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...
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


(1)
Message 102 of 219 (529043)
10-07-2009 11:16 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?
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.
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.
IC
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2009 7:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 5:49 PM ICdesign has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 105 of 219 (529269)
10-08-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
10-08-2009 8:08 AM


Re: Round 4: Neo-Paleyism vs Silly Design FAILS to distinguish itself from SD
RAZD writes:
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.
I know you think you know where I was headed but its not what you think. What, its above you to play along with a harmless exercise?
I would really to hear your answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 8:08 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 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 4797 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

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 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 4797 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 4797 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

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 131 of 219 (530284)
10-12-2009 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
10-12-2009 3:14 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Well hi there RAZD dude. Hey, the drum is still rolling and we're all still waiting for your technical definition of intelligent design. If its too far above your head just let me know and I will be glad to help you out with that too.
I am also waiting for you to take that little quiz that I myself designed just for you. 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: 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.
I put myself out there to answer YOUR challenge now lets see you step up to the plate with the two above issues.
IC
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 3:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 9:57 PM ICdesign has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 132 of 219 (530287)
10-12-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
10-12-2009 3:14 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
RAZD writes:
..it allows us to remain in ignorance of the real world
If you still don't get it after I clearly explained it to you in message #110 then I certainly agree that your statement explains your problem.
IC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 3:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 134 of 219 (530294)
10-12-2009 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Blzebub
10-12-2009 9:16 PM


Re: Round 2: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Blzebub writes:
you believe but you have no evidence
I have an entire world of evidence. ..And yes I DO believe!
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Blzebub, posted 10-12-2009 9:16 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 137 of 219 (530303)
10-12-2009 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by RAZD
10-12-2009 9:57 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
So far you are 0 for 5 on this thread
I creamed your entire thread with one post, and that is post #110
my friend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 9:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2009 7:31 PM ICdesign has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 138 of 219 (530305)
10-12-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by RAZD
10-12-2009 9:57 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Why are you afraid to give us a technical definition of an intelligent? You are an expert in design. C'mon lets have it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 9:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 139 of 219 (530307)
10-12-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by RAZD
10-12-2009 9:57 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
And again, I give you the same answer I did before
That's not an answer. That's a tap dancing exhibition.
Your a coward

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 9:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Perdition, posted 10-13-2009 11:08 AM ICdesign has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 146 of 219 (530512)
10-13-2009 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Perdition
10-13-2009 11:08 AM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Perdition writes:
It seems to be you're trying to argue against Evolution, but considering this thread has nothing to do with evolution, you're the one flailing in the dark.
If you look at message #77 and message #110 I talk extensivly about design proving with the facts in vivid description that design in the human body is extremely intelligent. You on the other hand have failed to show or prove anything scientific or otherwise.
Only a fool can look at design and say "It looks like design, and appears to be design in every way shape and form. You have multiple systems working together to achieve a meaningful purpose, but nope, no design here."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Perdition, posted 10-13-2009 11:08 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 11:37 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 147 of 219 (530513)
10-13-2009 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by RAZD
10-13-2009 7:31 PM


Re: Round 6: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
You sir have failed to prove your ignorant Silly Design theory is
anything more than your foollish opinion. To use the idea of silly to try to prove scientific evidence would get you laughed out of any science class in the world.
You and I both know that you are scared to take my design test or answer what the definition of intelligent design is because your position is so weak that I would be able to crush you no matter what answer you come up with.
AND THAT SIR IS WHAT WE CALL A CHECK-MATE!!!!!!!
no further comments needed. thank you very much and austa-la-byebye

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2009 7:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2009 9:38 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 149 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2009 9:58 PM ICdesign 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