Jump to content

"Intelligent" Design


JHAQ
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your comments here, as I understand them, miss my point, concerning what we observe here and now about, for example, the human being's physiology or that of any given animal species. We know that certain organs, brain and nervous system functions, glandular systems and sexual complexities, et al, must be in place and functioning simultaneously together for the body to live and do what we observe it to be doing.

Evolution works by modifying existing organs, keeping them working in every stage of development. The "irreducable complexity" mumbo-jumbo requires one to be ignorant of this fact. A vital organ becomes that after the organism becomes dependant on it to live, for example, not the other way around.

Whether we are special or teleologically designed for a purpose, or whatever, a whole lot of complex stuff must be in place, functioning simultaneously for the propagation and survival of the species. Imo, ID fits the ticket nicely.

IMO? No one cares what you opinion is, I'm sorry to say. Science has little use for opinions.

It's an illogical, unfair and, imo, unscientific analogy

coming from you, this comment is laughable.

We human designers usually design and make/create things for our purpose, will and/or pleasure. So with the Biblical designer in creation according to the Biblical record.

And this proves your point how?

Revelation 4:11 "Worthy are you, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power; for you did create all things, and because of your will they were and were created."

Who cares what the bible says? Save it for the religion forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution works by modifying existing organs, keeping them working in every stage of development. The "irreducable complexity" mumbo-jumbo requires one to be ignorant of this fact. A vital organ becomes that after[/i'] the organism becomes dependant on it to live, for example, not the other way around.

 

 

So is this how it works? The organism, eventually in early stages, somehow knows it needs all these glands, nerves, electrolytes, co-ordinated brain cells, sex organs, et al so it begins growing them in it's primodial soup environs. After thousands of years, with no brain or thought aparatus, all by it's self, bobbing around with other stuff (thanks to a lot of eventual lucky streaks or strikes), it begins to evolve/develop these needed parts, simultaneously (since many and most of them work in unison to function) to about a tenth of their ability to begin functioning. After thousands more years, maybe they've defied the odds and evolved to about 20% developed and the poor thing is at a loss as to how it's going to survive, propagate and so forth while these necessary parts of it grow complete enough to begin functioning. Of course it's brain, DNA, nervous system is not yet developed enough to signal these parts to do anything more anyhow.

 

So whataheck makes it evolve without some kind of knowledge or intelligence applied to it so as to evolve into anything capable of surviving, reproducing and digesting food, et al? :D Of course, then, if some intelligence was introduced/induced, that intelligence would likely need to miraculously keep the thing alive until it did become somewhat functional.

 

IMO? No one cares what you opinion is, I'm sorry to say. Science has little use for opinions.

Opinion = "A belief not based on absolute certainty..........," says my dictionary. At least, I don't act like I know it all.

 

coming from you, this comment is laughable.

 

Be my guest. Laugh yourself silly! :D

 

And this proves your point how?

I never claimed to have proof, so I use the imo thingy. What do you expect in pseudoscience? Heck, they don't even claim to prove much in what they consider to be bonafide science and you expect more of me here? LOL!

 

Who cares what the bible says? Save it for the religion forum.

 

Someone asked about the designer's will and I was responding. OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is this how it works? The organism' date=' eventually in early stages, somehow [i']knows[/i] it needs all these glands, nerves, electrolytes, co-ordinated brain cells, sex organs, et al so it begins growing them in it's primodial soup environs. After thousands of years, with no brain or thought aparatus, all by it's self, bobbing around with other stuff (thanks to a lot of eventual lucky streaks or strikes), it begins to evolve/develop these needed parts, simultaneously (since many and most of them work in unison to function) to about a tenth of their ability to begin functioning. After thousands more years, maybe they've defied the odds and evolved to about 20% developed and the poor thing is at a loss as to how it's going to survive, propagate and so forth while these necessary parts of it grow complete enough to begin functioning. Of course it's brain, DNA, nervous system is not yet developed enough to signal these parts to do anything more anyhow.

you don't actually believe that argument, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is somewhat ironic that using a full 10/10 of a brain people can't figure out how something with 1/10 could make use of theirs.

 

Take a Hydra. It has an incredibly simple nervous system. It doesn't even have a brain, just some neurons that carry information from one place to another with little processing, but they do help. Touch the body and it contracts, pulling the little guy away from danger, touch the arms and it extends to catch food. It doesn't need its nervous system though, people have destroyed the ones in Hydra and they continue to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me, is how people put it all down to the "simple" laws of physics…

 

Which proves what a bunch of chimps we all are.

 

There is nothing simple about the laws of physics…they are friggin genius…and pure art.

 

The brilliance contained within the so called “simple” laws of physics is so far above “design”..well, so far, that “design” deserves no mention at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is this how it works? The organism' date=' eventually in early stages, somehow [i']knows[/i] it needs all these glands, nerves, electrolytes, co-ordinated brain cells, sex organs, et al so it begins growing them in it's primodial soup environs. After thousands of years, with no brain or thought aparatus, all by it's self, bobbing around with other stuff (thanks to a lot of eventual lucky streaks or strikes), it begins to evolve/develop these needed parts, simultaneously (since many and most of them work in unison to function) to about a tenth of their ability to begin functioning. After thousands more years, maybe they've defied the odds and evolved to about 20% developed and the poor thing is at a loss as to how it's going to survive, propagate and so forth while these necessary parts of it grow complete enough to begin functioning. Of course it's brain, DNA, nervous system is not yet developed enough to signal these parts to do anything more anyhow.

 

Information about how evolution actually works isn't hard to find, so it's hard to think that you aren't being intentionally obtuse. If not, then willful ignorance is the next option. In any event, mocking a strawman of evolution does nothing to advance your viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is this how it works? The organism, eventually in early stages, somehow knows it needs all these glands, nerves, electrolytes, co-ordinated brain cells, sex organs, et al so it begins growing[/i'] them in it's primodial soup environs.

Strawman. You know thats not what I meant.

After thousands of years, with no brain or thought aparatus, all by it's self, bobbing around with other stuff (thanks to a lot of eventual lucky streaks or strikes), it begins to evolve/develop these needed parts, simultaneously (since many and most of them work in unison to function) to about a tenth of their ability to begin functioning. After thousands more years, maybe they've defied the odds and evolved to about 20% developed and the poor thing is at a loss as to how it's going to survive, propagate and so forth while these necessary parts of it grow complete enough to begin functioning. Of course it's brain, DNA, nervous system is not yet developed enough to signal these parts to do anything more anyhow.

Yeah ridiculous huh? Except thats not what I meant. Try reading about evolution from objective sources.

Of course, then, if some intelligence was introduced/induced, that intelligence would likely need to miraculously keep the thing alive until it did become somewhat functional.

No, if the organism wasn't capable of surviving on its own, then it wouldn't be around to talk about it, would it?

Opinion = "A belief not based on absolute certainty..........," says my dictionary. At least, I don't act like I know it all.

Mine says; "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof" (Dictionary.com)

Exactly the opposite of what science is all about.

I never claimed to have proof, so I use the imo thingy. What do you expect in pseudoscience?

More waffling. You mean to tell me you don't think that intelligent design creationism is not a good substitute for evolution, which is science?

Heck, they don't even claim to prove much in what they consider to be bonafide science and you expect more of me here? LOL!

Scientific theories are not proven, thats why they are theories. I guess we shouldn't expect more fo you, if your previous posts are any indication.

 

 

 

Someone asked about the designer's will and I was responding. OK?

How do you even know this "designer" exists, let alone what his "will" is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comments here, as I understand them, miss my point, concerning what we observe here and now about, for example, the human being's physiology or that of any given animal species. We know that certain organs, brain and nervous system functions, glandular systems and sexual complexities, et al, must be in place and functioning simultaneously together for the body to live and do what we observe it to be doing. Whether we are special or teleologically designed for a purpose, or whatever, a whole lot of complex stuff must be in place, functioning simultaneously for the propagation and survival of the species. Imo, ID fits the ticket[/i'] nicely.

They do not miss the point. You are stating that all these contingencies need to be in place or else things in the universe would not be what they are (i.e. they'd be something else). That's very profound. :rolleyes:

 

So if things had been different, they would be different. How does this imply Divine design? As I stated earlier, it would suggest Divine design only if you could show that alternate universes are demonstrably inferior; that, as Leibniz once said, we "live in the best of all possible worlds." If the latter were not the case, if other different universes were just as "good," then what role does your hypothetical Divine designer play if dumb chance can create a universe just as "good?" (Assuming of course, that the notion of "chance" can be applied to the universe as a whole in this way.)

 

Divine teleology is neither demonstrable, nor testable. It offers minimal explanatory power, and absolutely no predictive or probative value. It is not science.

 

It's an illogical, unfair and, imo, unscientific analogy to compare the relatively simple possible senarios of a living human's life events to how a highly complex living being came to exist.

I will grant you that my analogy was not scientific, but it is far from illogical and unfair. You seem to believe that by attaching a string of contingencies to some arbitrary goal in order to render it "unlikely" implies design to achieve that goal. I have demonstrated precisely where this kind of reasoning leads you. If you think it is unfair, then explain. Otherwise, your complaint of "oh well, you just can't do that" is a special plead.

 

You make a distinction between a "simple" human life and a "highly complex" living being, but I would contend that a human life can be, just as Michael Behe argues, "specifiably complex." If we believe Hitler's purpose for being was to effect the Holocaust, then all of his life's activities constitute a very complex system, such that removal of one of its parts may cause the end result (the Holocaust) to fail to be. Can you see why Behe's reasoning is specious, let alone the science?

 

"Complexity" to a large extent is an arbitrary notion. It can even be argued that complexity in design is a sign of inefficiency and poor planning. Many IDers point out that the immune system is "complex" and must therefore be designed for the purpose of protecting the human species from pathogens and harmful microbes. But wouldn't it be more efficient for a designer to do away with the immune system AND harmful microbes? It's a bit like building a car with a self-destruct device and an anti-self-destruct device, or if I were Mark Twain, it'd be like making flies to consume garbage, and making garbage for flies to consume. Evolution, and not ID, fits the inefficiency and poor planning observation quite nicely. Evolution is an inefficient, unintelligent, and non-goal-oriented process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"a - Hem!"

 

Evolution can be viewed as the path over time of the whole system..not just that of the organisims that habit this patrticular lump of iron we call home.

 

(the total integration of it all seems to escape some people).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strawman. You know thats not what I meant.

 

Note the question mark in my post. You didn't say what you meant. I'm asking. If my senario is not what you meant, what did you mean and how does it work? IDists are expected to explain what we mean when we post. Why not you? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

Yeah ridiculous huh? Except thats not what I meant. Try reading about evolution from objective sources.

 

You're waffling here. It doesn't cut it for me to say to you as a rebuttal, "go, read," now does it. If what I stated as what might be some possible preogatives of something evolving is dead wrong, you need to refute them, if you wish to respond.

 

No, if the organism wasn't capable of surviving on its own, then it wouldn't be around to talk about it, would it?

 

Nice to see that you agree that organisms must, in order to survive, be capable of surviving. That was my point. :cool:

 

Mine says; "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof" (Dictionary.com)

Exactly the opposite of what science is all about.

 

Are you then implying that scientists never have opinions, with implications that I shouldn't either when refering to scientific possibilities or hypotheses?

 

More waffling. You mean to tell me you don't think that intelligent design creationism is not a good substitute for evolution, which is science?
Please post forthrightly. You're the expert waffler here. My point was clearly that I shouldn't be expected to have proof and that I don't claim to have proof. You're wasting my time and I'm tiring of it.
Scientific theories are not proven, thats why they are theories. I guess we shouldn't expect more fo you, if your previous posts are any indication.

 

Your meanspirited statement here is implicative that my posts, to be credible should be indicative of proof. Why should my previous posts be more of and [/i]indication[/i] of proof than yours?

 

How do you even know this "designer" exists, let alone what his "will" is?

 

I post what knowedge of I am apprised of about the existence of a god/creator/designer to lend support to that hypothesis. I believe that a creator/designer exists, just as you believe in the big bang singularity, abiogenesis, NS and RM. My knowledge comes from different interpretations of what is observed than yours. Often people remind me that there can be variant interpretations of the Biblical record. By the same token I'm reminding you that this can be said of some aspects of science.

 

Cheers. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if this person behind the intelligent design existed, then he must have been quite complex. But then he must have been intelligently designed by someone else, and that someoneelse was designed by someone else! oh snap, is there no end in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My knowledge comes from different interpretations of what is observed than yours. Often people remind me that there can be variant interpretations of the Biblical record. By the same token I'm reminding you that this can be said of some aspects of science.

 

It is interesting how fanatical biblical-idolators who accept only one interpretation of the bible take refuge in a bizarre form of post modernist nonsense implying falsely that because some facts can be interpreted in different ways all science that they don't like can be 'reinterpreted' to suit them. Unfortunately science is not there to tell you what you want to hear - get over it.

 

I have yet to come across any creationist/IDiot 'alternative explanation' that did not rely on deception - leaving out important facts etc, logical fallacies, ignorance or was just complely inconsistent with the evidence available.

 

If honest sensible and accurate different interpretations are possible where are they?

 

The failure of these different interpretations and the dishonest and underhand methods used only succeed in making christians look like ignorant liars - this damages the credibility and makes a mockery of christians, christianity, the bible, God and Jesus - something not even the most fanatical of anti-christians have managed - quite an achievement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if this person behind the intelligent design existed, then he must have been quite complex. But then he must have been intelligently designed by someone else, and that someoneelse was designed by someone else! oh snap, is there no end in sight.

Not the old man with grey beard again??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note the question mark in my post. You didn't say what you meant. I'm asking. If my senario is not what you meant, what did you mean and how does it work? IDists are expected to explain what we mean when we post. Why not you? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

It should have been evident in the first place. Read it again. Slowly.

You're waffling here. It doesn't cut it for me to say to you as a rebuttal, "go, read," now does it. If what I stated as what might be some possible preogatives of something evolving is dead wrong, you need to refute them, if you wish to respond.

I can see this is going to turn into an immature pissing contest with both of us saying "you're waffling" "no, you are". See the thing is, I could refute them, but I highly doubt you will ever get the point. You are a creationist. You are doing religion, not science, and I could care less about religion, least of all yours.

Nice to see that you agree that organisms must, in order to survive, be capable of surviving. That was my point. :cool:

That doesn't mean they have to be telelogically designed to survive. Trial and error; 99% of species have become extinct.

Are you then implying that scientists never have opinions, with implications that I shouldn't either when refering to scientific possibilities or hypotheses?

No, I mean that opinions have no place in the scientific method.

Please post forthrightly. You're the expert waffler here. My point was clearly that I shouldn't be expected to have proof and that I don't claim to have proof. You're wasting my time and I'm tiring of it.

Okay then I am done with you then. You admitted that your intelligent design crap has no evidence and thats all I need.

Your meanspirited statement here is implicative that my posts, to be credible should be indicative of proof. Why should my previous posts be more of and [/i]indication[/i] of proof than yours?

I meant that judging by previous posts, you know nothing about evolution and science you are just here on an agenda, so your arguments don't carry much weight.

I believe that a creator/designer exists, just as you believe in the big bang singularity, abiogenesis, NS and RM.

Except I have evidence. "Belief" doesn't come into play for accepting valid scientific theories.

My knowledge comes from different interpretations of what is observed than yours.

What?

Often people remind me that there can be variant interpretations of the Biblical record. By the same token I'm reminding you that this can be said of some aspects of science.

Wrong. Objectivity is the hallmark of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if this person behind the intelligent design existed, then he must have been quite complex. But then he must have been intelligently designed by someone else, and that someoneelse was designed by someone else! oh snap, is there no end in sight.

 

1. The Biblical god, Jehovah is not a person, but a god, and yes, a very complex being. Big difference.

2. The Biblical account calls for an eternal god from whom all things came and by whom all things are designed and exist. (No problem with LTD one here, since all energy comes/came from him). Thus all existing energy and matter has eternally existed in some form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The Biblical god' date=' Jehovah is not a person, but a god, and yes, a very complex being. Big difference.

2. The Biblical account calls for an eternal god from whom all things came and by whom all things are designed and exist. (No problem with LTD one here, since all energy comes/came from him). Thus all existing energy and matter has eternally existed in some form.[/quote']

it occurs to me that matter can be created as long as there is zero net energy. and i see no reason to bring imaginary beings into the picture....just my two cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If honest sensible and accurate different interpretations are possible where are they?

.

 

One example of honest variant interpretations is Genesis 1:1, where we read that God created the heavens and the earth. Most creos interpret this as strictly applying to and being inclusive in day one of creation. This makes them what we know as YECs. (young earth creationists) I don't. I believe it is an introductory statement simply stating that whenever the earth (as well as the universe) was created, God did it.) I don't think day one is being addressed until after this introductory statement. Thus I am not one who says the earth must be a few thousand years old.

 

Having said that, I do interpret the Biblical account as literally as possible, being careful to make sure that it must so indicate in context if not literal. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

99% of species have become extinct.

 

That's interesting. Can you document that to be true?

 

Okay then I am done with you then. You admitted that your intelligent design crap has no evidence and thats all I need.

 

Can you document that I said intelligent design has no evidence?

 

I meant that judging by previous posts' date=' you know nothing about evolution and science you are just here on an agenda, so your arguments don't carry much weight.[/quote']

 

I've made numerous correct statements about science and evolution. How then can you honestly say I know nothing about evolution and science?

This is a blatant false and meanspirited personal insult.

 

Except I have evidence. "Belief" doesn't come into play for accepting valid scientific theories.

 

IDists interpret some of the evidence from what is observed to be supportive of creationism. One example: The lack of significant evidence of transitionals in the fossil record of the species and organisms.

 

Wrong. Objectivity is the hallmark of science.

 

Hellbender wrong. Buzsaw right. We all know that even secularist scientists do not always interpret all aspects of science the same, nor do Biblicalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDists interpret some of the evidence[/i'] from what is observed to be supportive of creationism. One example: The lack of significant evidence of transitionals in the fossil record of the species and organisms.

all fossils are transitional, so i don't see how they are lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it occurs to me that matter can be created as long as there is zero net energy. and i see no reason to bring imaginary beings into the picture....just my two cents

 

How am I mistaken in saying that any created matter existed in some form before it's creation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.