Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 106 of 219 (529273)
10-08-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
10-08-2009 5:49 PM


Re: some intelligent design information
We know this was intelligent design because Percy did it.
......Thats funny. Thanks for the additional tips.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 5:49 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 107 of 219 (529302)
10-08-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
10-07-2009 7:53 PM


Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
I will deliver on the goods this weekend as promised for the challenge
but meanwhile I would like to know more about what you believe and why
you believe it.
RAZD writes:
...Take just one example with the eye: if we combine elements of the octopus eye with the human eye we would have telescopic and microscopic vision, like the zoom lenses in cameras that we know are designed to cover a range of vision requirements and stay in focus. That would be intelligent design,......
So as we can all see here, this is an example of a design that you consider to be "intelligent design". As you have stated you have 3degrees in design which would make you an expert by the world's standard. With all the viewing audience on pins and needles please give us an experts TECHNICAL DEFINITION of what qualifies a design to carry the title of "intelligent". Drum roll please......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2009 7:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 7:49 PM ICdesign has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 108 of 219 (529304)
10-08-2009 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ICdesign
10-08-2009 7:34 PM


Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
So as we can all see here, this is an example of a design that you consider to be "intelligent design".
So, do you not see it as being intelligent? or do you think the need for glasses IS intelligent?
If we are the forefront of creation, why are there creatures on this planet that have better features that would definitely suit us? (i can't say we could utilize poison stingers like a scorpion, but eagle vision or ant strength?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 7:34 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 8:29 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 109 of 219 (529311)
10-08-2009 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by hooah212002
10-08-2009 7:49 PM


Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
So, do you not see it as being intelligent? or do you think the need for glasses IS intelligent?If we are the forefront of creation, why are there creatures on this planet that have better features
that would definitely suit us? I can't say we could utilize poison stingers like a scorpion, but eagle vision or ant strength?)
Yes, I see it as very intelligent.
I have to get to bed right now for an early 2am start but I will be responding to this subject over the weekend to RAZD. Thanks for your thoughtfull and respectful comments and I will notify you when I post my response this weekend. Have a splendid evening,
IC
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 7:49 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ICdesign, posted 10-10-2009 5:48 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 110 of 219 (529816)
10-10-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
10-06-2009 2:15 PM


Re: Round 2: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
With my opening statement I remind you that my answers are not derived of the Evolutionary point of view because I believe that view to be false. Rather they are from the perspective and my belief in an Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator. Whenever I make any reference to God I am referring to the God of the Holy Bible
OK, lets get started.
Razd writes:
So why doesn't this genius combine the design of octopus eyes and human eyes into a more intelligent eye?
Conclusion: his purpose is not intelligent design, but something else. Perhaps something silly
You are claiming our current eyesight is best explained by your ridiculous Silly Design Theory.
I was going to give a general overview of the basic function of how the amazing eye works but that is for a later topic when I prove with the evidence that it is completely impossible for the Theory of Evolution to have produced vision.
You are saying that if there were an intelligent Creator he would have given us vision that combines Octopus eyes and human eyes so we would have microscope vision all the way to telescopic vision. Your saying in essence that if you were God that is the way you would have done it. Your not the first one to have this despicable type of arrogant attitude. You may have heard of Lucifer?
Well, lets explore the question at hand. First of all, is God capable of giving us this type of bionic vision. Absolutely! He is the one who invented vision of every type including the octopus. ALL things are possible for my God. OK then why didn't He? Lets don't stop there. Why didn't He give us the ability to run 100 miles an hour all day long with a pit stop every few hundred miles? If He would have done that we wouldn't even need cars and there would be no pollution.
Why didn't He just give us wings? That would solve all kinds of problems. Why didn't He give us superhuman strength such as the same ratio of strength to size of an ant? He could have given us hearing and smelling like a dog, radar like a bat or dolphin, I could go on all day. Heck, if nothing is impossible why not close our eyes, think of a destination and poof, your instantly there? Do I think He is capable of even that? Yes, with ease. In fact our future bodies will be able to do just that.
Before I go on let me point out some problems with your proposed bionic vision and why IT would be a Silly Design. I don't know about you but I don't care to see with microscopic vision, Yuck, talk about your flesh crawling. It would drive us nuts to see all the activity of the microscopic world going on around us. Ignorance is bliss in some instances.
Do you really want to see what your breathing in? How would this huge spectrum fit into every day living? Just to control the focus would be a huge engineering feat. A simple sneeze could be a scary experience. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely know God could have easily given us this capability that would far exceed the work they are currently doing in that field. I'm just making the point that it would be a feature of extreme proportions.
You have a delicate little butterfly and you have an elephant. There is a huge and spectacular variety of life on His (not our) planet with a huge array of abilities as well as limitations.
His intention was not to create a super bionic human. If it was then He would have done just that. He gave us basic features to comfortably encounter our immediate surroundings. We see what we need to see with a reasonable range, hear what we need to hear with a reasonable range, so on and so-forth. Up till recently, if we wanted to go further and faster, He gave us a horse to hop on.
We (this includes you) are unable to see the big picture of the plan of God. Our experience here on earth has a plan and a purpose that requires a process that we must go through that includes such things as developing ingenuity.
If you want to see far away, go get a telescope.
Want to see the other direction, go get a microscope.
Many things have to be developed to achieve the goals for the end purpose. This is one reason He designed our bodies with the ability to experience pain. Why? In a nutshell, no pain no gain. If you think about it, it would have been much easier to leave out all the pain sensors.
There is a grand design and God knows exactly what He is doing. After it is all said and done, those who have put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ will live in a perfect world with no more pain, no more suffering, no more crime, no more aging and no more death.
This isn't the time to address the whole free-will issue but I can tell you that most of your why questions as to the problems in the world are connected to free-will and God's judgement resulting with a tempory curse.
I think I have given a good explanation to your challenge so I will end here.
ICDESIGN

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 2:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 3:14 PM ICdesign has replied
 Message 133 by Blzebub, posted 10-12-2009 9:16 PM ICdesign has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4798 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 111 of 219 (529817)
10-10-2009 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICdesign
10-08-2009 8:29 PM


Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
please view message 110

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 8:29 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 219 (529858)
10-10-2009 8:28 PM


Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Silly design = The designer effecting the pre-evolution abiogenesis of the first living organism on tiny planet earth after which he leaves it to design itself from there on from the mirey soup.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Accidently bumped the submit button before finished

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 8:37 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 12:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 126 by xongsmith, posted 10-12-2009 3:57 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 113 of 219 (529860)
10-10-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Buzsaw
10-10-2009 8:28 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Silly design = The designer effecting the pre-evolution abiogenesis of the first living organism on tiny planet earth after which he leaves it to design itself from there on from the mirey soup.
What does creationism have to do with intelligent design?
I thought creationism was a religious belief, while intelligent design was a science.
Or at least that's what we are being asked to believe.
If you really want to support intelligent design, try posting 1) without any reference to religious belief, and 2) without attacking the theory of evolution. If intelligent design has any legs to stand on lets see them.
(But it doesn't; it is "designed" to sneak religion back into the schools by pretending to be a science, in much the same way creation "science" tried earlier--before the epic FAIL! of Edwards vs. Aguillard.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2009 8:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2009 10:07 PM Coyote has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 219 (529883)
10-10-2009 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Coyote
10-10-2009 8:37 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Hi Coyote. For the purpose of this topic I did not designate a designer. The designer is a generic term which could refer to a god entity or some super intelligence from a highly advanced planet from the cosmos etc.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 8:37 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 10:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 115 of 219 (529884)
10-10-2009 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Buzsaw
10-10-2009 10:07 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Hi Coyote. For the purpose of this topic I did not designate a designer. The designer is a generic term which could refer to a god entity or some super intelligence from a highly advanced planet from the cosmos etc.
You titled your post "Creationist Side Of Silly Design."
I ask again, what do creationists have to do with intelligent or any other kind of design pretending to be a science?
(But I have already answered that in my previous post.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2009 10:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 9:13 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 219 (529953)
10-11-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Coyote
10-10-2009 10:11 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Coyote writes:
You titled your post "Creationist Side Of Silly Design."
I ask again, what do creationists have to do with intelligent or any other kind of design pretending to be a science?
(But I have already answered that in my previous post.)
1. The generic word/term creation/creationist need not nessitate that everything discussed and debated relative to creating/making something involves religion as per your first response.
2. What is considered science need not exclude intelligent design relative to something created/made.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 10:11 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-11-2009 9:39 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 117 of 219 (529957)
10-11-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Buzsaw
10-11-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Buzzsaw writes:
1. The generic word/term creation/creationist need not nessitate that everything discussed and debated relative to creating/making something involves religion as per your first response.
2. What is considered science need not exclude intelligent design relative to something created/made.
It is true that semantically the term "creationism/intelligent design" by themselves do not require them to include a religious ideology in the same way that scientific theories and constructs such as biological and cosmological evolution do not require a materialistic and/or atheistic worldview.
However, typically the creationists and intelligent design MOVEMENTS and those that advocate them ARE motivated out of a desire to justify and promote their religious worldviews.
The issue the scientific community has with creationism and ID is not because they believe in God or the Bible or any other religious worldview, because many of those same scientists have religious worldviews themselves. The issue is that many of the Creationism and Intelligent Design advocators are pushing their religious agendas as valid and proven scientific theories even to the level of primary schools when these proposals are clearly not scientifically proven.
I and many scientists have no problem with various facets of ID such as irreducible complexity, privileged planet, special creation, etc as hypotheses and proposals but they are not proven and tested scientific theories.
It would be like if someone was trying to push an astrology movement into the scientific community and schools without having it go through the scientific-method process of experimentation, testing, analysis, and peer review to determine if their claims are valid.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 9:13 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 11:27 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 219 (530027)
10-11-2009 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by DevilsAdvocate
10-11-2009 9:39 AM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
DA writes:
It would be like if someone was trying to push an astrology movement into the scientific community and schools without having it go through the scientific-method process of experimentation, testing, analysis, and peer review to determine if their claims are valid.
I don't think it's fair to classify intelligent design with astrology. That's as illogical as classifying a Model T Ford with a 2009 Cadilac.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-11-2009 9:39 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Granny Magda, posted 10-11-2009 11:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2009 11:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 121 by jacortina, posted 10-11-2009 11:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 122 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-12-2009 4:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 119 of 219 (530032)
10-11-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Buzsaw
10-11-2009 11:27 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Hi Buz, good to see you back! I'm still not gonna go easy on you though.
I don't think it's fair to classify intelligent design with astrology.
Tell that to ID celebrity Michael Behe;
New Scientist writes:
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology.
Source
This is what Behe had to say at Dover;
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A {Behe} Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Source
So apparently, one of the most famous names in ID thinks the comparison is valid and has said as much whilst under oath.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 11:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 120 of 219 (530034)
10-11-2009 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Buzsaw
10-11-2009 11:27 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
I don't think it's fair to classify intelligent design with astrology. That's as illogical as classifying a Model T Ford with a 2009 Cadilac.
Intelligent design clearly is not science; it was concocted after the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision of the Supreme Court, which banned creation "science" from the classrooms, as another way to get creation "science" back into the classrooms. Discerning that is not rocket science.
Then there's the "cdesign proponentsists" from The Pandas Thumb that gave the whole sordid affair away. After the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision that book was edited to replace "creationists" with "design proponents" -- except that through a boo-boo in cut and paste they ended up with "cdesign proponentsists" in a draft. This was discovered during preparation for the Dover decision that determined that creation "science" and intelligent design are both religion.
Further, creation "science" and intelligent design are both inherently anti-science, as is astrology. All three of these clearly reject the scientific method, but attempt to steal the reputation for accuracy that science has accrued over the decades and centuries in order to fool the unwary.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 11:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024