Mojlnir Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Ahhh. Okay, now I see where you are going with your argument. I would argue that it is not necessarily "the next logical step" from a computer chip (or anything like it) to evolution. It's been a long time since a read anything on "theistic evolution" or "divine intelligence" and so I can't really tackle your position with any certainty. However, from what I remember of it, it seems to make a convincing argument on the surface, though upon closer inspection it is built upon the same questionable religious foundations as creationism.My whole problem with arguments based on religion is that they are tautological, which means that they are circular. The result becomes proof of causation and there is no alternative method of replicfiable verification. Such arguments boil down to faith, which can't be proven. And whether a person has faith or not is another discussion entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Yeah, in the end it probably comes to this. The question, who or what started the whole process at the beginning will probably never be answered and so it is purely a matter of belief there (until of course someone really can answer the question). But still I think it is more logical to assume that something complex was planned and that only simple things are a matter of accident. Because everything complex from whom we know its true origins is made by an intelligent being (humans) and everything else which is complex, like the genetic code, we don't really know the origin. Or at least not if it was made or if it was just an accidental development. But because everything complex we do know the origins from was made by an intelligent being, it is also very probable that also the other complex things were made by something intelligent (or at least the trigger which lead to the development of those complex things was released by someone). Whom do you trust more: Accident or planning? Well, I for myself think that a plan is much more efficent than an accidental development. And nobody would say that something like a computer programm was an accidental development, it was of course the result of an intelligent mind. So why not the million times more complex genetic code? Isn't it more probable that something such complex was planned and constructed by an intelligent mind than just a product of an accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojlnir Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 I think you're making a jump when calling humans "intelligent" beings...I think we're more along the lines of medling trouble-makers with a penchant for shiny things and explosions. As for accidental v. planned construction I think that looking around us at the universe (at least what we can see of it) is that we are more than likely an accident. Life (carbon-based...humans included) evolved on a spinning ball of rock that was precisely far enough from a super-heated ball of gas to allow for liquid water to form, as well as a protective atmosphere to shield the developing life forms from damaging radiation. You know the rest of this argument and, not surprisingly, it can be used from the position you are occupying as well.I would also argue that seldom is computer code "intelligent" in design. Take for example the wonderful products created sweat-shop style from everyone's favorite, Microsux. Nobody knows whats buried in that code, least of all the programmers that supposedly put it there. Lines upon lines of trash that got tacked on at some point during the coding process. The same thing applies to the human genome. Yeah, its hella complex, but what do you expect after several billion years of coding? As simple life began to form, the ones with qualities that aided survival made it and those whose code hindered them, died. Then the next round of mutants made it, and the others didn't....and on and on and on....Evolution. What this all boils down to is: can you accept that your life (and that of everything around you) is accidental or not? If not, then what can explain it? And that's the start point for this and just about every other discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almelexia Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Well I think that there may be three ways in the human evulution. One way is that a comet or something from the space comes and hits the earth and everything dies. another way is that the explsion weponary is going to get so strong that later in the future in a war the human will destroy ourselves. Or when the sun grows that big that it will destroy us then we will have the tecnology to move to an other planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hundinman Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 OK, I'll accept that when something has a probability above 75% it is very probably true. But then we have the problem: How probable are all those beliefs? I'm no genius on mathematics, so I can't give you any calculated probability. It would also require a lot of work to find all the influenting elements who must be taken into the calculation. So, how probable (approximately) is everything we discussed (evolution, creation etc.)? And Peregrine: You can look at it the other way round. I'll give you an example. Which one is simpler: That a computer chip evolved to what it is now in billions of years or that someone built it? Now just put this sheme on our nature and ask yourself the same question. The more simple answer is of course that it was a plan. So it would be the plan, which is probably true, because it is more simple. Well, good example. I agree. Another example of the big bang theory is like taking apart a pocket watch piece by piece. Then placing the pieces in a shoebox and shaking it up. An evolutionist or big bang theorist is almost saying that the pieces in this shoebox will come together by chance. What are the chances? Not good. I think every one can agree with that. The earth and all of its elemants are a lot more complex than a pocket watch and so the chances of it just coming together without a plan are unlikely and in my opinion, impossible. Hundinman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Good arguement there hundinman. However, its not entirely sound. You see. Running on the idea of big bang/evolution, there was no set way the universe was supposed to come together. No one saying it has to be *this* way. Just a bunch of "stuff" or pieces of the pocket-watch, and lots of time to sort it out. The way it happened to be, is just the way it is. I dont know if I'm making any sense here.... :wacko: Oh well, hope you got something from that.. Crazy NutJob -- Eltiraaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hundinman Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 I get what you are saying. Probably because it runs off the idea of my theory.... kind of. Well, I hope that you other people got what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 @mojlnir: When you weren't intelligent, you couldn't think about, if you are intelligent. So this means that we are intelligent (or at least more intelligent than anything else we encountered). And perhaps "planned" was the wrong word. I should have said "created by an intelligent being". That would also include when some guy at Microsoft meddles around with the computer code and creates a new Windows this way, it was still created by an intelligent being. Oh, and do you know that some scientists beginn to believe that those 4. 5 billion years were too few? They say that in order to develop intelligent live by accident, a lot more is required (around 10-15 billion years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Look at all the human race has created. You cant say we aren't itelligent. We may be foolish, arrogant, selfish, greedy, slobs, but we are intelligent, that is not a question. Its the uses to which we put our intelligence which should be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hundinman Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 VERY good point. No one can say that the human race is not intelligent . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.