Calling Intelligent Designers

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If you understand it as we are either a freak accident, or an engineered event, then you understand correctly.

Thank you AI. Not exactly a typical post for Cog from what I know of him.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Jigger, I'm not picking on you but you're involved here, anyway, what do you make of Cognito's above post ?
I'm not sure my understanding is correct. It seems way out of character at the moment.

[T]his universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. In other words, the universe we observe is extraordinarily inhospitable to life. Even what tiny inconsequential bits of it are at all hospitable are extremely inefficient at producing life—at all, but far more so intelligent life … ...in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton). It’s exceedingly difficult to imagine a universe less conducive to life than that—indeed, that’s about as close to being completely incapable of producing life as any random universe can be expected to be, other than of course being completely incapable of producing life.

I can't argue with this at this time. I don't think anyone can. But, the moment we find one microorganism on another planet, or in a meteor, his theory immediately gets flushed down the toilet. .

reply to post by jiggerj


Interesting to say the least.
So enigmatic of life to keep it's greatest mystery secured in this
conscious existence, despite the diversity of minds.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

This is a good thread Grim. I just can't seem to wrap my head around doing anything different than what has been done, if I wanted living beings of free will to interact with, if I were God. As unfortunate as that may sound to you, I wouldn't stray from the model.

edit on 2-3-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

If you want to imagine a different way of communicating with your creation, I wouldn't make it a guessing game. Why would a king want his people to not know for sure that he existed?

Put it this way, the belief is that if a god appeared to everyone, making it well known that he existed, then everyone would be good and righteous out of fear of him. If this god wanted to judge his people for how they truly are, then why let them even have a hint that he existed?

Anatomical changes are a result of morphic resonance fields moving what would be "backwards" in time. They're anticipating changes in the environment that happen in the future. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes not, because the variables change along the way and a future environment happens before the modified DNA has a chance to play out over time and multiple generations.

reply to post by jiggerj

If you want to imagine a different way of communicating with your creation, I wouldn't make it a guessing game.

This is easily understood from your point of view. Yet from mine, it makes no sense at all.

Sorry for misleading you Randy. A bit of context re the previous posted info.....

The model cont. (on this "smaller than a proton" spec of matter)............

So on this imperceptibly small spec, a far smaller thin film life arose on a very limited area, developing via an evolutionary process in which almost all life forms have become extinct along the way. Which seems driven by one thing.....the struggle for survival. As a system, nature is not a kind one.A process where, largely, creatures must procure other creatures to devour (sometimes while still alive), each day, simply part of their struggle to survive. Nature doesn't care about our beliefs, it seems.

it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

en.wikipedia.org...



Then, eventually, a hominid type creatures evolved. While most of these creatures became extinct (that we know of..... Bigfoot? ), in the last "blink of an eye" (in evolutionary terms) one of these creatures rose to dominance (though we almost didn't make it at all, very close). Yet for most of this "blink of an eye", if they didn't succumb to starvation, the elements, disease, floods, famine, natural disasters or become devoured themselves,they still had the task of day to day survival, at the expense of other creatures. While our designer watches, either powerless, or unwilling to refine his system, completely consistent with a designer who doesn't exist.

A process that continues to this day for a large proportion of our species, a dour struggle for survival amidst............. defects, starvation, poverty, disease, natural disasters.............

Yet among this species of whom their own extinction itself is ensured, (yes at some point we will go "the way of the Dodo") there seems a sub species (particularly middle class Americans) that look at this in all of its magnitude and find the whole immensity of the last 13.8 billion years of the universe was "intelligently designed" all for this latest, very transient, minute, otherwise explainable, evolutionary saveur de jour on a very limited area, on an imperceptible spec.....WTF? Worse still, apparently the design was so flawed we didn't live up to expectations. After being wiped out once, it became necessary for our designer to appear and have himself tortured by having spikes driven through hands and feet, so we could be forgiven for his inherent design flaws.....again WTF?.

Some of them even claim that science miscalculated slightly by about 13.799999 billion years or so. Based on stories of ignorant ancient fisherman or goat herders, from a very illiterate and superstitious part of the world (even for its time) either obscured in history or told generations after the supposed events, none of which has any evidence historical or otherwise, much of which we know either did not, or cannot, happen.


There doesn't appear to be anything intelligent about this design, though if we can find an argument that isn't a logical fallacy, it might be worth considering. If some being designed us purposefully, surely he must despise us to levels we can't fathom. If he loves his creation, much of his creation aren't feeling it. No wonder he keeps away.

This model seems far from intelligent. If we are looking for ways to improve from the perspective of an omnipotent, omniscient intelligence (or even an average mortal one), there are simply too many to enumerate.


edit to acknowledge the source of pic.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

You could get crazy and go into the realm of sci fi like the movie Pandora where their bones were like carbon fiber but if we could stick to earth ecology I think we will still come up with some interesting results.
If you think about all the different animals on this planet and the traits they have developed there are some pretty amazing things. Imagine if you had the eyesight of an owl or were able to regrow teeth throughout your life. No more dentist appointments I think that would be great. Teeth have been historically important in our history. Our teeth played a huge role in human lifespans with our ancestors. Perhaps in the future scientists will be able to rework our own genetic makeup to where some of these things will be possible. There have been a few science articles where they are working towards that goal on a much smaller scale. One day we may be able to control our own evolution through science. A recent article was claiming the ability to regrow teeth may be only years away.So working within the confines of known traits animals have what kind of human would you intelligently design? I wanted to format this better but it is what it is. Hopefully this thread will inspire maybe it won’t I guess we will see.

Im thinking Silicon based as well as carbon. I have always wondered about the eye traits (hawk, eagle, owl), why the human was not allowed wings in addition to legs and arms, no claws, the telepathy that herd animals had that we were forced to give up because language asuaged it by delocation and isolation; I would like to know the evolution of the teeth retro-fangs. The human could have been the perfect amalgamable of all beasts of the field, why did it not happen (because we were experimental creatures).

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by randyvs

 

If you understand it as we are either a freak accident, or an engineered event, then you understand correctly.

I haven't read the book the quote was from, though I noticed it used by an academic by way of a rebuttal to the "fine tuning" argument. It seems if our universe was "fine tuned" for anything, it wasn't the way creationists claim (with the amount that could conceivably support biological life being so comparably, infinitesimally small) and it was argued that, more than anything, our universe appears to be far more efficient at producing black holes.

It has even been proposed that we are simply an epiphenomenon, or byproduct of this function.

Either way, who really knows? I can see a possibility where there could be far more to this and if so, science will probably work it out eventually. If there is anything to it, got my doubts it will involve anything like some anthropomorphic being (IMO). Not too struck on the "god did it" idea.

www.sentientdevelopments.com...

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Jigger, I'm not picking on you but you're involved here, anyway, what do you make of Cognito's above post ?
I'm not sure my understanding is correct. It seems way out of character at the moment.

[T]his universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. In other words, the universe we observe is extraordinarily inhospitable to life. Even what tiny inconsequential bits of it are at all hospitable are extremely inefficient at producing life—at all, but far more so intelligent life … ...in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton). It’s exceedingly difficult to imagine a universe less conducive to life than that—indeed, that’s about as close to being completely incapable of producing life as any random universe can be expected to be, other than of course being completely incapable of producing life.

I can't argue with this at this time. I don't think anyone can. But, the moment we find one microorganism on another planet, or in a meteor, his theory immediately gets flushed down the toilet. .

Not really. It just changes to 99.999998%

Originally posted by Grimpachi

First let me say I really hope this thread does not turn into an argument of whether or not intelligent design is valid or not that is not the intended purpose. Let us for a moment all put aside our differences on the origin of life and brainstorm on how it could have been done differently. If you were god and created your own universe along with a species such as us how would you do it different?

Apologies for the diversion.

This list could be one area where it would on take a very slight adjustment, for someone who could create a whole universe.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Oh good call.

I would do away with putting a sewage dump right in the middle of my play ground. In fact, the whole process of killing stuff, eating it and defecating seems rather primitive.
I like how plants get their energy.


Edit: No, I'm not a creationist, thought I would clear that up.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Nictitating Membrane

So, nictitating membranes would be cool for general eye protection. It appears that many animals have these third eyelids, but primates are one of the few that do not.

They would certainly be useful in a sandstorm.

Owl Eyesight

Being able to see better in the dark would be awesome. I believe a cat's eyes work about the same, but its not like absolute "night-vision."

Salamanders can regrow limbs

Limb regrowth would be an absolute must-have.

It would be nice if we could grow new teeth, too.


I wouldn't mind being able to breathe on land and in water. I am pretty sure I have read that amphibians can do that. Not entirely sure how it works.

There are sooooo many traits from the animal kingdom that would be cool to have.

idmonster
I think I would like very simple dietary requirements, i imagine it would be cool to get all of your nutritional needs from a single food source, and not have to waste time searching for and processing foods....like the anteater or the abalone......

SORRY SORRY SORRY........COULDNT RESIST.

Lamas (the human not the animal) eat a roasted form of barley, added to the dried grain; butter to make a mash. (llama? probably goat). That is the basis for their diet; its called 'Tsampa'.