An argument foe Grand Design, maybe?

[Melchior]

Strangely, Melchior asked,

P.S. -- Seriously, Mel, don't even waste our time with pretending that adaptation is somehow indicative of evolution. That's not even remotely logical. My cat doesn't need to "evolve" to shed hair in the Spring. And moths don't need to evolve for a population of them to favour white, grey or black depending on tree soot. Those are simply non-sequiturs in any case for evolution.

What you need to show is animals crossing the species boundaries, not merely adapting to local conditions. For no Creationist, no matter how basic, needs to be troubled by mere adaptation, since it is wholly the sort of phenomenon that fits neatly inside the concept of created species.

You completely missed the point. 'Design' and 'creation' are completely different things. Nature shows evidence of design (adaptation) but not of creation. Moreover, it does not show signs of intelligence at all. The problem is the polysemy of 'design'. Engineering, done efficiently, makes use of previous work. An 8-cylnder engine is adapted from a 6-cylinder, or vice versa. You don't reinvent the wheel. Nature works the same way. Throw a bunch of fish in a pond, and gradually let the water evaporate. Some of the fish will die before the others. Take the survivors and let them breed. Do this enough times, and eventually the stock of fish you have will be more tolerant of low oxygen than you started with. Do it 5,000,000 times and guess what....you have animals that can breathe air.

I have always found it amazing that some people have trouble accepting that you can go from gills to lungs in a few million years, when frogs do it in a few weeks.

Mel,
Stop the bullshit. "Design" and "adaptation" are not synonyms. Buy a dictionary.

Greylorn

'Design', as I said is polysemous, dumbass. Read what I wrote. That means there is some overlap between the senses of 'design' and 'adaptation'. When an automotive engineer takes an 8-cylinder engine and adapts it by removing two of the cylinders to make it a 6-cylinder engine, that is both 'design' and 'adaptation'.


See:

Verb:
http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictiona ... ery=design

Noun (see sense 7, especially):
http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictiona ... l=Volume+2

[Greylorn Ell]

You completely missed the point. 'Design' and 'creation' are completely different things. Nature shows evidence of design (adaptation) but not of creation. Moreover, it does not show signs of intelligence at all. The problem is the polysemy of 'design'. Engineering, done efficiently, makes use of previous work. An 8-cylnder engine is adapted from a 6-cylinder, or vice versa. You don't reinvent the wheel. Nature works the same way. Throw a bunch of fish in a pond, and gradually let the water evaporate. Some of the fish will die before the others. Take the survivors and let them breed. Do this enough times, and eventually the stock of fish you have will be more tolerant of low oxygen than you started with. Do it 5,000,000 times and guess what....you have animals that can breathe air.

I have always found it amazing that some people have trouble accepting that you can go from gills to lungs in a few million years, when frogs do it in a few weeks.

Mel,
Stop the bullshit. "Design" and "adaptation" are not synonyms. Buy a dictionary.

Greylorn

'Design', as I said is polysemous, dumbass. Read what I wrote. That means there is some overlap between the senses of 'design' and 'adaptation'. When an automotive engineer takes an 8-cylinder engine and adapts it by removing two of the cylinders to make it a 6-cylinder engine, that is both 'design' and 'adaptation'.


See:

Verb:
http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictiona ... ery=design

Noun (see sense 7, especially):
http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictiona ... l=Volume+2

Does the engineer manage the "adaptation" with a hacksaw, cutting off the last two cylinders, four camshaft and crank lobes, then weld the bearings onto the cutoff ends? Does he plug the cooling system at the cut-off end and stick a some gum in the pipes to reduce the flow of coolant? Does he simply snip two wires off the distributor to deal with the missing spark plugs? No, shit-for-brains. He redesigns the entire engine.

Clearly, for dimwits like you, polysemous means that you get to define words however you please. You have missed your calling and should be working for the Democrat party.

Greylorn

[Melchior]

Does the engineer manage the "adaptation" with a hacksaw, cutting off the last two cylinders, four camshaft and crank lobes, then weld the bearings onto the cutoff ends? Does he plug the cooling system at the cut-off end and stick a some gum in the pipes to reduce the flow of coolant? Does he simply snip two wires off the distributor to deal with the missing spark plugs? No, shit-for-brains. He redesigns the entire engine.

Clearly, for dimwits like you, polysemous means that you get to define words however you please. You have missed your calling and should be working for the Democrat party.

Greylorn

Me? Democrat? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. I would vote for Nixon's corpse over any Democrap. And, of course, the engineer does nothing so crude as you suggest, but essentially the V6 engines are derived from the V8:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V8_engine# ... V8_engines

"In some cases, V6 engines were derived from V8 designs by removing two cylinders while maintaining the same V-angle so they can be built on the same assembly lines as the V8s and installed in the same engine compartments with few modifications. Some of these employed offset crankpins driving connecting rod pairs, enabling a regular firing sequence."

The point I have been making is that there is indeed 'design' in nature (in one sense of design), but no design in the other sense of design. The exponents of 'intelligent design' have been confusing these senses, in what amounts to a Fallacy of Four Terms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms

It is also known as 'equivocation'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

So, yes there is design in nature, and no there isn't. It depends on what you mean by 'design'. Furthermore, the presence of 'design' in the one sense cannot be appealed to to imply the existence of the other kind of 'design'.

[raw_thought]

I was raised as an atheist by two profs. I am an agnostic. I thought that all atheists were rational and that their beliefs were based on logic and no emotion. I thought that all theists needed religion as an emotional crutch.
However, I have found that some atheists are as dogmatic and fanatical as any fundamentalist. For example, in my thread "Alan Watts" I presented an atheist spirituality. Hexhammer reacted extremely emotionally and did not understand that Watts was not a theist. Hexhammer even said that Watts was stupid because Watts said that most religions use the threat of hell to control people. His blindness probably made him think that Watts was advocating for a belief in God. Fanaticism blinds people.
Similarly, in my "qualia" thread I made the minor claim that there are subjective feelings. I was attacked for trying to sneak in God!!! If I believe in God or not (I do not) has nothing to do with if we have subjective feelings or not.
I remain an agnostic. However, I know that the fanatics will call this post theology. So be it.
I do not like fanatical devotion to any ideology, be it atheistic or theistic.

[raw_thought]

Evolution is a fact.

[Melchior]

Evolution is a fact.

No doubt, but the problem with 'design' is semantic. Unless we clarify what we mean by 'design' we'll get nowhere.

[Greylorn Ell]

I was raised as an atheist by two profs. I am an agnostic. I thought that all atheists were rational and that their beliefs were based on logic and no emotion. I thought that all theists needed religion as an emotional crutch.
However, I have found that some atheists are as dogmatic and fanatical as any fundamentalist. For example, in my thread "Alan Watts" I presented an atheist spirituality. Hexhammer reacted extremely emotionally and did not understand that Watts was not a theist. Hexhammer even said that Watts was stupid because Watts said that most religions use the threat of hell to control people. His blindness probably made him think that Watts was advocating for a belief in God. Fanaticism blinds people.
Similarly, in my "qualia" thread I made the minor claim that there are subjective feelings. I was attacked for trying to sneak in God!!! If I believe in God or not (I do not) has nothing to do with if we have subjective feelings or not.
I remain an agnostic. However, I know that the fanatics will call this post theology. So be it.
I do not like fanatical devotion to any ideology, be it atheistic or theistic.

R.T.

Thoughtful people who consider all aspects of a theoretical position will always be attacked by dogmatists of all stripes, as you've experienced. Good job dealing with it, and remember that so long as you keep your mind open, the most stupid of that gaggle will attack you, personally.

Moving to agnosticism from an atheistic indoctrination strikes me as more difficult than abandoning a thoroughly programmed set of religious beliefs, which I know to be extremely difficult. Except that your brain was not programmed to believe that you will go to hell if you blow off your beliefs.

Whatever the nits might say, your post is a fine example of honest expression. This sorry forum could use more of it. BTW, I tried Alan Watts decades ago and found him way too mystical for my taste, but more interesting than Madeline O'Hare or Teilhard de Chardin.

Greylorn

[Melchior]

I was raised as an atheist by two profs. I am an agnostic. I thought that all atheists were rational and that their beliefs were based on logic and no emotion. I thought that all theists needed religion as an emotional crutch.
However, I have found that some atheists are as dogmatic and fanatical as any fundamentalist. For example, in my thread "Alan Watts" I presented an atheist spirituality. Hexhammer reacted extremely emotionally and did not understand that Watts was not a theist. Hexhammer even said that Watts was stupid because Watts said that most religions use the threat of hell to control people. His blindness probably made him think that Watts was advocating for a belief in God. Fanaticism blinds people.
Similarly, in my "qualia" thread I made the minor claim that there are subjective feelings. I was attacked for trying to sneak in God!!! If I believe in God or not (I do not) has nothing to do with if we have subjective feelings or not.
I remain an agnostic. However, I know that the fanatics will call this post theology. So be it.
I do not like fanatical devotion to any ideology, be it atheistic or theistic.

R.T.

Thoughtful people who consider all aspects of a theoretical position will always be attacked by dogmatists of all stripes, as you've experienced. Good job dealing with it, and remember that so long as you keep your mind open, the most stupid of that gaggle will attack you, personally.

Moving to agnosticism from an atheistic indoctrination strikes me as more difficult than abandoning a thoroughly programmed set of religious beliefs, which I know to be extremely difficult. Except that your brain was not programmed to believe that you will go to hell if you blow off your beliefs.

Whatever the nits might say, your post is a fine example of honest expression. This sorry forum could use more of it. BTW, I tried Alan Watts decades ago and found him way too mystical for my taste, but more interesting than Madeline O'Hare or Teilhard de Chardin.

Greylorn

I was raised Roman Catholic, but now am atheist.

[Greylorn Ell]

Evolution is a fact.

Yes. There is irrefutable evidence for it. However, Darwinism, the science-approved explanation for that evidence, is every bit as absurd as religious creationism.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

I was raised Roman Catholic, but now am atheist.

Mel,

I too was raised a Catholic. However, when it became clear that Catholicism was illogical and impossible nonsense, I declined to adopt another equally illogical and nonsensical belief system. Being sucked in by an agreement system once, was enough. By way of alternative I engineered a physics-based theory about the beginnings of the universe and the origin of consciousness which resolves all the problems associated with the commonly accepted but flawed belief systems.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

Evolution is a fact.

No doubt, but the problem with 'design' is semantic. Unless we clarify what we mean by 'design' we'll get nowhere.

Mel,

Intelligent design is not the only alternative to Darwinism.

Rather than accommodate the religious baggage with which "design" wants to fill the overhead luggage compartments, Beon Theory replaces "design" with engineering, and defines a shitload of engineers, all with different proclivities and talents. It declares that the structured universe is the result of brilliant but not omnipotent engineering, and that consciousness is a peculiar consequence of accident and inevitability, but was not created.

Greylorn

[Melchior]

Evolution is a fact.

No doubt, but the problem with 'design' is semantic. Unless we clarify what we mean by 'design' we'll get nowhere.

Mel,

Intelligent design is not the only alternative to Darwinism.

Rather than accommodate the religious baggage with which "design" wants to fill the overhead luggage compartments, Beon Theory replaces "design" with engineering, and defines a shitload of engineers, all with different proclivities and talents. It declares that the structured universe is the result of brilliant but not omnipotent engineering, and that consciousness is a peculiar consequence of accident and inevitability, but was not created.

Greylorn

Uhmmmm...no.

[raw_thought]

I was raised as an atheist by two profs. I am an agnostic. I thought that all atheists were rational and that their beliefs were based on logic and no emotion. I thought that all theists needed religion as an emotional crutch.
However, I have found that some atheists are as dogmatic and fanatical as any fundamentalist. For example, in my thread "Alan Watts" I presented an atheist spirituality. Hexhammer reacted extremely emotionally and did not understand that Watts was not a theist. Hexhammer even said that Watts was stupid because Watts said that most religions use the threat of hell to control people. His blindness probably made him think that Watts was advocating for a belief in God. Fanaticism blinds people.
Similarly, in my "qualia" thread I made the minor claim that there are subjective feelings. I was attacked for trying to sneak in God!!! If I believe in God or not (I do not) has nothing to do with if we have subjective feelings or not.
I remain an agnostic. However, I know that the fanatics will call this post theology. So be it.
I do not like fanatical devotion to any ideology, be it atheistic or theistic.

R.T.

Thoughtful people who consider all aspects of a theoretical position will always be attacked by dogmatists of all stripes, as you've experienced. Good job dealing with it, and remember that so long as you keep your mind open, the most stupid of that gaggle will attack you, personally.

Moving to agnosticism from an atheistic indoctrination strikes me as more difficult than abandoning a thoroughly programmed set of religious beliefs, which I know to be extremely difficult. Except that your brain was not programmed to believe that you will go to hell if you blow off your beliefs.

Whatever the nits might say, your post is a fine example of honest expression. This sorry forum could use more of it. BTW, I tried Alan Watts decades ago and found him way too mystical for my taste, but more interesting than Madeline O'Hare or Teilhard de Chardin.

Greylorn

Did you watch the Alan Watts videos? Watts had a tremendous influence on my life because he made me realize that one can have a spiritual perspective without accepting anything supernatural. I guess it depends on how one defines "mystic". Watt's definition is unconventional.

[Greylorn Ell]

Did you watch the Alan Watts videos? Watts had a tremendous influence on my life because he made me realize that one can have a spiritual perspective without accepting anything supernatural. I guess it depends on how one defines "mystic". Watt's definition is unconventional.

R.T.

No. I was first introduced to A.W. back in the 70's by a friend, read as much of a book as I could abide, and did not find his ideas of personal interest. There were no videos back then. At your question I scanned the A.W. youtube list, and the titles alone reminded me of why I find him irrelevant. I'll try to explain.

Watts is the kind of person who'd make a perfect interviewee on the Oprah Winfrey show or channel, if that's even around. His job is to make people feel good about themselves. He's a self-help shmoo, like Chopra, Zukav, Tolle and other Super Soul Sunday guests whose real job is to sell whatever shit appears on her commercials and fills her bank accounts. He'd have fit right in.

I'm not saying that they are wrong; only that they are all the same and all equally irrelevant to the question of atheism vs. I.D., etc.

I managed to watch a few of those SSS episodes when they aired for free, and noticed that at the end of each Oprah asked her guest to define "soul." Every one just blathered and bullshitted.

None of these people are capable of dealing with hard core metaphysics, questions like how the universe and consciousness came into existence, and if the answer involves any form of consciousness, why? Lacking legitimate answers to those hard questions, blatherings about how best to conduct one's life are mere made-up ideas designed to sell books by telling people what they need to hear.

Greylorn

[raw_thought]

Actually, that is not a description of Watts. Everything he says is self evident. There is nothing about the soul, God ...
The video "atheist spiritualiyy" shows that. Even a materialist can accept everything. Watts says.
Here is just one example of what he says (I am using an example from the "atheist spirituality " video.). There are nominalists and realists. Reality however is both. We join one of two camps. Prickly vs goo. Rigid order vs flow. Reality is not one of those it is prickly goo
The grid we impose on reality is not reality.
Reality is not mental (Idealist) nor is it physical. Those are mere labels. Meaning is the process of referring. The meaning of this is that. Reality does not refer to something outside itself.
I found those videos to be more then the simplistic platitudes on Oprah. However, I will admit that they do not convey even a fraction of what Watts reveals in his books.
PS: I hope you are not confusing Alan Watts with Alan Watt. Alan Watt is a bit too new age for me.