Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 219 (526124)
09-25-2009 11:11 PM


bump for ICDESIGN,
Hi ICDESIGN, start with Message 1, then you can go to Message 4, Message 18, Message 23 and Message 33
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ICdesign, posted 09-27-2009 10:57 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 74 of 219 (526457)
09-27-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ICdesign
09-27-2009 10:57 AM


Do you have any refutation of the material ICDESIGN?
Hi ICDesign, thanks for stopping by.
RAZD, It doesn't surprise me that you came back with a Mockingbird ditty.
Which shows there is more to the Mockingbird than meets the eye. Perhaps it is a good metaphor for life in general. Maybe another mascot for the Institute.
Let me explain where I'm coming from for you. I could regurgitate and recite from the volumes and volumes of information on the human body. I could go on about the irreducible complexity of the human body and how all the complex systems of the body have to work in harmony to even exist. (all or none) I could go on about the neurological system and the brain. We could talk about how the brain can store between 100 trillion and 280 quintillion bits of information in a mere three pounds of matter. We could talk about how our body is covered with sensory receptors that are constantly sending billions of messages to the brain. We could spend lots of time on how the complexity of merely a single nerve cell challenges the evolutionary theory. (each neuron is more complicated than any present-day computer) Or how bout the fact that every cell contains an estimated one billion compounds. That's as many as 75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, (75 sextillion) compounds per person-give or take a billion- and among these compounds are approx. five million different kinds of proteins. They all know where to go and how to get there, when to act, how fast to react, and when to stop.
Except that it doesn't always work out that way, in fact it ONLY works out in the few individuals that survive long enough to breed or even be born. Most conceptions are miscarriages or stillborns in humans and in wild animals, because they don't always "know where to go and how to get there, when to act, how fast to react, and when to stop." Most of the failures are rather silly mistakes, like not completing step 42 before going on to step 43, while others involve steps that just don't stop at all, like cancer.
We could go on and on about vision, hearing, balance, smell, taste, touch, skin, the endocrine system, the respiratory system, the gastrointestinal system, the circulatory system, the excretory system, and the musculoskeletal system.
And we could go on about how these systems have been assembled for funny purposes. Like the location of the entertainment center in the sewage treatment zone, or how the eating tube is also used for breathing, thus guaranteeing that some people will chock, thus causing the amusing scenes used on TV about Heimlich maneuvers and the like.
After talking about all these we would only be scratching the surface of the amazingly genius, incredibly intelligent design of the human body.
Including poor vision, constant back pain problems, and debilitating genetic diseases, all part of the package ...
Designed for some intelligent purpose? Or designed for humor by some cosmic imp?
If you want to believe in all the miracles that would have had to take place for all this to have fallen into perfect symmetrical place without the help of any intelligent guidance actually happened, hey, go right ahead down your little fantasy trail.
But I'm talking about the OTHER theory of design, and telling you that there should be equal representation for silly design in our school systems. Thousands of scientists named Steve doubt the Intelligent Design Theory, so shouldn't the Silly Design Theory be allowed in schools?
But I will not entertain your platform of blasphemy and listen to you mock the design of God with your arrogant summations as if you were capable of designing a smarter, more efficient body system!
So you are NOT a real ID proponent then - when the gloves come off, it's all god-this and god-that.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ICdesign, posted 09-27-2009 10:57 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 219 (528122)
10-04-2009 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICdesign
10-04-2009 12:02 AM


Silly Design Theory is NOT evolution, and evolution is NOT a part of the topic
Hi ICDesign,
Sir, I am requesting an answer to why message # 77 does not apply to a thread that states "Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy". The ID side is that evolution could not have done it and I gave a well thought out argument that supports my view.
Why then am I being booted off the thread?
Thank you for a response.
Simple: disproving evolution does not disprove the Silly Design Theory.
It's like attacking democrats in a republican primary.
First we need to establish whether the so called "Intelligent" Neo-Paleyism design theory explains the evidence as well or better than the Silly Design Theory.
Perhaps when you get back from suspension you can address this issue.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICdesign, posted 10-04-2009 12:02 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 94 of 219 (528143)
10-04-2009 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by ICdesign
10-03-2009 8:13 PM


Round 1: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Hi ICDesign,
Thanks for taking up the challenge. Unfortunately you seem to be under some misunderstanding about Silly Design Theory -- it is NOT evolution. Please read Message 1 again.
If one could imagine making a horizontal slice through a capillary and then magnifying it ten-thousandfold, the view might resemble the most congested street in Bombay at the busiest hour-
So you're saying that traffic jams and congestion show intelligent design. Yet no comedy is written about smooth flowing traffic, and instead we see comedic references to what people do when stuck in traffic.
Conclusion: This certainly doesn't invalidate Silly Design Theory, while Neo-Paleyism ("Intelligent" design) cannot explain the need for congestion. Silly Design is more likely as an explanation for this congestion.
yet the carts, cars, trucks, buses, birds, animals, and pedestrians are odd-shaped packages that know where to go and how to get there. A simplified list of passerby at any one moment could include hundreds of white and thousands of red cells, tens of thousands of platelets, millions of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen molecules, scores of antibodies to old infections and previous vaccinations, every component of the clotting cascade, anticlotting factors,erythropoietin to simulate red-cell production, iron, calcium, magnesium, manganese, cobalt, chromium, copper, zink, nearly every vitamin, numerous proteins and amino acids, salts like sodium and potassium, ammonia, sugar, insulin, uric acid, liver enzymes, prostate enzymes, cancer markers, genetic markers, thyroid hormone, adrenal hormones, ACTH, TSH, GH, FSH, LH, vasopressin, parathyroid hormones, pancreas enzymes, glucagon, somatostatin, all types of cholesterol, fatty acids, blood pressure-regulating chemicals, muscle enzymes, brain enzymes, hormones that communicate between the stomach and the gall bladder, hormones that communicate between the kidneys and the thirst mechanism, adrenaline, noradrenalin, and albumin. This list is far from complete. Each component is regulated, controlled, and maintained at very specific concentrations. As with an orchestra playing a symphony, every instrument, every note, every pause is perfectly coordinated.
Just as it is in good comedy, and here we commonly see near misses and just avoided catastrophe used for comedy.
Conclusion: This too does not invalidate illy Design Theory, and while Neo-Paleyism ("Intelligent" design) cannot explain the need for near misses and barely avoided catastrophes. Silly Design is more likely as an explanation for this congestion.
-HERE IS MY QUESTION FOR YOU-
Evolutionary development would have had to account for each of the circulatory system's characteristics separately AND simultaneously to explain the human species. There could not have been blood vessels without a heart to pump blood or a brain to monitor the heart's work. There could not have been a human being without a circulatory system capable of delivering its goods to every cell. There could not have been blood with out bone marrow to produce it or a spleen to remove aging cells. There could not have been a viable human
(OR INDEED ANY ANIMAL) without a way to deliver cellular waist products to the kidneys. The human species could not exist unless millions of extremely unlikely occurrences came about at exactly the right time and in exactly the right manner!
How do you explain this?
By Silly Design Theory. This explains why the "entertainment center" is located in the same place as the waste water disposal center and adjacent to the sewage disposal plant. Lots of room for comedy.
Silly Design Theory also explains why the same inlet is used for breathing and eating and talking, so that you can have great comedic effect of people trying to talk while eating, spewing food all over, and then choking on a morsel, someone delivers the "Heimlaff" maneuver and the morsel is jettisoned across the room onto some dour person.
Neo-Paleyism ("Intelligent" design) cannot explain these locational setups, while Silly Design is very likely as an explanation for this juxtaposed processes and intermixed locations.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ICdesign, posted 10-03-2009 8:13 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ICdesign, posted 10-05-2009 10:39 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 96 of 219 (528604)
10-06-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICdesign
10-05-2009 10:39 PM


Re: Round 2: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Hi ICDesign,
Basically I see it this way. Yes, there are some animals and fish and so-forth that have a very unusual look and function. So what? Its not a problem for me to believe in a creative God with so much imagination to express designs 'outside of the box' if you will. Who am I (or anyone else) to criticize the way He chooses to do ANYthing. He is God and we are not. Simple as that.
Even to the point of getting silly?
The problem for you is to show that the designs are inherently more intelligent than silly, and curiously you have not done this.
And I have one more thing to say about your failed attempt to discredit the intelligent aspect of design. I think you are disingenuous to claim that The Silly Design Theory isn't evolution. Your whole premise is that there isn't an intelligent Designer leaving The Theory of Evolution as the only choice. The least you can do is try to be honest.
Sorry, but disproving one theory does not make a different theory more likely, no matter how well formed or what it is. This is why the Neo-Paleyist (NP) attempts to "prove" design by disproving evolution -- as you attempted -- are doomed to failure.
I want to get some posts under a new topic so I can bring you out from hiding behind all this silliness so you can answer some serious problems with the Theory of Evolution I want to bring to your attention.
And once again we see that YOU are trying to argue that Neo-Paleyism is viable by attacking evolution instead of seeing if NP can explain all the evidence as well as silly design can. Amusingly, if you did show "serious problems" you would STILL need to deal with Silly Design Theory, and need to demonstrate that they are serious rather than silly.
No, and sorry to disappoint, but the point of this thread is to demonstrate that Silly Design Theory is the best explanation of the purpose of life.
Message 1:
quote:
  • that the ultimate purpose of the designs can be determined by investigation of multitudes of features to see if they more accurately reflect (a) random design, the result totally natural forces, (b) highly specific design, for some intelligent purpose, or (c) variations on a silly design, for some silly (entertainment, amusement, reality tv) purpose;
  • that the design purpose, as determined by rigorous scientific investigation, will then make clear whether the designer is (a) a Natural Nothing (NaNo), (b) an Intelligent Designer (IDr) or (c) a Cosmic Imp (CImp), and that this will then finally resolve whether there is or is not a designer as well as the nature of that designer: a metaphysical two-fer.
  • Silly Design takes on all comers.
    ....Anyway as far as design flaws go, (not any of the ones you made up) I have said it before and I will say it again. There are flaws that show up throughout all of His creation. The reason for this is due to the curse He put upon His world as a result of man's sin and rebellion. This is a temporary curse that He will remove when the necessary process has been completed.
    Ah so the design "flaws" are due to the failure of his supposedly primary design to stay on track. Now that is a demonstration that there was a design flaw - if we assume that the design in intelligent ...
    ... but are you sure they are "flaws"? They seem to work perfectly well, usable as they are, just that they serve a silly purpose rather than reflect intelligence in design.
    When we look at life in general do we see an intelligent purpose? Or that there is another purpose to the silly things we see in life around us, like the Copepod eye, as seen in Message 4. Something I don't consider "flawed" but it certainly is silly:
    quote:

    Copepod:

    This is a little critter that (shown here as a larvae) has a single eye and a single photoreceptor ... and yet it has a lens.
    Why would it have a lens with only one photoreceptor (that is basically an on\off signal processor)? Because the photoreceptor is at the end of a little stalk that can move back and forth and up and down, covering the area that a more complete retina would cover with this single sensor. The stalk dances for the light.
    Copepods are predators and use this dancing eye to build up a picture of their surroundings in much the same way that a laser light show can produce an image with one dancing light, or a television can produce an image with a dancing beam (of course both examples are commonly used to expand the intelligence of their viewers ... or is it just for silly entertainment?).
    So even your ad hoc excuse of "flaws" (and trying to shift the blame to someone else) does not cover all the evidence, while silly design theory does - without needing to invoke scapegoats as an excuse for what are really silly design features instead.
    So, can God be proven in a science lab through a repeatable experiment? Of course not. Can you prove that life began from nothing with a BIG BANG explosion in a science lab through a repeatable experiment. Of course not. Can we look at the evidence and make a reasonable conclusion that at some point in the past it appears their was an explosion that started everything? Most people agree that to be true. People of faith as myself believe that was when God said "LET THERE BE"...... and BANG!!
    And out came silly design.
    ... even a man with 3 degrees can end up being brainwashed to the point where he is completely devoid of basic common sense.
    ooo the ad hominem card again. Curiously all three degrees are in design.
    I think it was a genius display of design to use one inlet for three purposes. Very smart. I do agree though how laughable it is that people like you can't chew and talk at the same time without spewing food all over the place. Very funny indeed, thanks for pointing that out.Any engineer would agree that using one feature for multiple purposes is smart design.
    Argument from incredulity, sorry, but your opinion is not able to change reality.
    A good designer would design fail-safes in such designs if it endangered the whole design, and have backup systems, such as a mechanism to flush out the stuck food automatically, and an alternative option for breathing, perhaps a storage system that lasts more than a few seconds. One way would be to have a secondary system for obtaining oxygen, such as through the skin, as done by amphibians (which would also have the added benefit of being able to breath underwater).
    If you would like to show us what your made of and submit your better design proposal,(like two peckers or something) I would be gad to show you the reasons it is inferior to the current design.
    Easy. 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, yet such a design appears nowhere in the natural world. Is your designer less intelligent than human designers, that have done this, even though he already has all the parts necessary?
    I think it was a genius display of design to use one inlet for three purposes.
    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.
    So, again you fail to demonstrate that NP - "intelligent" design - is as good as Silly Design Theory in explaining the evidence.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : clrty
    Edited by RAZD, : skin
    Edited by RAZD, : porpoise
    Edited by RAZD, : msg instead of mid to show subtitle

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by ICdesign, posted 10-05-2009 10:39 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 97 by ICdesign, posted 10-06-2009 10:31 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 110 by ICdesign, posted 10-10-2009 5:47 PM RAZD has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 98 of 219 (529006)
    10-07-2009 7:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 97 by ICdesign
    10-06-2009 10:31 PM


    Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
    Hi ICDesign,
    I understand you are having trouble comprehending the problem facing you, and thus we see a common reaction of avoidance behavior (not dealing with the issue) and attempts to portray the contrary evidence as unworthy of consideration.
    When you only look at the evidence that supports your beliefs, this is called confirmation bias:
    Confirmation Bias (Wikipedia, 2009)
    In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
    Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.[1]
    This is a reaction well known to psychiatry, affecting people from all stripes of beliefs, including theists, atheists and agnostics. The task for an open minded skeptic is to look beyond just those things you like to use as evidence, because they support your beliefs, to see if there is evidence contrary to your beliefs, and then try to explain those.
    If instead of confronting such contrary evidence you attempt to deny it and portray it as necessarily false because it contradicts your beliefs, then we see a patter consistent with cognitive dissonance:
    Cognitive dissonance(Wikipedia, 2009)
    Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
    A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can lead to rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice. It can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
    This too is a reaction well known to psychiatry, affecting people from all stripes of beliefs, including theists, atheists and agnostics. The task for an open minded skeptic is to confront the evidence contrary to your beliefs, and then try to explain those. Failing that one needs to consider changing one's beliefs that have now been falsified.
    ... I know I'm not going to reach you with the truth but I can pray God would open your eyes of understanding. ...
    Anyway,the question is what will happen to you when you die RAZD?
    If the bible is false you have no worries. If it is true, I can promise you your rejection of God won't be viewed as silly.
    In logic this is known as the logical fallacy of the appeal to consequences:
    quote:
    Definition:
    The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.
    Example:
    1. You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were, then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
    2. You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have no meaning. (Perhaps, but it is equally possible that since life has no meaning that God does not exist.)
    Proof:
    Identify the consequences to and argue that what we want to be the case does not affect what is in fact the case.
    Interestingly if you have real evidence for your beliefs, objective, validated, repeated by skeptic evidence, I'd be interested in seeing it. I suspect that it will be similar in content (none) and validity (weak) to the arguments by atheists on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread. If you do, then it needs to be a different thread, as this certainly does not apply to Neo-Paleyism or Silly Design Theory.
    So far your argument falls into several categories of non-rational behavior (cherry picking evidence, denial\avoidance, etc) and logical fallacies (false dichotomies, strawman, appeal to consequences, etc) so far, and you have still FAILED to show that Neo-Paleyism is a better explanation than Silly Design Theory.
    I mean, I don't agree with one thing you said and you disagree with my views.
    Curiously, your opinion is irrelevant as an argument against the evidence.
    I am flabergasted that your degrees are in design.
    And the fact that I should know way more about design than you as a consequence? Does that maybe give you a clue that your opinion is false or at best incomplete as regards what constitutes good design?
    To be honest with you there RAZD, everything you said is foolishness to me and is a waist of my precious time of which is very limited.
    I could refute everything you said with half my brain tied behind my back but whats the point?
    Honestly, I am embarrassed for you.
    Another logical fallacy, the ad hominem and an assertion unsupported by evidence.
    I may be back in a few days, we'll see. I am extremely busy.
    Take your time, the evidence won't go away.
    Enjoy.
    ps - while you are away, you can put together your promised reply for my answer to your challenge:
    quote:
    (Message 96)
    (Message 95) If you would like to show us what your made of and submit your better design proposal,(like two peckers or something) I would be gad to show you the reasons it is inferior to the current design.
    Easy. 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, yet such a design appears nowhere in the natural world. Is your designer less intelligent than human designers, that have done this, even though he already has all the parts necessary?
    I'm on pins and needle waiting to see why telescopic vision is a bad idea, why microscopic vision is a bad idea, and why eyes that can adjust from one to the other at will, never needing glasses, is a bad design idea.
    There's more.
    Edited by RAZD, : clrty
    Edited by RAZD, : ps

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by ICdesign, posted 10-06-2009 10:31 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 99 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 8:26 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 100 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 10:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 101 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 10:46 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 102 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 11:16 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 107 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 7:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 103 of 219 (529092)
    10-08-2009 8:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 99 by ICdesign
    10-07-2009 8:26 PM


    Round 4: Neo-Paleyism vs Silly Design FAILS to distinguish itself from SD
    Hi ICDesign
    You must have failed debate 101.
    Lets give you a little test that you should be able to pass with flying colors with your big three degrees in design: Your in a pitch black room with a blindfold on as well. In front of you on the floor is a pile of 10 parts that belong to a silly widget. Along with that is enough nuts and bolts to put it together, however the nuts and bolts are different sizes to accommodate the different sizes of holes on the pieces. Finally, you have a small pile of wrenches and screwdrivers to choose from.
    LOL. Thanks for another example of what would be a silly approach to design. What could be more fun than watching someone fumble around in the dark.
    Curiously, you do not show that your designer would do any better in the same situation, so this fails to be a test of Neo-Paleyism versus the Theory Of Silly Design.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 99 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 8:26 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 105 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 5:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 104 of 219 (529260)
    10-08-2009 5:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 102 by ICdesign
    10-07-2009 11:16 PM


    some intelligent design information
    Hi ICDesign
    I credit you with a question I am impressed with. I have what I think are some good answers for you but I get up at 2am and work 14 hour days. It may be the weekend before I have time to respond with an answer worthy of the question but you have my attention and I will be back with you. I would still like to see your answers to that test.
    And I'll be interested in your reply.
    Dang it RAZD now you got my juices flowing making me want to stay up late. This just became fun to me and I finally figured out the little tricks with the dbcodes. I didn't see your vision challenge till later.
    Always happy to help get the creative juices going. Just remember that we want this to be evidence based.
    For some posting tips:
    type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
    quotes are easy
    or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
    quote:
    quotes are easy
    also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
    For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
    If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

    ... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
    We know this was intelligent design because Percy did it.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 102 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 11:16 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 6:02 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 123 of 219 (530143)
    10-12-2009 12:38 PM


    The topic is Silly Design Theory vs Neo-Paleyinsm
    Please keep this in mind. Or I'll have to ask for Moderation to keep on topic.
    Thanks

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 124 of 219 (530144)
    10-12-2009 12:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 112 by Buzsaw
    10-10-2009 8:28 PM


    Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
    Hi Buzsaw,
    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.
    While that certainly does have some comedic aspect to it (akin to apes bashing rocks together to make fire), that is not all that Silly Design Theory covers.
    One has to ask the "intelligent" purpose behind many designs when a simpler and more effective design would work, while the addition of baroque rococo features are less intelligent in purpose, and more just plain silly in aspect.
    Silly Design is more like the "reality" shows where people are given a task with limited resources, while "intelligent" design would not be so limited but able to draw from the full spectrum of available bits and pieces.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2009 8:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 125 of 219 (530169)
    10-12-2009 3:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 110 by ICdesign
    10-10-2009 5:47 PM


    Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
    Hi again ICDesign, I've just finished entertaining guests from Canada (happy turkey day canucks), and can get back to this.
    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.
    So you admit off the bat to confusing the conclusion of faith with the premises of Neo-Paleyism. The problem you end up with is begging the question and other logical fallacies.
    Seeing as both Neo-Paleyism and Silly Design theory assume that the god/s in question are not known but may be determined by evaluation of the evidence, your assuming the HBGod is getting ahead of the proper evaluation of the evidence
    For the purpose of this thread, let's see if you can stick to the facts and the evidence and then see if Neo-Paleyism or Silly Design Theory provide better explanations for the evidence.
    If, at that time, you are able to show that Neo-Paleyism beats out Silly Design theory, then we can investigate what god/s may or may not be appropriate to consider from the evidence.
    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.
    Once again, you are making a logically false argument that the theory of evolution has anything to do with the difference between Neo-Paleyism and Silly Design Theory.
    In Message 12 We have such an "overview," provided by Michael Denton, which is refuted by 6 points showing that his ad hoc explanation for the inverted retina is false, and that this flipped sense organ is an unnecessary complication that does not add to the design, but ends up reducing the effectiveness of the human eye, and the only purpose served by such reduced ability is comedy.
    quote:
    No, the cosmic joke is that the eyes of humans are those of Mr Magoo compared to other species.

    That's silly, eh?
    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?
    Sadly, this does not explain why human eyes are design the way they are, and I was not under the impression that "Lucifer" was responsible for the eye design for humans.
    Do you know what a non-sequitur logical fallacy is? It's where you introduce information that is not related to the issue being debated.
    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.
    Amusingly, this still fails to deal with the specific issue at hand: why isn't the eye in humans - or in any animal - designed to take advantage of a multiple focus design similar in effect to what humans have done with lenses in microscopes and telescopes and cameras and which obviously benefit our ability to see the real world.
    Do you know what a red herring logical fallacy is, where you attempt to divert attention to a different topic?
    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?
    So your argument is that the human eye is intelligent design because it allows us to remain in ignorance for thousands of years about how much the world is populated by microorganisms that cause all kinds of diseases?
    ie - Neo-Paleyism is demonstrated to be design to intentionally keep people ignorant of reality?
    Interesting thesis, but it sounds much more like Silly Design to me, with people blundering around in ignorance just like Mr Magoo above.
    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.
    Curiously, this still has nothing to do with the design of the eye and why the simple elements in the octopus eye and the mammalian eye are not combined in any known animal.
    Amusingly, this would again be more of an argument for Silly Design than for Neo-Paleyism and design with an intelligent purpose that can be discerned from the evidence.
    Just to control the focus would be a huge engineering feat. A simple sneeze could be a scary experience.
    And here we have the argument from ignorance and incredulity. Fascinatingly your opinion is unable to control reality in any way. We currently have the necessary elements to control the focus in each of the existing systems, and interestingly neither of them are affected by sneezing or even sudden movements of the head.
    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.
    And still we have no explanation of why this feature does not exist OR why it would be a bad design. All we have is apologetics and using the god-card to trump the inability to explain the lack of good design.
    If you want to see far away, go get a telescope.
    Want to see the other direction, go get a microscope.
    In other words, use instruments created with known intelligent design by humans as means of observing reality as it exists, rather than using human eyesight and remain in ignorance?
    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.
    So to summarize your argument, the evidence of the design of the human eye shows intelligent design because:
    • it allows us to remain in ignorance of the real world, and
    • god/s (HBGod) could have done better.
    That's a pretty silly argument. In fact what you have provided is a better example of Silly Design Theory, than of Neo-Paleyism, because you have failed to demonstrate how the design of the human eye shows an intelligent purpose rather than a silly purpose. Of course to see that this is so, you will need to open your eyes eh?
    So far you have failed to make an argument that Neo-Paley "intelligent" design is a better explanation of the evidence than Silly Design Theory.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 110 by ICdesign, posted 10-10-2009 5:47 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 131 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 9:04 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 132 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 9:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 128 of 219 (530268)
    10-12-2009 8:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 127 by Buzsaw
    10-12-2009 8:06 PM


    topic please
    Hi Buz,
    2. Of course you evolutionists are ...
    ... just as off-topic about the difference between Silly Design Theory and Neo-Paleyism.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 127 by Buzsaw, posted 10-12-2009 8:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 135 of 219 (530296)
    10-12-2009 9:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 130 by Blzebub
    10-12-2009 8:48 PM


    topic please.
    Hi Blzebub, and welcome to the fray.
    "ID science" -- oxymoron. ID is faith-based, not evidence-based.
    Behe placed ID alongside astrology in his definition of scientific theory!
    Unfortunately this is off-topic on this thread. One of the reasons for different threads is to focus on different topics, rather than just going around spouting opinions.
    You might want to post yours on The Significance of the Dover Decision rather than encourage more and more off-topic posts on this thread.
    Message 133
    Your post (no.110) is nothing more than a "credo". You believe, but you have no evidence on which to base your belief other than an old book containing the creation mythology of some Bronze-Age Middle-Eastern desert dwellers.
    This is not science. You might as well believe that the Harry Potter stories are factually true. Or that the Sun rotates around the Earth - observational data of the kind you provide supports both of these beliefs.
    Which, sadly, is also off-topic. If you are ever in doubt about the topic you can always read Message 1 on any thread.
    Enjoy.
    ... as you are new here, some posting tips:
    type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
    quotes are easy
    or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
    quote:
    quotes are easy
    also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
    For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
    If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

    ... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
    Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 130 by Blzebub, posted 10-12-2009 8:48 PM Blzebub has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 140 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 2:25 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 136 of 219 (530299)
    10-12-2009 9:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 131 by ICdesign
    10-12-2009 9:04 PM


    Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
    Hi ICDesign,
    I put myself out there to answer YOUR challenge now lets see you step up to the plate with the two above issues.
    Except that (1) you did not show how Neo-Paleyism provided an explanation for the lack of zoom-focus vision, and (b) you have not answered my rebuttal of your failure to provide an answer.
    I'll tell you what. Sense the adult version was too tough for you I will reduce it down to the child version just for you:
    The proper word is "Since" - since you think you can presume to take an adult view, when you don't have the SENSE to deal with the issue honestly, or admit that Silly Design Theory provides a better explanation and have avoided the issue above and instead resort to petty insults.
    In a pitch black room where you are also blind-folded you now have a Silly Mini-Widget broken down into just 3 pieces. You have a small pile of nuts and bolts that are of different sizes just as the holes of the Widget are not all the same diameter. You also have a small pile of tools needed for the job. How long would it take the brilliant RAZD with his big 3 degree's in design to figure out how to assemble the Sily Mini-Widget? Also please explainn the process you use to figure it out.
    And again, I give you the same answer I did before (Message 103):
    quote:
    LOL. Thanks for another example of what would be a silly approach to design. What could be more fun than watching someone fumble around in the dark.
    Curiously, you do not show that your designer would do any better in the same situation, so this fails to be a test of Neo-Paleyism versus the Theory Of Silly Design.
    Now: why do you think Neo-Paleyism is a better explanation for the human eye than Silly Design, when intelligent human design produces zoom telescopes, binoculars, microscopes and cameras, but not one organism has zoom vision, and people's vision is the stuff of comedy?
    So far you are 0 for 5 on this thread in demonstrating any ability to explain evidence with Neo-Paleyism, unlike Silly Design Theory. When push came to shove you abandoned Neo-Paleyism.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 9:04 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 137 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 10:13 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 138 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 10:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 139 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 10:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 145 of 219 (530498)
    10-13-2009 7:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 137 by ICdesign
    10-12-2009 10:13 PM


    Round 6: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
    Hi ICDesign, it seems we still have a communication problem ...
    I creamed your entire thread with one post, and that is post #110
    my friend.
    This is a Science Forum thread (look at the menu breakdown above) and that means that arguments are made with evidence and not assertion based on opinion. Opinion is curiously unable to alter reality in any way.
    Curiously, I find that those who claim victory usually don't know what needs to be accomplished for victory.
    For instance your Message 110 does not support Neo-Paleyism at all, but abandons it for the god-did-it argument ...
    ...except in this case it's a case of he didn't do it:
    ... God capable of giving us this type of bionic vision ... OK then why didn't He? ... 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 ... His intention was not to create a super bionic human.
    You still are confused about where god/s come in to the argument: it's not the premise, it's reserved for the conclusion once you have built a logical argument supported by evidence.
    All this amounts to is a pile of excuses, and not an argument for the failure of Neo-Paleyism to explain the evidence. When it comes to homologies found in many varieties and types of organisms, Neo-Paleyists are happy to claim that this is just an example of repeated use of an existing design, so why don't we see instances of repeated design, as I suggested with zoom vision, as an example of how intelligent design should work rather than silly design. Silly Design explains backwards retinas, holes in prime vision areas of retinas, and lens systems that are prone to various failures to focus properly.
    So your post (1) FAILS to defend Neo-Paleyism in any way, shape or form, and (B) FAILS to show why Silly Design Theory does not explain the evidence.
    Now I count this a total failure on your part to (A) address the issue, and (2) put together a coherent argument based on evidence.
    You have now made Message 137, Message 138 and Message 139, all with one-liner comments. One-liners are reserved for comedy, so if you want to exhibit intelligent posting, please form your arguments into one post that has a thesis, supporting evidence and a conclusion, so you don't waste bandwidth.
    Why are you afraid to give us a technical definition of an intelligent? You are an expert in design. C'mon lets have it.
    Except that I am not the "proponentist" for Neo-Paleyism - you are. Thus it is on your hands to define your position and defend it.
    That's not an answer. That's a tap dancing exhibition.
    Your a coward
    Again, you still don't understand what you need to do in order to show that Neo-Paleyism can be considered in place of Silly Design Theory for explaining the evidence, and that is to show how Neo=Paleyism explains things better than Silly Design Theory.
    Posing a problem that is rather silly does not do that.
    Fluffing off the fact that the way eyes are made shows many examples of Silly Design does not do that.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 137 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 10:13 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 147 by ICdesign, posted 10-13-2009 9:05 PM RAZD has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024