Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (4359)	3/22/2002 11:11:25 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Respond to of 21057

Very well stated, Bland. Whether one calls it "intentionality," "intelligent design," or a "Divine hand," I too think it is eminently rational and logical to believe in purposefulness, rather than randomness, as the nature of our existence. We know that the dimensions of our existence must be either finite or infinite, and we also know that we are not able to comprehend either possibility. That, logically, tells us that the nature of our existence must lie beyond and outside of what we can know with our five senses and our brains. Thus, it is neither rational nor logical to reject the hypothesis of intentionality in favor of that of randomness. To do so could never be more than a guess, rather than a reasoned conclusion. If we cannot reject either hypothesis, then it is as rational and logical to accept the one, as it is to accept the other. JC

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (4359)	3/23/2002 12:21:08 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

The fact that different species have developed the means to fly doesn't, to me, at all obviate the "intentionality" of flying and the purposiveness of "wings". To the contrary, imho. I don't believe wings are accidental or random...that's more or less my whole point. OK, I'll try again, briefly. Movement which approaches flight has been found in every major animal group which has made it out of water. We can see different stages of this adaptation in different animals, at different times. There is benefit to the animal with the adaptation, and the benefit aids survival so the mutation survives. The non-beneficial adaptations do not survive. E.g., the light-coloured pepper moth nearly died out in the Industrial Revolution, as air pollution grew, because it was too visible to predators: but then recovered in the UK after various laws on air pollution and fuel burning saw an end to smog. This is documented within a 200-year period... you want to doubt millions of years? It need not be 'intentional' any more than it's intentional that cows are good at digesting grass. Suppose you're looking at a series of die rolls which ran 6,3,2,4,2,3,2,5,1,5,5,6,2,3,1,6,4 - is that 'intentional'? It's what happened, and the result is what we see. Genetic adaptation via bisexual reproduction works for rapid change, hence it is so common in animals. Why invoke an invisible, indetectable, incomprehensible agent directing these changes to some unknowable aim? If it can't be proven, or disproven, and it won't help - why invent it?