nebula Posted February 1, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 But if evolution is a mindless process, it confuses the issue to insert a "mind" into describing its processes. Don't you think? I don't think so, so long as it's understood as an analogy of what's going on, not reality itself. Yes it does if you want to eliminate such things as "Intelligent Design" Personification implies intelligence guiding the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valoran Posted February 1, 2012 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 200 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/11/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted February 1, 2012 Yes it does if you want to eliminate such things as "Intelligent Design" Personification implies intelligence guiding the process. The thing is, we trust Christians to debate honestly instead of engaging in pointless word games. It appears you're trying to prove that that trust is misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Yes it does if you want to eliminate such things as "Intelligent Design" Personification implies intelligence guiding the process.... The thing is, we trust Christians to debate honestly instead of engaging in pointless word games. It appears you're trying to prove that that trust is misplaced.... Honestly, Trust In Your Creator, Trust In The LORD Jesus, Messiah That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12 And Forget These Pointless Mocking Word Games Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9 Believe And Be Blessed Beloved Love, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Yes it does if you want to eliminate such things as "Intelligent Design" Personification implies intelligence guiding the process.... So the personification of elements wanting to fill up all their shells/orbits with electrons implies an intelligence guiding the process.... Even The Elements Give Glory The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD; and thy saints shall bless thee. They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power; Psalms 145:9-11 Where Glory Is Due They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah 11:9 How About You? For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Romans 1:20-23 Will You Believe The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36 And Be Blessed Beloved Love, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 2, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 Yes it does if you want to eliminate such things as "Intelligent Design" Personification implies intelligence guiding the process. The thing is, we trust Christians to debate honestly instead of engaging in pointless word games. It appears you're trying to prove that that trust is misplaced. It is a pet peeve I have. But really, word games are what evolutionists excel at - if we do not describe things satisfactorily, you all harp on us to explain things properly. So I find it amusing that you find my protest offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valoran Posted February 2, 2012 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 200 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/11/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted February 2, 2012 The thing is, we trust Christians to debate honestly instead of engaging in pointless word games. It appears you're trying to prove that that trust is misplaced. It is a pet peeve I have. But really, word games are what evolutionists excel at - if we do not describe things satisfactorily, you all harp on us to explain things properly. So I find it amusing that you find my protest offensive. There is a difference between your failing to describe things satisfactorily, and your constructing your entire argument around viole's choice of words when the real meaning has been explained to you. Which parts of the arguments which have been presented to you do you not understand, so we can explain it to you again? Or is it that all you're going to post about is how viole used "want" in her post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 2, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 Consider this re-wording of the bolded part: Take trees for instance. Why are they so high? All that energy used to grow high, be resistant against wind, provide channels to supply water higher, etc. They are high, because they want to be better than they neighbors. If they could settle for a lower height, so that they all get the same energy without getting too complicated, that would be more optimal. If I were a tree designer, I would optimize energy much better. But this is not how nature works, for the simple reason that a central designer is missing. They are high, because to survive they need to be better than their neighbors. If they could survive at a lower height, so that they all get the same energy without getting too complicated, that would be more optimal. Is this not a more accurate presentation of the situation? However, I could have decided to point out how her example is imperfect - that is, the "real meaning" is deceptive. Tree growth is regulated not by "wanting to compete" but by the amount of available sunlight. Trees grow towards the sunlight, even if they have to grow sideways to get it. Thus, competition is not the driving force of tree growth, although it does play a factor. A tree's driving force is reaching for sunlight. Competition means one rises above another at the expense of another, and there is no evidence a neighboring tree is expended for the sake of another. A tree standing in a field alone puts more of its energy into width growth and thus will be less high, than a tree growing in a forest. This is because a tree standing along needs more strength and support to resist strong winds than a tree in a forest will, which is shielded from the strong winds by its neighbors. And when it comes down to it, a tree's height is determined by it's genetic code; any tree book will tell you the height range of a mature tree. So even if a tree may need to grow in height to catch more sunlight, chances are it still will not grow above the maximum height determined by its DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted February 4, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted February 4, 2012 Interesting Viole. Do you consider caterpillar death to be immoral? If so why??? Seems an odd position for an atheist to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 4, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 Consider this re-wording of the bolded part: Take trees for instance. Why are they so high? All that energy used to grow high, be resistant against wind, provide channels to supply water higher, etc. They are high, because they want to be better than they neighbors. If they could settle for a lower height, so that they all get the same energy without getting too complicated, that would be more optimal. If I were a tree designer, I would optimize energy much better. But this is not how nature works, for the simple reason that a central designer is missing. They are high, because to survive they need to be better than their neighbors. If they could survive at a lower height, so that they all get the same energy without getting too complicated, that would be more optimal. Is this not a more accurate presentation of the situation? However, I could have decided to point out how her example is imperfect - that is, the "real meaning" is deceptive. Tree growth is regulated not by "wanting to compete" but by the amount of available sunlight. Trees grow towards the sunlight, even if they have to grow sideways to get it. Thus, competition is not the driving force of tree growth, although it does play a factor. A tree's driving force is reaching for sunlight. Competition means one rises above another at the expense of another, and there is no evidence a neighboring tree is expended for the sake of another. A tree standing in a field alone puts more of its energy into width growth and thus will be less high, than a tree growing in a forest. This is because a tree standing along needs more strength and support to resist strong winds than a tree in a forest will, which is shielded from the strong winds by its neighbors. And when it comes down to it, a tree's height is determined by it's genetic code; any tree book will tell you the height range of a mature tree. So even if a tree may need to grow in height to catch more sunlight, chances are it still will not grow above the maximum height determined by its DNA. Well, the problem is that the DNA of trees was not necessarily such that they grew so tall from the beginning. The instructions to grow taller were driven by evolution. Suddenly a tree had a mutation in the code that made it grow a bit taller and the advantage it derived from it allowed it to spread his mutation further. Aftter a while, only the trees with that mutation survived, and the whole population is a bit taller. And so on. Give it a lot of time and you end up with tall trees, all having the cumulated mutations in their DNA. Of course, the DNA of trees is subject to random transformations, since there is not a perfect communication channel that preserves the contents of information without possible errors. The power of natural selection is that only the errors which provides advantage (more sun light than the competition) are filtered out and remain. The evolution of the vegetable world is interlocked with the evolution of the animal world. The neck of giraffes, for instance, is also driven by evolution. Giraffes which have a mutation that allow them to get the highest food have an advantage, their mutation is selected and after a while all the giraffes have a higher neck or they are dead. This is the power and the simplicity of random mutations together with natural selection. If the errors induced are random enough, it is only a question of time before one of these errors provides an advantage which is selected and replaces the instructions without the "error". And billions of years is plenty time to generate the complexity we observe today. That is why I think that the view that assumes that trees were created tall and giraffes created with a longer neck, are inadequate. The amorality of evolution s self-evident. Take a look at insects. Some of them have a mechanisms in place which are horrible, for our sensitivity. There is wasp that has DNA instructions that drive it to capture a living caterpillar, plant its larvae into the caterpillar, keep the caterpillar alive for the longest time possible so that the larvae have a long lasting supply of warm food. The larvae eat the caterpillar from the inside out. It is difficult to understand these pointless and cruel mechanisms in the framework of theism. The standard rebuttal is that this is the result of man's sin. Bu this is also inadequate. Man appeared only recently on earth, and where all these nasty insects, viruses, etc. come from? Did they evolve from nicer versions, or have they been created by God after the fall? Either God created something nasty, or you have to accept the evolution of them. As usual, the simpler explanations tend to be the true one. Ciao - viole Well, your anti-God arguments sure are sophisticated for someone who supposedly believed in God not too long ago. Odd. So one tree mutates to have the code to be taller, and its decedents are able to kill off (out-compete such that they eventually do not live long enough to reproduce?) the descendants of all the other trees of its species? But this has nothing to do with the tree "wanting to compete" versus it's code leading it for reach for more sunlight. And what does bringing in the giraffe and the caterpillar have to do with the subject matter anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted February 8, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,416 Content Per Day: 8.00 Reputation: 21,575 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I don't think it is so odd. When I was a Christian I was fighting with these issues, or I just swept them under the rug, or I was just lazy (afraid) to tackle them directly. It was just after my de-conversion that all pieces fell into place. It took a very short time, really. It was like a copernican moment: once you remove a hypotheses, everything becomes much simpler, and you are ready from day one to explain it; at least to yourself Ciao - viole I don't want to bust a bubble of your apparent concept that you were ever a believer! However according to God you never were of us! .... Love, Steven 1 John 2:19 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. NKJV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts