(un)Intelligent Design. — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Philosophy and other Silliness

(un)Intelligent Design.

This page's ID: 28922

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	[quote]We also know Evolution is blind. It can't see a "purpose". But it fulfills these purposes all the time. By being redundant, by being error prone, by trial. But it doesn't guess. It can't conceive or imagine. So, it is plausible to assume, that if you can find something complex, made of functional parts such that you, the observer, can see that those parts must have been "imagined" together for them to work. For them to fulfill a purpose. Then you can also wonder who or what "imagined" them.[/quote] That is in no way, shape, or form plausible! That is leaping to conclusions without any evidence. One is here looking at the whole, and then stamping a "well this has to have been put together to fulfill a purpose" opinion on it. Because you forget one of the properties of Evolution - chance. Random chance. And when that randomness also coincides with favorable conditions, it leads to more (this can also go backwards, btw - that leads to regression, and at the end, extinction). You have conviently left out that an environment exerts pressures that are favorable to certain conditions (meaning that, for example, in water, if you have a streamlined form, you will have more efficient movement than the opposite, which gives an advantage above and beyond a form that is in every other way similar except for being streamlined). That means that a random change that gives a form more streamlined attributes than another that is at home in water, for example, will have an advantage. Now, this is not fulfilling a purpose, in the sense that an intelligence created something to do just this, but it is a form of something evolving into something else that is better suited for that environment as it currently is (meaning that if the environment changes, that may not be the case anymore). All that says that you have posted, is that one lacks the understanding (or lacks the factual evidence) of how all those parts came to be as they are, and from what origins they originally came from - it supports [b]no other thing scientifically![/b] The car is a very poor example, because it does not possess the ability to reproduce and change of and by itself. The only change that will come to it, is either through the forces of the environment (corrosion, wear and tear, etc, which is basically negative) and from humans themselves, the creators. Use an example from Nature and you will see the fallacy in your argument. [url=http://faq.ozoneasylum.com/397/]WebShaman[/url] \| [i]The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities. - Sophocles[/i] Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu