Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution (UIDE)©

[arkain101]

hey man, much appreciated for digging that post up and responding ! heh. my lucky day.

[Eclogite]

FRIPRO, I am still waiting clarification of your ambiguous responses, as requested in my post of the 16th. I would welcome a clear response.
Thank you.
Ophiolite

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

FRIPRO, I am still waiting clarification of your ambiguous responses, as requested in my post of the 16th. I would welcome a clear response.
Thank you.
Ophiolite

My Friend: I would be glad to answer your request for clarification (of my ambiguous responses of your 16th) but I can not find it.

)For reference: http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html FRIPRO

[Eclogite]

FRIPRO, please refer to posts #61, 62 and 64 in this thread. (In my site view they are on the previous page to this. I am surprised you found them difficult to locate.)

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

You are being obscure and ambiguous. What did you not imply?

Thank you for your advice. In fact with your permission I have added your thoughts to my Epolog as follows:

It really means the Universe's Intelligence (as a living organism) is behind its own Design and Evolution (in a constant state of change) and It is man's source of design intent. It is man and other species hands etc. that carry out the evolution through the Universe's evolving plan. Such a plan pre-designed by a living Intelligent mind or minds. This is not religious -- but science!

This can be refered on line at:Epilog http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html

FRIPRO

[Eclogite]

OK. I give up. You do not want to answer my question. I don't know why not and frankly I suspect I no longer care. It was a simple question, yet every time I asked it you refused to answer it. In some cultures and contexts that might be thought of as rude. I am sure you have some other polite and sensible reason for your refusal. If you hope to persuade anyone that your conjectures have any merit you will stand a better chance if you engage with them, and not fly off at seemingly irrelevant tangents. It does not encourage participation and dialogue. Good luck.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

OK. I give up. You do not want to answer my question. I don't know why not and frankly I suspect I no longer care. It was a simple question, yet every time I asked it you refused to answer it. In some cultures and contexts that might be thought of as rude. I am sure you have some other polite and sensible reason for your refusal. If you hope to persuade anyone that your conjectures have any merit you will stand a better chance if you engage with them, and not fly off at seemingly irrelevant tangents. It does not encourage participation and dialogue. Good luck.

My friend Eclogite: I did answer your thoughts and I even posted your thoughts on my manuscript under Epolog. I have agreed with you that evolution can mean in (a constant state of change)Thank you for your advice. In fact with your permission I have added your thoughts to my Epolog as follows:

It really means the Universe's Intelligence (as a living organism) is behind its own Design and Evolution (in a constant state of change) and It is man's source of design intent. It is man and other species hands etc. that carry out the evolution through the Universe's evolving plan. Such a plan pre-designed by a living Intelligent mind or minds. This is not religious -- but science!

This can be refered on line at:Epilog http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html in the end of the manuscript at EPOLOG Tom

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

My friend Eclogite: I did answer your thoughts and I even posted your thoughts on my manuscript under Epolog. I have agreed with you that evolution can mean in (a constant state of change)

I don't know what thread you are reading, but it doesn't seem to be this one.

I did not say that evolution can mean in a constant state of change. I very specifically said that you had implied that evolution means a condition of advancement. Change and advancement are definitely not the same thing. Advancement is a distinct subset of change. The distinction between these two was critical to my point.

I do, however, take from all this that you believe evolution means simply constant change, with no preferred direction, or quality, or level. While it is true that evolution does not have a direction per se there is a sense in which it is considered, over time, to lead to more complex entities, or more complex ecologies, or more complex behaviours. You clearly reject this view. There, as in other matters, we differ.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

I do, however, take from all this that you believe evolution means simply constant change, with no preferred direction, or quality, or level. While it is true that evolution does not have a direction per se there is a sense in which it is considered, over time, to lead to more complex entities, or more complex ecologies, or more complex behaviours. You clearly reject this view. There, as in other matters, we differ.

Evolution, in a biological sense, is to devlop to more highly organized states. Change, both phsyical and consciously is then part of the equation. If movement towards higher states is not direction, what else can it be? Since there is constant conscious direction then there must be meaningful purpose. If it has both meaning and direction, then it must be by design. If it is designed with an evolving consciousness in mind, then there has to be a Director.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

Evolution, in a biological sense, is to devlop to more highly organized states.

Evolution (by natural selection) takes place whereby certain adaptations are better suited to a particular enviroment, and those with these adaptations reproduce whereas those without them do not. Organized states have nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

Change, both phsyical and consciously is then part of the equation. If movement towards higher states is not direction, what else can it be?

Well, considering your initial statement is wrong, it is futile arguing against this point.

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

Since there is constant conscious direction then there must be meaningful purpose.

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

If it has both meaning and direction, then it must be by design.

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

If it is designed with an evolving consciousness in mind, then there has to be a Director.

It's amazing how far off track people can get when they begin with a faulty premise. Albert Ellis would have a field day with you...