Author Topic: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread  (Read 1036 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« on: January 23, 2014, 02:22:47 PM »
This thread is for non-participants to comment on the debate.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2014, 04:17:50 PM »
bm
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2014, 04:41:41 PM »
Shotgunning with Jargon...a standard tactic of Underwear Gnomes Theism
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11208
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2014, 04:44:55 PM »
Shotgunning with Jargon...a standard tactic of Underwear Gnomes Theism

I trusted Godexists knew what he/she was talking about. Perhaps that was a mistake.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2014, 04:47:34 PM »
I wonder if the appendix is a transitional "organ" that may either have been useful at some point in the past or will evolve into something useful in the future...................

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11208
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2014, 04:52:32 PM »
I wonder if the appendix is a transitional "organ" that may either have been useful at some point in the past or will evolve into something useful in the future...................

Hey now, let's just let Godexists make his/her argument. As you may have noticed, I haven't made an argument yet. Or at least not a major one.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5247
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2014, 05:06:33 PM »
^^^^Which is exactly what he's been trying to do in the thread he started.  For example, a recent example of an "intelligently designed" molecule is the ATP synthase enzyme.  Apparently, they are calling it a "nano-motor", I guess to make it sound more like a designed machine.  When I first saw the term, I assumed it was something like a flagellum - which is why Godexists needs to start defining his terms instead of just tossing them out in a mishmash.  The gist of it is to point in awe at ATP synthase and ask how something like it could possibly have happened unless it was designed, which is a typical incredulity fallacy.

They did the same thing with the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting mechanism, at least until scientists were able to prove that subunits of both of these were perfectly functional on their own.  Now they've fastened on ATP synthase and several other things, again declaring that there's no use trying to figure out how sub-units of these molecules could work, so they must have been designed.  After the utter failure of their earlier attempts with the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting, the only question I have is how long it will be before scientists manage to disassemble their latest efforts.

Which won't stop them from capering about, preemptively declaring victory because scientists don't have an answer for them right now.  I wish they could see just how they look with such antics.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2014, 05:09:24 PM »

Which won't stop them from capering about, preemptively declaring victory because scientists don't have an answer for them right now.  I wish they could see just how they look with such antics.

They know how they look, admirable in the eyes of their credulous audience.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5247
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2014, 08:32:21 PM »
I don't think Godexists understands the concept of a debate.

He also doesn't apparently understand the idea that if he's going to introduce things (like the "nano-motor") into a debate, he has to give examples as well as show evidence to support it being intelligently designed.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11208
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2014, 08:35:22 PM »
He also doesn't apparently understand the idea that if he's going to introduce things (like the "nano-motor") into a debate, he has to give examples as well as show evidence to support it being intelligently designed.

Apparently he didn't pay attention to the rules he gave me the freedom to choose. Oh well. I was looking forward to my second one-on-one debate. I guess I expected too much.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Online xyzzy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • "Nothing happens"
    • xyzzy
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2014, 09:16:00 PM »
So godexists' idea of a debate on intelligent design is to ask a layman for what is likely a doctoral level explanation of various aspects of evolutionary biology, despite admitting to not having the educational attainment to understand the answer?

From that perspective, ignorance is bliss - and, in the accidental ingestion of scientific progress, he can always move the goalposts to the next item in his supply of "things no one has explained to me", and so on.

I suppose his making an actual argument, defending it, demonstrating its validity, and conclusively showing us which god did what and how - well that's too much like, you know... thinking.

Is this the best we can expect? The Gish Gallop served with a side of argument from ignorance all wrapped up in an evidence-free bun garnished with unlimited refills of reversing the burden of proof?
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman
You are in a maze of twisty little religions, all alike -- xyzzy

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1377
  • Darwins +42/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2014, 09:30:02 PM »

Things in nature are not as simple as they could be is a difficult avenue... However, in nature you will almost never find perfectly designed and the most simple of shapes. Perfect circles, triangles, rectangle shapes etc... are all man made and clearly designed shapes that cannot be found exact in nature. Nature is irregular/organic at its core (especially at microscopic levels) even if seemingly close; everything from human cells, to trees to its leaves, to coast lines.

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

However, if he's really informed in mathematics, might bring up a very common ratio in nature - the golden ratio which does seem like a beautiful and poetic design of nature. However, the universe and nature are driven by mathematical equations and that's why some of these beautiful patterns can be easily misrepresented by a godlike designer.

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



Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2014, 11:07:20 PM »
This is interesting. The debate mentioned mantis shrimp, which have more photoreceptors than humans, and who can see a wider range of the electromagnetic spectrum than we can.

The assumption has been that those receptors meant that they could see more colors than us. Turns out they can't. Their color vision is actually less sensitive than ours. The difference is that their receptors can set off their super-fast claws without bothering with little things like sending the signals to the brain for processing and decision making.

So their vision is actually worse. The part that gets to their brain, that is. But the vision apparatuses that send grab signals directly to the claws are pretty impressive. but they have nothing to do with "seeing" as we think of it.

Here is the link:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/01/23/mantis-shrimps-bizarre-eyesight-finally-figured-out/

Since I am supposed to be helping moderate the debate, I won't make any other comments. I sure would like to though.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2014, 11:11:33 PM »

Things in nature are not as simple as they could be is a difficult avenue... However, in nature you will almost never find perfectly designed and the most simple of shapes. Perfect circles, triangles, rectangle shapes etc... are all man made and clearly designed shapes that cannot be found exact in nature. Nature is irregular/organic at its core (especially at microscopic levels) even if seemingly close; everything from human cells, to trees to its leaves, to coast lines.

Careful.  Many natural processes produce "geometrically perfect" objects.  Honeycombs, crystals, snowflakes are just a couple examples.  The is a rock formation that is made up of prisms.  It looks designed, but wasn't.  I think it is in Ireland...


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2014, 09:45:43 AM »
One "moving the Goalposts"????? Really??? None were moved.

Secondly:

Quote
If a machine stops working long before when it's supposed to, it's not very efficient, is it? If it has parts that can cause it to malfunction at the slightest provocation, it's not very efficient either

Reliability has nothing to do with the efficiency of a machine. It has everything to do with the efficiency of the system to creates and uses and machine...but not of the machine itself. If the system requires said machine only for a short period of time, its reliability is irrelevant.



An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5247
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2014, 10:15:57 AM »
While I'm not part of the debate, I wanted to point out that lack of efficiency isn't a strong argument against design itself.  It's a strong argument against continued design.  If I made a hammer, and was satisfied with its design, I would keep making hammers the same way I'd been making them, even if it wasn't as efficient as possible.  Where efficiency generally comes into play is when you have competition.  In that case, in order to do well, you need to improve the design of your own hammer and/or give it capabilities that a competitor's hammer doesn't have.

Efficiency doesn't sufficiently argue against the idea of an initial design, way back when.  But it is more than sufficient to argue against the idea of continued design.  If you're satisfied with the way you made something, why would you upset your own applecart in making changes when it costs you extra time and money to make something that might not be as satisfactory?

In short, Godexists might be able to argue that lack of efficiency is no bar to God making initial designs, but he can't argue against it causing a problem for continued designs, especially if those continued designs incorporated improvements from the originals.

Of course, this all begs the question of how we know there was a designer in the first place, which Godexists has never sufficiently answered.  Logic doesn't cut it because you can prove anything with logic, even something that clearly won't work in reality.  That really needs to be the first question he answers - where the evidence for this designer of his is.  If he doesn't have evidence, there is no reason to conclude that there must have been a designer.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5247
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2014, 04:13:01 PM »
Gee, imagine that, Godexists threw a fit and quit because he doesn't know what a debate is.  It's the moderator's job to keep the debate moving and on subject, which means yes, they do intervene periodically.  That's why they're called a moderator.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11208
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2014, 04:32:52 PM »
Efficiency doesn't sufficiently argue against the idea of an initial design, way back when.  But it is more than sufficient to argue against the idea of continued design.  If you're satisfied with the way you made something, why would you upset your own applecart in making changes when it costs you extra time and money to make something that might not be as satisfactory?

You know, when I first read this, I was inclined to agree, until I recalled the context for "I"D - that YHWH made humans just the way it wanted them. It wanted humans to choose to worship it, which only works if they live long enough to hear about it and to decide to worship it, as babies are basically blank slates and, according to some christians, Heaven is so perfect that all we'll (want to) do is bow down and kiss YHWH's enormous ass.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5247
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2014, 04:51:48 PM »
Right.  But that only suggests that YHWH wasn't dissatisfied enough with the outcome in the Garden of Eden to go back to designing new humans.  Either that, or YHWH was basically lazy and didn't want to spend the effort to make 'better' humans.  Given the method chosen to annihilate all the 'bad' humans (a gargantuan flood) down the line, I'd argue the latter, since it'd be the equivalent of turning the faucet on and leaving it on until you decide the job is done.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2014, 06:44:36 PM »
If a god intelligently designed us, he forgot the bits and pieces that would help us drive down the road he wanted us to go down. He built in curiosity he didn't want us to have. He built in the ability of newbies to do things wrong. And he gave reasons to doubt his sovereignty, like when he didn't know where Eve was.

Or that's just a story and some people are trying to base their entire reality on it.

Nah, people aren't that stupid.   :P
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5247
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2014, 06:52:37 PM »
Nah, people aren't that stupid.   :P
Never underestimate the power of the stupid side.  For once you begin to walk down it, forever shall it dominate your destiny.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2014, 07:07:48 PM »
Nah, people aren't that stupid.   :P
Never underestimate the power of the stupid side.  For once you begin to walk down it, forever shall it dominate your destiny.

You don't need got tell me! I'm living proof!  ;D

People are so strange. When you every thought has to be the truth, you end up having to make up a lot of those truths because otherwise you won't have the enough information to meet your impossibly high standards.

At leasts that's how I think the christian mind works.

I prefer not knowing all of the truth, but looking for it, and learning from intelligent folks who are looking, over thinking I know everything and being afraid to look any further. (I think I worded that awkwardly enough to keep my reputation as a poor writer intact!)
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5247
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2014, 07:37:18 PM »
Things got a lot easier for me when I didn't constantly think that I had to be the most brilliant person in the universe in order to have self-worth.  That is itself a form of stupidity - because you're constantly having to show that you didn't need to be told something, even though you did.  Other people are easily able to recognize that.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2014, 07:56:32 PM »
Well, that was a flop.  Sorry I suggested it. 

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: OAA & Godexists ID commentary thread
« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2014, 08:12:03 PM »
Well, that was a flop.  Sorry I suggested it.

Ah, the best laid plans of mice and mommies…

You tried. It isn't your fault that it fell apart.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!