God's purpose

Aaah. I had not read this far. How about "Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection helped undetectably by Divine Intervention".

Interesting idea this one about a god who wishes to be undetectable. Sort of fits in with the Abrahamic god - well in modern day experience anyway.

Back a few thousand years ago people were tripping over him everywhere when he was slaughtering thousands, parting seas, sending floods, parting seas, turning women into salt, talking directly to different prophets, and so on.

Today he has become most shy and only intervening in ways that are undetectable. Why is this so I wonder?

Is this the god you seem to be craving to believe in, (or partly skeptical about believing in), PartSkeptic?
 
Ball joint for a knee? Ridiculous. We would collapse at the first need to zig-zag to avoid being eaten. The muscles could not cope.

:confused: Of course, that perfectly explains why we collapse every time we stand on deck, those hips just can't hack it. Or why we just plain go to pieces any time we need to wrestle, given our delicate shoulders?

Seriously... if you make the naive assumption of the same musculature with a ball instead of a hinge, sure, that's a bad idea. But a ball joint with different muscle attachment points would be far superior in terms of reliability and durability.
 
Tell me who is the head of the:

Bees
Wolves
Elephants
Chickens


See? Hierarchy structures are evident in nature (evolution) and to think otherwise is simply not seeing the wood for the trees.

Pecking order is a natural outcome of this process.

I don't see any head at all.

The bees are the most organized.
Wolves are the scariest.
Elephants are the biggest.
Chickens are the stupidest.

Do I pass?
 
Did you read the comments criticizing the article?

Ball joint for a knee? Ridiculous. We would collapse at the first need to zig-zag to avoid being eaten. The muscles could not cope.

The others were not much better.

Give me your "perfect design" for anything, and I will critique it to show that it is totally mono-functional, rather than the amazing versatility of the human.

I don't need to address the ball joint for a knee one because Emily's cat did an excellent job on that already.

Not impressed with your dismissal - "The others are not much better". To me, and I think most others, they are clear evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and clear evidence that design was not involved or some god tweaking here and there.

There is no such thing as perfect design. Indeed there is no such thing as perfect, accept in the minds of believers who credit their god with the ability to pull it off. Non the less I think I could make a few improvements on the human body.
 
Last edited:
The question that needs answering is why tiny bits of matter clump together and evolve towards intelligence in the first place?

Study some electronics, in particular the theoretical aspect. Think about the amazing complexity that can be created out of nothing more than "on" and "off", including things like predictive modeling algorithms.

Now go back and think about molecules atoms elementary particles. A random pile of electrons, neutrons, and protons is going to be awesome in an extremely hot (immediately after big bang) environment. But as soon as the universe cools just a tiny bit, they're unstable. Some of those particles clump together (opposite charges and all that). Turns out that some particular clumps are more stable than other clumps (go read up on chemical valence theory and orbital molecular theory). Then some of those clumps clump together and are even more stable. So... the unstable bits and pieces are just that - unstable. The stable clumps are just that - stable. Given time, the stable clumps stick around because they're *ta-da* stable. The unstable bits and pieces don't stick around because... survey says: unstable. Turns out there's a handful of clump designs (hydrogen and helium) that are fairly stable, to slightly differing degrees, at least within the environment of more or less evenly spread early universe.

Now move forward a bit in time, and gravity starts to play a role. Some of those clumps clump together even more. You get big clumps of little clumps, and you get increasing pressure due to gravity. Now those original clumps aren't stable - not under those conditions. So something changes, some clumps smoosh together in a different way, and are relatively stable within the new conditions. So we get some heavier atoms. Some combinations are more stable than others for a while... then the pressure gets too big and a cascade occurs - a pile of hydrogen and helium get squished by gravity so much that they squish into each other and you get fusion, which ends up spitting out all sorts of different clumps of particles, all just blobbed up by conditions. Now there's solid matter floating around (which ends up being quite a bit more stable under these new conditions), and gravity pulls that solid stuff together, and it rolls around since it's all spinning madly away in that chaos, and you get planets.

Now on one of those planets, there's a lot going on. It gets smashed by other bits of solid matter screaming by and incredible speed, it's got a molten core that's moving around and causing a lot of friction which keeps it hot, it's a great big hot mess of a young planet. So again, those atoms (now we have a name for the clumps of particles) are smooshed about, squashed up against one another, and basically shook up all over the place. Some of them that were slightly less stable stick to other atoms, and it turns out that the combinations of atoms are more stable in that environment than the atoms by themselves were - blammo! We've got molecules!

Fast forward a good long while (in galactic terms, just the blink of an eye). All those molecules floating around? Turns out that a group of them can *move*! When a photon hits the molecule, the charge creates a change in the structure, and it *responds* to the environment! Woohoo! That's some crazy stuff right there - a molecule that is in essence, a little machine! Right now it doesn't really do anything, but it responds to photons. And it turns out that in that environment, that molecule is more stable than other molecules are... so it sticks around better than other molecules do.

And then the world changes again, and that molecule ends up getting squished up with some other molecules that also respond to parts of their environment like little machines... and they clump together, and you get something that resembles an organism. Organic Chemistry has arrived! Now you've got great big clumps of particles all hanging on to one another like a huge otter flotilla, and several of them are reacting to things that go on in their environment, flipping back and forth like switches and so on. Turns out that some of these macro-clumps, these "cells" are pretty good at moving some smaller clumps from one place to another, by a series of switches and flips and transfers of it's own parts. Say hello to our little friend, the cell.

Of course, the environment continues to change over time (entropy, anyone?), so with each passing epoch there's a different combination of clumps that are most stable in that environment. Over time, those cells clump together and become even more stable within their environment. Then some of those cells use the particles and molecules that are being moved from one side of the macro-clump to the other, and instead of just moving it, those smaller clumps get put together into a clump that looks like the clump that it was passing through. We have now reached the stage of mitosis.

At this point, there's a whole lot of different cells floating around. Many of them are pretty similar, but in truth there are many, many combinations of molecules that are relatively stable in that environment. And because there are so many possible semi-stable combinations, things keep clumping in new and different ways. Eventually, we end up with a really big clump of cells, that are particularly stable in comparison to some of the others in their environment, and you start to get the first multi-cellular critters and plants.

Some of those critters have a new and exciting clump of cells that are still doing that old "react to photons" thing. And some other clumps of cells have gained a degree of stability and success in their environment by taking really big clumps of other cells into their structure, stripping away some parts of those clumps, forming certain bits into energy, and dumping all the leftovers back out into the environment. You might be familiar with this concept as "eating". Turns out that those critters with photon-sensitive clumps are better able to 1) find the clumps of stuff to "eat" and also 2) get away from the clumps of stuff that want to "eat" it. Boom - rudimentary eyeballs.

Now it turns out that those critter-clumps that have eyeball clumps as well as this weird squashy grey blob are even better at finding food and evading eaters. That weird grey blob is super efficient and taking the photon reactors, and passing it through a pile of electrical conductors and then reacting to those photons in a predictable, but relatively complex way. It's a simple circuit, really: If the normal pattern of light and dark is interrupted by a darkness in the way of the source of brightness, move sideways 5 inches. There's not really any real though going on in that "brain (the grey blob) yet... just a set of simple reactions to environmental stimuli. But those reactions give that big clump of cells a statistically better chance to continue being a big clump of cells... and incidentally, it that chance gives it a better chance to capture some other cells and rearrange them into a new pile of cells that resembles itself.

Now you've got... Very large clumps of cells made of moderately large clumps of molecules made of smaller clumps of atoms created from the agglomeration of particles. You also have brains.

End of Story.




{Granted there's a bit more in there, and I'm glossing over billions of years of time it took to go from elementary particles to rudimentary brains, but that's more or less how I understand it to work. Evolution is just a fancy word we use to say this is a more stable blob in this environment, but the concept is essentially the same whether we're talking about molecules that react when a photon hits them or we're talking about humans. Same principle, just repeat a few gadzillion times.}
 
Theists version of evolution is by “intelligent selection”, not “natural selection”.
 
I don't need to address the ball joint for a knee one because Emily's cat did an excellent job on that already.

Not impressed with your dismissal - "The others are not much better". To me, and I think most others, they are clear evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and clear evidence that design was not involved or some god tweaking here and there.

There is no such thing as perfect design. Indeed there is no such thing as perfect, accept in the minds of believers who credit their god with the ability to pull it off. Non the less I think I could make a few improvements on the human body.
If I'd designed the human body, I'd have left off the autoimmune disorders. I've got 4 of them, and being under attack from my own body sucks. I'd love to hear a theist explain the "design" behind autoimmune disease. Is it still "because of the fall/sin/free will" if it is my own body killing me?
 
If I'd designed the human body, I'd have left off the autoimmune disorders. I've got 4 of them, and being under attack from my own body sucks. I'd love to hear a theist explain the "design" behind autoimmune disease. Is it still "because of the fall/sin/free will" if it is my own body killing me?

Nahh, you got a good dose of Neanderthal genes way on back there in the mists of time.
 
If I'd designed the human body, I'd have left off the autoimmune disorders. I've got 4 of them, and being under attack from my own body sucks. I'd love to hear a theist explain the "design" behind autoimmune disease. Is it still "because of the fall/sin/free will" if it is my own body killing me?

All explained in Mr Deity episode 1. So that it's not too easy to believe in him - God that is.
 
I have another question I'd like a theist to answer:

Why are humans so moist?

Think about it. Humans live on dry ground, but we are like 70% water. Gets us dehydrated and we are like dry Seamonkies...dead.

If god created us to live on land why do we need so much water? There's plenty of other critters who don't need as much.

Evolution answers this quite easily. We require so much water because we evolved from critters that lived in water. Makes sense.

I've never heard a theist answer to this.
 
We were fisher men.

I'm sorry, it was too hard to resist, I just love a bad pun.
 
Theists version of evolution is by “intelligent selection”, not “natural selection”.

I can't speak for theists but from my own perspective, natural is intelligent. There is no need (for an agnostic) to separate the two notions.
 
There's real science behind the theory of evolution. You can study its raw data if you want. Nothing is hidden, from Charles Darwin's notebooks on down to scientific journal articles today. It's usually easier and quicker to start with a summary, but if you're afraid of trusting science teachers, it's possible to learn the whole thing from primary sources and form an opinion. Not easy, but possible.

There are theists who teach evolution too. Maybe you could find one of them and be more comfortable. It's just a shame to see someone stay deliberately ignorant of current science because they think it's atheist lies.


Like I said, I don;t have a problem with the concept. I only have a problem with how hard atheists use the theory to say that there is no intelligent design.

It matters not to me that theists teach evolution too. How is it that they could be trusted with not letting the bias of their beliefs taint the subject?

Would you do the same with a cougar?

The point is that if you want to earn the trust of a wild animal, there are ways to go about it.




Remember, at that time, humans didn't know wolves could even be bred into tame dogs or that dogs could be useful.

Remember that we are speaking about evolution of intelligence as well...the human ape learns through observation, trial and error etc...remember that no human every born knows anything about anything.

Let's use words the way they're commonly used. I'm a little disappointed that I thought I was discussing evolution with someone who genuinely had some knowledge about it and wanted to learn more and discuss informed opinions, and now I find out you think it's just something expanded on and taught by atheists, so it can't be trusted.

Let me be clear. I have not moved from the point of discussion re evolution since it came into the argument in relation to my saying that human beings were not like other apes. That has been my focus and argument. If you are saying that the theory of evolution accepts this as so, then no argument and no more discussion about the theory necessary.

If you are saying that it isn't the case, and it is not what evolution teaches...then *shrugs.*



Don't bother. It's all written by atheists. You couldn't trust them. :rolleyes:

Okay...Thanks for the heads up. That saved me wasting time.

If one avoids learning about it, sure, one can come up with all kinds of opinions about the way it appears.

And that is what the theory of evolution is...the science behind it allows for all kinds of opinions about the way it appears. Otherwise theists wouldn't be teaching it unless in doing so they were attributing it as the way their idea of god brought things into existence.
 
Last edited:
I have another question I'd like a theist to answer:

Why are humans so moist?

Think about it. Humans live on dry ground, but we are like 70% water. Gets us dehydrated and we are like dry Seamonkies...dead.

If god created us to live on land why do we need so much water? There's plenty of other critters who don't need as much.

Evolution answers this quite easily. We require so much water because we evolved from critters that lived in water. Makes sense.

I've never heard a theist answer to this.

Maybe god is a sea dweller. Sort of strengthens the case for King Neptune doesn't it?

Your not likely to get an answer from theists either.
 
Emily's Cat, riffing on your post #1685, people have used evolutionary algorithms to develop electronic circuits.
 
I have not moved from the point of discussion re evolution since it came into the argument in relation to my saying that human beings were not like other apes. That has been my focus and argument. If you are saying that the theory of evolution accepts this as so, then no argument and no more discussion about the theory necessary.

If you are saying that it isn't the case, and it is not what evolution teaches...then *shrugs.*

The theory of evolution does not teach that ET aliens guided evolution so humans would be endowed with special properties above all other animals.

If that's what you need, you won't find it in standard science. From your previous posts, that's my best guess what you want.

Anyone can see that humans aren't like other apes in some ways (intelligence, etc.) and are similar in others (DNA, etc.), but I have no way of knowing how much "not like other apes" would suit you, although your posts indicate your mind is firmly made up that it needs to be at least a certain very important amount.

Why not just study the theory of evolution and see what it says? It would take maybe a half hour tops, probably less, to read the page I linked about phylogenies (not as intimidating as it sounds, very little jargon) at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_07 plus the additional pages linked from it on the left margin, and that would give you a solid basic grounding in how animals are organized in the theory of evolution, to compare with what the Christians and science fiction fans claim it says. Then you can decide if humans are described differently enough from apes to suit what you need.
 

Back
Top Bottom