Happy Atheist Forum

Natural Selection
All manufacturing processors use a selection process to maintain standard. All quality assurance systems use selection methods to select only the best. When a product hits the market it competes with rival products. Here again a selection process is at work. Take in the case of designing of a building. The architect would come up with many designs and keep improving on the design by selecting the best attributes at any stage. Consider the case of a factory that uses robotics to manufacture something. Here again a selection process would be involved in coming up with what is acceptable. The fact that a selection method is involved would not lead anybody to believe the whole automated process was not designed. Man learns to be creative from his Maker(God). The Maker of man teaches the process of creativity by example. Now the Makers manufacturing plant is the whole universe. Thus the fact that this factory uses natural selection just like man does in his own little factories only goes to show another aspect of man being thought by and reflecting his maker in his creativity.Evolution is a design Process. It’s the design process used by God. A design process chosen by God to suit the intellectual capacity given to man, so that we may understand it and use it.

If I were God, that´s definitely how it would go down.

The only Holy Text would be a small inscription on a rock somewhere stating, "The world is my sand box and you are my little experiment."

Hehehehe.

You may as well say, that flower is yellow, therefore someone must have painted it.

I don't understand why you easily jump to the conclusion of 'natural selection means there must be a god'. I'm going to need empirical proof before i buy that.

This is why I don't see religion and science as being vaguely compatible. If someone wants to marry the two somehow then I would rather approve of that then watch religiously inclined people completely disregard evidence for our biological history so blatantly and ignorantly, of course. But at the end of the day what's the point of mapping it out like that? If you want to believe God set natural selection and Evolution in progress then where do you draw the line? How involved in human affairs is your God then? How do you find a space for God in the world today when the majority of the answers are based on fact, science, and peer-tested and reviewed research? Surely if you believe in natural selection and Evolution it is logical just to take that extra leap (not of faith) and conclude that there is no need for a deity in our existence and development. It's like you're trying to force two incredibly incompatible worldviews together while still trying to find room for a god to exist in the nooks and crannies.

A belief in God is based on faith, not evidence.  As there are so many gods out there, this same argument could be used for any (conflicting) religions as well.  Simply replace the word Maker (God) in this paragraph with the word Satan or Zeus or Cosmic Bunny and you have an equal argument for Satan, Zeus, or Cosmic Bunnies.

You can sometimes use fact to augment faith, but you can never use faith to augment fact.

Quote from: "fdesilva"Natural Selection
All manufacturing processors use a selection process to maintain standard. All quality assurance systems use selection methods to select only the best. When a product hits the market it competes with rival products. Here again a selection process is at work. Take in the case of designing of a building. The architect would come up with many designs and keep improving on the design by selecting the best attributes at any stage. Consider the case of a factory that uses robotics to manufacture something. Here again a selection process would be involved in coming up with what is acceptable. The fact that a selection method is involved would not lead anybody to believe the whole automated process was not designed. Man learns to be creative from his Maker(God). The Maker of man teaches the process of creativity by example. Now the Makers manufacturing plant is the whole universe. Thus the fact that this factory uses natural selection just like man does in his own little factories only goes to show another aspect of man being thought by and reflecting his maker in his creativity.Evolution is a design Process. It’s the design process used by God. A design process chosen by God to suit the intellectual capacity given to man, so that we may understand it and use it.

While a liberal interpretation of the bible does allow for accepting evolution as valid, natural selection itself in no way points to the existence or nonexistence of a god.

In short, in responding to the thread's title, "Evolution is the design process used by God:"

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages31.fotki.com%2Fv1099%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2Fbaseballpunchno-vi.jpg&hash=f2134e3c10259cab97adce556ea12b490e61124c)

Quote from: "fdesilva"Natural Selection
All manufacturing processors use a selection process to maintain standard. All quality assurance systems use selection methods to select only the best. When a product hits the market it competes with rival products. Here again a selection process is at work. Take in the case of designing of a building. The architect would come up with many designs and keep improving on the design by selecting the best attributes at any stage. Consider the case of a factory that uses robotics to manufacture something. Here again a selection process would be involved in coming up with what is acceptable. The fact that a selection method is involved would not lead anybody to believe the whole automated process was not designed. Man learns to be creative from his Maker(God). The Maker of man teaches the process of creativity by example. Now the Makers manufacturing plant is the whole universe. Thus the fact that this factory uses natural selection just like man does in his own little factories only goes to show another aspect of man being thought by and reflecting his maker in his creativity.Evolution is a design Process. It’s the design process used by God. A design process chosen by God to suit the intellectual capacity given to man, so that we may understand it and use it.

The only problem with this design process is that it sucks.

Manufacturing processors have a goal in mind.  That goal is perfection.  Even if perfection is unattainable -- as, I'm sure you'll agree, it's practical to assume -- nevertheless, that is their aim.  Hence, every change that is made to the process is in an effort to better the result.  As you say: QA systems use selection methods to select *only* the best.  The inferior is discarded.

Natural selection doesn't work that way.  Natural selection has no model for what's perfect or what's best.  Natural selection has no conscious criteria for what is superior.  Superiority is an accident of circumstance, a fortuitous result of random chance.  Indeed: oftentimes in nature, "superior" does not mean "best".

The classic example is, of course, the human eye.  It is readily demonstrable in nature that the eye has evolved through a great number of steps to eventually result in the sort we're using at the moment.  A great number of creatures, both living and extinct, serve to exemplify these steps.  But the final product -- the human eye, as it is currently designed -- is greatly flawed.

Consider, firstly, that the capabilities of the human eye are greatly inferior to many other animals.  Bird eyes have ten times as many photoreceptors and significantly more color-detecting cones.  Octopod eyes possess a statocyst, allowing the eyeball to maintain a constant position relative to the Earth's gravitational field.  Yet despite these deficiencies, the oxygen consumption demands of the human retina is higher than any other tissue in the human body.

Mind you, the human eye does have certain advantages, arguably, such as its capacity to focus on a specific field of vision without being distracted by peripherals.  One might argue that the human eye exists as an example of a trade-off: advantages in some area, deficiencies in others.  Nevertheless, it seems arguable, reasonable, that an eye could be designed that has all of the capabilities of all of the eyes that exist in the animal kingdom.  Surely therefore, any engineer setting forth to design the ultimate eye (making the presumption, of course, that humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process) would attempt to incorporate as many beneficial features as possible given available capabilities and within existing constraints.  Yet this is clearly not the case for us.

Compound this with the fact that our eyes have our photocells on the wrong side of the nerves connecting to the brain.  Consequently, photons entering the eye must first pass through these nerve connection tissues before finally reaching the photocells, resulting in some distortion.  This design is clearly not necessary, as demonstrated by the existence of eyes in nature that do not have this connection inverted.  However, this evolutionary mistake was sufficiently minor that the human eye developed this way nevertheless.

Now, seriously.  Would a conscious, intelligent designer, whose goal it was to create a useful, functional eye, ignore this simple though admittedly tiny flaw?  Next, extenuating to your argument: would an engineer designing an "automated" system for the development of a product implement a system capable of generating such flaws, or accept its flawed results as satisfactory?

Yes, but a wizard is equally capable of using evolution to create a world filled with life.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzs1.smbc-comics.com%2Fcomics%2F20080514.gif&hash=5bb7137d3dcca040723e5cb3f978e4cf97e23830)

Quote from: "Whitney"While a liberal interpretation of the bible does allow for accepting evolution as valid, natural selection itself in no way points to the existence or nonexistence of a god.

i think natural selection points out randomness in our world. how else would the peacock still be around?
and i dont think randomness is evidence of an intelligent creator. rather chance and luck good or bad.

Quote from: "Xaxyx"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Natural Selection
All manufacturing processors use a selection process to maintain standard. All quality assurance systems use selection methods to select only the best. When a product hits the market it competes with rival products. Here again a selection process is at work. Take in the case of designing of a building. The architect would come up with many designs and keep improving on the design by selecting the best attributes at any stage. Consider the case of a factory that uses robotics to manufacture something. Here again a selection process would be involved in coming up with what is acceptable. The fact that a selection method is involved would not lead anybody to believe the whole automated process was not designed. Man learns to be creative from his Maker(God). The Maker of man teaches the process of creativity by example. Now the Makers manufacturing plant is the whole universe. Thus the fact that this factory uses natural selection just like man does in his own little factories only goes to show another aspect of man being thought by and reflecting his maker in his creativity.Evolution is a design Process. It’s the design process used by God. A design process chosen by God to suit the intellectual capacity given to man, so that we may understand it and use it.

The only problem with this design process is that it sucks.

Manufacturing processors have a goal in mind.  That goal is perfection.  Even if perfection is unattainable -- as, I'm sure you'll agree, it's practical to assume -- nevertheless, that is their aim.  Hence, every change that is made to the process is in an effort to better the result.  As you say: QA systems use selection methods to select *only* the best.  The inferior is discarded.

Natural selection doesn't work that way.  Natural selection has no model for what's perfect or what's best.  Natural selection has no conscious criteria for what is superior.  Superiority is an accident of circumstance, a fortuitous result of random chance.  Indeed: oftentimes in nature, "superior" does not mean "best".

The classic example is, of course, the human eye.  It is readily demonstrable in nature that the eye has evolved through a great number of steps to eventually result in the sort we're using at the moment.  A great number of creatures, both living and extinct, serve to exemplify these steps.  But the final product -- the human eye, as it is currently designed -- is greatly flawed.

Consider, firstly, that the capabilities of the human eye are greatly inferior to many other animals.  Bird eyes have ten times as many photoreceptors and significantly more color-detecting cones.  Octopod eyes possess a statocyst, allowing the eyeball to maintain a constant position relative to the Earth's gravitational field.  Yet despite these deficiencies, the oxygen consumption demands of the human retina is higher than any other tissue in the human body.

Mind you, the human eye does have certain advantages, arguably, such as its capacity to focus on a specific field of vision without being distracted by peripherals.  One might argue that the human eye exists as an example of a trade-off: advantages in some area, deficiencies in others.  Nevertheless, it seems arguable, reasonable, that an eye could be designed that has all of the capabilities of all of the eyes that exist in the animal kingdom.  Surely therefore, any engineer setting forth to design the ultimate eye (making the presumption, of course, that humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process) would attempt to incorporate as many beneficial features as possible given available capabilities and within existing constraints.  Yet this is clearly not the case for us.

Compound this with the fact that our eyes have our photocells on the wrong side of the nerves connecting to the brain.  Consequently, photons entering the eye must first pass through these nerve connection tissues before finally reaching the photocells, resulting in some distortion.  This design is clearly not necessary, as demonstrated by the existence of eyes in nature that do not have this connection inverted.  However, this evolutionary mistake was sufficiently minor that the human eye developed this way nevertheless.

Now, seriously.  Would a conscious, intelligent designer, whose goal it was to create a useful, functional eye, ignore this simple though admittedly tiny flaw?  Next, extenuating to your argument: would an engineer designing an "automated" system for the development of a product implement a system capable of generating such flaws, or accept its flawed results as satisfactory?

Consider this.
If your eyes could be as powerful as an electron microscope and see distancee as well as the Hubel telescope, what’s your motivation to use your brain to invent either?
God gave man a very special brain that needs to be used.

If god is using this design process to create humanity, than please explain why humans are susceptible to disease. Surely a deity would want his creations to be perfect.

Quote from: "fdesilva"Consider this.
If your eyes could be as powerful as an electron microscope and see distancee as well as the Hubel telescope, what’s your motivation to use your brain to invent either?
God gave man a very special brain that needs to be used.

I don't understand this question. If we had significantly better vision, why would we need more motivation to invent?

Even if we had telescopic vision we would still want to invent ways of seeing even farther.  

You seem to be not only drawing random lines but also making up god's plan.

I agree that Evolution is the design process used by God. Great stuff, just great.

Can we go home now?

I have no problem with the notion that a creator God could have designed the multiverse to work in such a way that life evolved in our absolutely minuscule part of it. I'm agnostic about such things. I mean heck, how would I know different?

How would anyone know different? I mean, really know, not just want to believe it to be or not to be the case.

I nominate that for best post on the thread.

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"I have no problem with the notion that a creator God could have designed the multiverse to work in such a way that life evolved in our absolutely minuscule part of it. I'm agnostic about such things. I mean heck, how would I know different?

How would anyone know different? I mean, really know, not just want to believe it to be or not to be the case.

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"I have no problem with the notion that a creator God could have designed the multiverse to work in such a way that life evolved in our absolutely minuscule part of it. I'm agnostic about such things. I mean heck, how would I know different?

How would anyone know different? I mean, really know, not just want to believe it to be or not to be the case.

Precisely it is possible
My take on this is, God made the universe and the earth a little speck to teach us the concept of infinity.

Possibility /= probability.

Seems kind of egotistical. An all powerful being, created an infinite expanse of space and time, containing within it untold trillions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, each star itself a mind bogglingly complex melee of many septillions of atoms, just to teach some overgrown monkeys on a ball of dirt about infinity. I mean, people had discovered infinity before they knew about the size of the universe, before Christianity was invented, infinity can be derived from lots of different observations.

To be honest fdsilva, I am not overly impressed with your logic. It seems that you can take any observation, and say "Yes, my god did that for reason X" without backing it up by means of motivation or a specific proof that it is in fact your god doing it all.

Stop insulting me, guys.  Of course my little sand monsters aren't perfect, but look how cute they are!

I mean, flesh monsters.  I mean, uh...   I'm just a random dude playing with selective forces to make random animals, such as humans.

It's fun.  It's not a factory.  I am not seeking perfection.  It's a game.  How else do you suggest I amuse myself?

Sincerely,

--God.

I do not assume you are a livejournal member of WTF_nature, are you?
Yeah, thought so.

Seeing that the process of evolution does not always produce beneficial/positive results, do you then accept that your god makes mistakes?

Fdesilva, it's people like you who reinforce the belief that myself and others who share a similar world-view are on the right side of the reality tracks. Only in your head do the things you say make sense. That last stubborn tendril of belief needs to be vanquished in your head (otherwise why would you be here?). At which point, the myriad issues facing your brain on a daily basis - trying to reconcile your belief with reality - will cease to exist. You'll feel liberated because of it. You'll definitely be happier.

There's too many unhappy people out there because of something they were blackmailed into believing since childhood.  

EVOLUTION IS NOT A DESIGN..no matter what anyone may say period.

I'm getting too old for this.  Exclamation point.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi284.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll25%2FEvolveds_Photos%2FAtheistCartoon-TheSimpsonsjpeg.jpg&hash=1313ecc1b728edccdcc4d770a2ecb5fcd2e9b9fe)

Quote from: "hvargas"EVOLUTION IS NOT A DESIGN..no matter what anyone may say period.

That s your opinion, however there are experts that think otherwise. You may want to reconsider.cheers
http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/boo ... 40-74109-1 (http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-3-540-74109-1)

QuoteEvolution is Nature’s design process. The natural world is full of wonderful examples of its successes, from engineering design feats such as powered flight, to the design of complex optical systems such as the mammalian eye, to the merely stunningly beautiful designs of orchids or birds of paradise. With increasing computational power, we are now able to simulate this process with greater fidelity, combining complex simulations with high-performance evolutionary algorithms to tackle problems that used to be impractical.

This book showcases the state of the art in evolutionary algorithms for design. The chapters are organized by experts in the following fields: evolutionary design and "intelligent design" in biology, art, computational embryogeny, and engineering. The book will be of interest to researchers, practitioners and graduate students in natural computing, engineering design, biology and the creative arts.

Intelligent design is based on flawed science.  It's creationism explained in sciencey terms.  Only uneducated or willfully ignorant theists argue the scientific validity of intelligent design.  Your argument and the source you've referenced are laughable.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Intelligent design is based on flawed science.  It's creationism explained in sciencey terms.  Only uneducated or willfully ignorant theists argue the scientific validity of intelligent design.  Your argument and the source you've referenced are laughable.

Here is more links to keep you amused

The art of Evolutionary Design (MIT)

http://web.mit.edu/varun_ag/www/evolutionary_design.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/varun_ag/www/evolutionary_design.pdf)

Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designers (NEW SCIENTIST)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... gners.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526146.000-evolutionary-algorithms-now-surpass-human-designers.html)

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi ... 807.125832 (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125832)

http://journal.chemistrycentral.com/content/2/S1/P7 (http://journal.chemistrycentral.com/content/2/S1/P7)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... f0a4504a23 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V27-4P0080Y-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1303690455&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=872818fec0443c3a2e0316f0a4504a23)


btw I am not talking about the creationist Inteligent Design  and my last link is not about that point of view

I don't think anyone here doubts that life is extremely complex but again, that does not demand it is designed. It is not. A design requires a plan which is then executed. So even if there is a God who selected the laws which make up evolution he is not even designing us to the degree that we are "designing" different breeds of dogs by controlling their breeding. Unless you wish to reject other natural laws and assert God is directly altered the environments of our ancestors so that we would eventually emerge, only then does He play a somewhat activate role in making His creatures. Either way, it's quite silly to me.

Quote from: "fdesilva"btw I am not talking about the creationist Inteligent Design  and my last link is not about that point of view

http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-3-540-74109-1

Design by Evolution:

 Keywords »   Artificial life    -  Computational embryogeny    -  Creative arts    -  Engineering design    -  Evolutionary biology    -  Evolutionary computation    -  Evolutionary design    -  Intelligent design    -  Optimization

Really?  Then I have to ask why you would both link to and quote a reference from a book that had intelligent design listed as one of the associated keywords?  Does the book specifically argue against intelligent design while arguing for things being designed intelligently?  Can you give some page numbers in the book where intelligent design was discussed in a way that is not pertaining to the theory of intelligent design as put forth by the Discovery Institute and the like but still remains pertinent to your evolution is a design process used by god argument?

Honestly, I get the impression that you're cherry picking information as you go and plugging in whatever sounds like it fits to argue your position.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "fdesilva"btw I am not talking about the creationist Inteligent Design  and my last link is not about that point of view

http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-3-540-74109-1

Design by Evolution:

 Keywords »   Artificial life    -  Computational embryogeny    -  Creative arts    -  Engineering design    -  Evolutionary biology    -  Evolutionary computation    -  Evolutionary design    -  Intelligent design    -  Optimization

Really?  Then I have to ask why you would both link to and quote a reference from a book that had intelligent design listed as one of the associated keywords?  Does the book specifically argue against intelligent design while arguing for things being designed intelligently?  Can you give some page numbers in the book where intelligent design was discussed in a way that is not pertaining to the theory of intelligent design as put forth by the Discovery Institute and the like but still remains pertinent to your evolution is a design process used by god argument?

Honestly, I get the impression that you're cherry picking information as you go and plugging in whatever sounds like it fits to argue your position.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Let me explain myself. When I say Evolution is the design process used by God. I am implying
1. That evolution is a design Process.
2. That God Used it.
Now I don’t expect anyone to buy 2 on the basis of what I've said here alone. Neither do I know, if it will be possible to defend that view based on the theory of evolution alone.
So no, 2 does not follow from 1. It needs a leap of faith. On the other hand for a person that already believes that God created everything,  it makes evolution compatible with it.
Now with regards to 1 by itself, while I am no expert on that view, it is a view that is shared by many scientist,  as evident by the links I gave.

Evolution is only a 'design' process by accident. It has no goal and no intentions; it's just "whatever worked best".

If this is the method God used to design the universe, then he is a god that prefers the wholesale slaughter of living things as a central part of his plan. He is a god that sat back with folded arms for millions of years as thousands of generations of humans lived, suffered, and died - often horribly and in childbirth - just so that he could recite barbaric nonsense morality to a tribe of desert nomads who practiced animal sacrifice as a means to appeal to his better side.

Were I even to believe that such a god existed, I would not find him worthy of respect, let alone worship and utter devotion. I'm shocked to see that anyone today does.

Quote from: "MikeTheInfidel"Evolution is only a 'design' process by accident. It has no goal and no intentions; it's just "whatever worked best".

If this is the method God used to design the universe, then he is a god that prefers the wholesale slaughter of living things as a central part of his plan. He is a god that sat back with folded arms for millions of years as thousands of generations of humans lived, suffered, and died - often horribly and in childbirth - just so that he could recite barbaric nonsense morality to a tribe of desert nomads who practiced animal sacrifice as a means to appeal to his better side.

Were I even to believe that such a god existed, I would not find him worthy of respect, let alone worship and utter devotion. I'm shocked to see that anyone today does.

How many times, have the great artist of this world thrown away their work or drawn over it? Each new creation holds something new, evolving from the old. Great creators never hold on to one creation but always look forward to the next. Each is celebrated in its own time. Each is a cherished memory, carried forward.
The Greatest Creator, from an earthy perspective, where time is finite and fleeting may look cruel. Yet from an eternal perspective, time always is, as such nothing is truly destroyed but cherished with Love by its Maker.

Quote from: "fdesilva"How many times, have the great artist of this world thrown away their work or drawn over it? Each new creation holds something new, evolving from the old. Great creators never hold on to one creation but always look forward to the next. Each is celebrated in its own time. Each is a cherished memory, carried forward.
The Greatest Creator, from an earthy perspective, where time is finite and fleeting may look cruel. Yet from an eternal perspective, time always is, as such nothing is truly destroyed but cherished with Love by its Maker.

Most of those great artists have never claimed to be infallible, immortal beings, though.  If God is perfect, what's with the redos?  And if he isn't perfect, than he isn't the god religion makes him out to be.

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "fdesilva"btw I am not talking about the creationist Inteligent Design  and my last link is not about that point of view

http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-3-540-74109-1

Design by Evolution:

 Keywords »   Artificial life    -  Computational embryogeny    -  Creative arts    -  Engineering design    -  Evolutionary biology    -  Evolutionary computation    -  Evolutionary design    -  Intelligent design    -  Optimization

Really?  Then I have to ask why you would both link to and quote a reference from a book that had intelligent design listed as one of the associated keywords?  Does the book specifically argue against intelligent design while arguing for things being designed intelligently?  Can you give some page numbers in the book where intelligent design was discussed in a way that is not pertaining to the theory of intelligent design as put forth by the Discovery Institute and the like but still remains pertinent to your evolution is a design process used by god argument?

Honestly, I get the impression that you're cherry picking information as you go and plugging in whatever sounds like it fits to argue your position.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Let me explain myself. When I say Evolution is the design process used by God. I am implying
1. That evolution is a design Process.
2. That God Used it.
Now I don’t expect anyone to buy 2 on the basis of what I've said here alone. Neither do I know, if it will be possible to defend that view based on the theory of evolution alone.
So no, 2 does not follow from 1. It needs a leap of faith. On the other hand for a person that already believes that God created everything,  it makes evolution compatible with it.
Now with regards to 1 by itself, while I am no expert on that view, it is a view that is shared by many scientist,  as evident by the links I gave.

How many is 'many scientists'?  Can you give a list of names?  No an endless wall of links, but names with the books they've written that you've read, even if only in part.  Because the only scientists I've ever heard of who supported the idea that evolution is in any way a 'design process' are theistic scientists who have an agenda and have been largely discredited by the greater - that is, vast vast VAST majority - of the scientific community.

Also, I figured you didn't read the book you quoted and posted a link to.  Why should we even care about all of the links you post when you don't even have a basic understanding of the material you're attempting to reference?  "Look, this guy who claims he's a scientist wrote something once, therefore my point is valid' doesn't sell well here.  

Have you ever read the origin of species?

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "MikeTheInfidel"Evolution is only a 'design' process by accident. It has no goal and no intentions; it's just "whatever worked best".

If this is the method God used to design the universe, then he is a god that prefers the wholesale slaughter of living things as a central part of his plan. He is a god that sat back with folded arms for millions of years as thousands of generations of humans lived, suffered, and died - often horribly and in childbirth - just so that he could recite barbaric nonsense morality to a tribe of desert nomads who practiced animal sacrifice as a means to appeal to his better side.

Were I even to believe that such a god existed, I would not find him worthy of respect, let alone worship and utter devotion. I'm shocked to see that anyone today does.

How many times, have the great artist of this world thrown away their work or drawn over it? Each new creation holds something new, evolving from the old. Great creators never hold on to one creation but always look forward to the next. Each is celebrated in its own time. Each is a cherished memory, carried forward.
The Greatest Creator, from an earthy perspective, where time is finite and fleeting may look cruel. Yet from an eternal perspective, time always is, as such nothing is truly destroyed but cherished with Love by its Maker.

This is abject nonsense. Artwork is not a living thing. It does not suffer. It does not die. You are equating human beings with inanimate objects.

If God's actions seem cruel from our perspective, then that is all that matters, because we have no other perspective. It doesn't matter if god says "oh, you're just looking at it wrong." Any immoral monster could say the same about his own wretched actions.

Thank goodness that this god does not exist.

Quote from: "MikeTheInfidel"Thank goodness that this god does not exist.

Indeed.

THE BIG QUESTIONS - Probing the promise and Limits of Science, by RICHARD MORRIS. 2002. Here there are some good arguments and or questions that are yet to be found and answer. Though it does not convinces me in many of its parts it does gives some pertinent postulates as to an intelligent design. The fact that things appear as they are is no indication of an intelligent design or that becouse particles or matters are in the exact order that they are to give way to " LIFE " as we know it indicates that an intelligent process is in the works. We first must determine how this intellingent came about, it can't just had come out of nowhere with all the knowledge require to create existence as far as we are able to see. To implied an Evolution design process by God is an illogical congesture by which we are implying that God first Created itself as the FIRST of CREATION and at the same time while Creating Itself created in Itself the Process of Evolution not only in its present being but also in its intelligent. That is to say, the Evolution of Intelligent. All this happen just like a BIG BANG execept that its the BIG BANG of the creation GOD. After the BIG BANG of God was completed in less than a fraction of a second, then the other BIG BANG occurred which was a BIG BANG created by God that produce the Universe. This is more or less what is being said or implied when when stating Evolution is the design process used by God. First God design itself and then design the Universe. Such arguments are without facts and are non-scientific. LIKE A MASTER PLAN BEFORE THE CREATION OF GOD.

Quote from: "hvargas"THE BIG QUESTIONS - Probing the promise and Limits of Science, by RICHARD MORRIS. 2002. Here there are some good arguments and or questions that are yet to be found and answer. Though it does not convinces me in many of its parts it does gives some pertinent postulates as to an intelligent design. The fact that things appear as they are is no indication of an intelligent design or that becouse particles or matters are in the exact order that they are to give way to " LIFE " as we know it indicates that an intelligent process is in the works. We first must determine how this intellingent came about, it can't just had come out of nowhere with all the knowledge require to create existence as far as we are able to see. To implied an Evolution design process by God is an illogical congesture by which we are implying that God first Created itself as the FIRST of CREATION and at the same time while Creating Itself created in Itself the Process of Evolution not only in its present being but also in its intelligent. That is to say, the Evolution of Intelligent. All this happen just like a BIG BANG execept that its the BIG BANG of the creation GOD. After the BIG BANG of God was completed in less than a fraction of a second, then the other BIG BANG occurred which was a BIG BANG created by God that produce the Universe. This is more or less what is being said or implied when when stating Evolution is the design process used by God. First God design itself and then design the Universe. Such arguments are without facts and are non-scientific. LIKE A MASTER PLAN BEFORE THE CREATION OF GOD.

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution aside from it having needed to happen in order for evolution to occur...likewise; most of the rest of your post doesn't make sense either.  You can't say in one breath that evolution is intelligent design then in another claim it is illogical to call that intelligence god; make up your mind.

Quote from: "hvargas"The fact that things appear as they are is no indication of an intelligent design

QuoteTo implied an Evolution design process by God is an illogical congesture by which we are implying that God first Created itself [sic]

QuoteThis is more or less what is being said or implied when when stating Evolution is the design process used by God. First God design itself and then design the Universe. Such arguments are without facts and are non-scientific.

It takes a lot of careful filtering to extract hvargas's intended meaning. Sometimes unusual syntax confuses the issue and we get what appear to be contradictions where there are none upon closer reading. That's not to say he's never wrong, just more consistent that it might seem at first glance.

Something I thought of at work today...

The will and ways of the Christian god are supposed to be infinitely inscrutable... and yet we're meant to accept that believers have figured out that science is one of his methods? How does that make sense?

Quote from: "MikeTheInfidel"

Quote from: "fdesilva"How many times, have the great artist of this world thrown away their work or drawn over it? Each new creation holds something new, evolving from the old. Great creators never hold on to one creation but always look forward to the next. Each is celebrated in its own time. Each is a cherished memory, carried forward.
The Greatest Creator, from an earthy perspective, where time is finite and fleeting may look cruel. Yet from an eternal perspective, time always is, as such nothing is truly destroyed but cherished with Love by its Maker.

This is abject nonsense. Artwork is not a living thing. It does not suffer. It does not die. You are equating human beings with inanimate objects.

If God's actions seem cruel from our perspective, then that is all that matters, because we have no other perspective. It doesn't matter if god says "oh, you're just looking at it wrong." Any immoral monster could say the same about his own wretched actions.

Thank goodness that this god does not exist.

Quote from: "MikeTheInfidel"This is abject nonsense. Artwork is not a living thing. It does not suffer. It does not die. You are equating human beings with inanimate objects.

You hit the nail on the head. That is the key! You see artwork does not suffer or does it?
Now the Christian story is that all things that suffer, have a soul. It is the soul that feels the pain. The artwork does not suffer because it has no  soul. Now this soul is not material but eternal in its nature. Suffering is the medicine to prevent selfishness and pride. It is much like the surgeon’s knife.
If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers. Here is a link to my thoughts on consciousness where I elaborate on this further
http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm (http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm)

Quote from: "fdesilva"If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers.

Yes, if the painting also had the capacity for pain... stuff like nerves and a brain greatly increase the chances that something will feel pain. If the cause of suffering requires a brain, then anything with a brain is likely to experience suffering.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "hvargas"The fact that things appear as they are is no indication of an intelligent design

QuoteTo implied an Evolution design process by God is an illogical congesture by which we are implying that God first Created itself [sic]

QuoteThis is more or less what is being said or implied when when stating Evolution is the design process used by God. First God design itself and then design the Universe. Such arguments are without facts and are non-scientific.

It takes a lot of careful filtering to extract hvargas's intended meaning. Sometimes unusual syntax confuses the issue and we get what appear to be contradictions where there are none upon closer reading. That's not to say he's never wrong, just more consistent that it might seem at first glance.

And this, boys and girls, is why going to school and paying attention to "instruction" is important.....you might want someone to understand what you are trying to say so you don't appear to be an idiot  

Just making a point....carry on....

Quote from: "fdesilva"If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers.

No one claimed that no matter how you arrange atoms that the object suffers.....rocks do not have the capacity to suffer but are made of atoms.  In order to suffer you have to have something that can process contextual and internal concerns into emotion....you have to have a brain.

So, no...no one has to say a painting suffers nor do the logicaly need to take that position...mr. strawman seems to not be feeling so well though.

Quote from: "davin"Yes, if the painting also had the capacity for pain... stuff like nerves and a brain greatly increase the chances that something will feel pain. If the cause of suffering requires a brain, then anything with a brain is likely to experience suffering.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers.

No one claimed that no matter how you arrange atoms that the object suffers.....rocks do not have the capacity to suffer but are made of atoms.  In order to suffer you have to have something that can process contextual and internal concerns into emotion....you have to have a brain.

So, no...no one has to say a painting suffers nor do the logicaly need to take that position...mr. strawman seems to not be feeling so well though.

"The complexity of the arrangement of atoms in the brain brings about pain". That is what I am saying, is not true. Because my analysis of the complexity leads to the conclusion, that if the processors in the brain can bring about pain, so should all other processors in the universe.
From the paper http://www.getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm (http://www.getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm)
“Thus, free will and feelings, if to be explained by open-ended FQOs alone, would have to be a property of open-ended FQOs, in general. Then, we come back to the problem of having to attribute consciousness to the whole universe.”

If you do not want to read the paper and show me where I have gone wrong, then while you are free to go on believing what you believe, respect my reasoned conclusion, that anything that “feels” must have something that is outside of space and time.

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "fdesilva"If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers.

No one claimed that no matter how you arrange atoms that the object suffers.....rocks do not have the capacity to suffer but are made of atoms.  In order to suffer you have to have something that can process contextual and internal concerns into emotion....you have to have a brain.

So, no...no one has to say a painting suffers nor do the logicaly need to take that position...mr. strawman seems to not be feeling so well though.

"The complexity of the arrangement of atoms in the brain brings about pain". That is what I am saying, is not true. Because my analysis of the complexity leads to the conclusion, that if the processors in the brain can bring about pain, so should all other processors in the universe.
From the paper http://www.getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm (http://www.getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm)
“Thus, free will and feelings, if to be explained by open-ended FQOs alone, would have to be a property of open-ended FQOs, in general. Then, we come back to the problem of having to attribute consciousness to the whole universe.”

If you do not want to read the paper and show me where I have gone wrong, then while you are free to go on believing what you believe, respect my reasoned conclusion, that anything that “feels” must have something that is outside of space and time.

So wait, your argument is that - brains are made of atoms.  Paintings are also made of atoms.  Brains feel pain.  Paintings don't.  Therefore, the ability to feel is supernatural?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So wait, your argument is that - brains are made of atoms.  Paintings are also made of atoms.  Brains feel pain.  Paintings don't.  Therefore, the ability to feel is supernatural?

IEEE engineering in medicine and biology is not going to dedicate 6 pages, if what I was saying was that.  

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So wait, your argument is that - brains are made of atoms.  Paintings are also made of atoms.  Brains feel pain.  Paintings don't.  Therefore, the ability to feel is supernatural?

IEEE engineering in medicine and biology is not going to dedicate 6 pages, if what I was saying was that.  

So, very simply, what are YOU saying?  In one or two carefully written, clear and straightforward sentences.

Off topic but hey, whatever:

Quote from: "fdesilva""The complexity of the arrangement of atoms in the brain brings about pain". That is what I am saying, is not true. Because my analysis of the complexity leads to the conclusion, that if the processors in the brain can bring about pain, so should all other processors in the universe.
From the paper http://www.getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm (http://www.getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm)
“Thus, free will and feelings, if to be explained by open-ended FQOs alone, would have to be a property of open-ended FQOs, in general. Then, we come back to the problem of having to attribute consciousness to the whole universe.”

If you do not want to read the paper and show me where I have gone wrong, then while you are free to go on believing what you believe, respect my reasoned conclusion, that anything that “feels” must have something that is outside of space and time.

Quote from: "Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness and Concept A"Consciousness consists of two distinct components, the observed U and the observer I.

Mind describing these? Because I haven't seen a single mention of why there are only the U and I and what kind of interactions are possible or not possible in that entire load.

Also, you say this in your abstract:

QuoteA description of consciousness leads to a contradiction with the postulation from special relativity that there can be no connections between simultaneous event.

Then start the paper off with this:

QuoteAcquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. When a person makes an observation and comes to an understanding, this understanding is this person's subjective knowledge. If another person, on making a similar observation, arrives at a similar subjective understanding, this knowledge they share can be taken to be part of humanity's objective knowledge. Thus, all of humanity's objective knowledge is a subset of all of humanity's subjective knowledge; that is, there can be no objective knowledge that has not been some person's (dead or alive) subjective knowledge. Thus, an intrinsic assumption behind all of humanity's objective knowledge is the similarity of the axioms of consciousness of the individuals. The approach taken in this study of Consciousness is to define a core set of Axioms of consciousness. From these Axioms is then derived its mechanism of operation.
In order to define the axioms of consciousness a description of consciousness will now be given. One of the first outcomes of this description is a contradiction with special relativity.

It seems even when given a relatively large amount of time to go over and review your thoughts, you still end up going on tangents... in your own paper. If it's not you, then this guy has an attention/focus problem as well. The bolded parts of the previous quotes have nothing to do with the abstract.

Here is another huge problem with your paper: No data. Having done no tests and having no results makes this paper completely useless to anyone else... you don't even describe any tests to allow someone to independently verify this seeping pile of speculation.

More problems:

Quote[...]knowledge from other areas such as religion seem to suggest otherwise.

Mind describing this "knowledge" from religion? Because all I have ever seen from religion is something exactly like this freaking waste of time you called a "paper" ->) a lot of talking and no evidence.

So here's some suggestions so that you don't waste the time of other people even when you're very wrong:

1) Focus, keep the paper down to related topics and remove all the tangents going off into lala land.
2) Speculation is only good for speculating, you need test data.
3) Create a hypothesis, write it down, do some tests, then see if the tests work to confirm your hypothesis... don't come up with a hypothesis and only speculate the ways that confirm your hypothesis[/list]

Now onto the OP's topic: If god is affecting the world then we can test for it, however if god is not affecting then what is the point of even thinking the god exists? So if evolution is the design process used by god, then why all the waste and why think that our current state is the goal of that god? I mean, maybe we still have billions of years of evolving to do before we can even think about having a soul. What if mice are why the whole universe was created and god looks like Mickey?

The problem with this is that there is no point in just speculating, I can speculate from now until I'm dead and nothing good will come of it, unless there is some way to confirm the speculation.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So, very simply, what are YOU saying? In one or two carefully written, clear and straightforward sentences.

Thanks, for your interest. I am not going to be able to summarise all of it to a couple of lines. If you wish, you could find errors in this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794)

However while I have your attention, let me try to hold it with these question.
As you know the universe is a 4D object. A 4D object like any object has a shape/structure. Now if a 1D object changes shape, where will this take place? It will take place in a 2nd Dimension. A 2D in 3D , 3D in 4D and a 4D in 5D. Now is there any evidence that the 4D universe is changing shape? If yes, does it mean there is a 5th?

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So, very simply, what are YOU saying? In one or two carefully written, clear and straightforward sentences.

Thanks, for your interest. I am not going to be able to summarise all of it to a couple of lines. If you wish, you could find errors in this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794)

However while I have your attention, let me try to hold it with these question.
As you know the universe is a 4D object. A 4D object like any object has a shape/structure. Now if a 1D object changes shape, where will this take place? It will take place in a 2nd Dimension. A 2D in 3D , 3D in 4D and a 4D in 5D. Now is there any evidence that the 4D universe is changing shape? If yes, does it mean there is a 5th?

Seriously? Is this Poe's law? Are you joking? Can you even have a conversation? Here is my impression of fdesilva:

Pretty much every one: "Can you explain what you're saying?"
fdesilva: "Nope. Here's some links and here's a question completely unrelated to anything that has been covered in this thread: let's say that atoms have little planets orbiting them, who is to say that lemurs haven't already danced on the end of the spoon?"

Quote from: "Davin"Then start the paper off with this:
     

QuoteAcquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. When a person makes an observation and comes to an understanding, this understanding is this person's subjective knowledge. If another person, on making a similar observation, arrives at a similar subjective understanding, this knowledge they share can be taken to be part of humanity's objective knowledge. Thus, all of humanity's objective knowledge is a subset of all of humanity's subjective knowledge; that is, there can be no objective knowledge that has not been some person's (dead or alive) subjective knowledge. Thus, an intrinsic assumption behind all of humanity's objective knowledge is the similarity of the axioms of consciousness of the individuals. The approach taken in this study of Consciousness is to define a core set of Axioms of consciousness. From these Axioms is then derived its mechanism of operation.
In order to define the axioms of consciousness a description of consciousness will now be given. One of the first outcomes of this description is a contradiction with special relativity.”

It seems even when given a relatively large amount of time to go over and review your thoughts, you still end up going on tangents... in your own paper. If it's not you, then this guy has an attention/focus problem as well. The bolded parts of the previous quotes have nothing to do with the abstract.

The bold part is justifying my use of “axioms” to define consciousness.

Quote from: "Davin"Here is another huge problem with your paper: No data. Having done no tests and having no results makes this paper completely useless to anyone else... you don't even describe any tests to allow someone to independently verify this seeping pile of speculation.

Towards the end of the paper there are experiments...

QuoteIn this experiment a person is asked to press a button at anytime they like. The
persons brain activity is constantly monitored. It has been found that before the person makes a decision to press the button there is brain activity (known as readiness potential) related to initiating the pressing of the button. This is as
expected of free will via concept A as a change at any given time to will not only
bring a change to the future but will also result in a small change to the past. (see
fig 11)
A more complete proof for concept A can be got by doing a slight variation to
Libets experiment. If a light is flashed at random intervals and the subject is asked
to press or not press the button as he wills on seeing the light. He is free to make
up his mind as to what he will do at the next light flash at anytime but does so
only at the light flash. Then under these conditions if a readiness potential is detected prior to the time of the light it will prove the existence of concept A.

and here is a link to an experiment
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdf ... timent.pdf (http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/presentiment.pdf)
Thanks

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So, very simply, what are YOU saying? In one or two carefully written, clear and straightforward sentences.

Thanks, for your interest. I am not going to be able to summarise all of it to a couple of lines. If you wish, you could find errors in this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794)

However while I have your attention, let me try to hold it with these question.
As you know the universe is a 4D object. A 4D object like any object has a shape/structure. Now if a 1D object changes shape, where will this take place? It will take place in a 2nd Dimension. A 2D in 3D , 3D in 4D and a 4D in 5D. Now is there any evidence that the 4D universe is changing shape? If yes, does it mean there is a 5th?

So you're refusing to summarize your position (which you evidently copy and pasted directly from a single article that is posted as a sub page to a clip art enhanced selling site called "get best price.com") and instead you're asking me a question that doesn't matter?  Super.

Let me respond to your question with an equally important question - if space were made of candy, is it not true that black holes would be diabetic and given that black holes are diabetic, isn't it also a fact that the sun shines because of a supernatural happiness only found in the 5th dimension?

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "Davin"Then start the paper off with this:
     

QuoteAcquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. When a person makes an observation and comes to an understanding, this understanding is this person's subjective knowledge. If another person, on making a similar observation, arrives at a similar subjective understanding, this knowledge they share can be taken to be part of humanity's objective knowledge. Thus, all of humanity's objective knowledge is a subset of all of humanity's subjective knowledge; that is, there can be no objective knowledge that has not been some person's (dead or alive) subjective knowledge. Thus, an intrinsic assumption behind all of humanity's objective knowledge is the similarity of the axioms of consciousness of the individuals. The approach taken in this study of Consciousness is to define a core set of Axioms of consciousness. From these Axioms is then derived its mechanism of operation.
In order to define the axioms of consciousness a description of consciousness will now be given. One of the first outcomes of this description is a contradiction with special relativity.”

It seems even when given a relatively large amount of time to go over and review your thoughts, you still end up going on tangents... in your own paper. If it's not you, then this guy has an attention/focus problem as well. The bolded parts of the previous quotes have nothing to do with the abstract.

The bold part is justifying my use of “axioms” to define consciousness.

What does the "axioms" of a persons conciousness have to do with another person?

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "Davin"Here is another huge problem with your paper: No data. Having done no tests and having no results makes this paper completely useless to anyone else... you don't even describe any tests to allow someone to independently verify this seeping pile of speculation.

Towards the end of the paper there are experiments...

QuoteIn this experiment a person is asked to press a button at anytime they like. The
persons brain activity is constantly monitored. It has been found that before the person makes a decision to press the button there is brain activity (known as readiness potential) related to initiating the pressing of the button. This is as
expected of free will via concept A as a change at any given time to will not only
bring a change to the future but will also result in a small change to the past. (see
fig 11)
A more complete proof for concept A can be got by doing a slight variation to
Libets experiment. If a light is flashed at random intervals and the subject is asked
to press or not press the button as he wills on seeing the light. He is free to make
up his mind as to what he will do at the next light flash at anytime but does so
only at the light flash. Then under these conditions if a readiness potential is detected prior to the time of the light it will prove the existence of concept A.

Where is the data?

Quote from: "fdesilva"and here is a link to an experiment
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdf ... timent.pdf (http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/presentiment.pdf)
Thanks

Stay on target:

QuoteConsciousness consists of two distinct components, the observed U and the observer I.

Mind describing these? Because I haven't seen a single mention of why there are only the U and I and what kind of interactions are possible or not possible in that entire load.

Mind describing this "knowledge" from religion? Because all I have ever seen from religion is something exactly like this freaking waste of time you called a "paper" ->) a lot of talking and no evidence.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"So, very simply, what are YOU saying? In one or two carefully written, clear and straightforward sentences.

Thanks, for your interest. I am not going to be able to summarise all of it to a couple of lines. If you wish, you could find errors in this viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4794)

However while I have your attention, let me try to hold it with these question.
As you know the universe is a 4D object. A 4D object like any object has a shape/structure. Now if a 1D object changes shape, where will this take place? It will take place in a 2nd Dimension. A 2D in 3D , 3D in 4D and a 4D in 5D. Now is there any evidence that the 4D universe is changing shape? If yes, does it mean there is a 5th?

So you're refusing to summarize your position (which you evidently copy and pasted directly from a single article that is posted as a sub page to a clip art enhanced selling site called "get best price.com") and instead you're asking me a question that doesn't matter?  Super.

Let me respond to your question with an equally important question - if space were made of candy, is it not true that black holes would be diabetic and given that black holes are diabetic, isn't it also a fact that the sun shines because of a supernatural happiness only found in the 5th dimension?

Ok here is the same question in graphic form. Maybe that will show its relavance more clearly
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi150.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs93%2Ffdesilva%2FD1_1.jpg&hash=c82d49328e745ca1cbca3c388edfd8567f2783d0)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi150.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs93%2Ffdesilva%2FD2_2.jpg&hash=d6cac16d3d21f31d642d132e793e4f19a92f4b01)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi150.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs93%2Ffdesilva%2FD3_3.jpg&hash=80f58ba73d85a4d3de96c2b8a05bb4a5d9de0adb)

btw the article is mine

Why does it matter?  What does this have to do with your entirely incorrect assumption that evolution is the design process used by god?  What is your point?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Why does it matter?  What does this have to do with your entirely incorrect assumption that evolution is the design process used by god?  What is your point?

Follow the trail on this thread, here is a summary

Quote from: "MikeTheInfidel"If this is the method God used to design the universe, then he is a god that prefers the wholesale slaughter of living things as a central part of his plan. He is a god that sat back with folded arms for millions of years as thousands of generations of humans lived, suffered, and died - often horribly and in childbirth - just so that he could recite barbaric nonsense morality to a tribe of desert nomads who practiced animal sacrifice as a means to appeal to his better side.

Quote from: "fdesilva"How many times, have the great artist of this world thrown away their work or drawn over it? Each new creation holds something new, evolving from the old. Great creators never hold on to one creation but always look forward to the next. Each is celebrated in its own time. Each is a cherished memory, carried forward.
The Greatest Creator, from an earthy perspective, where time is finite and fleeting may look cruel. Yet from an eternal perspective, time always is, as such nothing is truly destroyed but cherished with Love by its Maker.

Quote from: "MikeTheInfidel"This is abject nonsense. Artwork is not a living thing. It does not suffer. It does not die. You are equating human beings with inanimate objects.

Quote from: "fdesilva"You hit the nail on the head. That is the key! You see artwork does not suffer or does it?
Now the Christian story is that all things that suffer, have a soul. It is the soul that feels the pain. The artwork does not suffer because it has no soul. Now this soul is not material but eternal in its nature. Suffering is the medicine to prevent selfishness and pride. It is much like the surgeon’s knife.
If you say there is no soul, and say all thing are made of atoms only. Then no matter what way you might arrange those atoms (make a human) and say this arrangement suffers, then the cause of that suffering, will be equally applicable to the painting, as such you would also have to say the painting suffers. Here is a link to my thoughts on consciousness where I elaborate on this further
http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consc ... tmfdesilva (http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htmfdesilva)

I'll tell you, fdesilva, until you can find it in yourself to post a straight and intelligible statement or answer I'm going to have to conclude that you're full of shit, and not worth wasting even a second of my time on. This half-baked flapdoodle you keep putting up is all about nothing but you, and I just don't find it or you at all interesting.

[youtube:3jdroggo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM[/youtube:3jdroggo]

fdesilva, this has become more than ridiculous, I don't think you have managed to coherently get your point across the entire time you have been on this forum without at least 3 pages of back and forth to clarify if you are saying something is blue or is green (for example).  This leads me to believe that you are either trolling or simply not smart enough to carry on an intelligent conversation.

So, either start learning how to clearly state your point of view succinctly without using links or I'm just going to boot you out of here to save everyone the headache.

Quote from: "Whitney"fdesilva, this has become more than ridiculous, I don't think you have managed to coherently get your point across the entire time you have been on this forum without at least 3 pages of back and forth to clarify if you are saying something is blue or is green (for example).  This leads me to believe that you are either trolling or simply not smart enough to carry on an intelligent conversation.

So, either start learning how to clearly state your point of view succinctly without using links or I'm just going to boot you out of here to save everyone the headache.

All the best and goodbye

So long, and thanks for all the fish (red herrings).

Quote from: "Davin"So long, and thanks for all the fish (red herrings).

An enjoyable Hitchhiker's reference.

Peace out, fdesilva.

Upon looking at his latest responses to this thread, I've become convinced that fdesilva is basically just another Time Cube guy.

I'm sorry but you are hanging on by a thread. You have yet to make sense and you need to stop throwing out stuff and start truly researching. If anthing with atoms could feel pain, then everything would be alive. Rocks, paper a stapler, a car, a building, all those would essentially, by what my understanding of what yuor saying, be capable to feel pain. Which is not true. You need a brain with pain receptors to feel pain. Some humans can't even feel pain, because at birth something went wrong with the development of the brain, and they can't feel pain.  The structure of atoms must come out to be a brain inside a body for there to be pain, not an ethereal thing in your body which makes you suffer.

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "Whitney"fdesilva, this has become more than ridiculous, I don't think you have managed to coherently get your point across the entire time you have been on this forum without at least 3 pages of back and forth to clarify if you are saying something is blue or is green (for example).  This leads me to believe that you are either trolling or simply not smart enough to carry on an intelligent conversation.

So, either start learning how to clearly state your point of view succinctly without using links or I'm just going to boot you out of here to save everyone the headache.

All the best and goodbye

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi284.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll25%2FEvolveds_Photos%2Fsad035.gif&hash=c925020bca2e0352bc836053361585437f541a9e)

Quote from: "fdesilva"Natural Selection
All manufacturing processors use a selection process to maintain standard. All quality assurance systems use selection methods to select only the best. When a product hits the market it competes with rival products. Here again a selection process is at work. Take in the case of designing of a building. The architect would come up with many designs and keep improving on the design by selecting the best attributes at any stage. Consider the case of a factory that uses robotics to manufacture something. Here again a selection process would be involved in coming up with what is acceptable. The fact that a selection method is involved would not lead anybody to believe the whole automated process was not designed. Man learns to be creative from his Maker(God). The Maker of man teaches the process of creativity by example. Now the Makers manufacturing plant is the whole universe. Thus the fact that this factory uses natural selection just like man does in his own little factories only goes to show another aspect of man being thought by and reflecting his maker in his creativity.Evolution is a design Process. It’s the design process used by God. A design process chosen by God to suit the intellectual capacity given to man, so that we may understand it and use it.

So this god designs through trial and error? So this god, made man with a limited intellectual capacity and provided examples of natural selection all around us for us to find out, see how they work, and then utilise it.
I cannot understand how a god can and is willing to make errors. I cannot see the point of someone to be omni-everything and not be able to get things right in the first place..
QA systems just keep the best of a predetermined set. I.e., there is never gonna be a car with 2 steering wheels coming out of a production line where the computer is programmed to allow only 1 steering wheel per car.
On natural selection on the other hand, small errors might pass, and if they accumulate in a more favourable direction then natural selections shifts to that new "product". E.g, an albino grizzly bear is going to be favoured in winter conditions (just taking one variable under consideration here). So, this albino bear, will be able to hide better, get better chances to catch its prey etc etc.
Natural selection on that winter environment will shift its production line towards albino bears.. brown ones will starve to death etc etc..
Is there a machine in that QA system you use as an example able to do this? I do not think so.
Have you ever read the bible? what have you learned out of it? Have you ever read the Qoran? What have you learned out of it?