Evolution is a common characteristic of Intelligent design

[Zenith]

first of all, there is only one source of intelligent design that we can prove by observation and that is our own designing of machines and other technologies. we cannot prove (yet) that everything observable has been created in a similar fashion. but design is design. what exists is taken and reshaped, reformed into something new. something cannot come from nothing, it isn't possible because there is no such thing as nothing. there has always been a constant--God, if you prefer.

technology has developed from simple things like using a bone to break something open, to complex things like using a rocket to reach the moon. but in between the two there are constant minute (sometimes large) changes which modify the efficiency and productiveness of our technology. we are constantly striving to make our machines better and more adaptable to our needs. we will never reach the full potential, but we will always be able to get closer to it. you can see this happen in every technology we have developed. with everything that humans can make, there is always the ability to make it better, and so we do.

it would be foolish of any being to think otherwise. perfection does not exist. omnipotence is self-contradictory. God might be more powerful than anything else in existence, but that does not mean that he is omnipotent. everything i have seen and experienced shows me that change occurs in everything and that change is necessary for survival and continuing existence. In fact, existence of everything is always dependant upon change; time is the measurement of change. what is evolution but change?

evolution is the constant and continuing design of life. a car developer does not stop creating cars just because he made one that sold really well. Dodge, VW, Honda, etc all exist today because they continued to develop new cars that were appealing to people. this is the same logic that shows how organisms that 'appeal' to their environment will have a better chance of survival. and that constant change and updating of that car/species will ensure that the line will keep being produced. there are still ford mustangs being made, but they are vastly different than the muscle cars of the 60's and 70's.

what my rant comes down to is this; evolution is the most logical and efficient way for a supreme creator to develop life. it adheres to constant (at least for now) laws of the universe which we observe to be unchanging and the same everywhere. these laws must be here for a purpose because we see nothing else contradicting them, or guiding the universe in another way.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Mind defending

omnipotence is self-contradictory.

?

Assertions are to be ignored. You wouldn't listen to me say you are wrong, now would you? (though even if I explained how you were wrong...you wouldn't listen...).

what my rant comes down to is this; evolution is the most logical and efficient way for a supreme creator to develop life.

But your example of "minute changes" to our technology and machinery is demonstrably false. For example...did the plane evolve from a car slowly over time? Man does not create like you are saying we do. We make jumps and leaps which evolution does not. Though we may get one technology and then improve it, we do not slowly improve it to a next level. Because the "evolving" machine or tool or technology...is not efficient at anything.

[Zenith]

I'm glad to see you actually debating with me 'Kmart.

Mind defending

omnipotence is self-contradictory.

?

Assertions are to be ignored. You wouldn't listen to me say you are wrong, now would you? (though even if I explained how you were wrong...you wouldn't listen...).

i honestly cannot imagine an absolute entity being all-powerful. i can conceive of a constantly adapting entity that is more powerful than anything else, though. but there is always the possibility that some other entity or force will become more powerful. that is how i describe god. i view omnipotence as an infinity, like an exponential graph that never reaches the axis, but is constantly getting closer to it.

there might be other factors preventing god from being omnipotent. the 'could god create a rock so heavy he could not lift it' theory has been really overused, but i have a new view on it. i think that the question is unaswerable seeing as god does not want to create a rock so heavy he could not lift it. there is no purpose. or perhaps the universe and life is the rock too heavy for god to lift, even though he created it. he has the ability to do certain things (such as prevent natural disasters and such) but he does not desire to do so for whatever reasons he has.

i think of god in many ways and none of them seem completely right in my mind. another way i interpret god is that he is really a universal constant, like the speed of light, only on a much, much grander scale; something we are not yet able to percieve. something which ties all fundamental forces together and on which everything revolves and is determined by. perhaps it is not a tangible entity, but a state of being.

what my rant comes down to is this; evolution is the most logical and efficient way for a supreme creator to develop life.

But your example of "minute changes" to our technology and machinery is demonstrably false. For example...did the plane evolve from a car slowly over time? Man does not create like you are saying we do. We make jumps and leaps which evolution does not. Though we may get one technology and then improve it, we do not slowly improve it to a next level. Because the "evolving" machine or tool or technology...is not efficient at anything.

but if you look at the big picture, if you look at everything we have created and had to create before something else could be created, you see similarities. you're right, its nowhere near as complex as evolution and evolution would have much much more minute changes and it would take a lot longer time. but it still works on the same idea. it takes no special knowledge to figure out that you can change something to make it more useful, even simple animals can figure this out. the octopus is able to unscrew jars open. gorillas and apes have been seen to use simple tools. in the long run, it will look as if we were slowly improving our technology. and even if the changes are not quite as small as those in evolution, they still work on the same basis, that without change, the thing is no longer useful.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

i honestly cannot imagine an absolute entity being all-powerful. i can conceive of a constantly adapting entity that is more powerful than anything else, though. but there is always the possibility that some other entity or force will become more powerful. that is how i describe god. i view omnipotence as an infinity, like an exponential graph that never reaches the axis, but is constantly getting closer to it.

I seriously doubt something cannot be true because you can't understand how it could be true.

there might be other factors preventing god from being omnipotent. the 'could god create a rock so heavy he could not lift it' theory has been really overused, but i have a new view on it. i think that the question is unaswerable seeing as god does not want to create a rock so heavy he could not lift it. there is no purpose. or perhaps the universe and life is the rock too heavy for god to lift, even though he created it. he has the ability to do certain things (such as prevent natural disasters and such) but he does not desire to do so for whatever reasons he has.

This argument is also absurd as you're pitting God against Himself.

i think of god in many ways and none of them seem completely right in my mind. another way i interpret god is that he is really a universal constant, like the speed of light, only on a much, much grander scale; something we are not yet able to percieve. something which ties all fundamental forces together and on which everything revolves and is determined by. perhaps it is not a tangible entity, but a state of being.

So you're saying God is a number. God=pi?

but if you look at the big picture, if you look at everything we have created and had to create before something else could be created, you see similarities. you're right, its nowhere near as complex as evolution and evolution would have much much more minute changes and it would take a lot longer time. but it still works on the same idea. it takes no special knowledge to figure out that you can change something to make it more useful, even simple animals can figure this out. the octopus is able to unscrew jars open. gorillas and apes have been seen to use simple tools. in the long run, it will look as if we were slowly improving our technology. and even if the changes are not quite as small as those in evolution, they still work on the same basis, that without change, the thing is no longer useful.

Yes, you can improve a certain object, like a hammer. But if you want to get to a higher level, like a screw driver, it's not a matter of an infinite number of minute changes-you make drastic and novel design changes. And the analogy seems bad for other reasons you won't care about.

[thereal]

I seriously doubt something cannot be true because you can't understand how it could be true.

Exactly the frustration that many in science face when talking with those who oppose evolution from a religious perspective rather than a scientific one"

Yes, you can improve a certain object, like a hammer. But if you want to get to a higher level, like a screw driver, it's not a matter of an infinite number of minute changes-you make drastic and novel design changes. And the analogy seems bad for other reasons you won't care about.

So you believe a hammer is a more advanced tool than a hammer? Obviously, this analogy isn't successful because you've chosen two things specifically to make it unsuccessful. Although I disagree with using manmade objects as opposed to natural forces when discussing ID, for the sake of this argument I'll do it. Look at electronics in general. Many of the same concepts and materials used to create early calculators were lated implemented into early computers, digital watches, etc. Further along, the memory systems used with computers were implememted in the construction of MP3 players (eg. flash drives). Are calculators, watches, computers, and MP3 players all the same exact thing? Of course not, but changes over time resulted in obviously different designs.

[Zenith]

I seriously doubt something cannot be true because you can't understand how it could be true.

ok, so this would be your cue to show me how it could be otherwise instead of just saying it is.

This argument is also absurd as you're pitting God against Himself.

if god is just and the supreme ruler, wouldn't you think there is a reason why he lets innocent people die every day? if he is more powerful than anything, then it would seem that he lets them die for a purpose; he chooses to let bad things happen.

So you're saying God is a number. God=pi?

a number is a description, it is not an actual thing. pi describes the ratio of a circle's circumference. the circumference is the actual thing, pi is just a number. i am saying that god is a constant, a force, sort of like gravity or electromagnetism, only stronger, he is like the combination or deciding factor of the four fundamental forces combined.

Yes, you can improve a certain object, like a hammer. But if you want to get to a higher level, like a screw driver, it's not a matter of an infinite number of minute changes-you make drastic and novel design changes. And the analogy seems bad for other reasons you won't care about.

if you want to get to a higher level, you have to modify and adapt. that is what i am saying. that is how evolution of everything works. evolution of the universe; evolution of design, evolution of life, evolution of society, etc. evolution is a characteristic of existence.

[Jbuza]

Zenith
If you want to get to a higher level, you have to modify and adapt. That is what i am saying. That is how evolution of everything works. Evolution of the universe; evolution of design, evolution of life, evolution of society, etc. evolution is a characteristic of existence.


So if God modified or adapted the universe, or life, you would say he evolved it? OR when the colonies under oppression designed a form of government and instituted it by the choice of people, you would say that American society evolved from oppressed colonies into a Republic? So the Microsoft designers working on Windows Longhorn are really the Microsoft evolvers? So what is evolution just a code word for design and creation? Perhaps when God created all that exists in six days he actually evolved it.

[August]

Zenith, there may be an inherent conflict in your statement. The Theory of Evolution is described as a purposeless, random process. If you claim that there was design involved anywhere in the process, you have to present evidence that proves that, something that evolutionists deny exists. Also, you are not advocating the Theory of Evolution as academically defined any more, you are advocating an alternative hypothesis.

[sandy_mcd]

So the Microsoft designers working on Windows Longhorn are really the Microsoft evolvers?

I know we disagree on a lot of things, but please, please, please don't tell me you consider this to be an example of intelligent design.

[Jbuza]

So the Microsoft designers working on Windows Longhorn are really the Microsoft evolvers?

I know we disagree on a lot of things, but please, please, please don't tell me you consider this to be an example of intelligent design.

I'm not a proponent of Intelligent design, so I can't really answer for them. But it is clear that windows is designed by some intellgience. Correct? I understand it is supposed to be more intelligently designed than previous versions of windows.

I was more responsing to the idea that everthing is evolution and evolution is the answer for everything.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I seriously doubt something cannot be true because you can't understand how it could be true.

Exactly the frustration that many in science face when talking with those who oppose evolution from a religious perspective rather than a scientific one"

Yes, you can improve a certain object, like a hammer. But if you want to get to a higher level, like a screw driver, it's not a matter of an infinite number of minute changes-you make drastic and novel design changes. And the analogy seems bad for other reasons you won't care about.

So you believe a hammer is a more advanced tool than a hammer? Obviously, this analogy isn't successful because you've chosen two things specifically to make it unsuccessful. Although I disagree with using manmade objects as opposed to natural forces when discussing ID, for the sake of this argument I'll do it. Look at electronics in general. Many of the same concepts and materials used to create early calculators were lated implemented into early computers, digital watches, etc. Further along, the memory systems used with computers were implememted in the construction of MP3 players (eg. flash drives). Are calculators, watches, computers, and MP3 players all the same exact thing? Of course not, but changes over time resulted in obviously different designs.

Now you're attacking motives? Who says there is no scientific reason to doubt evolution? I mean, many Christians have no real problem with evolution theologically, and still doubt evolution-or at least some of its grander unfounded claims.

And yes my analogy sucked as well-a tad. But then your story of how our computers evolved-because you don't make minute changes to get to a different level. You make leaps and bounds.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

ok, so this would be your cue to show me how it could be otherwise instead of just saying it is.

Shifting the burden? You're making me prove your stupid argument isn't true? I cannot conceive of 14 billion years...so according to this...the universe IS NOT 14 billion years old. See how things don't work with your line of reasoning?

if god is just and the supreme ruler, wouldn't you think there is a reason why he lets innocent people die every day? if he is more powerful than anything, then it would seem that he lets them die for a purpose; he chooses to let bad things happen.

Now you're trying to prove a negative. And you assume people are innocent. And you're having fun with theanthropism- you're saying "if I were God, I'd do A-A does not occur, therefore God does not exist"

a number is a description, it is not an actual thing. pi describes the ratio of a circle's circumference. the circumference is the actual thing, pi is just a number. i am saying that god is a constant, a force, sort of like gravity or electromagnetism, only stronger, he is like the combination or deciding factor of the four fundamental forces combined.

So God is physical? And not sentient. And not logical or rational. OK

if you want to get to a higher level, you have to modify and adapt. that is what i am saying. that is how evolution of everything works. evolution of the universe; evolution of design, evolution of life, evolution of society, etc. evolution is a characteristic of existence.

As august said....

Zenith, there may be an inherent conflict in your statement. The Theory of Evolution is described as a purposeless, random process. If you claim that there was design involved anywhere in the process, you have to present evidence that proves that, something that evolutionists deny exists. Also, you are not advocating the Theory of Evolution as academically defined any more, you are advocating an alternative hypothesis.

[bizzt]

ok, so this would be your cue to show me how it could be otherwise instead of just saying it is.

Actually I believe it is your Q to Prove that God is not all Powerful. You made the statement

if god is just and the supreme ruler, wouldn't you think there is a reason why he lets innocent people die every day? if he is more powerful than anything, then it would seem that he lets them die for a purpose; he chooses to let bad things happen.

Who is Innocent?
Rom 3:10 as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.
Gal 3:11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith;
Gal 3:12 and the law is not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them.
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

[August]

there might be other factors preventing god from being omnipotent. the 'could god create a rock so heavy he could not lift it' theory has been really overused, but i have a new view on it. i think that the question is unaswerable seeing as god does not want to create a rock so heavy he could not lift it. there is no purpose. or perhaps the universe and life is the rock too heavy for god to lift, even though he created it. he has the ability to do certain things (such as prevent natural disasters and such) but he does not desire to do so for whatever reasons he has.

You are committing a category fallacy here by trying to describe God's omnipotence in physical terms. God is incorporeal, so physical constraints have no meaning in God's context, only mans.

God's omnipotence is His ability to create what e wills and to exercise complete control over His creation. God does not act contrary to his own will or nature, and he does not perform contradictions, since contradictions are nothing to be performed.

[Zenith]

So if God modified or adapted the universe, or life, you would say he evolved it? OR when the colonies under oppression designed a form of government and instituted it by the choice of people, you would say that American society evolved from oppressed colonies into a Republic? So the Microsoft designers working on Windows Longhorn are really the Microsoft evolvers? So what is evolution just a code word for design and creation? Perhaps when God created all that exists in six days he actually evolved it.

i would say that you're on the right track, but its not exactly that way. i would say that evolution is an inevitable rate or process of change. everything either adapts, or becomes extinct and i see this happen in every possible system. the reason for this adaptation is to exist. the reason why there is no absolute (aside from god) or why there is no 'non-change' is because of the dimension of time; everything in the universe changes and we observe this as time.

Zenith, there may be an inherent conflict in your statement. The Theory of Evolution is described as a purposeless, random process. If you claim that there was design involved anywhere in the process, you have to present evidence that proves that, something that evolutionists deny exists. Also, you are not advocating the Theory of Evolution as academically defined any more, you are advocating an alternative hypothesis.

i am not an advocate of the accepted version of the 'Theory of Evolution'. i think that all science is at least slightly biased by the philosophy of the person making the conclusions on an experiment or observation. but i would say the same goes for not just science, but any kind of observation or experience. science should try to explain things from many positions, and it attempts to in its current form, but there is still a fair amount of descrimination and undue criticism.

i do not describe the theory of evolution as purposeless and random. i also know that many scientists (though they might appear to believe it is) do not actually believe this either. to people like me and them, there is no such thing as purposeless, or random; random is just a label we use to describe something too complex for us to see a pattern in. the fact is, everything has a cause and every observation ever made is evidence for this. therefore, evolution, as with any natural process, is not random and not purposeless, but rather their purposes and structure are unknown to us, or wholly different than any kind we are aware of now.

i am also not specifically claiming that evolution is a tool of intelligent design, but rather trying to show that it could be. a lot of theists believe strongly (and wrongly) that christianity and evolution are inherently controversial. i believe this to be due to misunderstanding on all sides.

I was more responsing to the idea that everthing is evolution and evolution is the answer for everything.

i meant that the basic idea of evolving, of a [thing] adapting or being modified or recombined is inherent in many, if not all physical things or processes and even some non-physical things. organisms are made up of a collective of specialized cells; cells are made of different kinds of molecules; molecules can be rearranged by their atomic components; atoms are determined by their quantum make-up; one theory in progress proposes that quanta are made up of different frequencies of vibrating energy.

ideas of society, or emotion in a society has changed over time as well. you can see this easily in comedy. what was funny or 'cool' a few decades ago seems dull and cliche now so people are constantly trying to come up with new and unique ways of saying things. societal and governmental ideals have changed as well, to adapt to the population they govern. culture must adapt to the ever-increasing complexity of humanity.

evolution is a term that can be used to describe a natural tendency for change and how that change occurs.

Shifting the burden? You're making me prove your stupid argument isn't true? I cannot conceive of 14 billion years...so according to this...the universe IS NOT 14 billion years old. See how things don't work with your line of reasoning?

i thought the reason for this forum was to shed some light on topics, not to turn them into arguments because someone has a different view than you do. if you want to ignore assertions then don't make any yourself.

Now you're trying to prove a negative. And you assume people are innocent. And you're having fun with theanthropism- you're saying "if I were God, I'd do A-A does not occur, therefore God does not exist"

I am having much trouble with the original idea i was thinking of. i think i was assuming too much and i might be wrong. i think i have given up on the debate about omnipotence because it is unanswerable.

So God is physical?

yes

And not sentient. And not logical or rational. OK

no. i did not say this, that is your own interpretation. sentience is not confined only to organic life. sentience can be explained as a complex feedback of information through a physical system. it does not require life as we know it on this planet.