View Full Version : Too complex to be intelligently designed?
Gondolin
10-19-07, 01:14 PM
I've been thinking about this for quite a while. The world to me seems too complex to be designed by something intelligent. That may sound totally backwards, but you have to think about it. Wouldn't the smartest design to be the simplest? Why create something overly complex with so many variables? Why create other systems besides around billions of stars besides ours? The universe just seems to complex.
Does any of that make sense?
Discuss.
nietzschefan
10-19-07, 01:21 PM
Well it started pretty simple.
This is... well strange.
How can something be too complex to be intelligent? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
''Well it started pretty simple.''
I'm assuming you think that small is... simple. Well, your wrong.
Gondolin
10-19-07, 01:24 PM
Well it started pretty simple.
That's what I think. I was just putting the idea out there.
I don't believe in a creator, but I was wondering IF the world/universe was intelligently created, why is it so complex and so full of fluff?
Intelligently created, does not illiminate complexity. Would you say this to Michelangelo's picture on the sistine chapel?
The whole “intelligent design” argument is just the latest version of the same old lame “since we can’t perfectly explain why it’s happening, it must have been magic!” explanation that ignorant people have been using for millennia. It used to be used for everything from lightening (the gods throwing something at people) to the sun (the gods riding a flaming chariot across the sky) to disease (someone put a curse on you, an evil spirit attacked you, etc.). Of course, today we have good explanations for those things, so no one takes the “it was magic” explanation seriously any more. Now that argument is only reserved for the most difficult, complex questions that humans haven’t yet been able to provide a natural explanation for. Attributing what we can’t explain to magic has been proven wrong virtually every time we’ve done it throughout history. It’s an explanation with a terrible track record. 99.999% of the stuff that we used to think was magical has ended up not being magical once we explored it thoroughly enough. It’s kind of hard to believe that people are still clinging to it for the last few unanswered questions. It's kind of like building 1000 buildings, and after 997 of them have collapsed still stubbornly claiming that the last 3 are safe.
Baron Max
10-19-07, 01:38 PM
I've been thinking about this for quite a while. The world to me seems too complex to be designed by something intelligent.
I know this might come as a shock to you, but god is probably smarter than you. :D
Baron Max
I'm still having difficulty in classifying a concept that is intelligent, too complex...
Gondolin
10-19-07, 02:12 PM
I know this might come as a shock to you, but god is probably smarter than you. :D
Baron Max
Really? I thought he was the guy downtown. You know, the one claiming to be God?
I know this is an odd question, but it's just something I thought up. I didn't expect everyone to jump on.
nietzschefan
10-19-07, 02:15 PM
Let's face it, "god(s)" has always been the "force" attributed to all things unexplainable. Even now we can see really fucking stupid stuff directly attributed to "god" in the past and realize the rediculous situation for some "modern" religions based on ancient superstitious bullshit.
On the other hand we still have a whole lotta stuff we still cannot fathom the cause of and it is all to easy to just go...well heck ain't God great?
I dont think of it in terms of design alone but in purpose. When organisms interact and rely on one another it is very difficult to rule our design. To me it is impossible, i see nature left to its own devices to consist of little more than a mud hole, it is this sense of purpose, vision and expectation of a future that leads me to believe life\ecosystems can not be replicated with out planning.
nietzschefan
10-19-07, 03:10 PM
Indeed - some define "God" as the interaction between all living things on all levels.
nietzschefan
10-19-07, 03:11 PM
I dont think of it in terms of design alone but in purpose. When organisms interact and rely on one another it is very difficult to rule our design. To me it is impossible, i see nature left to its own devices to consist of little more than a mud hole, it is this sense of purpose, vision and expectation of a future that leads me to believe life\ecosystems can not be replicated with out planning.
Oh and do not rule out than one organism could "design" another. We humans for instance are very close(perhaps already are) to this.
Oh and do not rule out than one organism could "design" another. We humans for instance are very close(perhaps already are) to this.
It is just a clone and could not be accomplished without base material and letting it grow from there. THIS is NOT creation, there is no original idea anyway.
rofflewoffle
10-19-07, 04:18 PM
It is just a clone and could not be accomplished without base material and letting it grow from there. THIS is NOT creation, there is no original idea anyway.
Actually, there have been some major advances that are leading to totally new organisms being created. It's quite fascinating, and if you just search for "new organisms and life being created" you are sure to find something about it (can't post links yet, grr.)
As for the OP, if I were to assume there was a God (I don't), I'd think that he'd be omniscient and thus would know exactly what to do. I'm sure that there'll eventually be games with basically exact-human AI. If us, humans, can make something that complex then surely a God that is assumed to be an infinite amount of times smarter than us can too.
Actually, the argument makes sense. Any intelligence would seem to be limited by the space of its own brain. And the complexity of the universe would surely dwarf any such brain, provided the brain knew exactly how the universe would evolve. Of course, who could create the universe but a God. And God doesn't have a limited brain.
nietzschefan
10-19-07, 04:28 PM
It is just a clone and could not be accomplished without base material and letting it grow from there. THIS is NOT creation, there is no original idea anyway.
Wasn't really talking about cloning.
Anyways "designed" DNA is going to be possible and is a factor outside the "normal" paradigm of evolution.
Wouldn't the smartest design to be the simplest? Why create something overly complex with so many variables?
The world is as simple as possible. Try to create conscious being equal to a human that is less complex.
Why create other systems besides around billions of stars besides ours?
God wanted to create life on many places.
The whole “intelligent design” argument is just the latest version of the same old lame “since we can’t perfectly explain why it’s happening, it must have been magic!” explanation that ignorant people have been using for millennia.
And the argument is still as perfect as it has always been. There is simply no other explanation than God. People used to call it magic. Now scientists call it "law of nature" or something like that, and just because they have changed the name they think they have explained it.
rofflewoffle
10-19-07, 07:14 PM
And the argument is still as perfect as it has always been. There is simply no other explanation than God. People used to call it magic. Now scientists call it "law of nature" or something like that, and just because they have changed the name they think they have explained it.
So you believe in magic?
Anyway, law of nature is something that is based on observations of physical, empirical evidence. Creationism is most certainly not that. Some scientists makes call it law of nature if they're crazy or uninformed. Real scientists call it BS.
God wanted to create life on many places.
So that he could make it miserable? Disease, war, famine, poverty, hate - all exist. Why would a benevolent god allow this?
Not only that, but God wanted us to spectate His grand design.
lightgigantic
10-19-07, 07:27 PM
I've been thinking about this for quite a while. The world to me seems too complex to be designed by something intelligent.
simply indicates that human thinking is not up to the task of universal creation
So you believe in magic?
Of course, it's the only thing that can explain everything. Scientists and philosophers try for ages to figure so many things, but one little magical word can explain all of those things.
Anyway, law of nature is something that is based on observations of physical, empirical evidence.
Scientists say that things fall because of gravity, and I say that things fall because God makes them fall. What's the difference? Both of them explain why things fall.
So that he could make it miserable? Disease, war, famine, poverty, hate - all exist. Why would a benevolent god allow this?
God had no choice when he created the universe because he is omniscient, so he knew his own actions which he had to do because he didn't create the desire that made him create the world.
God didn't create himself, so he didn't create his free will, so his free will is not his, so he has no free will.
I also like to think God had no choice, as paradoxical as it might first appear.
rofflewoffle
10-19-07, 08:55 PM
Of course, it's the only thing that can explain everything. Scientists and philosophers try for ages to figure so many things, but one little magical word can explain all of those things.
At least you're respectful about it. Although I disagree with you and don't think I can really take you seriously on this issue(no offense whatsoever - you probably won't take me seriously because I admit I'm a bit narrow-minded about just saying "poof," it's there. It'd make life easier, but I don't believe it).
Scientists say that things fall because of gravity, and I say that things fall because God makes them fall. What's the difference? Both of them explain why things fall.
An interesting point. I suppose I'm too tired to argue. It's impossible to know for sure whether it's God or science or whatever that is real. Only when we die will it be revealed. I just believe science outweighs because it has more basis.
God had no choice when he created the universe because he is omniscient, so he knew his own actions which he had to do because he didn't create the desire that made him create the world.
Ah, so you believe God already knew this would all happen? Still, that doesn't really explain why his omnipotent, omniscient benevolence didn't take action. Meh.
God didn't create himself, so he didn't create his free will, so his free will is not his, so he has no free will.
Then who created God? That's really the underlying question that makes any argument pointless. How did existence begin? Was it forever here? The concept of infinity is a peculiar thing. I doubt we'll ever know.
superluminal
10-19-07, 09:04 PM
The thing I love most about almost all theists is how much they know about what god wants.
"God wanted us to spectate His grand design"
Right.
As for being too complex for intelligent design, you could google for all of the things in nature, especially life, that, from a design standpoint, are incredibly over-complex and/or absurdly poorly "designed".
lightgigantic
10-19-07, 09:06 PM
The thing I love most about almost all theists is how much they know about what god wants.
being omnipotent is somehow some a disqualification for communication?
As for being too complex for intelligent design, you could google for all of the things in nature, especially life, that, from a design standpoint, are incredibly over-complex and/or absurdly poorly "designed".
you're not talking about the road works of NYC are you?
superluminal
10-19-07, 09:22 PM
being omnipotent is somehow some a disqualification for communication?
As usual, you completely miss the point. *sigh*
you're not talking about the road works of NYC are you?
Ha! No...
Gondolin
10-19-07, 09:40 PM
The thing I love most about almost all theists is how much they know about what god wants.
"God wanted us to spectate His grand design"
Right.
As for being too complex for intelligent design, you could google for all of the things in nature, especially life, that, from a design standpoint, are incredibly over-complex and/or absurdly poorly "designed".
That is exactly what I'm talking about. The world seems to chaotic and sloppy to be "intelligently" designed.
Saquist
10-19-07, 10:55 PM
Intelligent design is one the best theories out there fitting all the facts of the fossil records lack of transitional fossils and taking in the account of the limmiting boundaries of the genetic code. I found Michael Behe's articles and interviews highly enlightening and in pace with many other scientist that seem to be leaving their previous views behind.
It lacks a critical element of naming a designer though.
Take the butterfly's wing.
Since there is no intelligent eyeof nature, how did its wing create the illusion of an owls eye? Is this too intelligent for a dumb nature?
VitalOne
10-19-07, 11:03 PM
Actually, the argument makes sense. Any intelligence would seem to be limited by the space of its own brain. And the complexity of the universe would surely dwarf any such brain, provided the brain knew exactly how the universe would evolve. Of course, who could create the universe but a God. And God doesn't have a limited brain.
If that were the case, arguably very complex machines, inventions, etc...shouldn't be intelligently created (but we know they are by humans)
Saquist
10-19-07, 11:11 PM
HAVE you ever noticed that many plants grow in spiral formations?
A pineapple may have 8 spirals of scales going around one way and 5 or 13 going in the opposite direction. The seeds in a sunflower have 55 and 89 different spirals crossing over each other or perhaps even more. You may even find spirals on a cauliflower. Most plants arrange new growths at a unique angle that produces spirals.
Consider this challenge: Imagine trying to engineer a plant so that new growths are compactly arranged around the growing point with absolutely no wasted space. Lets say you decided arbitrarily to make each new primordium grow out at an angle of two fifths of a revolution from the previous growth. You would have the problem of every fifth primordium growing from the same spot and in the same direction. They would form rows with wasted space between the rows.
The truth is, any simple fraction of a revolution results in rows rather than optimal packing. Only what has been termed the “golden angle” of approximately 137.5 degrees results in an ideally compact arrangement of growths. That's precision.
superluminal
10-19-07, 11:14 PM
Pardon me, but none of you understand the exquisite feedback mechanism of evolution by natural selection. You have no real knowledge of what the theory says and how we assess the evidence for it.
Sorry. You guys are just plain ignorant of the situation.
nietzschefan
10-20-07, 01:45 AM
Pardon me, but none of you understand the exquisite feedback mechanism of evolution by natural selection. You have no real knowledge of what the theory says and how we assess the evidence for it.
Sorry. You guys are just plain ignorant of the situation.
What about evolution by designed(unnatural?) selection? It is a reality ...now. Also in the past, but humans are pretty arrogant that way. We are not the best thing out there.
The Universe is simple.
We understand it to be complex.
Saquist
10-20-07, 02:48 AM
What about evolution by designed(unnatural?) selection? It is a reality ...now. Also in the past, but humans are pretty arrogant that way. We are not the best thing out there.
to our knowledge we are aside from God...
scorpius
10-20-07, 11:07 PM
I've been thinking about this for quite a while. The world to me seems too complex to be designed by something intelligent.
maybe the designer is NOT inteligent.
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
scorpius
10-20-07, 11:12 PM
Take the butterfly's wing.
Since there is no intelligent eyeof nature, how did its wing create the illusion of an owls eye? Is this too intelligent for a dumb nature?
www.talkorigins.org
Intelligent design is one the best theories out there fitting all the facts of the fossil records lack of transitional fossils and taking in the account of the limmiting boundaries of the genetic code.
"No one disputes the origins of manufactured items. There isn't a being who proclaims, "Let there be airplanes!" and they magically "poof" into existence. Yet, you disingenuously point to airplanes as an example of a "created object". If you would use manufactured items as evidence of designer and then extrapolate to insist that natural items must also have a designer, you must show the process by which these natural items were "manufactured"."
Alt.Atheism
Not only that, but God wanted us to spectate His grand design.
SG-1 Season 8, Anubus tries the same stunt but failed!!!
Saquist
10-21-07, 09:51 PM
"No one disputes the origins of manufactured items. There isn't a being who proclaims, "Let there be airplanes!" and they magically "poof" into existence. Yet, you disingenuously point to airplanes as an example of a "created object". If you would use manufactured items as evidence of designer and then extrapolate to insist that natural items must also have a designer, you must show the process by which these natural items were "manufactured"."
Alt.Atheism
I believe that is more than possible.
E=MC<2>
Reliable testimony from the bible tells us God is "abundant in dynamic energy." Silencing atheistic hecklers that God's power is magic. It's a common assertion from individuals that don't know or care that the bible has denouced the use of "magic" in anyform.
More acutely the dual nature of matter vs energy and the conversion of each into another. Like evolution we can only go so far to prove such a theory but we do know matter can be controled on the subatomic level and the bonds with the atom can be split to create a great energy...but we also know that energy condenses to particle matter. Paricle construction of "life" was recently established in an article this week showing how nano computers could be be through molecular placement. They ironic describe it as more art than science. However it shows that with the right tools both matter an engery can be manipulate finely on a very small level with enough knowledge.
Take the butterfly's wing.
Since there is no intelligent eyeof nature, how did its wing create the illusion of an owls eye? Is this too intelligent for a dumb nature?
nature is not dumb because consciousness controls it. when the omnipresent mind created those butterflies, it was a little afraid to come to this world as a little butterfly, so it imagined that it was like a big owl that would always see anyone who tried harm it. then it wasn't afraid anymore, and when it came to this world its imagination had created those owl eyes.
But nature, as some of the dogmatists round here would like us to believe, is not conscious. In fact, they would like us to think that humans are somehow seperate of the universe... I don't agree... and neither do you i feel.
But using the butterflys wing again as an analogy, we can see that there is a design... so... let us suppose...
1. The universe is intelligent, and it chose those particular patterns.
If so, the can we stipulate:
2. That if we extrapolate right back to the very first chronon, the very beginning of the universe, it must have been intelligent then...
Right? If so, then the final postulate can be assumed:
3. Then the universe intelligently chose these dimensions and these conditions so that we could exist.
Then God is nature herself.
scorpius
10-21-07, 10:53 PM
But nature, as some of the dogmatists round here would like us to believe, is not conscious. In fact, they would like us to think that humans are somehow seperate of the universe... I don't agree... and neither do you i feel.
But using the butterflys wing again as an analogy, we can see that there is a design... so... let us suppose...
1. The universe is intelligent, and it chose those particular patterns.
If so, the can we stipulate:
2. That if we extrapolate right back to the very first chronon, the very beginning of the universe, it must have been intelligent then...
Right? If so, then the final postulate can be assumed:
3. Then the universe intelligently chose these dimensions and these conditions so that we could exist.
Then God is nature herself.
isnt that Budhist belief?
anyway why call it God if its Nature? :shrug:
or are you gonna very shortly pull Jebus=God outta this equation?;)
God no... and no... Buddhists don't believe in God. I am proposing that God is nature. Just like the ancient indians believed that spirits were in everything, thus i believe God is in everything.
snake river rufus
10-21-07, 11:13 PM
Reliable testimony from the bible.
Reliable?
From kj (not american standard rev;))
1 kings 7-23
"and he made a molten sea,ten cubits from one brim to the other; and it was round and his height was 5 cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about"
Please tell us what the biblical value of 'Pi' might.
I'll be back in a week or so to see ;)
snake river rufus
10-21-07, 11:16 PM
For anyone else that would like to use the bible as evidence. beware:cool: much like yorrick "I know it well"
(well paraphrased a bit;))
Enterprise-D
10-22-07, 11:38 AM
I believe that is more than possible.
E=MC<2>
Reliable testimony from the bible tells us God is "abundant in dynamic energy."
*Heckle*
Reliable testimony you say? Are there any other independent studies showing this claim? Are there any non-religious books supporting the assertion? Was there any expert dissertation on this? Did humanity of the era even understand the concept of energy as it is now explained in the realm of physics?
The phrase "reliable testimony from the bible" is the best example of an oxymoron I have come across in my life.
...tells us God is "abundant in dynamic energy." Silencing atheistic hecklers that God's power is magic. It's a common assertion from individuals that don't know or care that the bible has denouced the use of "magic" in anyform.
Let me delve into this argument, just for conversation's sake...from all appearances, "magic" has the end result of affecting matter in some way. Since "magic" has no physical appearance, it must then be energy. How is stating that god is "abundant in dynamic energy" disprove that such a being is magical in nature?
More acutely the dual nature of matter vs energy and the conversion of each into another. Like evolution we can only go so far to prove such a theory but we do know matter can be controled on the subatomic level and the bonds with the atom can be split to create a great energy...but we also know that energy condenses to particle matter. Paricle construction of "life" was recently established in an article this week showing how nano computers could be be through molecular placement. They ironic describe it as more art than science. However it shows that with the right tools both matter an engery can be manipulate finely on a very small level with enough knowledge.
This entire paragraph proves nothing further than "subatomic manipulation is plausible with the right knowledge and tools". It doesn't prove any deity existed to wield any such prowess.
Saquist
10-22-07, 01:40 PM
For anyone else that would like to use the bible as evidence. beware:cool: much like yorrick "I know it well"
(well paraphrased a bit;))
I know it pretty well too. However I don't understand your request above. I'll look up the scripture and post what I know about it.
*Heckle*
Reliable testimony you say? Are there any other independent studies showing this claim? Are there any non-religious books supporting the assertion? Was there any expert dissertation on this? Did humanity of the era even understand the concept of energy as it is now explained in the realm of physics?
Despite popular or atheistic beliefs the Bible has it' supporters in secular and religious sources from encyclopedia's to dictionaries to archeologist using the book to verifiy dates and occurences. It is no secret that the bible does disagree with other text in some areas...one is Nebudchadnezer and whether he was king of Babylon at the time. Recently that has been cleared enough to understand by the unearthing of certain cuniform tablets which bear the name of this King...(I beleive the explanation was that he was either a vassal king or son under the king perhaps even third from the thrown and dealth with under matters.) If I can find it for you I'll plug the info in on the thread.
One surprise of mine was that Webster and Merriam dictionary states simple when one looks up the name Jehovah it merely states: God.
The phrase "reliable testimony from the bible" is the best example of an oxymoron I have come across in my life.
I'm sure you've found that true to some degree. We all have a different set of refrences from which to work from. It's no doubt that I favor the bible but my perspective was built by a wealth of bible knowledge and confronting what is seen as contradictions.
Those contradictions do exist but only as part of society so steeped in tradition and orthodoxy that the testimony becomes more mystery than truth. Rather than follow the pattern in the bible they abid by a tradition that has an ambigous and foreign origin. So it's no surprise to hear such a statement.
Let me delve into this argument, just for conversation's sake...from all appearances, "magic" has the end result of affecting matter in some way. Since "magic" has no physical appearance, it must then be energy. How is stating that god is "abundant in dynamic energy" disprove that such a being is magical in nature?
any art that invokes supernatural powers
magic trick: an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
charming: possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers; "charming incantations"; "magic signs that protect against adverse influence"; "a magical spell"; "'tis now the very witching time of night"- Shakespeare; "wizard wands"; "wizardly powers"
God's power is not an art form but it can be describe as supernatural but that isn't the only definition it must meet for anything can appear...magical if the ability itself is sufficiently above the perceiving intellect. Magic is illusionary, incantations, spells, wizards. The Bible has a formidable stance on such acts in that they are acts calling on the influence of wicked spirirts and that christians are not to involve themselves in astrology or magic.
This entire paragraph proves nothing further than "subatomic manipulation is plausible with the right knowledge and tools". It doesn't prove any deity existed to wield any such prowess.
Fortunatly that was not my point. Q asked "if a plane is manufactured how can we look at life to be equal and conclude it was manufactured as well?"
Life itself proves their is a creator that cares about us. The complexity of that life proves that more than random forces were invovled in it's manufacturing. How was it manufactured? The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were created from material from the Earth. It was rearrange with life sustaining results.
Perhaps you concluded that this was proof of God because it is the next most logical conclussion. But my statement was addressing the subject of "manufacturing" and it's relation to creation. In fact the way cells and life forms reproduce is the most advanced application of manufactoring and information replication that exist on the earth. Thus manufacturing really is an apt description.
iceaura
10-22-07, 04:10 PM
The truth is, any simple fraction of a revolution results in rows rather than optimal packing. Only what has been termed the “golden angle” of approximately 137.5 degrees results in an ideally compact arrangement of growths. That's precision. That's false.
Any irrational fraction would eliminate the row problem, and there is no such thing as an "ideally compact" arrangement of growths. The 137.5 angle is an automatic physical consequence of a simple decision criterion for instigating new growth, something that a plant can use without complex feedback mechanisms or other sensory apparatus - it's a bottom-up selected solution to a problem, rather than a top-down imposed one. It's the sort of thing you get from evolution rather than design.
And many plants don't bother - they just grow the rows.
btw: Haven't you figured out what's wrong with Behe's arguments yet ? It's been months - - -
Since there is no intelligent eyeof nature, how did its wing create the illusion of an owls eye? Is this too intelligent for a dumb nature? Eyespots and such like come in many, many forms on all kinds of animals. They are among the easiest features to explain by Darwinian evolution, and among the easist features to acquire in such a manner - very simple modifications of universally present mechanisms will do.
I totally disagree with that assumption. You say it is the easiest of Darwinian concepts to explain.
Let me tell you how it is only possible, and that is through Genetics. Theoretically, 4 billion years ago, photosynthesizing Eukaryotes, proceeding after the few thousand odd years of Prokaryotes, where one of the oldest links to all creatures. Reptiles became independant of the sea, birds, fish, dinosaurs where all componants that went through 5 devistating extinctions.
Then men came onto the scene only 100,000 years ago. But all genetics are bound by states of memory, as theory goes. But let us consider the Darwinian fantasy. It would claim that the genetics of a Butterfly has ''memory'' suggesting its composition to compilate those particular designs.
An epistemological arguement always arises from such concepts, but i'm not bothered by these. To me, right now, they mean nothing. Basically because i am ready to use science about any philosophical debate.
Scientifically, ne would have to presume that this particular arrangement needs to be more than merely genetics. If anything, the author of this threads comment about things being ''too complex'' is a lame arguement against anthropic suggestions coupled with a divinity... the reason why should be evident...
You cannot have something that is too complex, especially when considering a God who is supposidly beyond human comprehension, therefore, how can nature, His/Her design be too complicated?
Instead, we might consider Biofields, or the preferred term, Morphic Fields. In this theory, life, that is ''living mobile matter'' have for themselves a field that guides them. Whilst many leading scientists today will refute such a claim, i think it's one of the biggest gaps we have missed.
It's a logical arguement. If electric, magnetic, gravitational, weak and strong influences (and even a metal field as BillyT cleverly suggested), then why not one for life, especially for biomatter? If there is one, then the butterfly's wings design was already chosen for it since big bang... then there does arise a particular order, and it goes right in the face of Darwinism.
Is no one going to argue?
snake river rufus
11-03-07, 04:57 AM
I know it pretty well too. However I don't understand your request above. I'll look up the scripture and post what I know about it.
The point that I was
attempting to make is simply that the biblical value of Pi is exactly 3, not 3.14
ad infinitum. Your bible of full of many contradictions that theists always have an excuse for to justify their belief. But this one is math, can't fudge that.
snake river rufus
11-03-07, 05:08 AM
If electric, magnetic, gravitational, weak and strong influences (and even a metal field as BillyT cleverly suggested), then why not one for life, especially for biomatter? If there is one, then the butterfly's wings design was already chosen for it since big bang... then there does arise a particular order, and it goes right in the face of Darwinism.
A better question would be 'Why is one for biomatter needed?'
And that 2nd "if" is a pretty big one.
One of these days someone is going to have to define the term "Darwinism" to me. I often hear creationists use it but it just doesn't make any sense to me. How about "Einsteinism" or "Pastuerism"?
pjdude1219
11-03-07, 05:58 AM
I know this might come as a shock to you, but god is probably smarter than you. :D
Baron Max
well if he designed rabbits i beg to differ
everyone in this thread, appart from superluminal and maybe a couple other posters, need to read up on natural selection
if the problem is that things are too complex to have been created on its own, how is atributing the merit to a designer a solution? who designed the designer? where did such a complex entity capable of calculating ever single variation in order to create the universe as it is it come from?
you're really just giving a name to your incognit
Evolution by natural selection is so far the best explanation for the problem of complexity, because it allows for complexity to arise a little bit at a time, from very simple structures, gradually until the most complex structures.
God no... and no... Buddhists don't believe in God. I am proposing that God is nature. Just like the ancient indians believed that spirits were in everything, thus i believe God is in everything.
spinoza?
Of course, it's the only thing that can explain everything. Scientists and philosophers try for ages to figure so many things, but one little magical word can explain all of those things.
Scientists say that things fall because of gravity, and I say that things fall because God makes them fall. What's the difference? Both of them explain why things fall.
God had no choice when he created the universe because he is omniscient, so he knew his own actions which he had to do because he didn't create the desire that made him create the world.
God didn't create himself, so he didn't create his free will, so his free will is not his, so he has no free will.
so you basically summon god for every single gap you find in human knowledge?
that makes sense :bugeye:
shouldn't you then be preaching against scientific research? i mean, eventually, there will be so little left to your god...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.