• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How does you view explain the stunning designs in nature?

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The designer of the English Olympic bicycle which broke 7 Olympic records and many medals the first year used noted that the knee is 50 times more efficient Stuart Birgess went on to comment that the knee is hydraulically lubricated under slow conditions and low pressure whereas our best technology would require high pressure and high speed for such.

How does your view explain such?

Some evolutionists say evolution will lead to a necessary function and no more. How might you explain the stunning beauty and efficiency seen in creation? It's the 'bees knees' compared to the techno gear boxes it would appear.

Against The Grain: 'There are strong indications of intelligent
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
The designer of the English Olympic bicycle which broke 7 Olympic records and many medals the first year used noted that the knee is 50 times more efficient Stuart Birgess went on to comment that the knee is hydraulically lubricated under slow conditions and low pressure whereas our best technology would require high pressure and high speed for such.

How does your view explain such?

Some evolutionists say evolution will lead to a necessary function and no more. How might you explain the stunning beauty and efficiency seen in creation? It's the 'bees knees' compared to the techno gear boxes it would appear.

Against The Grain: 'There are strong indications of intelligent
That is a necessary function and nothing more. How else would the gentleman be able to run effectively?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The designer of the English Olympic bicycle which broke 7 Olympic records and many medals the first year used noted that the knee is 50 times more efficient Stuart Birgess went on to comment that the knee is hydraulically lubricated under slow conditions and low pressure whereas our best technology would require high pressure and high speed for such.

How does your view explain such?

Some evolutionists say evolution will lead to a necessary function and no more. How might you explain the stunning beauty and efficiency seen in creation? It's the 'bees knees' compared to the techno gear boxes it would appear.

Against The Grain: 'There are strong indications of intelligent
i would have to agree with the report.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Why would you not also ask about those bits of the "design" that are far less than perfect or beautiful? For example, our evolution to walking upright has made the spine quite unsound, and some 80% of people have real problems with it. Exposed testicles can be a real pain -- ask any guy who plays sports, and our crowded teeth (from shortening of our jaw) leads to those third molars (the "wisdom teeth"), which may have been useful before we learned to cook and process food, now mostly targets for painful and expensive extractions.

Only looking at the bits of evidence that support your hypothesis, while ignoring everything else, isn't really very honest.
 
Why would you not also ask about those bits of the "design" that are far less than perfect or beautiful? For example, our evolution to walking upright has made the spine quite unsound, and some 80% of people have real problems with it. Exposed testicles can be a real pain -- ask any guy who plays sports, and our crowded teeth (from shortening of our jaw) leads to those third molars (the "wisdom teeth"), which may have been useful before we learned to cook and process food, now mostly targets for painful and expensive extractions.

Only looking at the bits of evidence that support your hypothesis, while ignoring everything else, isn't really very honest.

Only looking at the bits of evidence that support your hypotheses of showing pain, while ignoring everything else, isnt really very honest. ;)
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Only looking at the bits of evidence that support your hypotheses of showing pain, while ignoring everything else, isnt really very honest. ;)
Well, since you've accused me of it, I'm expecting to see the evidence laid out. What "bits of evidence that support [my] hypothesis of showing pain" are you referring to, and what is the "everything else" that I have ignored?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Science is one thing. Belief is another. I'm perfectly happy to say that "God is who". (theology/belief). Evolution is how" (science)

I'm not bothered by atheists who don't believe in the "God is who" part or who assert that somethings don't look very intelligently designed.

I disagree with believers who ignore the science because of their beliefs.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The designer of the English Olympic bicycle which broke 7 Olympic records and many medals the first year used noted that the knee is 50 times more efficient Stuart Birgess went on to comment that the knee is hydraulically lubricated under slow conditions and low pressure whereas our best technology would require high pressure and high speed for such.

How does your view explain such?

Some evolutionists say evolution will lead to a necessary function and no more. How might you explain the stunning beauty and efficiency seen in creation? It's the 'bees knees' compared to the techno gear boxes it would appear.

Against The Grain: 'There are strong indications of intelligent
While I appreciate beauty and the aesthetics of nature, I try to be careful not to romanticize it.

What we see as beauty are actually some very hardcore survival mechanisms that had evolved with various species. Beauty and attractiveness does play a role when it comes to survival of the fittest.

It's not really design, it's more of practicality that gives one species and edge over another.

Have you ever noticed what we consider the most beautiful, oftentimes is the most deadly?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The designer of the English Olympic bicycle which broke 7 Olympic records and many medals the first year used noted that the knee is 50 times more efficient Stuart Birgess went on to comment that the knee is hydraulically lubricated under slow conditions and low pressure whereas our best technology would require high pressure and high speed for such.

How does your view explain such?

Some evolutionists say evolution will lead to a necessary function and no more. How might you explain the stunning beauty and efficiency seen in creation? It's the 'bees knees' compared to the techno gear boxes it would appear.

Against The Grain: 'There are strong indications of intelligent
One of the biggest instances of ignorance among theistic intelligent design proponents is that things in nature are never designed and assembled. It just doesn't happen. Ever.

What we see comes about through relationships, whether it's organic and /or inorganic material. Things aren't designed in nature , rather they come out of nature into the variety of forms we see.

We see the ongoing process already to this day, as it always is, and there is absolutely no designer involved whatsoever.
 
Well, since you've accused me of it, I'm expecting to see the evidence laid out. What "bits of evidence that support [my] hypothesis of showing pain" are you referring to, and what is the "everything else" that I have ignored?

You did not catch that i used your own tactic against you.

You ignored the evidence in the OP.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
You did not catch that i used your own tactic against you.

You ignored the evidence in the OP.
No, I did not. I saw the "evidence," and then asked myself if it is really "evidence" of what it says it is. And it isn't.

In fact, I think I should point out that the knee is actually quite inferior as a joint as it is, and that is the reason that most sports (except maybe rugby) makes it illegal to clip, or hit an opponent’s knee from the side. That would be an easy fix by replacing that hinge with a ball and socket, like in your shoulders and hips. Well, of course, that didn't happen because evolution didn't know about football.
 
No, I did not. I saw the "evidence," and then asked myself if it is really "evidence" of what it says it is. And it isn't.

In fact, I think I should point out that the knee is actually quite inferior as a joint as it is, and that is the reason that most sports (except maybe rugby) makes it illegal to clip, or hit an opponent’s knee from the side. That would be an easy fix by replacing that hinge with a ball and socket, like in your shoulders and hips. Well, of course, that didn't happen because evolution didn't know about football.

By your logic a tire blow out is evidence that tires arent designed.

Its the same rational your using.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The designer of the English Olympic bicycle which broke 7 Olympic records and many medals the first year used noted that the knee is 50 times more efficient Stuart Birgess went on to comment that the knee is hydraulically lubricated under slow conditions and low pressure whereas our best technology would require high pressure and high speed for such.

How does your view explain such?

Some evolutionists say evolution will lead to a necessary function and no more. How might you explain the stunning beauty and efficiency seen in creation? It's the 'bees knees' compared to the techno gear boxes it would appear.

Against The Grain: 'There are strong indications of intelligent
I can share some of my philosophy for free!:

If there are ni objects with nj thoughts and mi objects with mj thoughts, they are in the ratio of ni*nj:mi*mj. For example, how many thoughts are typically on a gold atom and other atoms and combinations. The Earth is like a huge computer for human and computer thoughts about the past and future and expanse and what to do. Humans either get wiped out or spread out, and to spread out we have to be optimal.

The reason for the ratio is that a Universe with n thoughts vs a Universe with m thoughts then a being has an n/(n+m) chance of being in the first one.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
How does you view explain the stunning designs in nature?

My view explains this through evolution and the intelligent design of nature spirits.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
By your logic a tire blow out is evidence that tires arent designed.

Its the same rational your using.
Your reasoning is really quite flawed.

This thread began with the premise that "some things are so wonderful that it means they must have been designed." I countered with, "don't just look at the wonderful, look at it all." I did not say, at any time, that anything was or was not designed...only that wonderfulness, or failure, isn't evidence either way.

But I also said, and this is important, if you're going to use the wonderful, you should not ignore the not-so-wonderful...and see if it leads you to the same conclusion.
 
Your reasoning is really quite flawed.

This thread began with the premise that "some things are so wonderful that it means they must have been designed." I countered with, "don't just look at the wonderful, look at it all." I did not say, at any time, that anything was or was not designed...only that wonderfulness, or failure, isn't evidence either way.

But I also said, and this is important, if you're going to use the wonderful, you should not ignore the not-so-wonderful...and see if it leads you to the same conclusion.

If it was all wondetfull, would you consider it evidence then?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
If it was all wondetfull, would you consider it evidence then?
Once again, that is not the point.

What you fail to see is from the other side of the divide: that our bodies may appear miraculous, that the blue of the sky is something wonderful, that flowers are beautiful (and sometimes stinky and ugly) -- none of those things says anything about creation. What we find beautiful is what we are adapted to find beautiful. What we find ugly or distasteful is likewise an adaption...helping us to avoid making ourselves sick or getting into trouble.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
How does your view explain such?
Why do you presume I hold a view that requires that to be explained?

Some evolutionists say evolution will lead to a necessary function and no more. How might you explain the stunning beauty and efficiency seen in creation?
I very much doubt they do. Evolution would naturally lead to more efficient and effective function. There is no mechanism that would somehow stop it at the minimum necessary. There are also added complications of constantly changing environments and overlapping functions and requirements. To take the “knees” example, they perform multiple functions and are used by different people in different ways, something that can vary significantly depending on our lifestyles.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so can’t really be quantified and measured in this way at all. There’s no reason something created will necessarily be perceived as more or less beautiful than something evolved or entirely random.

As for that link, I’d argue it opens with two falsehoods. “Intelligent Design” isn’t as valid as evolutionary theory because ID isn’t anything like as well defined or developed. Evolution is far from conclusive or definitive but there is vast swathes of work looking in to the specific mechanisms and processes involved. Many of the individual processes have been established even though the full end-to-end theory has not. Without any kind of clearly defined creator or mechanisms by which they’re proposed to have operated, ID has nowhere to go. It remains entirely speculative.

The second problem is the claim that science rules out the possibility of a creator. Science doesn’t rule anything out. If a specific hypothesis for a creator was defined and evidence presented to support that hypothesis, it would be perfectly valid science. None of that has been done though. Indeed, many proposed creators are defined as being specifically impossible to prove via scientific means. That isn’t science ruling anything out, it is proponents of creators ruling science out.

It also implies the myth that ID and evolutionary theory are opposites, that challenging one automatically supports the other and that it would be impossible for both to be valid at the same time. And they accuse others of being unwilling to accept alternative possibilities. :cool:
 
Top