

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
-Euripides

When arguing with fools, don't answer their foolish arguments, or you will become as foolish as they are.
-Proverbs 26:4

Oh you want a quote battle!!

Albert Einstein
You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.

Ecclesiastes 2:14 KJV
The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.

^Pineal Gland reference

Socrates
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

Photography has only been in existence for 160 years.

Man's fastest land transportation was by horseback until steam-engine train 200 years ago.

Oldest Homo Sapiens radio-dated 43,000 years before present

Life likely arose about 2,100,000,000 years ago

We've made incredible advances in the past 200 years. Life has had 10 million times that number of years to make some of the marvels you have shown us.

Genetic change happens. Those changes that improve chances of survival are likely to persist.

Tusks
Photography has only been in existence for 160 years.

Man's fastest land transportation was by horseback until steam-engine train 200 years ago.

Oldest Homo Sapiens radio-dated 43,000 years before present

Life likely arose about 2,100,000,000 years ago

We've made incredible advances in the past 200 years. Life has had 10 million times that number of years to make some of the marvels you have shown us.

Genetic change happens. Those changes that improve chances of survival are likely to persist.

And this discredits the idea of a designer how?

reply to post by solomons path

Solomon,
You can say I am "cherry picking", setting up a "straw man" and using "pseudo science" if you can show that I am wrong.
The truth (as I honestly see it) is this......
People see what they want to see.
You look at Mr. Longs experiments and you see how evolution developed the spinal column.
This is what you want to see, but it is not necessarily the case.
I find wording to be VERY important. And the wording in most "scientific" papers of this sort
leave many to believe it happened when it is acually no more than assumption.
As I stated earlier........
To prove that something evolved "naturally" you would have to observe it in nature. Anything less and you show intelligent disign by the Scientists. 
Mr. Long designed and created his test subjects. Then he goes on to say ....
“This is looking at evolution as it’s occurring now.”
No, it's not. Unless this is what you want to see.

reply to post by Quadrivium


Presence of a designer would necessitate a prior more advanced stage of evolution or a higher order unlikelihood. Just a matter of odds. Of course neither proposition--designer vs evolution--can be absolutely proven.

Tusks
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

Presence of a designer would necessitate a prior more advanced stage of evolution or a higher order unlikelihood.

Please expand your explanation.
Evolution does not deal with the beginning of life but the diversity of life.
What process was used to come to the above conclusion?

Of course neither proposition--designer vs evolution--can be absolute proven.

As of now, you are absolutly correct.
"All of the collective knowledge we have gathered as a whole is only a drop in the ocean of knowledge yet to learn" - me.

reply to post by solomons path

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.

Actually, broom's ignorance is even more profound — and basic — than this.

broom
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.

He says 'chromosomes' when he means 'proteins'!

Such an error is more than enough to disqualify this maker of sweeping statements from having an opinion on this subject at all.

Gee I always thought hat biometrics was what the DoD was developing so they don't have to go door to door to put a tattoo on your body so you can be processed through the DHS "Obama Care" camps. Haven't you watched any tv lately? Torchwood Mircale Day is actually Obamacare without the mircale part. Everyone knows the Lord of Death Obama (Satan) can't do a miracle. Anyway, don;t worry about it.

reply to post by Astyanax


Speaking of Proteins...

Turns out Humans are better than computers at building proteins...

An Introduction to Foldit
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo99JjnfdA8
www.youtube.com...


Welcome to Foldit!!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYJyur4FUA
www.youtube.com...


Fold It @ Home helps in Genetic Research in a number of ways!!

Everyone is welcome to learn, play, research, explore, discuss, very cool!!

reply to post by solomons path


"Simple chemistry" that ,to my knowledge(and i haven't poked around in a while),has not yet been replicated.

We have never created life from nonlife

Abiogenisis,spontaneous generation, a just s looney as a god that can't get his facts straight

Why does intelligence design of life automatically invoke the old testament?

We may be designing our own life in 500 years.

We are trying to now. Lol

reply to post by Astyanax


You are correct. It should have been proteins. That is in itself an error. But not an intentional one, neither is it because of ignorance. Rather just a bad memory. The broom went and swept open a few books he remembered reading this in, and the basic understanding is there:

This in particalar is what came to mind when writing that:

Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 1040,000! “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”

The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley

ETA: Also this:

After further modification, this particular type of message-carrying RNA is ready. It moves out of the nucleus and heads for the protein-production site, where the RNA letters are decoded. Each set of three RNA letters forms a “word” that calls for one specific amino acid. Another form of RNA looks for that amino acid, grabs it with the help of an enzyme, and tows it to the “construction site.” As the RNA sentence is being read and translated, a growing chain of amino acids is produced. This chain curls and folds into a unique shape, leading to one kind of protein. And there may well be over 50,000 kinds in our body.
Even this process of protein folding is significant. In 1996, scientists around the world, “armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life. . . . The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won. . . . Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 1027 (a billion billion billion) years.”—The New York Times.

Tusks
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

Presence of a designer would necessitate a prior more advanced stage of evolution or a higher order unlikelihood. Just a matter of odds. Of course neither proposition--designer vs evolution--can be absolutely proven.

There is actually a way for it to be proven.

Broom
There is actually a way for it to be proven.

I'm thinking of an object.
How can I prove whether or not it was designed (or not)?
What procedures, tests or examinations should I make to prove the "design hypothesis" true or false?

alfa1

Broom
There is actually a way for it to be proven.

I'm thinking of an object.
How can I prove whether or not it was designed (or not)?
What procedures, tests or examinations should I make to prove the "design hypothesis" true or false?

"Procedures? Tests?" Hey, you forgot creationism is a BELIEF, you don't need no stinkin' tests

To answer OP question as simple as possible - no it was not designed.

It took millions of years for evolution and selection of species to perfect survivability, all those unable to adopt did not survive - simple as that.

That is why we have fossil records for millions of years of evolution, but those that did not fossilized on stones we burn every day in our cars or use to heat our homes or produce energy... That is how we know that world is created a bit more then 6.5 thousands years ago, was not created in 6 days and was not created by imaginary guy way above who lives in clouds.

Sorry to burst your bubble... Father George Coyne Ph.D. has best explained this religious fundamentalism and non-sense.




He calls it a plague...

reply to post by Broom


Wonderful thread, thanks Broom.

More here on The Bumblebee

Researchers at Harvard University filmed the buzzy insects in a wind tunnel to figure out how to make planes cope better in stormy weather.

They replayed the pictures in slow motion to study the techniques bees use to keep flying when it's really windy.
....
Insects can cope with extreme winds
Dr Sridhar Ravi who worked on the project, says that the best small aircraft - with a wingspan of less than 25cm - "struggle to fly stably when there is even in a light breeze."

But even though they're smaller than that, he says, "insects seem to be capable of flying even in extreme wind conditions."

The wind tunnel allowed the scientists to recreate the really windy conditions.

They filmed the bees using high-speed cameras in order to replay their flight in very slow motion and discover how the insects adjusted their flight according to the wind they were experiencing.

This footage revealed that the bees slowed down their flight in unsteady winds, which seemed to allow them to use more energy keeping themselves steady.

www.bbc.co.uk...


reply to post by alfa1


You give new meaning to the descriptive term of
curmudgeon! While at the same time, adding nothing
of substance to the thread.

reply to post by Broom


Sorry, no. That's all rubbish.

Your first quote, attributed to an eminent palaeontologist, only returns results from Biblical creationist sites when googled. I am inclined to disbelieve it. Your second quote is thoroughly irrelevant. I am not going to debunk the statistical objection for the ten millionth time in this forum; it suffices to say that it is wrong because it assumes that evolution is a random process. Since evolution is always building on material that it has itself already made available, it is not entirely random.

Consider this, if you will: many of the results of natural selection are predictable. We can identify the runt in the litter before natural selection disposes of it. If evolution occurred in an entirely random way, how could we do that?

You may wish to argue that it is God and not natural selection that does the job; but we are not talking about an act of continuous creation here, and we can quite clearly discern the entirely natural causes of the poor animal's death.

reply to post by burntheships

More here on The Bumblebee

Not sure of your point. Is it Hitler's supposed point to Göring, that 'according to the scientists, the bumblebee cannot fly, but it does!' How does that suggest to you that a bumblebee was designed and not evolved? To me it suggests the opposite.