Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

Actually, due to their fast reproduction rate, bacteria adapt extremely quickly by our standards.  This makes them vastly superior life forms.

Except that they haven't evolved in any direction ... they have remained bacteria. The rest of life has moved on ... and humans are, as I have pointed out, the most highly evolved species.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually, due to their fast reproduction rate, bacteria adapt extremely quickly by our standards.  This makes them vastly superior life forms.

Except that they haven't evolved in any direction ... they have remained bacteria. The rest of life has moved on ... and humans are, as I have pointed out, the most complicated species.

Evolution is directionless. As to most complicated that would depend on your definition but it would be meaningless from an evolutionary stand point. Your posts indicate that you have no real understanding of evolution.

[Leonard James]

Actually, due to their fast reproduction rate, bacteria adapt extremely quickly by our standards.  This makes them vastly superior life forms.

Except that they haven't evolved in any direction ... they have remained bacteria. The rest of life has moved on ... and humans are, as I have pointed out, the most complicated species.

Evolution is directionless. As to most complicated that would depend on your definition but it would be meaningless from an evolutionary stand point. Your posts indicate that you have no real understanding of evolution.

From an "evolutionary standpoint" nothing has any meaning. It is simply a biological process.

We can only assess it from the human point of view. I have never professed to have anything more than a layman's understanding of evolution, but my understanding is certainly real.

Looking at any diagram representing the tree of evolution it is obvious that it has progressed from simple organisms to highly complicated ones.

We, with our ability to manipulate the environment plus our medical achievements are clearly the most complicated product so far

[Outrider]

Your lack of imagination when it comes to the possibilities of emergent properties does not constitute evidence of gods.

If self awareness is an emergent property from a collection of sub atomic particles, then it is totally derived, defined and driven by these lifeless particles, because there is nothing else.

So we have the bottom up approach:
I am totally defined, driven and derived from the uncontrolled actions of lifeless star debris.

Or we have the top down approach:
I am given control of an amazing biological machine, carefully formulated from the debris of an exploding star over millions of years by a creative intelligence beyond my understanding.  And it is "I" that controls, thinks, manipulates, perceives and creates, not the lifeless sub atomic particles left from the star debris.

Two issues with that - firstly, if you start with the reductionist 'bottom up' approach, you work from things you have evidence for towards things you don't. Your 'top down' approach posits an I that isn't demonstrated and then tries to find some way to fit it into a body without any mechanism or explanation for how it gets there.

Secondly, you are prejudging your conclusion when you revert to 'lifeless' subatomic particles. Unless you are clear on what your definition of life is, you exclude possibilities - your definition appears to preclude the possibility of life being not a pattern within individual particles but rather a pattern of the behaviour of those particles on combination.

That's where emergent properties come in - we are not independent of our brains, we are a pattern in the electro-chemical activity within that brain. We are an emergent property.

O.

[Alan Burns]

I just came across this extract from a commentory on Natural Theology, by Dr.William Paley:

‘To keep the eye  moist and clean - which qualities are necessary to  its brightness and its use - a wash is constantly  supplied by a secretion for the purpose; and the  superfluous brine is conveyed to the nose through  a perforation in the bone as large as a goose quill.  When the fluid has entered the nose, it spreads  itself upon the inside of the nostril and is evaporated  by the current of warm air which in the course of  respiration is continually passing over it… It’s easily  perceived that the eye must want moisture; but  could the "want" of the eye generate the gland  which produces the tear, or bore the hole by which  it's discharged - a hole through bone? Let the  evolutionist tell us who bored the hole...and laid  a water pipe through it for the dispersion of tears.’

Hard to see how a natural selection process driven by random mutations rather than need could generate such "nice to have" features of the human body.  Having tears chanelled into the nose cavity is not exactly a survival issue.

In the scenario for human design, a need is recognised by intelligent perception, and a solution is found by manipulating existing materials and forces.  Is this a replication of God's design?

[Shaker]

Personal incredulity again, Alan.

Not to mention a quite remarkable display of ignorance of evolution, but so it goes.

[Alan Burns]

if you start with the reductionist 'bottom up' approach, you work from things you have evidence for towards things you don't.

But the reductionist 'bottom up' approach will by definition be limited to a solution which fits only with what can be perceived directly by human senses and excludes anything else which might be involved.  It will not necessarily lead to the truth.

[Outrider]

if you start with the reductionist 'bottom up' approach, you work from things you have evidence for towards things you don't.

But the reductionist 'bottom up' approach will by definition be limited to a solution which fits only with what can be perceived directly by human senses and excludes anything else which might be involved.  It will not necessarily lead to the truth.

Whereas the 'top down' approach makes stuff up without any basis - you really consider that to be a better approach?

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

I just came across this extract from a commentory on Natural Theology, by Dr.William Paley:

‘To keep the eye  moist and clean - which qualities are necessary to  its brightness and its use - a wash is constantly  supplied by a secretion for the purpose; and the  superfluous brine is conveyed to the nose through  a perforation in the bone as large as a goose quill.  When the fluid has entered the nose, it spreads  itself upon the inside of the nostril and is evaporated  by the current of warm air which in the course of  respiration is continually passing over it… It’s easily  perceived that the eye must want moisture; but  could the "want" of the eye generate the gland  which produces the tear, or bore the hole by which  it's discharged - a hole through bone? Let the  evolutionist tell us who bored the hole...and laid  a water pipe through it for the dispersion of tears.’

Hard to see how a natural selection process driven by random mutations rather than need could generate such "nice to have" features of the human body.  Having tears chanelled into the nose cavity is not exactly a survival issue.

In the scenario for human design, a need is recognised by intelligent perception, and a solution is found by manipulating existing materials and forces.  Is this a replication of God's design?

Unfortunately, certain other oft-cited facts suggest that your 'God's handiwork' is highly deficient, and positively  perverse in the bodily facilities he has granted his supposedly cherished creation, humankind. William Thwaites makes the following apposite comments:


"Another example straight out of creationist tracts involves the vertebrate eye that humans must share with the other vertebrates … the vertebrate eye shows poor design when compared to the eye evolved by the cephalopods. The vertebrate eye has a blind spot where the retinal nerves and the blood vessels exit the eye. There is no comparable blind spot in the cephalopod eye. The structures of the retinas spell the difference. Everything a vertebrate sees is seen through the nerves and blood vessels of the retina since the photosensitive elements of the retina are on the far side of the retina away from the light source. Clearly the cephalopod solution to retinal structure is more logical, for they have the photosensitive elements of the retina facing the light. Certainly the creationists need to explain why we got the inferior design. I had thought that people were supposed to be the Creator’s chosen organism"

cited here:

www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Bergman.html

We have to ask ourselves, did God have some special plan for the octopus or squid in granting them the superior optical design, or was he somehow so deeply compromised by the other aspects of the human form that he had created, that getting the 'wiring' of the eye arse about face was an inevitable consequence?

[Nearly Sane]

And after all which intelligent designer would put an open waste pipe in a play area?

[Dicky Underpants]

And after all which intelligent designer would put an open waste pipe in a play area?

 

I think Yeats made some heartfelt comments on that phenomenon!

(In 'Byzantium', I think)

[Alan Burns]

Personal incredulity again, Alan.

Not to mention a quite remarkable display of ignorance of evolution, but so it goes.

I am fully aware of the logic used to support the theory of evolution driven by natural selection.

My post was just a reminder that there is an alternative explanation which in my mind is infinitely more probable.

[Alan Burns]

And after all which intelligent designer would put an open waste pipe in a play area?

God obviously has a sense of humour 

[Alan Burns]

Personal incredulity again, Alan.

Not to mention a quite remarkable display of ignorance of evolution, but so it goes.

I am fully aware of the logic used to support the theory of evolution driven by natural selection.

My post was just a reminder that there is an alternative explanation which in my mind is infinitely more probable.

Why is your fanciful explanation more probable?

because the alternative is infinitely improbable

[Alan Burns]

Unfortunately, certain other oft-cited facts suggest that your 'God's handiwork' is highly deficient, and positively  perverse in the bodily facilities he has granted his supposedly cherished creation, humankind. William Thwaites makes the following apposite comments:


"Another example straight out of creationist tracts involves the vertebrate eye that humans must share with the other vertebrates … the vertebrate eye shows poor design when compared to the eye evolved by the cephalopods. The vertebrate eye has a blind spot where the retinal nerves and the blood vessels exit the eye. There is no comparable blind spot in the cephalopod eye. The structures of the retinas spell the difference. Everything a vertebrate sees is seen through the nerves and blood vessels of the retina since the photosensitive elements of the retina are on the far side of the retina away from the light source. Clearly the cephalopod solution to retinal structure is more logical, for they have the photosensitive elements of the retina facing the light. Certainly the creationists need to explain why we got the inferior design. I had thought that people were supposed to be the Creator’s chosen organism"

cited here:

www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Bergman.html

We have to ask ourselves, did God have some special plan for the octopus or squid in granting them the superior optical design, or was he somehow so deeply compromised by the other aspects of the human form that he had created, that getting the 'wiring' of the eye arse about face was an inevitable consequence?

But the truth is that our sight quality is sufficient - it works for us.

[Andy]

And after all which intelligent designer would put an open waste pipe in a play area?

God obviously has a sense of humour 

Yes, rectovaginal fistulas are hilarious.

[Outrider]

Personal incredulity again, Alan.

Not to mention a quite remarkable display of ignorance of evolution, but so it goes.

I am fully aware of the logic used to support the theory of evolution driven by natural selection.

My post was just a reminder that there is an alternative explanation which in my mind is infinitely more probable.

Why is your fanciful explanation more probable?

because the alternative is infinitely improbable

And, therefore, finitely probable?

Seriously, how is a long succession of minor adjustments each selected for fitness at a given point in time leading to a limited intelligence somehow less probable than the self-induced spontaneous creation of a complete intelligence complete with infinite (?) power?

O.

[Shaker]

because the alternative

Which is?

is infinitely improbable

I know what improbable means; I can't get any sense out of infinitely improbable, however.

[Shaker]

I am fully aware of the logic used to support the theory of evolution driven by natural selection.

No ... no, I don't actually think you are, Alan.

[Nearly Sane]

And after all which intelligent designer would put an open waste pipe in a play area?

God obviously has a sense of humour 

A rather sick and unpleasant one. Your god is a cunt.

[Nearly Sane]

Personal incredulity again, Alan.

Not to mention a quite remarkable display of ignorance of evolution, but so it goes.

I am fully aware of the logic used to support the theory of evolution driven by natural selection.

My post was just a reminder that there is an alternative explanation which in my mind is infinitely more probable.

since your alternative explanations is based on a denial of the naturalistic method that allows for probability calculation, your statement is entirely specious.

[Rhiannon]

And after all which intelligent designer would put an open waste pipe in a play area?

God obviously has a sense of humour 

A rather sick and unpleasant one. Your god is a cunt.

I should say that comment is out of order. But then you think of this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetric_fistula

(as Andy pointed out) and you realise that anyone who thinks this was intelligently designed believes in a God who is a bastard, or a woman-hating bastard.

Or they come from a tradition that hates women and that had invented a god to fit.

[jeremyp]

Except that they haven't evolved in any direction ... they have remained bacteria.

And we have remained eukaryotes.

The rest of life has moved on ... and humans are, as I have pointed out, the most highly evolved species.

"Highly evolved"  is a subjective term.  An E. coli bacterium is highly evolved for its life style.

[Leonard James]

Except that they haven't evolved in any direction ... they have remained bacteria.

And we have remained eukaryotes.

Quite! And both have remained forms of life. We will get nowhere talking like that.

Highly evolved"  is a subjective term.  An E. coli bacterium is highly evolved for its life style.

You are perfectly aware of what I am getting at, so further bickering is pointless, Jeremy.

[Alan Burns]

And after all which intelligent designer would put an open waste pipe in a play area?

God obviously has a sense of humour 

A rather sick and unpleasant one. Your god is a cunt.

I should say that comment is out of order. But then you think of this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetric_fistula

(as Andy pointed out) and you realise that anyone who thinks this was intelligently designed believes in a God who is a bastard, or a woman-hating bastard.

Or they come from a tradition that hates women and that had invented a god to fit.

I must apologise for my earlier flippant remark which now seems out of order.

But the denial of God's existence because of our ability to pick fault with our lives is profoundly misplaced.  We do not live in a perfect world.  Every human being will experience some suffering or hardship.  I do not profess to know why things are as they are, but I have faith in God's love for us.  We all need God's loving help to pull through and ultimately attain salvation in our true home in heaven.