Theist1's Universe Factory
Posted on: May 30, 2007 - 3:49pm
Offline
Theist1's Universe Factory
thiest1 wrote:
If you really want to have breasts like a woman you can have an operation, otherwise you do not have woman’s breasts.
Sorry, men do not need an operation to have breasts. In fact, some men need surgery to reduce their breast size due to gynecomastia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynecomastia
http://www.locateadoc.com/gallery.cfm/Action/Gallery/GalleryID/9383
We all have mammary glands. Even men. All the plumbing is there, it's just not turned on. A man's breast does not produce milk because men lack the necessary hormones. When given the correct hormones, men will lactate. There are also other conditions, such as medications and gynecomastia, than can cause male lactation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation
thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:
(Perhaps you should take an anatomy class (or at least check your facts before posting.) Men have fully formed breast tissue and glands that, by your standards, is designed, However, I can't feed an infant. They serve no practical use. The are simply not active in men.
The female breast and hormonal system has evolved to provide a method to feed it's young. This is exactly what evolution would predict. However, if human beings were explicitly designed by an intelligent designer then why do both male and females have fully formed breasts? Why does the urethra in men go though the prostrate gland when this gland swells after 60 years of age? This simply doesn't apear to be the the work of an intellegent designer. Just because we intentionally design things to mimic structures found in nature, doesn't mean these natural structures are designed by an intelligent designer. This is simply a unsubstantiated observation on your part. )
As I have already answered this question to dadvocate I will not repeat it again, if you want the answer go read the post. Tell me Maya, is an artificial heart designed? Is a Bird designed? If I clone a human being, who designed the human being that I cloned? Unsubstantiated? Tell me why a jet wing is designed, then tell me why a birds wing isn’t, I am waiting for your response.
Right, and how am I supposed to do that? I have no idea who your replying to since you don't use the quoting system.
Artificial hearts are designed by medical engineers to replace the function of an human heart. A bird is designed by millions of years of random mutation and natural selection. If you clone a human being, you're simply replacing the pre-existing set of building instructions with another. Unless you actually change these instructions, the design you're using is one created by the process of evolution. If you change it, you're using your intelligence to change the natural design of that organism. If you KNOW that a female breast is designed by an INTELLIGENT designer, then let see your proof. Unlike things designed by man, there is nothing in nature that we have observed your designer design INTELLIGENTLY that we can compare things to. As such, you're just making unsubstantiated observations.
And, from what we observe, much of nature certainly lacks the qualities one would expect from intelligent entity who can intentionally tune the properties of our universe to create a specific deign. Instead we see men with breasts and all sorts of organically evolved features that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
thiest1 wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:
(Our DNA is essentially a set of instructions that are use to create human beings. It's a blueprint that is passed on though reproduction and is randomly mutated and naturally selected based on the properties of the universe. But why is this mutation necessary if the designer knows exactly what it wants? Why design for a factory that creates intermediate steps to an ultimate design? What reason would there be for evolution at all?
Wow, you have discovered it!!! You need to call Boeing Airlines this instant and tell them the good news, you know how to make jets with no factory!!! You can just makes things in their final form and no need for a process to do it!!! Its so logical, you are making so much sense to me now!!! I am sure you can answer this question on your own Maya but you might need to use your brain.
What have I discovered? I've discovered that your universes factory hypothesis either doesn't make sense or conflicts with the reality we see around us. You continually waffle back and forth between the idea that the universe is a factory that eventually manufactured the final design of world around us, but then say that we were created in final form. Which is it?
We have significant empirical evidence that shows man didn't just appear out of thin air as we exist now, which conflicts with the idea of us being created in final form.
If the theory of evolution does not conflict with your hypothesis, your designer has created two designs: one for the universe factory and another that for the things it eventually manufactures over millions of years though random mutation and natural selection. Why would an intelligent designer bother created a factory when it can simply create what it wants?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Psychologically: happiness. Physiologically: the propogation of species. We appeal to both. Your turn to answer my questions extrabiblically.
Of course it does. It's in your "good book" with the qualifier that it is an "instruction in righteousness." (2 Tim. 3:15)
What we are determining here is the qualification of crime fitting the punishment between God's laws. You are ignoring this issue.
Of course Christians are deists. Is that how you converted to Christianity, as evidenced by the fulfillment of prophecy after you determined teleology in the universe? Can you give me some examples of fulfilled prophecies? I'm curious...
[MOD EDIT - did my best to fix quotes. Spent over an hour going through the HTML, but was unable to figure out the code that is causing the first incorrect break.]
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
I am unaware of thiest1 at least on this thread and "The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread" referring to Christianity as his/her religion. Did I miss something
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
I'm under no such obligation. You're simply trying to shoehorn God as the designer of the universe and man.
Process: noun
[1]
- a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end : military operations could jeopardize the peace process.
- a natural or involuntary series of changes : the aging process.
We have a working scientific theory with overwhelming empirical evidence that explains and accurately predicts how nature designs things like the human heart.
Evolution is just such a process.
Each instance of an organism is produced from a design which is occasionally randomly mutated. Designs which result in organisms which are most fit are selected by nature to be passed on to future generations. We can observe this happening right now and we have overwhelming evidence that indicates it's been going on for millions of years. No intelligent designer required.
If you propose humans are based on an ultimate design created by an intelligent designer, your theorem must imply that your designer specifically tuned the properties of the universe so that every single detail of every life form and structure that has come about through every chemical reaction and millions of years of evolution would appear exactly as they do right now. That's quite a feat of knowledge and ability.
01. Why would an intelligent designer do such a thing? Clearly, if the designer has the ability to design and create a universe which is so fine tuned that it eventually manufactures an pre-designed version of mankind over millions of years, it could simply design and man directly in final form. There is no need for evolution.
02. From what we observe of this concrete reality, much of nature certainly lacks the qualities one would expect from intelligent entity who can intentionally tune the properties of our universe to create a specific deign. Instead we see men with breasts and all sorts of organically evolved features that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
03. Just because man designs things that mimic structures in nature, doesn't mean you can infer these natural structures are themselves designed in the same way. There is simply no evidence that your sentient designer exists.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
If a bird is designed by evolution, then evolution is the designer.
designer : noun
a person who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail
If you stick with the strict definition of designer, then only people can design. Your supernatural entity can't be a designer because it's not a person.
And what is the definition of the verb plan?
Plan : verb
02. design or make a plan of (something to be made or built)
And what is a plan?
Plan : noun
01. detailed proposal for doing or achieving something
03. a detailed diagram, drawing, or program, in particular
This is exactly what evolution does. it defines the plan (DNA) that is used to construct future life forms.
In the case of evolution, the process is not intelligent, yet still produces different DNA sequences resulting in organically selected structures.
Please see above posts for other points that conflict with your proposal.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
If a bird is designed by evolution, then evolution is the designer.
are you like retarded or something?
Look,
Go read the definition of Evolution, it states that it is a PROCESS.
So is evolution a DESIGNER or a PROCESS.
simple logic will tell you it is a process, it is even defined by any scientist that it is indeed a "process" and it is not a "designer"
So stop looking like an idiot and acting like Evolution is a "DESIGNER"
its so funny read the definition of designer, then tell me that you really belive that evolution does those things in the definition of DESIGNER.
hah what yer telling me is this;
EVOLUTION is this:
de·sign·er
/dɪˈzaɪ
nər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-zahy-ner] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–nounQ?
OK, since you like that game...
A bird's wing had NO designer. It evolved through a process we call evolution.
There. Q?
Name calling gets you nowhere and make you look like a 10 year old.
I'm telling you that evolution plays the role of a designer in nature by changing and selecting sequences of DNA which are used to create organisms. As such, the process of evolution is responsible for the specific structural features displayed by living things.
Computers design the physical layouts of CPUs using special graph based physical synthesis software that can simulate a large number of potential component layouts and paths for power and data. Each simulation is evaluated against the result of other simulated layouts until most efficient configuration is found. This design is then used to build the physical layout of CPUs in a factory. In fact, futurists such as like Ray Kurzweil think there is another singularity approaching that will occur when computers take over the entire role of designing new computers. These computers will then design other computers, etc., leading to tremendous leaps in computing power far beyond our current intellectual capacity. The resulting systems may use radically different architectures that bears little to no resemblance to the computers designed by human beings we see today.
If you have a 8x8 matrix of squares, each set with a random color value, you have a pattern. The process of setting these squares to a random color value has, by the definition above, created this pattern. This process is essentially the designer of the pattern. If you were to create four different patterns and ask human observers to choose which pattern they like best, then create four different variations of that selected pattern by randomly changing the color of one or two squares, another set of patterns would be created. This process can be applied in an iterative manner to generate patterns that are more pleasing to the human eye than others. The observers in his process simply gave their reaction to the pattern they observed. They did not explicitly control which square would be changed to a particular color. You could even remove humans from the process entirely by replacing human observation with some kind of color theory criteria, such as squares that have the most analogous colors as their neighbors, etc. In both cases, the specific resulting patterns are the result of randomly changing colors and some sort of selection process.
The flaw in your proposal is that you claim your designer used specific intent when designing the specific structure of life on our planet. If this were the case, your designer would have had to fine tune the properties of universe to specifically create and mutate the DNA of every life form over millions and millions of years to eventually end up with the exact form of life we see around us - to the last detail. This simply can't be substantiated and, as I've posted earlier, does not not collaborate with the reality we see around us.
Again, all you've done is try to shoehorn God as the creator of the universe using specific dictionary definitions of design. In addition, you haven't address any of my counterpoints above.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
I'm telling you that evolution plays the role of a designer
How blind are you that you can not even see what is right in front of your face.
Evolution=Process=True
Process=Designer=False
Please also refer back to 4 in previous posts.
The artificial heart was intelligently designed
The human heart was organically designed
If you can't tell the difference, I'd think twice before calling someone blind.
Throwing definitions around doesn't prove anything. See my post on the definition of the word atom elsewhere on the forum.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.