Not just adding chloroplasts, we’ll also need things like stomata and the appropriate linkages for transport of nutrients/raw materials.

I also think our defunct pheromone system could be put back to use. Makes things easier :D.

hahaha

*shakes mith’s hand*

well said.

Wild ideas like that are of little value. I could propose countless such suggestions, but the simple fact is that only so much can be crammed into a body of a given size. God alone is perfect, and He is infinite; small beings like us have little chance at perfection.

Who said our pheremone system is defunct? I like to think that, when I walk into a club, I drag the opposite sex toward me with my aura of pheremones.

It only costs £10 too. 😉

I flush blood into my cheeks and puff them out so they look like big red balloons.

Which cheeks? 😉 😯 😳

Genovese, I see that you’re using this as an argument against intelligent design, but it’s really not going to work. There’s really no rational argument possible. Let me step into the shoes of an IDer or creationist for a second and answer your post from their POV:

"God in his infinite wisdom created all creatures as they are for His own purpose, which we can never hope to understand."

argue against that…

You see, science asks how things came to be. Creation combines the why and the how into one simple act, and leaves it at that. Funny thing being, it really doesn’t describe either in any detail, rather leaving it to faith.
So trying to take "rational" or "scientific" potshots at creation or ID isn’t really going to achieve anything besides getting people up in arms.

You’re not challenging logic, you’re challenging faith. Good luck, I say.

Only DNA? 😕 I’m not so sure about that.

I haven’t read the rest of the responses yet….I will in a sec.
But here’s my initial response.
Why should intelligent design product perfect design?
And who gets to define the rules for what’s perfect and what isn’t?

So the opposite sex has this uncontrollable urge to attack you? I’m thinking about the Axe commercials… 🙂

I can think of several outside factors that influence me to abandon logic.

And I don’t have "faith" so is my genome missing something? Hmm… 😉

Genovese, I respectfully say that your notion of DNA being the only thing capable of making us abandon all logic is, frankly, rubbish.

You’ve clearly never been on any narcotics.

Also: Alextemplet is now forever in my mind as a hooded seal. Check out those weird bastads.

I can agree with that, the word perfect never came up in the ID arguments. I suppose it hurts their argument more. The original ID argument is that humans are complex, and must have required a higher power ( more intelligent than the current humans) to have devised it, since the current science is in no way capable of such thing.

DNA/genes is capable of making people abandon logic, just ask some of the mental patients, but that doesnt mean I cant brainwash you through the media, school, as well as family to make you feel like you need have faith.

Well, it’s easy enough to say DNA is responsible for pretty much anything biotic… since all life is based on DNA. But just keep in mind that by saying that, you’re excluding any other causality (ie spirits, gods, non-dna-based aliens :D, etc)

What’d I do now?

Ever been in love?

Simple. Misinformation.

Without the DNA code to construct a brain capable of concieving of such a thing as irrationality… none of this would be an issue. We think so much that we forget what it is that enables us to think in the first place.

What I’m curious about is this: If it is our genetic code that enables us to concieve of a concept such as god, are there other animals that have similar thoughts or are we the only ones?

Parental influence.
Peer influence.
Religous influence.
Cult influence?

That’s not what I’m saying at all.

But I put the questions to you again –

Why should intelligent creators want to create something perfect?

And who gets to define what the guidelines of perfection are?

Astus, interesting question. If you want to go along with some current theories & papers, only animals with an a large cortex (such as ours) are able to 1) have a conception of "self" 2) apply that concept of self to others and the environment around it 3) create some form of cultural definitions that then collectively alienate its own "group" from other "groups" 4) enable us to think about our origins (rather than just go through the motions of living. eat. breathe. sleep. so on).

In other words, larger cortex = larger capacity for ways of thinking.

Like I said, these are just updates/modifications to theories that aren’t really old. If anyone wants me to send them articles, just PM me. But I won’t post them in the forum, cuz that’ll take up too much space. 😉

If you think religious faith is based on a temporary absence of logic, then you clearly do not understand religion at all. Pope Benedict XVI was right when he described Christianity as "the religion of reason." A logical examination of the evidence will lead one to the conclusion that God does in fact exist.

I’ve often thought about that myself, if other species have religions like we do. I think that not only intelligence is important to religious faith, but also the ability to communicate such ideas to other individuals and especially to offspring. I’ve also wondered if animals that can communicate with humans (such as apes through sign language) can understand religious thought well enough to sincerely believe in God themselves. If so, perhaps we should allow chimps to be baptized?

Think about what you’re saying for a minute. The universe, which is (probably) finite, was created by God. Common sense would indicate that for God to have created the universe, He must first have existed outside it! So He would not be bound by what we consider to be "natural law."

And who says God has never been detected? I talk to Him every day. Surely that counts as detection?

What about believing in God with proof to back up the belief?

Why can’t He know everything?

No, my personal interaction with God certainly doesn’t hold up to the scientific method, but only means that it can’t be "scientifically" proven. "Practically" proven is quite a simpler matter, since if you’ve ever met someone, then for all practical purposes you know s/he exists! After all, no one ever claimed that science is perfect.

Science is, by definition, the human attempt to understand our surroundings in naturalistic terms. Just as humans are imperfect, so is science.

God can effect us because He controls both matter and energy.

Why is it so illogical? If I create something, I can choose to create it to be controllable by me, can’t I?

Have those fairies and pixies ever been able to accurately predict future events? Or answer prayers? And in my case, the presence of God was confirmed by others around me, even non-believers.

Somehow I have the feeling that I’m not being taken seriously. 🙄

I understand what you’re saying with this. And actually agree with the idea, despite disagreements with other topics in this forum.

Alex, I was all with ya buddy (on both this thread & the other one started by genovese)) until you said this. 🙂

I think we have to take into consideration both the people who believe in God & those that don’t before making statements about the creation of the universe.

And what proof do you have? (I’m honestly asking, not being cynical).

Why does this remind me of puppets? Hmm.. scary.

Starting out in a research lab years ago, I used to clone cells. So in a sense, I created it and chose a feature I wanted it to exhibit. Was it controllable by me? yes & no.

I was simply trying to explain that it is (at least) possible for God to exist, and the statement that the universe is finite and therefore God is impossible is a logical fallacy. My apologies if I didn’t express myself clearly enough.

That’s going to be quite a lengthy discussion that may not be tolerated in this forum (perhaps it would be better in the off-topic?). I would be more than happy to discuss it in great detail with you through private messages or perhaps an instant messenger or e-mail. You can find all my contact info at the bottom of my posts.

For now, let me at least say that – in addition to other evidence – I have the evidence of my own eyes. If I have met someone, and spoken to him, I know that he exists, do I not? 😉

In my opinion, imperfection is the price of free will.

Genetic tinkering with our makeup is as dangerous an undertaking as I can imagine! Would we change us into a unisex species like was the fad of the 1990s? E.O.Wilson wanted to improve our altruism without even knowing what it is. Pity us if people start to re-designing us! That would be doom for sure!

So, perhaps we can relax that we are not "perfect." Do you know ANYTHING that IS perfect? I don’t.

Yes, if only we could genetically transform all those jews, gays, and blacks into good Arians.

😯 😮 😯 😮

Yeah, that did sound a bit eugenic to me as well.

Genetics is certainly worthy to study but it becomes dangerous when people try to push it this far, which I think is further than it was ever meant to be pushed. Especially when it’s been shown that genetics does not play as big of a role as some people would think.

What about epigenetics? It may (or may not) be possible to pass on "genetics" information that’s not contained in the DNA code at all! I think it’s very early to start tinkering with anything; we should first make sure we understand what we’re tinkering with.

Then again, some of the best discoveries have been made by "tinkering." I guess the issue would be, at what cost?

I’m wondering how much we’re already tinkering with our genome without knowing it. What are the hormones released into the environment, or supplemented in our food doing to us? What about all those other crazy chemicals out there? 😯

Well I took quite a few days away from this thread for a break.

I think it’s kind of silly to continue a discussion on what perfection is and isn’t. Perfection means different things to different people.

As for the genetic tinkering, it’s already happened & will continue to happen. Why? Because we’re curious. Despite your best efforts at fortune-telling, you can’t predict all the possible outcomes of genetic tinkering. Unexpected results & phenotypes may happen.

I’m not saying that it won’t happen; I’m saying that I don’t think it should happen. Just because something has already happened and will happen again doesn’t mean anything. Murder has already happened and will again, but that doesn’t make it right.

Firstly, who ever said that God had to produce perfection?

Secondly, simply saying that other people will deal with the threat of eugenics doesn’t make such tinkering okay. The last time we tried a policy "other people will deal with it," World War Two happened. Sure, other men were eventually capable of bringing Hitler’s eugenic and racial purity politics to a halt, but it took millions of people six years and countless deaths to stop him. Are you really suggesting that’s a safe road to take?

The biggest reason man should not attempt to tinker with his own genetics is because we do not yet understand genetics well enough to guarantee that a disaster doesn’t happen.

Nature and God are not synonymous; nature is to God what a painting is to an artist. To understand why an artist creates an artwork to look a certain way, one must you must first understand the artist’s motives and goals to know why he chose to create the art and what he wishes the artwork to mean. God’s goal in creating man is for us to love Him and be loved by Him; just as families wish to maintain loving relationships with each other, so too does the Father wish for a loving relationship with His children. Since love by its very nature must be given freely, and cannot be forced, we were given free will: the ability to choose to love God or reject Him, to choose between good and evil, right and wrong. Free will cannot exist in a perfect world; by its very nature it is the ability to choose between good and evil, and so a choice must be available. In a perfect world there is no negative to choose, and only one choice, and so free will cannot exist in a perfect world. For this reason, the world around us is imperfect, and it is up to us to choose either to love and serve God (and thus move towards greater perfection) or to reject Him (and thus slip away into greater imperfection).

Many look at an artwork without first bothering to understand the artist, and wonder "Why?" Others examine the art in the context of the artist’s motives and goals, and can thus understand both its intricate beauty and its logical comprehensibility.

You’re thinking of perfection in the wrong sense, though, in the sense of temporary things whereas I’m talking about things that last for eternity. One obviously outweighs the other.

Are we going around in circles yet? 😉

Genovese, have your questions been sufficiently answered? Or have you gathered enough opinions to move in the right direction? I think between Alex, me, & you we have covered all of our opinions very extensively.

Perhaps, time for a new topic?

When Genovese started this thread by using the word "perfect," he set off a chain reaction! It was a mistake and I am sure he did not mean to suggest that ANYTHING in our real world is "perfect."

Unless you believe in "spirits" and other mythology of the old religions, there can be no such thing as Perfect. In science, we just seek a more accurate understanding of ourselves and the universe around us. That is all. There is no absolute anything. TRUTH is merely an old-religion concept. If it was indeed attainable, what in hell would we need science for once we attained it? With it, we would all believe "the Truth" that is, in other words, we would all believe exactly the same! What kind of a world would that be?! LOL

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

What do you mean what kind of a world would that be? Are you seriously suggesting that the world is a better place when some people believe the truth and some people believe in lies?

How do you know that our secular and even science beliefs won’t be so outmoded a century from now that people who are ignorant of the way of the world will say all our beliefs are "lies"? If you can understand this, then we have no misunderstanding. If not, I cannot communicate with you.

I believe I understand your point, Charles. You are saying that anything we take as fact might one day be disproven. I do not dispute that.