Intelligent Design in the Universe (page 2)

Farkel

Zechariah,

: You have implied that the existence of genetic defects contradicts intelligent design. This is an absurd notion.

So is your conclusion. He wasn't talking in the least about intelligent design or not. He was presenting a new way to look at the whole of life.

: You insinuate that siamese twins is an example how adaptive changes occur. Your implication ignores the fact that such defects are not regarded as beneficial and never will be.

Once again you miss the entire point.

: You do not honor the freewill God gives man

You mean like "free" to be born as a siamese twin?

: and the responsibility man has live his life in a way defects are minimized or ways are devisd to remediate the problems when they occur.

You mean the "responsibility" of having a live a life to "minimize" the defect of being born with with the brain of an imbecile, for example. Just exactly how would someone in that condition take up the "responsibility" to "minimize" that defect?

: Your obvious anger and intent to demean the creator is greatly apparent. You want to deny him credit as creator by implying very matter of factly that intelligent design does not need a creator but just is.

You can always tell someone without any arguments. They immediately attack the messenger's motives instead of sticking with the message.

: your abandoned child issues are really apparent here as you lash out against God with your name calling.

More bullshit attacks. No arguments.

: Something here was made apparent in a recent post by know_you where he mentioned he was in awe on his vacation of the natural wonders he observed. It has struck me as being true that unbelievers in God must have a very difficult time in appreciate works of art of any type.

You display your ignorance and obvious prejudices here by implying that atheists are incapable of understanding beauty. What idiocy!

: This whether those works of God are God made or man made. If intelligent design is not responsible for natures wonders then how much can we appreciate or be in awe of them or the one who created them.

What kind of gibberish is that? What are you talking about?

: Your attitude against God is the only thing that prevents you from having a relationship with him

Next, Mr. Judgemental Twit switches from attacks to his crusading soapbox.

: You are trying to create some kind of midground alternative to the creation/evoluttion debate that doesn't exist.

So what? We have "free will" don't we?

: Either we are the product of intelligent design or we are not.

Some of us are. Give what you've said, I'm not so sure about you.

Farkel

ashitaka

: Either we are the product of intelligent design or we are not.
Some of us are. Give what you've said, I'm not so sure about you.

LOLOLOLOL

Reminds me of something that was on CNN.

"experts say that Bin Laden is either alive or dead at this point"

LOLOL

Zechariah

Yes to compare the genetic code to a 'blueprint' is a flawed analogy. It makes people think that we have "a gene for" everything, as if there was a mapping of single genes to every feature in our body and mind. It is not that simple.
The genome is not a blueprint, but more like a cooking receipe. This is Richard Dawkins' analogy, and it is much better. The genes guide the complex biochemical processes that end up creating a phenotype, be it a bacteria, a tree or a human being.
- Jan

Jan,

Forgive me for jumping in when it was not directed to me but minimizing the genetic code as not bein analogous to a blueprint is absurd.

All you need to understand that is to be around a child and know his parents well. It is an amazement always that every physical or spiritual trait of one or the other parent or their foreparents is copied to the child.

There is certainly a coding for every trait however small as to appearance or disposition. Anyone that would tell you different is misinformed or looking to deceive.
The more the world of science and medicine appreciate this the more marvels they can perform in genetically combating disease and deformities.

Zechariah

Farkel,

Surely I am not taking lessons in proper etiquette from you. LOL :)

I am fighting fire with fire.

Zechariah

Ashitaka,

It indeed should remind you of the Bin Laden statement. Not that the statement is any kind of revelation but the absurdity of anyone to try to make the case he could be both dead and alive at the same time. I am just as amused as you by it all. LOL :)

Zechariah

JanH

Zech,

I am not really sure what you are trying to say. Either you misunderstood what I tried to say, or you have a somewhat flawed understanding of how genes work.

The 'blueprint' analogy is flawed because a blueprint is a prety exact drawing of the completed product. If you look at a blueprint for a car, you will see specific parts of the drawing that corresponds to the engine, the shaft, and so on. Genes do not work that way.

The 'cooking recipe' is a better analogy. When you read a cooking receipe, you generally don't always find that parts of the recipe points to specific parts of the finished dish. You cannot point to one piece of the cake and find a corresponding single instruction in the recipe to explain it. There may, for example, be instructions about roasting a dish for so-and-so-long at a specific temperature. This single instruction will account for a large number of characteristics in the end product. Other instructions may have smaller effects, some on taste, others on appearance. The same principle is true about genes.

This is why it is often futile to search for 'the gene for' various diseases or traits in humans. The effect may well be genetic, but it is the probabilistic result of countless genes working together. Yes, you do have genes determining which eye colour you have, and you have inherited this from your parents, but it may not be a case of a single piece of code in your DNA that says "blue eyes" or whatever.

- Jan

Blogging at Secular Blasphemy

Zechariah

Sorry,

I indeed misunderstood you. We agree.

Zechariah

Analysis

Zechariah

If you are going to fight fire with fire, you better go out and get some matches and some type of fuel. By what I have read of your posts so far, you are currently out of both.

An analogy that I read a few years back on the genetic code, is that it is like software. Within the DNA we are given certain attributes that dictate both our physical and emotional makeup. Then based on what happens to us in the womb and with life itself, we become the individual that we know as ourselves. Identical twins have the same DNA, but as life proceeds that have different likes and dislikes. While much has been written about the similarity of identical twins, they are all different.

Whatever ones feels the source of life and intelligence or creative design is, lets take this one step further.

The design or building block of life is found in the DNA. This genetic code has the ability to replicate. In the case of humans this replication is a combination of genetic code from two distinct individuals. Every so often the replication is not perfect. Creationists will tell you that this in-perfection is because of original sin. However, sometimes these replication errors are actually beneficial for the resulting offspring.

So in a weird distorted way we are the product of a form of software (the genetic code in DNA) that can replicate itself and over time make software enhancements to the original code. At times these enhancements are not all that desirable, but hey even Bill Gates has to come out with software upgrades.

Zechariah

What have I said that would make you think I would basically disagree with what you said about DNA. Certainly it is coding (software). Spirits still are involved in the process as thoughts are not stored in the brain and feelings are not stored in the heart these physical things are devices for accessing and manipulating these things of the spirit somehow stored outside the body. It is like a radio that pulls the invisible signal out of the air changes and amplifies it for our listening pleasure. We both can be right about the software thing that you are trying I believe are trying to discredit me about.

Your conclusions about changes in the DNA being for our good even though many times you say " these replications are not perfect." You are slying talking about mutations and trying to imply positive mutations can be responsible for the development of man.

I believe yu know how much smoke and mirrors that is. You are right mutations are not always perfect. In fact never are they perfect. Haven't you heard one should never mess with perfection. Because any departure makes the something imperfect.

99.9% of all mutations are harmful or lethal. The .1% that may appear positive like having some freakish abilities mentally or physically outside what their DNA would explain would always be at the price of the thing or persons viability for life.

Other ecologically balanced things in the body become compromised and the thing becomes diseased and often dies. Even if a mutant change occurs no matter how beneficial it may appear to be it almost instantly it deteriorates with time and dies far before it has time to replicate.

Also your theory very niavely forgets we always have to take the bad with the good. That means where it comes to mutations nothing but bad. Even the
good is bad.

Once again I am sorry if my igorance has disappointed anyone.

Maybe next time you'll find somebody with more fuel to fight with than myself. I try. :)

Zechariah

Sentinel

Hi Metro,

I enjoyed this thread. Although I do believe there is intelligent design in the Universe, I believe the creators have been experimenting for a very long time before they got "man" to the point where they could actually have something they created "in their image".

They made mistakes. But to call them mistakes may not be correct either. Our minds cannot fathom the reasonings behind their purpose. The human beings on this planet are not the only species existing, but I do believe that their experimentation with us has been different.

Intelligent Design in the Universe

Share this