Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[Karl Pilkington]

I would say you are both right and wrong. Those who support ID do allow for microevolution, but they are steadfastly against macroevolution.

Can you explain the difference between macro and micro to me?

 

[Contra Mundum]

It's been said about fifty million times in this thread that ID requires a creator, evolution does not. ID also requires that gaps be filled by this creator. There are not 'gaps' in evolution.

"Intelligent" is an adverb why does it connote a creator. The shell of a snail might be an intelligent design in the sense that it is a smart way of packing stuff in but that does not mean it has to have a "designer".

 

[Karl Pilkington]

mendacious.

I like it - what does it mean?

 

[Contra Mundum]

I like it - what does it mean?

Karl deleted it because BomberGal is a fighter for truth justice and scientific rationality. Mendacity is an ability to lie

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Can you explain the difference between macro and micro to me?

To put it very simply; macroevolution concerns speciation whereas microevolution concerns evolution within species. It is all about the scale of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Karl deleted it because BomberGal is a fighter for truth justice and scientific rationality. Mendacity is an ability to lie

I assume God is mendacious.

 

[Niximus]

Can you explain the difference between macro and micro to me?

When creationists talk about these they are refering to Microevolution being variation within a species i.e. differing breeds of dogs/horses etc.

Macroevolution is speciation, i.e. the point where the 2 dogs have become so different from each other that they can no longer interbreed. They become 2 separate species.

Generally creationists will accept the former but not the latter.

 

[FIGJAM]

"The mind" of Brahman is supposed to be poetic rather than literal (IMO of course)

The restraints of language limit us to such metaphors.

Seems to me that is a small subsection of the paradigm. The majority of humans appear to believe something akin to what you do ie "design" "a higher purpose" a "watchful supreme being" etc.

Ok then; the materialist paradigm forms the majority of those who aren't blind believers in organised religion.

Ummm,because 'electricity' doesn't care? "Energy" doesn't care? 'Nature' doesn't care? (These are his analogies from the video,not mine)

His analogies explain that electricity has both constructive and destructive aspects to it. If electricity didn't "care" per say, you would fall in a heap of inanimate flesh as it left your body.

Could you make this "energy" any more anthropomorphisized if you tried?

But then you complain if anyone makes charicture of it.

Again, it is the problem of language. If you talk about superior emotions, such as "caring", you may fall into the trap of converting this into a human form, as we see the phenomena of caring in ourselves. This is natural, but something we each individiallu need to overcome (through meditation).

Certainly it would be unfair to suggest that by simply stating that the being of the whole is not indifferent, that I would in anyway be caricaturising "God" the way an ignoramus like Dawkins does in "The God Delusion"? If anything I go out of my way to keep it as it should be; nameless, formless and no-thingness.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I assume God is mendacious.

I mean it - rhe only issue I have is sometimes she expresses herself in less than moderate terms when it comes to us poor moronic God Botherers

 

[evo]

The restraints of language limit us to such metaphors.

Indeed,and this is my thesis.The theologian and or theist reads a text meant as metaphor,but applies it literally.

So 'God' of the Bahgvad Gita(for example) becomes this 'caring' being, when it was never intend as such(again IMO)

I think it may have even been your homey Bohm himself who agreed "Atman is Brahman".

Again, it is the problem of language. If you talk about superior emotions, such as "caring", you may fall into the trap of converting this into a human form, as we see the phenomena of caring in ourselves. This is natural, but something we each individiallu need to overcome (through meditation).

Hey dude I'm just working with your material--you posted that video as a good example of what you God is--shouldn't you be telling yourself that?

Certainly it would be unfair to suggest that by simply stating that the being of the whole is not indifferent, that I would in anyway be caricaturising "God" the way an ignoramus like Dawkins does in "The God Delusion"? If anything I go out of my way to keep it as it should be; nameless, formless and no-thingness.

Did you even listen to the last 3 minutes of that video? It was every bit the classic Christian characture.It subscribed all manner of attributes to God.

 

[H2F]

Either way one thing science seems to have shown is that matter evolved from nothing (or really a primal singularity).

Life appears to have somehow evolved from matter.

Consciousness has evolved from life.
So what might be in store for us in the future?

Even though I believe 100% in intelligent design, I'd like to think even our academic friends in this thread would acknowledge the obvious development of our consciousness being inherent in the evolution of universes.

Karl has been trying to get you all on this, the entire thread.

A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives a creative intelligence, which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable.

Maybe it is measurable though, not in kph or ergs, but in psychology.

Maybe if Karl and I were to be studied, an answer to our amazing awareness might provide some insight to you all ...

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Certainly it would be unfair to suggest that by simply stating that the being of the whole is not indifferent, that I would in anyway be caricaturising "God" the way an ignoramus like Dawkins does in "The God Delusion"? If anything I go out of my way to keep it as it should be; nameless, formless and no-thingness.

It annoys me how people judge Dawkins based on 'The God Delusion' It is probably his worst work. It is nothing but a polemic and should be treated as such. Don't get me wrong, he does make some good points, but he should be judged based on his best works; The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. The Selfish Gene is one of the most important books on evolution.

I realise the irony in asking someone to not judge Dawkins on a single piece of work when he could be accused of doing the exact same thing.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Either way one thing science seems to have shown is that matter evolved from nothing (or really a primal singularity).

Life appears to have somehow evolved from matter.

Consciousness has evolved from life.
So what might be in store for us in the future?

Even though I believe 100% in intelligent design, I'd like to think even our academic friends in this thread would acknowledge the obvious development of our consciousness being inherent in the evolution of universes.

Karl has been trying to get you all on this, the entire thread.

A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives a creative intelligence, which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable.

Maybe it is measurable though, not in kph or ergs, but in psychology.

Maybe if Karl and I were to be studied, an answer to our amazing awareness might provide some insight to you all ...

If ID proponents get their way;

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

 

[Corpuscles]

Would one of you experts Evolutionist please explain how evolution take a less complex (perhaps also a less intelligent sophisticated creature) and produces a new species or completely new genus.

How many mutants of any species has man observed that were superior? Didn't improvement always require cross bred hybids carefully manipulated by man?

At what point did a plant decide to become a blood flowing animal? WHY?

Homo spaiens are said to come from apes? Yet that required a reduction of chromsones from 48 to 46, dimishished brain size but massively increased ability and both co existed! ( was that due to a localised environemental influence?)

Has there been observable evolutionary development in human genetics over the last 5000 yrs?

 

[Niximus]

A Blorgborp innate in all living matter drives a Blorgborp, which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, Blorgborp is neither measurable nor predictable.

....

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Has there been observable evolutionary development in human genetics over the last 5000 yrs?

We get taller* each generation, and more intelligent, not sure if that counts.

* well, some of us

 

[H2F]

....

lol ...

you're alright Nick.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Would one of you experts Evolutionist please explain how evolution take a less complex (perhaps also a less intelligent sophisticated creature) and produces a new species or completely new genus.

How many mutants of any species has man observed that were superior? Didn't improvement always require cross bred hybids carefully manipulated by man?

At what point did a plant decide to become a blood flowing animal? WHY?

Homo spaiens are said to come from apes? Yet that required a reduction of chromsones from 48 to 46, dimishished brain size but massively increased ability and both co existed! ( was that due to a localised environemental influence?)

Has there been observable evolutionary development in human genetics over the last 5000 yrs?

No offense intended, but did you do any biology at school? The questions you are asking should have been answered in year 10 biology.

 

[H2F]

If ID proponents get their way;

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

Thanks bro ... I have some reading to do. Never actually read anything about ID before, as I have only studied science, but have my own thoughts which I have been happy to associate with the principle (at least) of ID.

A number of people in here have shown me that ID out there in the world seems to be like everything else and hindered by political and religious agendas.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Thanks bro ... I have some reading to do. Never actually read anything about ID before, as I have only studied science, but have my own thoughts which I have been happy to associate with the principle (at least) of ID.

A number of people in here have shown me that ID out there in the world seems to be like everything else and hindered by political and religious agendas.

I have no problems with the beliefs yourself and Karl have been discussing and believe that the term ID actually misrepresents what you are talking about. You seem to believe in a theory of design, but I would not call this ID.

 

[Niximus]

Even though I believe 100% in intelligent design,

Never actually read anything about ID before

...?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I have no problems with the beliefs yourself and Karl have been discussing and believe that the term ID actually misrepresents what you are talking about. You seem to believe in a theory of design, but I would not call this ID.

Cheers - I've actually found this thread has a large volum of mature discussion considering the content. I agree we aren't discussing ID in the sense it is usually used. It probably hurts our point of view to even associate ourselves with it, but I think the point that we're coming from is fairly reasonable.

 

[H2F]

I have no problems with the beliefs yourself and Karl have been discussing and believe that the term ID actually misrepresents what you are talking about. You seem to believe in a theory of design, but I would not call this ID.

thanks PP, I think maybe we have been guilty of affiliating ourselves with a misrepresentation of what it really is that we believe.

Karl's sagacity in this field is mind boggling.

 

[H2F]

...?

ok I made an assumption that was incorrect.

even I can make a mistake now and then.

Happy to apologise to all on bended knee.

 

[H2F]

Cheers - I've actually found this thread has a large volum of mature discussion considering the content. I agree we aren't discussing ID in the sense it is usually used. It probably hurts our point of view to even associate ourselves with it, but I think the point that we're coming from is fairly reasonable.

thanks PP, I think maybe we have been guilty of affiliating ourselves with a misrepresentation of what it really is that we believe.

Karl's sagacity in this field is mind boggling.

bloody hell, we are twins...