Author Topic: What can we do?  (Read 25367 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Darwins +42/-157
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #348 on: February 08, 2012, 08:38:37 PM »
It was never my intent to introduce it as a form of evidence to support ID.

Sorry for thinking it was to support ID. I thought this because the second link, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/has_darwinism_p055941.html, discusses ID as a scientific research: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php (just view the page, and click the first link)

Oh, okay....I can see why you may have thought that then.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5770
  • Darwins +64/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #349 on: February 08, 2012, 08:41:28 PM »
Sounds pretty intelligent to me and might even help explain a Genesis account for variation.

Except the whole genesis account for variation includes the god of the bible creating us from dirt, and a woman from adam's rib...

I don't follow. What's the point you are trying to make ?

I don't know.[1] But what was linked by Jaimers regarding facilitated variation. :

The theory challenges Irreducible complexity by explaining how mutation can cause unusual changes within a species. They explain how the individual organism can change from a passive target of natural selection, to a central player in the 3-billion-year history of evolution. By closing the major gap in Darwin’s theory Kirschner and Gerhart also provide a scientific rebuttal to modern critics of evolution who champion "intelligent design".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_variation

You said the idea might help explain the genesis account for variation. I say it doesn't, and I also say the article on wikipedia no where implies that it might.
 1. I'm a bit drunk right now I'd like to remove this but BibleStudent has already called me out on it: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21206.msg476085.html#msg476085m so the best I can do it make a strike through.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 09:11:06 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14161
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #350 on: February 08, 2012, 08:45:42 PM »
^^ But the name sounds like it could be construed as supporting ID to those who havn't actually read up on it.

Which means that it's a goldmine for the ID crowd.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Darwins +42/-157
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #351 on: February 08, 2012, 08:46:36 PM »
Sounds pretty intelligent to me and might even help explain a Genesis account for variation.

Except the whole genesis account for variation includes the god of the bible creating us from dirt, and a woman from adam's rib...

I don't follow. What's the point you are trying to make ?

I don't know.[1] But what was linked by Jaimers regarding facilitated variation. :

The theory challenges Irreducible complexity by explaining how mutation can cause unusual changes within a species. They explain how the individual organism can change from a passive target of natural selection, to a central player in the 3-billion-year history of evolution. By closing the major gap in Darwin’s theory Kirschner and Gerhart also provide a scientific rebuttal to modern critics of evolution who champion "intelligent design".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_variation

You said the idea might help explain the genesis account for variation. I say it doesn't, and I also say the article on wikipedia no where implies that it might.
 1. I'm a bit drunk right now

<edit: my original post apparently offended the person I was directing it to so I am removing the comments.>
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 10:10:59 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8927
  • Darwins +1130/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #352 on: February 08, 2012, 08:51:48 PM »
Doesn't the title of this theory strike you as odd? "Facilitated" implies something at work directing a process. Hmmm. This theory, based on what I understand about it, seems to kind of support Intelligent Design in that it posits a regulatory and signaling system which anticipates varying environments. Sounds pretty intelligent to me and might even help explain a Genesis account for variation. I need to read more about it, though. There have been a couple of short articles that I recall reading but nothing that provides any detail about the hypothesis and the testing that has been done. Have anything ?
You need to check a dictionary.  Facilitate means to make easier, not to "direct a process".  Sunlight facilitates plant growth, for example, but it certainly does not "direct" the process of plant growth, any more than a herbivore browsing on those plants "directs" their growth.

It absolutely does not support intelligent design in any way shape or form (it specifically contradicts the idea of irreducible complexity, for example), nor does it "anticipate varying environments" as you claim.

The basis of this theory is that there are the various core processes which almost never change because they're the reason the other processes function at all.  For example, the way in which DNA and RNA transmit genes.  This does not suggest intelligent design for the simple reason that DNA/RNA were the most efficient process to transmit heritable traits to future generations of whatever happened to occur at the time when it developed, and once they filled that niche, there was no room for anything else that might have worked better to come about.

The other part, which you mistakenly call "anticipating varying environments", is nothing of the sort; it is actually adaptation, not anticipation.  It allows organisms to adapt rapidly to an environment which changes around them, or if they move to a different environment, thus increasing the odds of their surviving.  For example, the vascular system could react to an insufficient oxygen supply in a certain part of an organism by expanding rapidly to prevent or reduce hypoxia.  Again, it requires neither intelligence nor design to function; it works by reacting to stimuli, in a way that is extremely compatible with evolution.

You really need to research this, rather than relying on your memory.  And, no offense, but that's what Google is for.  I found the Wiki article, three scholarly articles, and a Youtube video all relating to it as the top five results.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Darwins +42/-157
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #353 on: February 08, 2012, 10:05:02 PM »
You need to check a dictionary.  Facilitate means to make easier, not to "direct a process".  Sunlight facilitates plant growth, for example, but it certainly does not "direct" the process of plant growth, any more than a herbivore browsing on those plants "directs" their growth.

Thank you for properly defining the word "facilitate." However, it does not change the fact that the theory claims a mechanism which influences the outcome. In other words, there is something at work aiding the process.

Quote
The other part, which you mistakenly call "anticipating varying environments", is nothing of the sort; it is actually adaptation, not anticipation.

If viewed from an Intelligent Design perspective, the function was placed there in "anticipation" of varying environments.

Quote
You really need to research this, rather than relying on your memory.  And, no offense, but that's what Google is for.  I found the Wiki article, three scholarly articles, and a Youtube video all relating to it as the top five results.

I only asked if you had reference material so that we were at least initially discussing this topic using the same information. I am fully aware of the Google function. I will know next time to just seek out the material on my own rather than solicit a little help and guidance from you. 

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +288/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #354 on: February 08, 2012, 10:27:44 PM »
I sense that many people are starting to gain a better understanding of what the ToE is really all about.

As it should be.  Education is a good thing. 

As "Intelligent Design" gains ground and people begin to recognize the impossibility for evolution to have produced certain complex biological functions, a new era of skepticism and truth seeking will evolve.

In what circles do you see ID gaining ground?  Among scientists or among religious and/or uneducated lay people?   

All I see is a religious backlash against the fact that they're losing ground to science at every turn, and people are beginning to turn away from religion in droves.  What do you expect the ID'ers to do?  Take it lying down?  No.  You might hear from the supporters of ID that ID is gaining ground, but it really isn't.   Its just in the news some because the ignorant people are tired of being told that some of their most cherish beliefs are completely false. So instead of educating themselves as to what the ToE actually says, they find it easier to just come out fighting with their fingers in their ears.  They have no new information about ID, and nothing in terms of evidence to bring to the table... but they sure do believe it in their hearts (which we all know is the only real way to tell if something is true...  &) ). 

Do you honestly think that any scientist who questions the ToE is doing ID a favor?  I hate to break it to you, BS, but if scientists find a new theory that actually explains how the facts come together BETTER than the ToE, then you'll be in an even bigger hole than you are now.  You make it sound like any step away from the ToE lends credibility to ID.  I think you already know that this just isn't true at all. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Darwins +42/-157
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #355 on: February 08, 2012, 10:42:18 PM »
In what circles do you see ID gaining ground?  Among scientists or among religious and/or uneducated lay people?

I cannot point to any particular reason I think this could be the case. As I said, it's just a hunch on my part based on some of what I have been reading. I really think ID will gain recognition as time passes. 

Quote
I hate to break it to you, BS, but if scientists find a new theory that actually explains how the facts come together BETTER than the ToE, then you'll be in an even bigger hole than you are now. 
You might be right. We shall see. This really doesn't disturb me the way you might feel it does. I am not fearful of facing even greater arguments against the Christian belief. If God is who I believe He is, the Truth will be revealed.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #356 on: February 08, 2012, 10:56:50 PM »
Okay, I'll bite again. It still seems strange that there are religious people trying to prove supernatural stuff using science. Science by definition can only deal with the natural world.

Trying to get US grade schools to teach kids that there are supernatural causes for things seems like a really good method for China and India become the global leaders in science. Is the ID movement secretly being supported by funds from the Chinese?[1] There is no way that those governments or any European country is going to let that nonsense anywhere near their science curricula. They like their Nobel Prizes.

I also have not noticed any push for college or university biology departments to teach ID--can you envision an ID lab course? Talk about Underwater Basketweaving 101....Maybe it is because there are so many international students in those programs, paying real tuition money,  and they would go elsewhere if they were not getting real science.

But, anyway...

Suppose that scientists do discover that there is something that seems designed, say, some particle that functions in a cell. We can't figure out how it works, so we say that maybe it is directed in some way that we can't detect (yet).

1) How would that discovery negate the TOE, something is supported by tons of evidence and that can be applied in hundreds of important ways? Do you think that the science that is based on the TOE would stop working all of a sudden? Would vaccines become inert?

2)How would that discovery be evidence for the supreme being or sacred text of any religion? I don't think there is any religion that says,"and the only evidence of the lord your god will be that his name is on one tiny particle of a cell, and you will not discover it until 2092 CE after you invent the super-nuclear-micronoscope. This information will not be of any use whatsoever, but it will be proof that I exist."

3) Why does religion now need science to learn about god? I thought god was supposed to be obvious everywhere--he was in the OT. Why is he now hiding inside a cell particle?
 1. Now that would make for a pretty cool novel. The Discovery Institute as a Communist Chinese cell....Wait a minute, BibleStudent, are you the Manchurian Candidate? 
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +288/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #357 on: February 08, 2012, 11:19:34 PM »
You might be right. We shall see. This really doesn't disturb me the way you might feel it does. I am not fearful of facing even greater arguments against the Christian belief. If God is who I believe He is, the Truth will be revealed.

The God you believe He is?  Didn't you say that ID is not a claim about any specific God?  I thought you had them separated? 

It is one thing to claim that everything is designed, but another thing altogether to claim it was designed by some specific version of God.  Opening that can of worms takes you in all sorts of problematic directions. 

When do you allow yourself to come to the conclusion that science has revealed the truth, and God isn't it?  What would that take?  How about a reality where no miracles occur?  How about a reality where every new discovery confirms natural processes?  How about a complex, yet highly accurate and predictive theory that explains how life arrived at where it is now without the need for a God?  What more do you need?  I mean lets be honest here... There's more than enough information out there to say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the world really could be (and likely is) completely natural. 

How many times can you sit there and say,"Yeah, maybe THAT works naturally and doesn't need a God at the helm, but what about THIS?" before you can safely acknowledge that you're seriously running out of 'THIS's'? 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8927
  • Darwins +1130/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #358 on: February 09, 2012, 08:56:38 AM »
Thank you for properly defining the word "facilitate." However, it does not change the fact that the theory claims a mechanism which influences the outcome. In other words, there is something at work aiding the process.
Actually, no, it clearly and specifically does not suggest something external aiding the process as you think it "implies".  This particular theory is detrimental to the whole creed of intelligent design, since it demonstrates the ability of life to adapt quickly, exactly the way evolution predicts, and in exactly the way demonstrated by the fossil record, such as the Cambrian explosion.  And it does so in a way that requires no intelligent/deliberate input from outside, the way "intelligent design" must require.

Quote from: BibleStudent
If viewed from an Intelligent Design perspective, the function was placed there in "anticipation" of varying environments.
When you can demonstrate actual validity for your "intelligent design perspective", then you can expect me to take it seriously.  That means incontrovertible evidence.  Saying, "but from my perspective" is among the weakest arguments possible in science, and it simply doesn't fly.

Quote from: BibleStudent
I only asked if you had reference material so that we were at least initially discussing this topic using the same information. I am fully aware of the Google function. I will know next time to just seek out the material on my own rather than solicit a little help and guidance from you.
If you're requesting information to make sure we're on the same page, it behooves you to not simultaneously claim that something "kind of supports" what you already believe to be true while admitting that you don't remember anything of note about the actual science involved.  That is why I told you to go look it up yourself, because it displayed a particularly irritating combination of arrogance ("this supports what I already believe") and ignorance ("but I don't really know much, if anything, about it").  You couldn't have made it more evident that you weren't really interested in reading anything I could have provided with an open mind.

To be honest, that's how you've come across through this whole thread.  Even when you've said that you're willing to be open to the evidence, your approach has seriously qualified (and compromised) that seeming attitude of openness.  This is something that you need to work on if you seriously intend to discuss subjects like this with people who are likely to disagree with you from the get-go.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17827
  • Darwins +385/-20
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #359 on: February 09, 2012, 09:30:49 AM »
I think you're wrong but only time will tell. I sense that many people are starting to gain a better understanding of what the ToE is really all about. As "Intelligent Design" gains ground and people begin to recognize the impossibility for evolution to have produced certain complex biological functions, a new era of skepticism and truth seeking will evolve. But, as I said, only time will tell.

and again, since you have demosntrated repeatedly that you haven't a clue what evolutionary theory is "all about", your comments about it are simply silly.   Let's see, BS, creationism/ID has been around for how many hundreds of years now and it still has contributed nothing to humanity or ever prsented evidence for its existence?  It's so cute to see creationists like you altering your "truth" of creationism when you try mix it with the science you can't deny.   We've gone from creationists who declared that the truth was that there was absolutely NO evolution and then we have you trying to claim that that god did allow some.  Which of your "truthiness" is the right one, BS?   I do see where you finally admited that you've basically lied about creatoniism gaining ground, citing only your belief that it does.  Golly, BS, I could say that belief that the earth is flat and that's being more and more accepted.  With no evidence other than my baseless claims, this would indicate that I'm simply lying. 

Time has already told the story.  Creationists are inept liars and your desperate hope that JC will return is just as full of nonsense. 

oh and BS, those interesting links that you won't spend $35 for?  Can you please explain it?  And please do show how this relates to or supports creationism/ID?  And where it's been peer reviewed by scientists and not published only in a journal about the "philosophy of biology" rather than a journal where actual evidence is required?    We've been hearing for years on how these new ideas would replace evolutionary theory and well,  it hasn't happened yet.

All of your claims of having evidence have simply ended pathetically with you running away from them.  You have been shown as a liar, BS.  Sad that if your god would actually exist, it has such poor representatives that demonstrate that even they don’t believe in it with such antics.  How the supposedly mighty have fallen.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 09:55:31 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #360 on: February 09, 2012, 11:35:10 AM »
How about a complex, yet highly accurate and predictive theory that explains how life arrived at where it is now without the need for a God? 

If you're referring to the Theory of Evolution as being complex I'd have to disagree, isn't its beauty in the fact that it's such a simple and elegant theory, but it encompasses and describes a vast biological system ?

rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Darwins +42/-157
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #361 on: February 09, 2012, 12:16:56 PM »
Actually, no, it clearly and specifically does not suggest something external aiding the process as you think it "implies".  This particular theory is detrimental to the whole creed of intelligent design, since it demonstrates the ability of life to adapt quickly, exactly the way evolution predicts, and in exactly the way demonstrated by the fossil record, such as the Cambrian explosion.  And it does so in a way that requires no intelligent/deliberate input from outside, the way "intelligent design" must require.

I completely disagree with you. Contrary to what the ToE claims, there is nothing random or unguided in a living organism’s ability to develop the mechanisms and controls for adaptation when it cannot know that adapting to different environments is necessary. This is not just some accidental development. The theory comes awfully close to suggesting an element of intellect at work capable of storing information for future use when necessary. And this says nothing of the biological processes that would have been required to even develop these mechanisms and controls. Although the Wiki article you linked to indicates this theory refutes ID, I think it does quite the opposite.

I find it rather peculiar, given its plausibility, that the theory hasn’t received more attention. I suspect it may be because it excludes the level of random mutation which is so embedded in evolutionary thinking that it will take time. On the other hand, it could be because many are seeing it the same way I am?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Darwins +42/-157
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #362 on: February 09, 2012, 12:20:41 PM »
oh and BS, those interesting links that you won't spend $35 for?  Can you please explain it?  And please do show how this relates to or supports creationism/ID? 

This article was not offered as a means for supporting ID and I've already had to explain that to someone else (who subsequently acknowledged their error). I introduced it because of a conversation I was having with someone else about the future of the ToE.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17827
  • Darwins +385/-20
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #363 on: February 09, 2012, 12:32:41 PM »
oh and BS, those interesting links that you won't spend $35 for?  Can you please explain it?  And please do show how this relates to or supports creationism/ID? 

This article was not offered as a means for supporting ID and I've already had to explain that to someone else (who subsequently acknowledged their error). I introduced it because of a conversation I was having with someone else about the future of the ToE.

And of course you have not a clue about what it says.   You have presented it as a rebutal to the theory of evolution in order to try to support your claims that creationism is true and is the replacement for evolutionary theory.  The future of evolutionary theory seems to be quite healthy, but of course you wouldn't know this since you have yet to comprehend what evolutionary theory is. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Darwins +42/-157
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #364 on: February 09, 2012, 12:49:42 PM »
But, anyway...

Suppose that scientists do discover that there is something that seems designed, say, some particle that functions in a cell. We can't figure out how it works, so we say that maybe it is directed in some way that we can't detect (yet).

1) How would that discovery negate the TOE, something is supported by tons of evidence and that can be applied in hundreds of important ways? Do you think that the science that is based on the TOE would stop working all of a sudden? Would vaccines become inert?

Despite what many claim, Intelligent Design is not interested in negating the entirety of the ToE. Rather,  it offers a scientific alternative view for explaining how complex life came to be.
Quote
2)How would that discovery be evidence for the supreme being or sacred text of any religion? I don't think there is any religion that says,"and the only evidence of the lord your god will be that his name is on one tiny particle of a cell, and you will not discover it until 2092 CE after you invent the super-nuclear-micronoscope. This information will not be of any use whatsoever, but it will be proof that I exist."
The primary claim of ID is that the complexity and fine tuning we see in our world occurred as a result of  intelligent direction. Unless some other scientific discipline can prove that life arose and developed as a result of some other process or event, ID presents a plausible alternative view.  The answer to your question would best be addressed from a philosophical or theological standpoint and already explained my own personal view earlier in this thread.
Quote
3) Why does religion now need science to learn about god? I thought god was supposed to be obvious everywhere--he was in the OT. Why is he now hiding inside a cell particle?
ID does not help us learn about God in the sense that I think you are asking. At best, depending on how you want to apply what ID science offers, it helps us get a closer look at the level of complexity and intricate detail of the world we live in. 

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Darwins +42/-157
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #365 on: February 09, 2012, 12:52:28 PM »
oh and BS, those interesting links that you won't spend $35 for?  Can you please explain it?  And please do show how this relates to or supports creationism/ID? 

This article was not offered as a means for supporting ID and I've already had to explain that to someone else (who subsequently acknowledged their error). I introduced it because of a conversation I was having with someone else about the future of the ToE.

And of course you have not a clue about what it says.   You have presented it as a rebutal to the theory of evolution in order to try to support your claims that creationism is true and is the replacement for evolutionary theory.  The future of evolutionary theory seems to be quite healthy, but of course you wouldn't know this since you have yet to comprehend what evolutionary theory is.

 &)

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14633
  • Darwins +604/-62
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #366 on: February 09, 2012, 12:55:28 PM »
BibleStudent, here are a few points for you to think about:

DNA - Hopelessly flawed. Random mutations occur, which have resulted in the painful deaths of millions, if not billions. There are genes shared across species, some of which result in atavism. According to ID, this should not occur because, as its name indicates, we should be intelligently designed, not designed by a bunch of monkeys banging rocks together. According to evolution, it should occur.

The human body - Same thing. Air and food go through the same tube (up to a certain point) which has also resulted in the painful and pointless deaths of millions. Vestigial tails, the appendix, a skeleton that cannot support our weight if we walk upright and becomes deformed if we do not... The list of flaws is enormous. Once again, ID does not explain this. Evolution does.

The brain - It is capable of creating false memories, can't store the real ones, makes us see and hear things, breaks down, doesn't like to be wrong (sometimes resulting in denial which, coincidentally, is what you're doing), is easily damaged, consumes a ridiculous amount of resources... ID offers no explanation for this. Evolution does.

Think about that.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Darwins +42/-157
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #367 on: February 09, 2012, 01:17:01 PM »
BibleStudent, here are a few points for you to think about:

DNA - Hopelessly flawed. Random mutations occur, which have resulted in the painful deaths of millions, if not billions. There are genes shared across species, some of which result in atavism. According to ID, this should not occur because, as its name indicates, we should be intelligently designed, not designed by a bunch of monkeys banging rocks together. According to evolution, it should occur.

The human body - Same thing. Air and food go through the same tube (up to a certain point) which has also resulted in the painful and pointless deaths of millions. Vestigial tails, the appendix, a skeleton that cannot support our weight if we walk upright and becomes deformed if we do not... The list of flaws is enormous. Once again, ID does not explain this. Evolution does.

The brain - It is capable of creating false memories, can't store the real ones, makes us see and hear things, breaks down, doesn't like to be wrong (sometimes resulting in denial which, coincidentally, is what you're doing), is easily damaged, consumes a ridiculous amount of resources... ID offers no explanation for this. Evolution does.

Think about that.

Intelligent Design does not imply nor promote "perfect" design....which is what you are using as an argument against it.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14633
  • Darwins +604/-62
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #368 on: February 09, 2012, 01:18:59 PM »
Intelligent Design does not imply nor promote "perfect" design....which is what you are using as an argument against it.

But it does imply "intelligent" design, not "utterly stupid" design. If we are capable of seeing the flaws in the design, then it's not very intelligent, is it?
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14161
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #369 on: February 09, 2012, 01:20:56 PM »
A stupid being still has intelligence.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14633
  • Darwins +604/-62
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #370 on: February 09, 2012, 01:28:00 PM »
A stupid being still has intelligence.

Fair enough. But at least it discredits any claim that a supreme being was the designer, unless the theists wish to apply the same logic to their deity.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14161
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #371 on: February 09, 2012, 01:29:21 PM »
Since YHWH (as described in the bible) isn't a particularly intelligent deity, he doesn't get ruled out by instances of crappy design.

Of course, "crappy design" and "non-design" tend to look similar.  And then there's the fact that according to ID, we've never, ever seen something that's not designed, so the claim that something "looks designed" is disingenous from the outset.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3185
  • Darwins +42/-157
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #372 on: February 09, 2012, 01:32:32 PM »
A stupid being still has intelligence.

Fair enough. But at least it discredits any claim that a supreme being was the designer, unless the theists wish to apply the same logic to their deity.

Factor in, too, at least in the Christian belief, that these "defects" were not part of the original design. Things went wrong and got corrupted.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #373 on: February 09, 2012, 01:33:09 PM »
I've got a question, BibleStudent.

Was this designed?


I ask because, I cannot always tell just by looking what is designed and what wasn't.  This looks kinda designed, but I am not sure.  What are the rules?  How can you tell just by looking what was and wasn't?

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #374 on: February 09, 2012, 01:34:01 PM »
Factor in, too, at least in the Christian belief, that these "defects" were not part of the original design. Things went wrong and got corrupted.

If the originals were not defective in the first place, then things would not have gone wrong.
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14633
  • Darwins +604/-62
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #375 on: February 09, 2012, 01:35:01 PM »
Factor in, too, at least in the Christian belief, that these "defects" were not part of the original design. Things went wrong and got corrupted.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. According to christian mythology, living beings are static. No random mutations. ID is guided. Defects only occur if the designer is an idiot or if it doesn't care about the state of the design or if it wants defects to exist.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline naemhni

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4377
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #376 on: February 09, 2012, 01:35:16 PM »
Factor in, too, at least in the Christian belief, that these "defects" were not part of the original design. Things went wrong and got corrupted.

Really?  That's interesting.  So does that mean that the openings to the esophagus and the trachea were in different locations before Adam and Eve ate the fruit?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn