GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012
|
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,09:34) | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,06:01) | Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18) | "And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."
Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules? |
Since you are now in religion: In Christian theology it is generally accepted that there is a quality to our Creator that always was and always will be, and so may be matter that changes state but is still always there. I'm fine leaving it as matter maybe also always was and always will be there.
In no way does this theory need an intelligent designer creating the behavior of matter, there is already Big Bang Theory and such for that.
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18) | Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?
Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?
Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy? |
It all depends on how you measure intelligence. Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist.
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18) | Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids. |
Not all guesses that an intelligence system takes are expected to be as successful as Chromosomal Adam and Eve were. It also depends on what you would consider to be successful. None the less having any happy life is success to be thankful for. Maybe better that, than be a prodigy who lives in a state of depression because of it. Being so driven to one thing can be consuming. In a sense miss life, have no fun. |
So, you're apparently saying that going any further than molecules, when asking what designed what, is suddenly religious. The line is molecules?
And you're apparently saying that "matter" and its "behavior" aren't intelligently designed by an "intelligent designer" and that there is no intelligence within matter or within the behavior of matter. Is that what you're saying?
To hopefully lessen confusion, will you provide definitions that you think apply to your use of the following terms:
matter behavior molecule
You said:
"It all depends on how you measure intelligence."
Well, I asked you because you're the one claiming that molecules and cells are intelligent and that organisms that contain molecules and cells are therefor intelligent, so you should be the one who can "measure intelligence" and apply that measurement and your "theory" to my questions. Can you and will you?
You also said:
"Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist."
You're just saying that "intelligence" is variable but that doesn't answer my questions.
More later. |
With "More later" I better get busy getting this online!
At this time there is no known intelligent behavior in the Behavior of Matter, else we would have to call it "Intelligent Behavior of Matter". String Theory suggest something interesting in regards to control dimension setting other dimensions which adds one or both missing requirements for intelligence to the Behavior of Matter algorithm, but at least for now two of four requirements is what the evidence shows. At the molecule level (and subatomic) we are soon out of scientific knowledge of how the Behavior of Matter system works. Need new discoveries to know more, especially how consciousness is involved.
This theory makes it possible to know what you're looking for ahead of time. And here the top level behavior does not even need to be intelligent to create intelligence, only needs the inherent ability to create it, such as from Behavior of Matter that is made of energy and all else in the earlier Everything Is Energy video that is artistically seen taking us the sparkling intelligence that can come and go, through space and time, while it forever stays going.
Where we get even more religious about it, intelligence has to start learning from scratch. That is not exactly an attribute of an "all-knowing" Creator. The text of the theory made the (as a behavior) "all-knowing" part clear so that feature is not overlooked as though the top level has to be intelligent, or that the object of the theory is try to qualify Behavior of Matter as intelligent too. What are attributes of a Creator not even found by looking for intelligence, it's where intelligence comes from that does not need to be "intelligent" to create us that such attributes are here found.
It might at first seem counter-intuitive but here the search for the Creator goes into what does not need to be intelligent, therefore does not suffer its limitations yet may be part of where consciousness comes from, conscious without needing to be intelligent to see through our eyes, and all else in the universe looking back at us, maybe. But before I go on into a Sunday Sermon from your line of reasoning.
Of course I cannot rule out an intelligence existing at the Behavior of Matter level but as far as theology and Creation Science are concerned you are here looking in the wrong place by expecting a Creator who is intelligent. It is more what intelligence does not have for intelligence to exist, is in addition to intelligence such as consciousness. Even Creation Science has problems with the Creator being intelligent thus born knowing nothing and defenseless, then had to learn then grow and so forth. That's the Roman God system where the Sun was being pulled through the sky by a rope by another God and other now known to be nonsense we can all be glad is all gone now, credit Christianity and Islam for picking up from where Jesus and ones eaten by lions left off in proving that was all junk-science not worth following. Genesis described matter coalescing from the heavens then earth then later humans were created in a way there was an Adam and Eve moment that the theory of ID had no problem finding, in the modern scientific evidence. Still works today, for that.
It's possible to believe in another level of creation which is intelligent having first created matter. But the theory does not need to start there, or requires that to be true, for it to explain what it can (such as having logic that makes possible coherent scientific answers to what an intelligent designer is by forming sentences representing the logic).
It seems you do have to get used to the terminology. I hope that helps explain it some more.
-------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|