Technology Then---Technlogy Now

[Mike Summers 454]

Claiming God was innvilved in evolution changes the flavor of evolution. From vanila to Choclate. The human mind body configuration is the most complllex
mechanism (for want of a better term) in the known universe.

An intelligent being created the theory of evo. The minute any intelligence is input into evo it is not the evo that Darwing wrote of.

The polint I was making is that evo is assumed to be true. Therefore no matter how complex somethig evo circumvented the odds and accomplished the task. It just did!

[piasan 1,402]

Claiming God was innvilved in evolution changes the flavor of evolution. From vanila to Choclate. The human mind body configuration is the most complllex

mechanism (for want of a better term) in the known universe.

 

An intelligent being created the theory of evo. The minute any intelligence is input into evo it is not the evo that Darwing wrote of.

The fact remains that most evolutionists are not atheists.  Also, IIRC, Darwin did make at least one reference to a creator in his book.

 

The polint I was making is that evo is assumed to be true.

Yes, and creationists assume the Bible to be (literally) true.  I see no difference.

 

 

 

[Mike Summers 454]

Please give me an example when you as an intelligent being used evolution to do anything. What have you caused to evolve?
 

[what if 1,650]

I, for one, would not ride out a single North Sea winter storm on that "Ark."

not surprising seeing as the north sea is iceburg country.

 

OTOH, there are men like thor heyerdahl that have braved 5,000 mile treks on nothing more than 9 balsawood logs lashed together and a sail.

 

or captain blye, their dingy was barely seaworthy and was always on the verge of floundering, but he got his men home.

[piasan 1,402]

 

I, for one, would not ride out a single North Sea winter storm on that "Ark."

not surprising seeing as the north sea is iceburg country

Actually, the flow of water in the North Sea tends to keep iceburgs farther out to the open ocean.  But, if you think icebergs are the reason, we can change that from a "North Sea winter storm" to a major tropical hurricane. 

 

OTOH, there are men like thor heyerdahl that have braved 5,000 mile treks on nothing more than 9 balsawood logs lashed together and a sail.

 

or captain blye, their dingy was barely seaworthy and was always on the verge of floundering, but he got his men home.

 The Kon-Tiki was only about 14m (45 ft) long and made of logs of that length.  The HMS Bounty dingy was probably about the same size, or smaller.   Kon-Tiki sailed some 97 days and Bligh only 43.

 

There is no comparison of the hull flexure of such short boats with that of the 450 foot long ark over more than a year at sea.

[piasan 1,402]

Please give me an example when you as an intelligent being used evolution to do anything. What have you caused to evolve?

Pretty much anything I've designed and built.

 

I don't understand the relevance of the question.

[Mike Summers 454]

You can not do anything without using your intelligence. Evo suposedly functions without iontelligent input.

[piasan 1,402]

You can not do anything without using your intelligence. Evo suposedly functions without iontelligent input.

As has already been pointed out, the majority of those who accept evolution disagree with you.

[Mike Summers 454]

I understand that. And they are welcome to "believe" anything there foolsh imaginative minds wish. However, Darwinian evo does not "allow" intelligent input. You are talking about ID. You can believe anything you want is true. But up is up and they are going to be opposites no matter what you tell yourself.

As Shakespeare so aptly said, "A rose by anyother name would smell the same." Though a building may result from brick upon brick placement and as a result a skyraper emerges after millions of small steps (gradualism) the process had guidance from an intelligent being or beings and that's not the same as the building assembling itself or changing from one type of building to another! I would like you to demonstrate one building in the alleged 13.5 billion year history of the universe that built itself by randome time and chance! I am sorry to have to tell you but the Emperoe has not clothes on!

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Yes Piasan, where are the missing transitional buildings? The buildings are still missing, what about intermediates for cathedrals and houses? The only way to stop is to quit, so quit preaching false evo! Where are the primordial bricks?

 

A rose by any other name is called an evolutionary cock and bull story, my lad, the only way to stop is to quit making excuses for the Darwinian imagination employed by evo adherents.

 

[piasan 1,402]

Yes Piasan, where are the missing transitional buildings? The buildings are still missing, what about intermediates for cathedrals and houses? The only way to stop is to quit, so quit preaching false evo! Where are the primordial bricks?

You're comparing apples and bricks.

 

Much, if not most, of mankind has led a nomadic lifestyle for most of history.  Nomadic peoples don't have a need for brick structures.  In many other regions buildings are made of various biodegradable materials.  There are remaining stone structures in places like Greenland and various mud-brick remains around the world.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "false evo."  If you mean theistic evolution is not evolution, you are mistaken.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Oh Piasan, a clever man,

But a bit slow on the uptake,

For humour, man!

 

 

 

 

(though admittedly humour is not as easily conveyed with the medium of the old pixels.)

[Fjuri 119]

Oh Piasan, a clever man,

But a bit slow on the uptake,

For humour, man!

 

 

 

 

(though admittedly humour is not as easily conveyed with the medium of the old pixels.)

A good comic knows its audience and the medium though...

[piasan 1,402]

Oh Piasan, a clever man,

But a bit slow on the uptake,

For humour, man!

 

 

 

 

(though admittedly humour is not as easily conveyed with the medium of the old pixels.)

Oh, a bit of sarcasm?

 

Nice one.

 

Sometimes subtle humor is lost in a forum like this were we don't have body language and tone to provide clues.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Yeah just a bit of fun, but I wasn't poking fun at Mike, I was just using his example to then parody an absurd version of a creationist, who takes things to a silly level. That kind of mischief I get a kick out of. (pretending to be a crackpot cracks me up)

[MarkForbes 167]

....

 

The ark could easily have been built. I am not certain that this is exclusively what is being debated. The understanding of astronomy, calendars, weight, leverage, geology, and science in general was understood at an extraordinary level. Our modern structures require yearly maintenance at a minimum. The pyramids have stood for thousands with none, withstanding earthquakes that have leveled Cairo. The how is the mystery. The fact that they could be and were constructed is not.

 

Are there any findings of tools that indicate lesser intelligence in our species? Even the oldowan stones found near Lake Turkana is beyond what any primate has devised. I don't want to derail this into an evolution vs creation thread. Please ignore this and continue with the discussion—I am following with high interest.

It's easy once you know how to do it. Less mastery of a technology doesn't mean less intelligence. One feature of more primitive culture is that they lack specialization. They may not have specialized biochemists, but their man often master a greater number of skills from agriculture to manufacturing and construction. That means that a small team of their men would be able to construct their houses from commodity to finished building. Today you just have a larger number of specialists involved, which increases overall productivity with people knowing more about less and are able to repeat more work within given time, but it also means they may just know less in total. 

[piasan 1,402]

Yeah just a bit of fun, but I wasn't poking fun at Mike, I was just using his example to then parody an absurd version of a creationist, who takes things to a silly level. That kind of mischief I get a kick out of. (pretending to be a crackpot cracks me up)

 

Pretending? ? ? ?

 

.......  Sorry, mike, it was just there and I couldn't resist ......

[piasan 1,402]

It's easy once you know how to do it. Less mastery of a technology doesn't mean less intelligence. One feature of more primitive culture is that they lack specialization. They may not have specialized biochemists, but their man often master a greater number of skills from agriculture to manufacturing and construction. That means that a small team of their men would be able to construct their houses from commodity to finished building. Today you just have a larger number of specialists involved, which increases overall productivity with people knowing more about less and are able to repeat more work within given time, but it also means they may just know less in total. 

Ancient peoples being less intelligent than we are is an argument put forward, in this forum at least, by creationists only.  Not once have I seen any evolutionist here claim the ancients were less intelligent than we are.  

 

Sometimes my students will claim they're just "stupid" because they don't understand a point I'm making.  My response is they aren't stupid, they're ignorant.  Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence.  Ignorance can be fixed.  That's why they're in school ..... to "fix" ignorance.

 

It's the same thing with a lack of technology.  In some (rare) cases, the ancients had even better solutions than we do.

 

Paraphrasing again what Newton said:   "We stand tall because we stand on the shoulders of giants."

 

But, let's look at this.... 

Using the YEC timeline, we have creation about 6,000 years ago and a flood about 4500 years ago.  So, from creation to the flood (1500 years) would be only about one third the time it has been from the flood to the present (4500 years).  There is no reason to believe the ancients could accumulate more knowledge in 1500 years than we can in 4500.... even without the "head start" from any technology or knowledge that survived the flood.

[Fjuri 119]

 

But, let's look at this.... 

Using the YEC timeline, we have creation about 6,000 years ago and a flood about 4500 years ago.  So, from creation to the flood (1500 years) would be only about one third the time it has been from the flood to the present (4500 years).  There is no reason to believe the ancients could accumulate more knowledge in 1500 years than we can in 4500.... even without the "head start" from any technology or knowledge that survived the flood.

 

You seem to forget they had direct access to divine knowledge back then...