• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Universal Design

Iacchus said:
Life is a journey. It doesn't happen all at once.
Click to expand...

Evasion noted. Answer the question.

Would it be correct to force open the petals of a flower? If you don't wish to destroy it? If you were so keenly interested in what I had to say, you should have already begun your own research (I provided the links) and stopped pestering me about it. ;)
Click to expand...

More evasion - answer the points in the other thread.
 
You expect too much! Things will happen in their own sweet time. Like it or not!
 
Yep, I'm THE dragon... THE antichrist.

How's that for conceit?

So... assuming I am the Devil (and what proof do you have otherwise)... what would that mean to you?

(since I don't believe in the Devil, it means nothing to me personally)
 
Iacchus said:
You expect too much! Things will happen in their own sweet time. Like it or not!
Click to expand...

More evasion.

Will you or will you not answer the points in the other thread? So I can better spend my time than debating with creduloids and play Natural-Selection (A Half Life mod).
 
zaayrdragon said:
Yep, I'm THE dragon... THE antichrist.

How's that for conceit?

So... assuming I am the Devil (and what proof do you have otherwise)... what would that mean to you?

(since I don't believe in the Devil, it means nothing to me personally)
Click to expand...

I can predict what Iacchus is going to say next.

That post is was the 222nd post in the thread - Multiply that by 3, and you get 666.
 
Hi Iachuss:
You have asked a question that does not have a definitive answer.

Does the universe show a design?

I ask again, where do you see evidence of design?

My thinking is heavily influenced by the study of natural selection. You say"I see a horse", and I agree "I see a horse", but what if we ask another question about design of say a "Human Being"?

Like which came first, walking or talking? Which has a greater impact upon human evolution? This gets into the question of design, is it deliberate or is it contingent?
 
We have cause-and-effect on the one hand, and the rules that govern cause-and-effect on the other. And yes, in that I see a design. And where exactly do I see this design? In the whole structure of the Universe.
 
Let's start from the top, Iacchus.

What do you mean by 'design'? What do you mean by 'the structure' of the 'whole' universe?

Are you implying you are privy to the structure of the whole universe, or are you in fact referring to the observed structure of the visible universe?

But the most important thing we need to understand is this term, design.

Please, what is your definition of design?
 
It's rather obvious to me that the whole Universe is based upon structure, it's just one binding rule after the next. While hey, maybe all God had to do was roll out the carpet so to speak, perhaps to impress a particular female friend at the time? and voila! We have the Universe! You know, isn't that in effect what evolution entails, rolling out the carpet?

And yes, I am referring to the observed structure of the visible universe.
 
Iacchus said:
We have cause-and-effect on the one hand, and the rules that govern cause-and-effect on the other. And yes, in that I see a design. And where exactly do I see this design? In the whole structure of the Universe.
Click to expand...

Well, you do get points for talking with me, I appreciate it in all the distraction. The design of the whole universe seems to be the cumulative effect of a bunch of random events, There are very few straight lines, or consistant patterns that would indicate a 'design'.

When you say 'cause and effect' you seem to be buying a reductionary model. So again I ask where do you see purpose and intent?

Perhaps you haven't thought about it, but I see a gulf in our communication, you say there is a design, I say not, even amongst 'barred spiral galaxies' there is so much variation that there is no consistent pattern amongst them , except that they appear to be spiral form with prominent bars, but view them 10 million years on and the form has changed, where is the pattern?
 
I don't mean to cut you short here (am getting tired) but wouldn't it be fair say that evolution is contingent upon the laws of physics? In which case the effect it produces, due to cause-and-effect and the notion of determism, results in a planned unfolding of the Universe? Of course evolution is more about the process of life, and yet it's merely the further extension of the unfolding of the Universe.

Or, consider it this way, you have a series of irrigation canals --representing the laws of physics, and hence the design -- which, when you release the water, everything follows it's pre-designated course which, of course is the process of the Universe unfolding itself.
 
Well, if that's the case, Iacchus, we already know what it's unfolding into - maximum entropy.

What a wonderful plan God has for us! :D
 
Iacchus said:
I don't mean to cut you short here (am getting tired) but wouldn't it be fair say that evolution is contingent upon the laws of physics? In which case the effect it produces, due to cause-and-effect and the notion of determism, results in a planned unfolding of the Universe? Of course evolution is more about the process of life, and yet it's merely the further extension of the unfolding of the Universe.

Or, consider it this way, you have a series of irrigation canals --representing the laws of physics, and hence the design -- which, when you release the water, everything follows it's pre-designated course which, of course is the process of the Universe unfolding itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that the consistancy observable in the universe is consistant. However , you are seemingly making the assumption, that consistancy implies design and intent.

I am merely arguing that there is little evidence of design in the universe. meaning that there is little evidence that there is some intent in the universe.

Take something like the alleged pinnacle of intelligence the human being, I find that there is little raeson to beleive that there is a design inherent to life and the universe that leaads to the rise of intelligence and homo sapiens. The contingent nature of evolution, natural selection, merely states that triats which benefit the reproductive success of an organism will more likely be passed onto it's offspring.

So did wlking or talking come first, and which is the most beneficial to homo sapiens. I ask this because all the things that we tout as being 'cool' about humans arise after the walking thing. The neotany of the babies which leads to the potential for large brain developement is a consequence (I beleive) of the upright posture of the proto homo.
So the contingent problem for design is this, while evolution might cause learning and intelligence to be selected for in organisms longed lived enough to benefit from it, it is goinf to be dependant on the contingent developement of other traits. So human beings were no5t designed for intelligence, what idf all the upright ancestors had dies from a viral infection? Would then the universe have to force another group of homonids to walk upright to achieve neotany?

I agree that in long lived species and some short lived ones there is a benefit to learning and intelligence, but that it does not seem to be part of some design.
 
What I find interesting, is we had to trade off traits to get where we are today. In order to have these large brains, we had to trade off rapid development in infancy. Instead of a 25-month gestation period and rapid development, we're helpless for years after a 9-month gestation.

(I think the other option was legs set about 3 feet further apart... :D )
 
Dancing David said:

Yes, I agree that the consistancy observable in the universe is consistant. However , you are seemingly making the assumption, that consistancy implies design and intent.

I am merely arguing that there is little evidence of design in the universe. meaning that there is little evidence that there is some intent in the universe.
Click to expand...
Consistency and order implies structure, and without structure there would be no intelligence which, is the ultimate outcropping of structure. So, just as structure gives rise to structure (another word for design that is), why shouldn't intelligence give rise to intelligence? And why shouldn't intelligence be the underlying principle behind the design of the Universe?
 
Iacchus said:
It's rather obvious to me that the whole Universe is based upon structure, it's just one binding rule after the next. While hey, maybe all God had to do was roll out the carpet so to speak, perhaps to impress a particular female friend at the time? and voila! We have the Universe! You know, isn't that in effect what evolution entails, rolling out the carpet?

And yes, I am referring to the observed structure of the visible universe.
Click to expand...


Certainly!

Contrary to popular wannabe scientist opinions,
atheism need not be a requirement of evolution. That is the misconception that very much intellectually and emotionally hamstrings most atheists making them incapable of accepting obvious things that those who are unencumbered by such unnecessary preconceptions readily and accurately perceive.

Such individuals fail to notice that evolution and atheism can be and actually are mutually exclusive terms.

So many professional evolutionists do subscribe to the carpet-rolling scenario you espouse. They see it as merely a means used to an end by an intelligent creative higher power.

As you can see,
Amateur evolutionists and wannabe scientists are far less flexible.
 
While I personally agree with a carpet-rolling theory... I still don't see the design and structure that Iacchus sees.

In short, there is no 'intelligent design' behind the Universe. Deity just set up a few parameters, pushed 'GO!', sat back, and let it roll.

Structure does NOT imply intelligence, Iacchus - else, you'd have to attribute intelligence to every structure in the universe, and, further, you'd have to agree that intelligence is dying (since the Universe is headed toward total entropy).

Maybe this is the one thing that bothers me most about 'intelligent' design: the universe's overall design is for it to ultimately dissolve into a state of total entropy. This is one theorem which is usually accepted, although some scientists insist that some force will end up drawing the Universe back together to start over again.
 
zaayrdragon said:

While I personally agree with a carpet-rolling theory... I still don't see the design and structure that Iacchus sees.

In short, there is no 'intelligent design' behind the Universe. Deity just set up a few parameters, pushed 'GO!', sat back, and let it roll.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's too far from the truth.
Structure does NOT imply intelligence, Iacchus - else, you'd have to attribute intelligence to every structure in the universe, and, further, you'd have to agree that intelligence is dying (since the Universe is headed toward total entropy).
Click to expand...
It's all inter-woven into the design of the carpet though isn't it?


Maybe this is the one thing that bothers me most about 'intelligent' design: the universe's overall design is for it to ultimately dissolve into a state of total entropy. This is one theorem which is usually accepted, although some scientists insist that some force will end up drawing the Universe back together to start over again.
Click to expand...
The one thing you've left out here though is spirit which, is a different story entirely. This in fact is what I base all my observations, the fact that spririt exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom