Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 159 (8170 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-28-2014 8:08 PM
79 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MarkG
Happy Birthday: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 742,235 Year: 28,076/28,606 Month: 3,133/2,244 Week: 537/710 Day: 37/76 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
222324Next
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 301 of 352 (508877)
05-17-2009 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by traderdrew
05-16-2009 12:12 PM


Re: General Reply
Hi, Traderdrew.

When you reply to multiple people at once, it would be nice if you somehow made it apparent. You can make a "qs"-coded quote list the writer's name by writing "qs=writer's name" instead of just "qs" in the opening code.

traderdrew writes:

That may be true but why derive the numbers only from biologists? Why not take a survey of other types of scientists such as biochemists?

Biochemists are biologists.

-----

traderdrew writes:

I don’t mean to insult your objectivity as a scientist but I do question it.

You question the objectivity of a guy who accepts a theory that directly conflicts with his personal belief system? Are you sure you know what "objectivity" means?

Why would this cause you to question my objectivity, anyway? Because I'm only interested in working on theories that show promise? How does this make sense to you?

-----

traderdrew writes:

Anyway, sometimes the evidence for a creator is there before us but our paradigms don’t let it filter through. We think and perceive the world from our paradigms.

Drew, this isn't a revelation to anybody. In fact, academic persons are so aware that their personal biases can impact their conclusions in undesirable ways, that they invented a method to lessen the effects. They called it, "the scientific method," or "science," for short.

The entire point of science is to prevent personal opinions from dictating what is accepted as truth. Perfect objectivity is still beyond us, but the simple fact is that scientific thought is infinitely less prone to bias than is religious thought.

-----

traderdrew writes:

Then again, your belief system supports a theory of mine.

I did not share my belief system with you, so I’m not sure how you were able to determine what it supports.

-----

traderdrew writes:

[My idea] says that the creator isn’t interested in providing a clear pathway for us to find proof of an existence through an intellectual process. If you are correct then my creator disguised the creation process better than I thought.

The creator is, however, apparently interested in making the creation process look like the result of naturalistic processes such as evolution. This creator apparently does not want us to find out about It or Its power. Yet, strangely, in the Bible, this same Creator had no qualms about manifesting Its power through magic tricks and miracles.

Why has It become so secretive of late, in your opinion?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by traderdrew, posted 05-16-2009 12:12 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 1:26 PM Blue Jay has responded

IchiBan
Member (Idle past 1439 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 302 of 352 (508912)
05-17-2009 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by cavediver
05-16-2009 2:15 PM


Re: General Reply
The deity behind Young Earth Creationism is a buffoon, inept in just about every aspect of his creative ability

Well I guess that settles it here then. I see a lot of that here. So just what does this victory over the deity/s of Young Earth Creationism get you anything more than personal satisfaction and self affirmation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by cavediver, posted 05-16-2009 2:15 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by cavediver, posted 05-17-2009 8:10 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 303 of 352 (508916)
05-17-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by IchiBan
05-17-2009 7:00 AM


Re: General Reply
So just what does this victory over the deity/s of Young Earth Creationism get you

Nothing, given that those deities do not exist. It is merely an exercise in demonstrating the utterly flawed nature of the concept of Biblical YECism. The Universe around us bears no resemblence to the one described in YEC theology, even allowing for just about every possible consequence of the Fall. I repeat, was the ground much softer pre-Fall? Were cliffs quite a bit lower?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by IchiBan, posted 05-17-2009 7:00 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 1:27 PM cavediver has not yet responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 304 of 352 (508943)
05-17-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by onifre
05-16-2009 1:04 PM


Re: General Reply
I think the link below clarifies what both of us are saying but I don't see how you can prove me wrong.

http://www.freemars.org/jeff/planets/Luna/Luna.htm

The sun is 400 times the Moon's diameter, and 400 times as far away. It is up to you if you want to view this as a coincidence or as a part of a design. This could be part of another topic. Does the arrangement of the solar system suggest design?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by onifre, posted 05-16-2009 1:04 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Coragyps, posted 05-17-2009 1:39 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 310 by onifre, posted 05-17-2009 7:08 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 311 by bluescat48, posted 05-17-2009 7:46 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 305 of 352 (508944)
05-17-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Percy
05-16-2009 1:52 PM


Re: General Reply
Third, you seem to think that flaws are evidence against evolution. This couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution is a tinkerer's approach, a spit and baling wire approach, almost a Rube Goldberg approach. "Good enough to work" is evolution's motto. Certainly the mammalian eye works well enough, and that's all that's required for selection.

I don't think that flaws by themselves are evidence against evolution. I was wondering if some of you didn't factor flaws into the random mutation equation. However, I'm sure that science has worked it out in some way even though a group of advanced mathematicians don't agree with neo-Darwinism.

Fourth, you missed Taq's point. Taq was explaining why fixing the mammalian eye is a "You can't get there from here" type of problem.

No I didn't.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 05-16-2009 1:52 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 05-17-2009 1:33 PM traderdrew has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 306 of 352 (508946)
05-17-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Blue Jay
05-17-2009 12:48 AM


Re: General Reply
Biochemists are biologists.

I had the impression that biochemists study the details of molecular machines at a lilliputian scale and biologists don't venture into that area.

Drew, this isn't a revelation to anybody. In fact, academic persons are so aware that their personal biases can impact their conclusions in undesirable ways, that they invented a method to lessen the effects. They called it, "the scientific method," or "science," for short.

I'm just making sure.

The creator is, however, apparently interested in making the creation process look like the result of naturalistic processes such as evolution. This creator apparently does not want us to find out about It or Its power. Yet, strangely, in the Bible, this same Creator had no qualms about manifesting Its power through magic tricks and miracles.

Why has It become so secretive of late, in your opinion?

Well, I don't think the media would be willing or wish to explain acts of God as acts of God. I think they would be more compelled to investigate or report them as some sort of natural phenomenon. I am probably stretching your point to a certain degree. Maybe it has something to do with the age of grace that Christians speak about. However, supernatural stories from the old testament might be somewhat outside of the views I am formulating on metascience. I am thinking about NOMA. Non-overlapping magisteria. I would have to give it more thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Blue Jay, posted 05-17-2009 12:48 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Blue Jay, posted 05-18-2009 3:53 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 307 of 352 (508948)
05-17-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by cavediver
05-17-2009 8:10 AM


Re: General Reply
Why don't you write a paper or a book and you can call it "Scientific Inaccuracies of the Bible"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by cavediver, posted 05-17-2009 8:10 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13362
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 308 of 352 (508949)
05-17-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by traderdrew
05-17-2009 1:01 PM


Re: General Reply
traderdrew writes:

I don't think that flaws by themselves are evidence against evolution. I wonder if some of you didn't factor flaws into the random mutation equation.

Fourth, you missed Taq's point. Taq was explaining why fixing the mammalian eye is a "You can't get there from here" type of problem.

No I didn't.

Sure you did. You called the mammalian eye an evolutionary dead end. It's not like there's any ambiguity, here's the entire exchange from your Message 296:

traderdrew in Message 296 writes:

The problem here is that there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary pathway that will allow us to change the flaw inherent in the vertebrate eye.

By the way, how many more dead ends exist in the evolutionary process of neo-Darwinism?

For some reason or another, almost all discussions of creationism and ID end up discussing evolution, so let's get back to the thread's topic. If you really believe that the mammalian eye is flawed and an evolutionary dead end, but that it is the product of an intelligent designer, then doesn't that force you to the same conclusion as the thread's premise that the intelligent designer is inept?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 1:01 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by traderdrew, posted 05-18-2009 7:46 PM Percy has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5145
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 309 of 352 (508952)
05-17-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by traderdrew
05-17-2009 12:53 PM


Re: General Reply
The sun is 400 times the Moon's diameter, and 400 times as far away.

Well, very roughly. The sun's diameter is close to 400 times the moon's, but this year the sun's distance from earth ranges from 362 times to 425 times the moon's distance. A few hundred million years ago it was more like 500 times as far. And no, the layout of the Solar system doesn't suggest anything like design to me. Observation and modeling suggest the opposite - they suggest gravity at work over 4.5 billion years, shuffling things around and scattering billions of protoplanets off into deep space or into the sun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 12:53 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 310 of 352 (508978)
05-17-2009 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by traderdrew
05-17-2009 12:53 PM


Re: General Reply
I don't see how you can prove me wrong.

But I did. You said:

traderdrew writes:

The moon covers the sun just perfectly from our perspective.

Well it doesn't always do that since it moves relative to us.

From your link:

quote:
When the Moon is at apogee, it is 11% farther from Earth than it is at perigee. This is far enough that it cannot entirely block the bright light, so eclipses which occur near apogee are not total.

This is what Bluecat made reference to.

The sun is 400 times the Moon's diameter, and 400 times as far away. It is up to you if you want to view this as a coincidence or as a part of a design.

Why are you ignoring the fact that the Sun and moon both move and at times is about 400 times the distance, but at other times it's not?

Are you now going to say it's designed to move?

Does the arrangement of the solar system suggest design?

Let's say the moon being at that distance, (let's also pretend it doesn't move), is indicative of design, why would that make a case for the entire solar system?

Do you know how many moons surround the other planets? None of them fit any little coincidental anomalies, doesn't that mean they aren't designed?

Anyways, no, it does not looked designed. Nor could you point to anything that isn't confirmed to occur through natural causes.

You see the reason many feel the designer is inept is, not because they are trying to insult said designer, but because nature is not perfect and what we see from nature is a struggle for survival in brutal conditions. The simple fact that things constantly adapt to changing environments, both on earth and stellar, indicates that life is progressively trying to perfect the situation it finds itself in for self preservation - and in the case of inorganic material the laws of physics maintain certain results that can be measured and predict further changes.

If everything is designed then everything is not prefectly designed and constantly battles to survive because of that. So, either everything is a natural process of adaptation, or the designer is inept and can't seem to get it right.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 12:53 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 691 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 311 of 352 (508981)
05-17-2009 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by traderdrew
05-17-2009 12:53 PM


Re: General Reply
traderdrew writes:

The sun is 400 times the Moon's diameter, and 400 times as far away. It is up to you if you want to view this as a coincidence or as a part of a design. This could be part of another topic. Does the arrangement of the solar system suggest design

from your posted URL writes:

A total solar eclipse, in which the Moon is between the Earth and Sun, blocks the bright light from the Sun's photosphere, allowing us to see the faint glow from the corona, the Sun's outer atmosphere.

When the Moon is at apogee, it is 11% farther from Earth than it is at perigee. This is far enough that it cannot entirely block the bright light, so eclipses which occur near apogee are not total.

Bold type added for emphasis

Your statement, quotemined from the article, would only be true if the moon's orbit were circular and at the correct distance. Thus if there is a designer he is inept at least in the creation of the solar system

Edited by bluescat48, : missing [/qs]

Edited by bluescat48, : sp & typo


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 12:53 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 312 of 352 (509087)
05-18-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by traderdrew
05-17-2009 1:26 PM


Re: General Reply
Hi, Drew.

traderdrew writes:

Bluejay writes:

traderdrew writes:

That may be true but why derive the numbers only from biologists? Why not take a survey of other types of scientists such as biochemists?


Biochemists are biologists.

I had the impression that biochemists study the details of molecular machines at a lilliputian scale and biologists don't venture into that area.

Yeah, perhaps that was a bit laconic of me: what I meant that message to convey to you as that, when somebody says, "something like 99% of all biologists accept evolution," the word "biologist" includes biochemists, physiologists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, cellular biologists, geneticists, bioinformaticists, zoologists, botanists, malacologists, carcinologists, entomologists, myrmecologists, mycologists, ornithologists, herpetologists, etc.

-----

traderdrew writes:

Well, I don't think the media would be willing or wish to explain acts of God as acts of God.

Have you seen the attention given to the likeness of the Virgin Mary in water stains, clouds and French toast? :D

-----

traderdrew writes:

I think they would be more compelled to investigate or report them as some sort of natural phenomenon.

Of course: if a certain method works on a regular basis, soon enough you'll have everybody out there trying to implement it.

-----

This is getting a little too far from the topic. I think I'm going to bow out here. It's been a pleasure debating with you. See you on other threads.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 1:26 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 1656 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 313 of 352 (509118)
05-18-2009 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Percy
05-17-2009 1:33 PM


On the Topic
Sure you did. You called the mammalian eye an evolutionary dead end. It's not like there's any ambiguity

I don't see how you think I called the mammalian eye a dead end when first of all, I didn't write all of that post and second of all, that was Tag's post saying that there was no evolutionary way to correct the inherent flaw. Tag didn't state that it was an evolutionary dead end.You guys are making me think so I thought that I would create a question that makes you evolutionists think.

That is OK. This is not the first time that I have had the impression that some of you guys are grasping for straws. Anyway, you and cavediver asked for it so here it goes:

Perfection is a subjective term that has applications in various fields such as physics and mathematics. We have an idea of how perfect a performance should unfold according to our immediate perceptions. How does the term perfect apply to machines? What is a perfect machine? Can you define its capabilities? Once limits are established someone will raise the bar ad infidium arguing that if the machine or process is perfect then it is surely capable of more. Where would this stop?

The idea that the creator should’ve or would’ve created perfect systems overlooks the possibility of multiple motives and the possibility that perfection wouldn’t serve at least one of those motives. It may also not consider some possible theological ramifications that we may or may not understand.

Why does the creator have to design perfect systems? Why not design adequate systems that get the job done??? Is there any sense in overdoing it?

Have you ever considered that the creator didn’t want to provide absolute proof of an existence to people? Why? The act of proving an existence would force people into making decisions in light of consequences. If you could prove that a God exists then that would force certain individuals into making decisions they really don’t want too. Perhaps by hiding his (I will assume the creator has the image of a man) existence it ensures that certain ramifications would unfold in the future.

Perhaps the creator hid the fingerprints of design because our creator wasn’t interested in our intellectual abilities. Perhaps the creator is more interested in the essence of who we are and that is who we are as expressed out of our hearts.

If there was a perfect physical utopia, would people grow and/or learn wisdom? Perhaps the best way to learn wisdom is to live through an experience where it is learned and I would argue that this would arise out of an imperfect world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 05-17-2009 1:33 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by lyx2no, posted 05-18-2009 8:58 PM traderdrew has responded
 Message 315 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2009 10:03 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 316 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 3:06 AM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 322 by Taq, posted 05-19-2009 1:03 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1218 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 314 of 352 (509123)
05-18-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by traderdrew
05-18-2009 7:46 PM


Look Who's Grasping at Straws
Why does the creator have to design perfect systems?
Who is asking for perfect? We're asking for competent. If someone invents a typewriter and doesn't bother to include vowels or punctuation marks would you be questioning his greater purpose or his competence? Or are vowels and punctuation marks overdoing it?

The idea that the creator should’ve or would’ve created perfect systems overlooks the possibility of multiple motives and the possibility that perfection wouldn’t serve at least one of those motives.
So, your God is limited in His abilities. He's a tiny god who has to work with what he's given. Inept, as it were. Given your inside scoop with god it's not surprising you make the argument for ineptitude better then an atheist ever could.

Perhaps the creator hid the fingerprints of design because our creator wasn’t interested in our intellectual abilities.
But he couldn't hide them from you, could he, you clever, little minx?

Perhaps the best way to learn wisdom is to live through an experience where it is learned and I would argue that this would arise out of an imperfect world.
What are all those wise African babies learning before they starve to death that's so valuable?

Edited by lyx2no, : Imperfect punctuation.


It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.
— Spock: Mirror Mirror

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by traderdrew, posted 05-18-2009 7:46 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by traderdrew, posted 05-19-2009 11:36 AM lyx2no has responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 315 of 352 (509129)
05-18-2009 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by traderdrew
05-18-2009 7:46 PM


Re: On the Topic
Why does the creator have to design perfect systems? Why not design adequate systems that get the job done??? Is there any sense in overdoing it?

Evolution does adequate systems just fine--that's its specialty, in fact.

If your creator also does adequate systems, how are you going to tell the difference between the two? Or that there even is a "creator" at all?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by traderdrew, posted 05-18-2009 7:46 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1920
21
222324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014