|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Bye ICDesign (again).
It's the old "declare victory and run away" tactic so prevalent from creationists.
You sir have failed to prove your ignorant Silly Design theory is anything more than your foollish opinion. There we go with the ad hominem, the emblem of a failed argument. Curiously, the ability to explain evidence from the world around us is extensively documented on this thread, and the fact that you have not refuted a single argument for Silly Design Theory shows that it explains more than you do.
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 still you fail to see that your "test" fails to show how such an approach to design can be intelligent instead of silly. Fumbling around in the dark is good for high comedy.
AND THAT SIR IS WHAT WE CALL A CHECK-MATE!!!!!!! And you are now 0 for 7. That's what I call an absolute failure of Neo-Paleyism to explain things better than Silly Design Theory.
no further comments needed. thank you very much and austa-la-byebye And you can't even get that right. Enjoy. 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 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Perdition,
This one could be filed under either, I suppose. The soft spot allows the baby's head to deform enough to fit out the birth canal. The only other options are a smaller head (and thus smaller brain), accelerated head growth during infancy, or a larger birth canal. I suppose there could be arguments for and against each solution... Yep, it's pretty silly to limit further development of human intelligence that way. Of course the work around that we have is Caesarian sections, but then you have to think that if the "pleasure dome" were located above the pubic bone, not only would it be isolated from the waste treatement outlets, but you wouldn't need to pass through the pelvis. Of course this limerick would still apply:
A young couple from New Delhi got stuck together belly to belly for in their haste they used library paste instead of petroleum jelly Another solution would be to divide up the mental tasks into multiple centers that then use software like World Grid uses. Damage to one center could be anticipated with backups in other centers. Then there's the whole silly design of the spinal column, channeling nerves inside a flexible multi-jointed support structure is just asking for trouble anytime a little injury happens to that column. Why aren't nerves dispersed like blood vessels? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : splng 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 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi BobTHC, continuing from Message 67 on the Convergent Evolution - Reasonable conclusion? or convenient excuse? thread:
On this thread I have proposed an alternate design hypothesis (see Message 1):
quote: Curiously, I had a brief discussion here with another design proponent, and he was unable to show that Neo-Paleyism explained the diversity of life better than the Silly Design Theory (in fact he never got out of the starting blocks to show that anything was explained by Neo-Paleyism). Also see the answer to the challenge he issued:
Message 96: 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? His answers are quite amusing. Now, I happen to be a designer, so I know a fair bit about how design works, and how much "borrowing" goes on in the design field, and this is the kind of thing that I would expect to see if there is an active designer involved in the development and diversity of life on earth. For active design to be a valid hypothesis there should be instances of cross-over between lineages outside of hereditary lines, where features are "borrowed" wholesale from other lineages. Now if you rule out active design, then you are left with passive design, where life evolves according to evolution, perhaps even beginning with abiogenesis occurring, with a universe designed for life to happen. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : msg link 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 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Fiver for the excellent suggestion.
There are a large number of scientific groups who have published statements saying that they disapprove of Intelligent Design Theory. Obviously this should be considered support for Silly Design Theory. Now we need to start compiling a list of Scientists That Don't Support Intelligent Design Theory. And a statement to agree to ...
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of Irreducible Complexity (IC) and Complex Specified Information (CSI) to explain the full diversity of life. Careful evaluation of the arguments for Intelligent Design theory should be encouraged, especially before such a theory is incorporated into a public school curriculum. Think I'd have any signers? 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Catholic Scientist,
... Is this an example of Intelligent Design or Silly Design? I think that calling it Intelligent Design would be a big fallacy. Enjoy.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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024