• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is evolution stupid?

DirkGeevink

Member
Dec 21, 2004
8
3
54
✟138.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
JohnR7 said:
First of all we start off with the premise that evolutionists reject the concept of intellegent design. They have never studied the theory of intelligent design, so they really do not know what they are rejecting other than to say the design is NOT intelligent. So if it is not intelligent what is the design? It must be a stupid design. Of course their response to this is the same response you will always get out of them, denyal and evasion.

As far as I know the theory of intelligent design says nothing about a creator. That would be creatonism that talks about a creator. Intelligent design is willing ot accept that natural laws could be the creator, but that question then is where did or does the natural laws come from?

This is for certain the most stupid thread I've read. So here's my little stupid contribution.

Evolution is a non-intelligent proces, not stupid. Being stupid still implies intelligence, albeit little. There is no plan behind evolution. No smart plan, and no stupid plan. Just no plan, non-inteligent.
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟22,411.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
JohnR7 said:
Nonsense, I know a lot more about evolution than the average person does.
Perhaps
The average person, in the USA at least, believes in a literal account of the Creation story in Genesis.

WTG! You've gone beyond that. :thumbsup:

Of course so has most of the world population.

Welcome to the "argument from the masses" JohnR7.

However, you have demonstrated, time and again, that you DONT know more about evolution than those who have actually STUDIED it.

Keep up the good work for Creationis.....errrrr...."Intelligent Design":clap:
 
Upvote 0

raphael_aa

Wild eyed liberal
Nov 25, 2004
1,228
132
69
✟17,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Design' as a word implies a construct. Design implies a designer. There are plenty of natural processes that produce finely tuned products. Snow flakes are just one example. Responding to molecular geometry and electrostatic forces, snowflakes produce constructions which if we didn't know better we would say were constructions of an artist.

The appearance of design then speaks more about our ignorance of natural proceses. 'Design' is not quantifiable.

Having said all this, what is the point of the thread?
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟22,411.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
JohnR7 said:
Ok, so there are dumb bombs and dumb bombers and there are smart bombs and smart bombers. With any combination of the above. Only science instead of "smart" and "dumb" likes to use the words "optimal" and "apparant".
And those of us who use the English language.

JohnR7 said:
I am not talking about a designer, I am only refering to the design itself. It really is two different things no matter how much IDers like to claim that a "smart" or "optimal" design could only be produced by a smart or intelligent designer.
So then you dont subscribe to ID?
Great!
You (as a christian) arent talking about an intelligent designer. All the rest of Christianity is.
I like your rebellion against the notion of Goddidit.
You're coming along quite nicely! :clap:
JohnR7 said:
There are those who would like to claim that a optimal design does not need a intelligent designer because natural selection can produce a optimal design.
Yeah
There's a thing called "empirical data".
Study it
Know it
Make it your friend
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟22,411.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
raphael_aa said:
Having said all this, what is the point of the thread?
Two points-
1- JohnR7's incredulity arguments, despite the apparent fact that he doesnt believe, as a "christian" and (apparent) IDist, that GOD had anything to do with creation.
2- JohnR7's mangling of the english language
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
corvus_corax said:
So yeah, despite your ID claims of "ID doesn't presuppose an intelligent designer" (paraphrased), your adherence to ID (most un-christian to deny God as THE designer) is belied as Creationism. ;)

I am not trying to deny God as the creator, I am just leaving that as an unknown. For one thing different people have a different concept for God. Some people think that God is someone that give people vast wealth, comfort and all the virgins they could ever want.

We have four combinations here: smart design/ smart designer, dumb design/ dumb designer (apparent or not), smart designer/ dumb design & dumb designer/ smart design. Darwinism I think would fall into the catagory of dumb designer/ smart design. IDers would like to claim smart design/ smart designer. I am not making any claim for a dumb or a smart designer at this point. I am only saying the design is smart and not just apparent.

As far as I can tell these are the four choices or options. Inless someone else would like to suggest how there could be another choice or option. Other than the fence sitters who are going to have to fall off of their fence one way or the other sooner or later.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
corvus_corax said:
Two points-
1- JohnR7's incredulity arguments, despite the apparent fact that he doesnt believe, as a "christian" and (apparent) IDist, that GOD had anything to do with creation.

Oh, I believe God had something to do with it, that is just not the point of this discussion right now.

2- JohnR7's mangling of the english language

Yeah, well, welcome to the real world. You always have the option of running back to the sactuary of your ivory tower any time you want.
 
Upvote 0

raphael_aa

Wild eyed liberal
Nov 25, 2004
1,228
132
69
✟17,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
JohnR7 said:
Yeah, well, welcome to the real world. You always have the option of running back to the sactuary of your ivory tower any time you want.

Decent grammar reflects our ability to frame thoughts with clarity. For example, you started off this thread claiming that evolution was 'stupid' because it wasn't 'intelligent'. You're creating a false dichotomy based on applying adjective qualifies to nouns they have no business qualifying. This whole argument is based on poor application of grammar. There is absolutely no substance to it. You now want to shift the goalposts again apparently.

Please clearly state what your argument is.
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟22,411.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
JohnR7 said:
I am not trying to deny God as the creator, I am just leaving that as an unknown.
You're not?
Really?
I thought you were a Christian.
At least you can be honest regarding your convictions.
Or not, as the case is.
JohnR7 said:
What is the difference between a smart bomb and a dumb bomb?
For one thing different people have a different concept for God. Some people think that God is someone that give people vast wealth, comfort and all the virgins they could ever want. [/quote[]
Riiiight
So you're leaving open the possibility that Muslims may be right?

I doubt that


JohnR7 said:
What is the difference between a smart bomb and a dumb bomb? We have four combinations here: smart design/ smart designer, dumb design/ dumb designer (apparent or not), smart designer/ dumb design & dumb designer/ smart design. Darwinism I think would fall into the catagory of dumb designer/ smart design.
Again I would appreciate a definition of tems
I noticed that you replaced "stupid" with "dumb"
Do you mean someone who cant speak (Dumb)?
DEFINE YOUR TERMS
Thank you
I expect you to do so from now on.
Otherwise, you are being dishonest and MOST un-Christlike.

JohnR7 said:
IDers would like to claim smart design/ smart designer. I am not making any claim for a dumb or a smart designer at this point. I am only saying the design is smart and not just apparent.
Bull
You have made your stance as an IDer quite clear.
Adhere to your (hypocritical) party line or not.
If not, then please, please PLEASE define your terms.


JohnR7 said:
As far as I can tell these are the four choices or options. Inless someone else would like to suggest how there could be another choice or option. Other than the fence sitters who are going to have to fall off of their fence one way or the other sooner or later.
The problem is, you keep changing your terms
Please define "stupid" "dumb" and "intelligent" for us, since you are OBVIOUSLY not using the standard terms here.
NO, you're not. Using dumb bomb vs smart bomb belies your grasp of the English language.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
raphael_aa said:
For example, you started off this thread claiming that evolution was 'stupid' because it wasn't 'intelligent'.

No, I started off making the claim that if you reject intelligent design, then you have only one option left: stupid design. People who claim that a design is neither intelligent or stupid denys that there are objectives to a design, and they usually are just trying to shut down the whole discussion.

Please clearly state what your argument is.

My arguement is that the design is intelligent, my belief is that the designer is intelligent. Compared to someone like Stephen Jay Gould who was so against the idea of a intelligent designer that he argued even the design was a stupid or a poor design.

The problem with optimal design is that in real time designs are intended to solve problems so that the best design is not always the most optimal design, but the design that accomplishs the objective of solving the problems. With Darwinism the objective is survival, so the best design is the one that allows the organism to survive, compared to going extinct.

Until Gould came along with his arguement for a stupid design, I think that most people believed in a smart design, only evolution does not always have the time it needs to bring about the changes needed. That is why some people believe that mutations are nurtral and dorment until the invironment changes and then then the mutations can kick in and become benificial.
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟22,411.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
JohnR7 said:
Oh, I believe God had something to do with it, that is just not the point of this discussion right now.
Intelligent Design
Do you believe aliens had something to do with it?
Yes, it IS the point, as ID is nothing more (especially in your case) of obfuscated "Goddidit" doctrine.

JohnR7 said:
Yeah, well, welcome to the real world. You always have the option of running back to the sactuary of your ivory tower any time you want.
Fine. You want to rape the language to the point where you are unintelligable?
Fine.
I mean really JohnR7, how chartreuse can you be, throwing all this wood ash around the entire car?
Welcome to the real world JohnR7. Your personal Ivory Tower of "I can define words as I want" is pure BS.

Please learn and speak the english language. If you're going to redefine terms, then PLEASE define them for us beforehand

Otherwise you just appear to be an ignorant 5 year old.
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟22,411.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
JohnR7 said:
No, I started off making the claim that if you reject intelligent design, then you have only one option left: stupid design.
You have yet to define your use of "stupid", because it's obviously not the standard english term the rest of us are used to

JohnR7 said:
People who claim that a design is neither intelligent or stupid denys that there are objectives to a design, and they usually are just trying to shut down the whole discussion.
what is the purpose of a fractal?
JohnR7 said:
My arguement is that the design is intelligent, my belief is that the designer is intelligent.
wait
Stop right there
1- the design is intelligent. This states overtly that the design is capable of thought.
2- THE DESIGNER IS INTELLIGENT. Sorry JohnR7, but you've stated, time and again, that ID does not presuppose an actual designer.
Which is it bud?
Is there a designer or not?
Now please...do your best to not be a hypocrite.

JohnR7 said:
Compared to someone like Stephen Jay Gould who was so against the idea of a intelligent designer that he argued even the design was a stupid or a poor design.
You do realize that poor design and stupid design are two seperate things, no?

JohnR7 said:
The problem with optimal design is that in real time designs are intended to solve problems so that the best design is not always the most optimal design, but the design that accomplishs the objective of solving the problems. With Darwinism the objective is survival, so the best design is the one that allows the organism to survive, compared to going extinct.
But no one has ever said that natural selection allows all designs to flourish (which seems to be what you are implying)
JohnR7 said:
Until Gould came along with his arguement for a stupid design, I think that most people believed in a smart design, only evolution does not always have the time it needs to bring about the changes needed.
3.5 BILLION years?
JohnR7 said:
That is why some people believe that mutations are nurtral and dorment until the invironment changes and then then the mutations can kick in and become benificial.
Partially wrong, partially right.
 
Upvote 0

Beastt

Legend
Mar 12, 2004
12,966
1,019
Arizona
✟40,898.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Are fluids intelligent? Can you measure the IQ of a fluid? What about gravity? Is gravity intelligent? Do either of them think, reason or apply mental processes to their behaviors?

I would hope the standard answer would be, "no".

Has anyone ever seen a cross-section of a layer of sediment? There are very clear layers which result from sorting the smaller/lighter particles from the larger/heavier particles. And even the tiniest particles of gold are found near the bottom because neither the viscosity of a fluid nor gravity are fooled by the small size of a particle of gold dust. I suppose one could surmise that this indicates that when fluids and gravity work together too sort sediments, the results they produce are incredibly intelligent. But certainly anyone not attempting to offer some level of credibility to Biblical claims can understand that there is no intelligence in the interaction of the viscous nature of fluids and the force of gravity. The viscosity provides a resistance to movement while the gravity provides a steady propulsion against the viscosity. It just so happens that the results produced by the interaction of matter and energy, as displayed in fluid and gravity, can produce a very well sorted system of layers. In all likelihood, the results offered by fluid and gravity may well do a far superior job of sorting particles based on their size/weight ratio than the unassisted efforts of the most intelligent of men, and would do so much more quickly. This is why these properties were employed in gold prospecting.

What about a swirl pattern? Is this a sign of an intelligent hand at work? It clearly offers some fairly complex geometry so it must be a sign of intelligence, right? Or perhaps it is the simple interaction of force exhibited in the rotation of a relatively flat surface, and matter, (the face of the surface and a fluid applied to it).

These are similar to the earlier examples of snowflakes wherein the interaction of matter, (water), and energy, or in this case, a lack of energy, (cold), can result in remarkable patterns of designs which might well suggest intelligence to the uninitiated, and most especially, to those hoping to salvage the Bible from the effects of the knowledge gained by man.

Simple, dymanic interaction between energy and matter will always follow certain patterns which makes them, to one degree or another, predictable and testable. And indeed, seemingly complex patterns can emerge from such simple interactions. Anyone who has ever seen the magnified complexity of a pollen grain might be tempted to declare that nothing so complex, so geometrically refined, could possibly arise from the relative simplicity of a few simple properties working in unison without intelligence. But to present such a conclusion denies the obvious complexity which can arise from the interaction of multiples of simplicity. Another, somewhat less appropriate example can be found in artificial representation of a few simplistic properties, working together to form a remarkably complex design. The properties can be described in mathematical form and presented to a computer for processing. The fact that intelligence was applied to the code might cause some to instantly proclaim that intelligent design is necessary. But the intelligence required in such an example is necessary only to recreate something akin to simplistic properties in a form that can be processed in a computer. In this case we seen four simple loops, defining some very basic and related properties, all working in unison to create a non-simplistic pattern. And this was the result of just goofing around with a few formulas and numbers to represent properties for the computer to process in an interactive fashion.

attachment.php



..For Z = 0 To 6.28 Step 0.3
....zX = Sin(Z) * Xpand + X
....zY = Cos(Z) * Ypand + Y
......For W = 0 To 6.28 Step 0.3
........wX = Sin(W) * (Xpand - 200) + zX
........wY = Cos(W) * (Ypand - 200) + zY
..........For V = 0 To 12 Step 1
............vX = Sin(V) * (Xpand - 900) + wX
............vY = Cos(V) * (Ypand - 900) + wY
..............MC = Abs(vX - X) + Abs(vY - Y)
..............MC = (MC / 36)
..............Line (vX, vY)-(wX, wY), RGB(20, 20, (255 - (MC * 2.5)))
..............For B = 0 To 12 Step 0.1
..................bX = Sin(B) * (Xpand - 1140) + vX
..................bY = Cos(B) * (Ypand - 1140) + vY
...................MC = Abs(bX - X) + Abs(bY - Y)
...................MC = (MC / 36)
..................Line (bX, bY)-(vX, vY), RGB(0, (255 - (MC * 1.6)), 0)
..................PSet (bX, bY), RGB(0, 125 - (MC * 1.2), 0)
................DoEvents
..............Next
..............HLD = (255 - (MC * 1.6))
..............PSet (vX, vY), RGB(HLD * 0.8, HLD * 1.7, HLD * 0.8)
..........Next
......Next
..Next

So hopefully we can agree that fluids aren't intelligent, gravity possesses no intelligence, rotation isn't a form of intelligence nor is the lack of thermal energy resulting in cold. And as wisely pointed out already, "stupidity" is a level of intelligence. So anything which possesses no intelligence cannot, by definition, be stupid.

And as for all the references to the "word of God", meaning the Bible; I think it best to remember that while the Bible has proudly and boldly offered itself to be the word of God, God himself has remained conspicuously silent. God has never claimed the Bible to be his word.
 
Upvote 0

corvus_corax

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Jan 19, 2005
5,588
333
Oregon
✟22,411.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
JohnR7 said:
If your objective is to shut down a conversation, then your on the right track.
Bull
You're lying and you know it
As I stated earlier-
"Again I would appreciate a definition of tems
I noticed that you replaced "stupid" with "dumb"
Do you mean someone who cant speak (Dumb)?
DEFINE YOUR TERMS
Thank you
I expect you to do so from now on."

Quit lying.
Quit obfuscating your meanings.
Be honest and forthright.
Answer and address my statements, as I have done yours.

Im not aiming to shut down the conversation, Im aiming to get you to define your terms.

I notice that you keep avoiding that particular issue.

How deceptive of you.
Is that your Christ in action?

Is that the stance of ID and Creationism? Lying, obfuscation, and twisting of words?
 
Upvote 0

Battie

Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
1,531
158
40
Northern Virginia
Visit site
✟24,989.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
KenH said:
I see no reason to defend the obvious. ;)

What is the purpose of making such statements in the first place? If you want people to agree with your position, you need to realize that you're up against some pretty intelligent people. You're not going to get anywhere without offering something of substance.
 
Upvote 0