[FONT="]originally posted by dawiyd
What why should we? This isn't the way the natural world works.
That is one of the premises in
Darwinian evolution--that simplistic life evolved into complex life. This is not true in today's world nor is there any record of this being the normal means of life as we know it throughout human history.
Had you not separated my statements, then you would have understood what I was saying. Perhaps you should make sure that you read it with context. You replied to my post quite quickly after I posted, which makes me wonder how much time did you spend to understand what I was saying.
Computers are not self replicating biological beings, don't be so disingenuous as to try compare the two.
Here is what I was responding to.
Whatever it is, it must be more intelligent than we are.
why?
Here is part of my response.
Whenever we see something, we naturally ask who or what created this.
I was talking about the fact that intelligence is behind creativity. Some design is implied when we see things like computers. Perhaps you should not be so quick to shoot down my responses. Just a thought.
Eurgh, why should we be able to.
Because rocks don't have the ability to create, therefore, we wouldn't expect a rocks to have intelligence to design. That is part of it. Darwinian evolution also has a premise that non life begets life. Rocks, as we know them, don't have the capacity to create other forms, whether living or non living. From what we can observe, creativity comes from beings with intelligence. It would behoove you to not try to separate my thoughts without keeping context to them.
Actually it can, if you actually understand what evolution is, not just absurd parody of it that you seem to understand it as.
Actually I am wondering what kind of evolution that you are thinking of. I am speaking of the general theory of evolution proposed by Darwin. My point is that the premise of simple living organisms evolving into more complex living organisms is not what we see in the natural world. Yes, we can see alterations within a species (micro evolution), but not a transition into another more complex form (macro evolution). The transitional aspect is just an hypothesis. It has no true evidence to support it.
Yes, they can't create things beyond their finite understanding and reasoning since they themselves are finite. Just take a strand of DNA. The complexity of that alone is amazing. Just think about how all of the various parts of the human body are constructed and what is inside the tissues and muscles as well as the blood, etc. and you begin to understand what I mean. Man cannot even begin to dream of how to replicate the human body. Even an amoeba is more complex that once thought of. Intelligence beyond the human is necessary to construct a human. Natural processes (whatever they are) can't account for this complexity.
You haven't defined what qualifies humans as complex in regards to other things, furthermore I don't see where you are going with this.
I just explained a little of it above. Complexity has to do with the organization and structure of the body from single cells, DNA, to the autonomous nervous system, to the immune system, etc. I am also talking about the metaphysical aspects such as consciousness, spirit, mind, soul, morality, will, etc. I am talking about the complexity on the sub cellular level as well. There are so many things that have to go right for all of this to function together as well as function in the environment, which I would argue was designed for it as well. Not by some random chance or natural selection that these things happened. I also forgot to mention the ability to control and/or alter his environment almost at will within certain limitations, of course.
Or evolved to live and adapt in that environment...
That goes back to the premise that there was no cause necessary for these things and no intelligence behind these events, which is at the crux of the reason that I started to debate. I am not really interested in all of this other stuff that only explains what is here, which is the basis of evolution theory. Our environment does not just do something without something acting upon it to cause it to conform to that situation. Something also has to trigger that entity to know to respond to that environment in precisely that way in order to change. It is not enough to just say that things evolve and adapt. This also assumes that the environmental variables were stable long enough to allow this to happen. Evolution is predicated on mutations which we know today to have degenerating effects, not constructive ones. If anything, we should expect a species to degrade rather than upgrade.
Evolution isn't random chance...
Parts of its foundation are. The idea of more simple molecules forming more complex molecules such as proteins and amino acids that further supported more complex life forms is something that would happen by
chance (infers randomness from the concept of probability) according to Darwin's theory. Maybe random is not the right word to explain what I am saying. Let's use arbitrary instead. The point is that this complexity came about without any design and allowed for higher forms of life and more complexity to be formed without a need for a cause. This is not something that we observe happening today without some cause and some intelligence orchestrating it. We don't just wait and hope that it happens, which is what
chance dictates.
The laws of physics, why when I blow a bubble is it a sphere? Is it because I designed it to be, or god did, or is it because a sphere because the pressure is uniformly directed onto all surfaces in all directions?
Now then, where did the laws of physics come from? Are they also arbitrary? Why should there be some laws that govern things? Why not just random or arbitrary or chance? Why should the rain, snow and even the bubble behave with a high degree of consistency? Why not blow a bubble and it comes out square the next time? Why not blow and find out that it doesn't even expand on the third try? Ever thought of that? Also, what makes the pressure uniformly directed? Why should we expect such consistency? Perhaps, these things are governed by an creative being having the capacity to allow these things to exist on a set of rules that He has control over. Just maybe??
Wow, this is almost as bad ass saying the cause for lightning is Zeus.
Nice try, but we are not discussing Zeuss. I guess I will repeat what lead up to your response so that you can reevaluate your response.
Here it is.
Even a natural fire has a cause and effect. Even rain has a cause and effect; likewise snow. They just don't happen. They have causes. Nature has causes too. It just doesn't happen. That is absurd to anyone living today that uses their senses to explore their surroundings.
Would you say that it rains for no reason? No impact on the atmosphere causes the rain? Snow just happens? No temperature changes involved? No wind currents involved? No reason for the flakes to fall? No reason to expect snow flakes every time it snows??
Right a naturalistic cause...
Now we complete the circle again. What causes the naturalistic cause you are propagating? What causes the lightening, and what causes it to strike? What causes the chemicals to ignite? Why don't the chemicals ignite under any conditions? You have failed to answer. It is easy to say naturalistic causes, but you don't take into account that there seems to be something governing these causes. They are not just arbitrary or by chance. Something leads to them happening, and something before that causes the circumstances to the prior events. Changes in the patterns are not "just so" and that is the end of the argument.
Understand also that nature is not just one entity. It consists of smaller complex entities that sometimes trigger other things to happen and sometimes act independently. In your mind, I am sure that these entities just somehow know when to act and when not to act. The wind knows when to blown, the clouds know when to move and when to stay stationary. They know that when they get too heavy, that they must now release the moisture as rain drops. Nothing ever influences these things to behave in the manner that they do except nature, which you haven't explained how that works.
So do tell me, what was the appendix designed for?
I feel a trap question, but I will bite. The fact that scientist can't explain it's function is not in indictment that it has and/or had no function. This in no way refutes anything. That does not change the fact that a chicken lays an egg because the chicken is designed in that way. The chicken doesn't have to think about laying the egg no more than you have to tell yourself to breathe. What is responsible for an involuntary aspects of a system such as the reproductive system and the central nervous system? Is that an adaptation? Is it arbitrary? What is it?
Or a mechanism evolved to do it unconsciously...
Back to evolution. Why would make a mechanism evolve in such a manner? Better yet, how would a mechanism do that? Do you see any such evidence for that from human history? Do you see any intermediate stages right now or in the fossil records that would support this view? You can't escape the concept of cause.
to be continued.........................[/FONT]