Jump to content


Photo

Why Not Use Intelligence?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 01 August 2017 - 03:25 PM

We use intelligence to create complex things made of matter that have never organized themselves into irreducible complexity in 13.5 billiom years. There is not one single example of materioal complexity on the scale of a sophisticated computer that has evolved. Intelligent beings had to create the computers's complexity. So, why is it that intelligent beings think it hard to believe the plants and animals could have been created by an intelligent being?

Annother one of my low respopmse OP's probaby but, I was wondering why the intense bias against intelligence? Especially since we are intelligent. Why are some people so down on intelligece?



#2 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 03 August 2017 - 09:54 AM

Worldview, brother, worldview.

 

Worldview trumps logic and reasoning every time. It's like a solenoid relay in the brain that trips a thought into a different neuron pathway if it looks like it is going to conflict with a preconceived idea.

 

I like to say that worldview is what causes materialistic-only scientists to operate with half their brains tied behind their backs.



#3 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 August 2017 - 10:26 AM

Super Moderator

Posted 03 August 2017 - 10:54 AM
Worldview, brother, worldview.
 
Worldview trumps logic and reasoning every time. It's like a solenoid relay in the brain that trips a thought into a different neuron pathway if it looks like it is going to conflict with a preconceived idea.
 
I like to say that worldview is what causes materialistic-only scientists to operate with half their brains tied behind their backs.

I hear you! They wallow in intelligence and then ignore it as the heard of elephants in the room. With intelligence we can do anything including creating the idea intelligence was not necessary to create incredible complexity.



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 August 2017 - 12:15 PM

A herd of elephants in a matchbox. ;) 

 

I think Dave is spot on. Is intelligence evidence of intelligence?

 

Answer; Duh!

 

:D



#5 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 03 August 2017 - 10:39 PM

We use intelligence to create complex things made of matter that have never organized themselves into irreducible complexity in 13.5 billiom years. There is not one single example of materioal complexity on the scale of a sophisticated computer that has evolved. Intelligent beings had to create the computers's complexity. So, why is it that intelligent beings think it hard to believe the plants and animals could have been created by an intelligent being?

Annother one of my low respopmse OP's probaby but, I was wondering why the intense bias against intelligence? Especially since we are intelligent. Why are some people so down on intelligece?

 

 

It's not hard at all to believe that life was created with intelligent purpose. That was, after all, what virtually everyone believed until 200 years ago or so. Obviously evolution gave us an alternative. As for complexity in nature, intelligence is not required; snowflakes exhibit specified complexity and are formed through natural processes. Evolution gives us a way to say that nature by her own faculties, without intelligence similar to how complex snowflakes are formed without intelligence, can result in complex life.

 

In lieu of a more dignified response, I would say that the sensitive male gonads dangling outside of the main body exposed to trauma is evidence enough that no competent designer designed the human body.



#6 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 August 2017 - 12:20 AM

Goku said:

 

It's not hard at all to believe that life was created with intelligent purpose.

I have never claimed life was created.

 

That was, after all, what virtually everyone believed until 200 years ago or so. Obviously evolution gave us an alternative. As for complexity in nature, intelligence is not required; snowflakes exhibit specified complexity and are formed through natural processes.

Wrong! If i am not mistaken  no two snowflakes are alike. While we as humans are 99.98% genetically identical.  The .02 percent is random which gives us the    subtle superficial difference between us.
Moreover, snowflakes show no wvidence of evolving into anything more than  snow flakes!.  I have noticed they melt.  LOL

 

Evolution gives us a way to say that nature by her own faculties, without intelligence similar to how complex snowflakes are formed without intelligence, can result in complex life.

I am sure you believe your own creative efforts. Your claims   for evo are all assumptions made by  an intelligent speculator. You have no way of knowing if intelligence is not behind what you call nature. Also, what you call nature could have been designed  to operate seemingly without obvious intelligence (like my washing machine does). You may have noticed nature is very predictable.  But despite your claims nature has not created life lately. LOL

 

In lieu of a more dignified response, I would say that the sensitive male gonads dangling outside of the main body exposed to trauma is evidence enough that no competent designer designed the human body.

This is an example of your ignorance and arrogance.  Where is an example of the gonads or kidneys you have designed (or the human body you designed)?  You can't bring anything to life but you know how it happened? That makes evolution smarter than you any day. Do you concede that evo is smarter than you?

The gonads are on a thermostat to keep them slightly cooler than the body. You may have noticed on cold days they draw themselves up to maintain the  appeopiate temperature to mfgr sperm. Also you may have noticed one hangs lower than the other so that when you cross your legs they won't impact each other. I would say that's a nice design. LOL



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 August 2017 - 02:27 AM

 

 

Goku: snowflakes exhibit specified complexity and are formed through natural processes.

 

It has an appearance of specified complexity which is actually only symmetry. It's true that natural processes have been proven to come up with a very basic level of complexity in the snowflake, what we don't see is the kind where if you destroy the arrangement of parts function is lost, because it has no function. For example with a person's leg, if we re-arrange the knee, the ankle, stick the foot on the thigh, etc, the same as if we re-arrange a helicopter's rotor head, remove the blades and put them standing vertical on the head, then consequently this destruction of specified complexity will destroy function, showing teleology, because the parts are arranged that way on purpose otherwise you could re-arrange them and still have function.

 

Really the snowflake is on the very lowest rung of "design". Admittedly, there are some designs where confusion is possible, but that only ever happens because the "design" is so rudimentary or simple that there isn't much, "intelligence" put into it. So then isn't it expected if there isn't much intelligence, it gets harder to know if it is designed or not? If I take a fallen tree and throw it over a stream for a bridge, the intelligence is about 0.0000000001% compared to a helicopter, so I may have put the tree there or it may have blown there in the wind (natural process), but am I going to have the same problem with a frog, which has 100% intelligence in it? :gotcha:

 

The gonads argument comes from Dawkins but they need to be kept cooler. I don't see a big percentage of humans being recalled. First check if there is a design fault leading to a very common problem. This is something Dawkins never checks, like with the eye, his complaints are about things which don't have any design-malfunction.

 

Mike called you on what I call the, "referee fallacy", it's easy for fans to shout, "the referee should have done this and that" but without a demonstration that you can design something better without proving you can solve all of the surrounding problems with designing it differently, means basically when evolutionists say God's designs are rubbish ultimately they are arguing from their own total ignorance of what is involved because they have never had to design a body which grows, and starts from a blastocyst. The truth is atheists could not design something which starts life as a round blastocyst with no organs or skeleton and then a few months later is a giraffe. Could you create a material which grows and stretches and then later on becomes a solid, moving chassis?

 

It's easy to point at the things we perceive as not being the best design when those things are mostly superficial issues, and forget all of the things you couldn't design if you were given 20 life times.

 

CONCLUSION; What do all of the evolutionist complaints about the human body have in common? None of them lead to any design-malfunction. Atheists go on about the blind spot, but I only had the problem in life, when they designed a puzzle where I had to chase a dot on a page with my eyes. So if asked, "has this been a problem in your lifetime?" I would have to say this; "It became a problem firstly, when I chased dots on a page, a game invented by an atheist." But at no other time has this been an "issue". Is it a coincidence this pseudo-problem only became a problem when I played and atheist game? (Think about it).

 

What else? The wiring of the light receptors in the eye, which leads to no malfunction, notice we don't walk around with any opaqueness caused by the nerve net in front of the receptors. You may say, "impossible," - not really, it's just the design to solve the problem is so intelligent it's brilliance would leave you guessing how it was solved for the rest of your life. Muller cells cleverly penetrate the nerve net so that their trumpet-like tips are large, so that they cover most if not all of the surface of the retina, and the light is transported through the net. It's like looking through a forest and being able to see what is on the other side. 

 

Could atheists think that up, so as to resolve the other problem of refreshing the receptors from the supply of blood from the choroid? I didn't think so.

 

What else? The recurrent laryngeal nerve. What problem does it cause? Answer; none, it is just "ugly" the path it takes, which is all to do with embryological growth. In other words, nobody will ever see this tiny nerve and the path it takes is irrelevant to the true goal which is a viable human being. And the gonads, again, no recalls because of this, "problem". The only trouble I have ever had with them was when a boy thrown a rock at me in school and it hit one. I felt sick for twenty minutes. 

 

But Goku, you are intelligent, what do you notice about all of these arguments when you look at them properly. For example, are they dealing with the true meat in the sandwich, when it comes to the design of the human body? Or, since we are mostly talking about eyes, do they deal with rather superficial matters on the periphery of the subject?

 

So I think you tell yourself these things and tell yourself they have significance. In fact eye experts have basically derided Dawkins argument about the eyes, for they know that there isn't any error in the anatomy. 

 

In life it is easy for less intelligent people to poke fun at more intelligent ideas. We could all sit around the camp fire taking the mick out of the design of the latest phone but let's face it, none of us could design that phone if our life depended on it. How much more a lifeform, which isn't static at all. Think of how difficult that problem is for a designer, to design something which grows so isn't just viable at one stage but must be viable at every stage of development. Every animal on earth is viable at every stage. Could you achieve that with one design? Could all atheists coming together collectively, invent that in two lifetimes each, and the request is only one viable animal?

 

(Welll.....I try.............*pants* with effort of trying to convince the Guru.) ;)

 

Conclusion; It's easy to pick on the superficial areas of design in the body, it is clear which, isn't the main focus of the designer because His main motive is to produce a viable human life. Like a small ripple in a pond, if you change one of these rather inconsequential things and it has an effect on something more meaningful like the development-plan for the embryo's growth like with the LRN, then you have just changed something superficial without any net gain so to speak, and now caused a problem with a true issue of design. It is way more complex than the likes of Dawkins thinks - he is looking at a complete animal and thinking like this; "if I were a designer of this static and completed work", but he isn't thinking about every single stage of change an animal goes through. He isn't thinking about the ripple on the pond, which although seems simple and small, leads to a disturbance of the whole surface of the lake.

 

"Haha, if I was designing that I would change X - simple! The designer should have came to me!" (if we imagine a typically arrogant anti-theist)

 

(but in fact what the person doesn't know is if you change X you now get problem P, L, Z and Y, and the only arrangement which solves those problems is X.)


  • Mike Summers likes this

#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 August 2017 - 03:14 AM

 

 

Mike Summers: Moreover, snowflakes show no wvidence of evolving into anything more than  snow flakes!.  I have noticed they melt.  LOL

 

:D

 

 

 

Mike Summers: The gonads are on a thermostat to keep them slightly cooler than the body. You may have noticed on cold days they draw themselves up to maintain the  appeopiate temperature to mfgr sperm. Also you may have noticed one hangs lower than the other so that when you cross your legs they won't impact each other. I would say that's a nice design. LOL

 

I guess it is a problem though, if they meet Steve Austin's ball-crusher.  :rotfl3: ;)



#9 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 19 August 2017 - 07:17 PM

So, why is it that intelligent beings think it hard to believe the plants and animals could have been created by an intelligent being?


I ponder this too. I'm amazed at how vociferously evolution is defended even in light of the many levels of hierarchal functional coherence and mind-boggling interdependent complexity.

I think the answer is that if an atheist is to accept that life is designed, he must quickly reject all designers but an all-powerful God. And if he accepts that God exists, it quickly follows that he will stand in judgment some day. That is such a terrifying thought that he's willing to cling to increasingly ridiculous evolutionary arguments to avoid it.
 

Evolution gives us a way to say that nature by her own faculties, ...


I'm always amused to see people anthropomorphize nature, especially if they reject God.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users