Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 2:35 PM
332 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,482 Year: 29,088/21,208 Month: 1,154/1,847 Week: 77/452 Day: 77/115 Hour: 15/23

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19324
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 10:13 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 138 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 10:25 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 139 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 10:29 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 2414 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 responded

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

    
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 2414 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 acknowledged this reply

    
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 2414 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 acknowledged this reply

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

    
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2857 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 140 of 219 (530331)
10-13-2009 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by RAZD
10-12-2009 9:39 PM


Re: topic please.
Hi, thanks for the welcome. I hope the off topic flavour didn't offend.

I was responding to incredibly uninformed statements made in this thread by ICDESIGN. Anyone who can type "ID science" with a straight face clearly knows very little (probably nothing at all) about genes, proteins, and of course evolution. In fact they almost certainly know little or nothing about any kind of "science". Post 110 was just mindless Bible-bashing.

In many ways, "thread drift" off topic is analogous to evolution, if you think about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 9:39 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 141 of 219 (530401)
10-13-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by ICdesign
10-12-2009 10:29 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
You don't seem to be understanding the point of the thread. What does fumbling in the dark have to do with Silly Design versus Intelligent Design? 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.

Now that that's cleared up, can you get back to the point? Explaining why the obvious design in the world (as we're assuming in this thread) points to an "Intelligent" designer despite the unintelligent, and indeed, quite silly designs we see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 10:29 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 2:21 PM Perdition has responded
 Message 146 by ICdesign, posted 10-13-2009 8:51 PM Perdition has responded

    
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2857 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 142 of 219 (530446)
10-13-2009 2:21 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.
Explaining why the obvious design in the world (as we're assuming in this thread) points to an "Intelligent" designer...

The "obvious" design you refer to is not design at all. The problem is that you are viewing the biosphere through 3000-year old spectacles. The ancients had no explanation for life on earth, so they just said "god did it", and made up some stories to back up that hypothesis.

Nowadays, however, we know that all life on earth had a common ancestor, and evolved from it, and everything alive is related to everything else. DNA sequencing proves this.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Perdition, posted 10-13-2009 2:47 PM Blzebub has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 143 of 219 (530449)
10-13-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Blzebub
10-13-2009 2:21 PM


The point of the thread
I know. However, for this thread, design is assumed. Once we make that assumption, we're left with, at least, two options: Silly Design and Intelligent Design. RAZD is doing a hell of a job explaining why it looks more like Silly Design. ICDESIGN has appeared to take up the mantle of defending the Intelligent Design side of the argument, however, he seems to be able to defend it only by arguing against evolution, which doesn't even come close to refuting Silly Design, let a lone providing a reason to believe in Intelligent Design. I was attempting to let ICDESIGN know that he was arguing against the wrong thing.

AbE: Welcome to the forum, btw. It may take a while to figure out which side everyone is on, but I'm definitely not a proponent of ID or Creationism.

Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 2:21 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 3:35 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply

    
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2857 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 144 of 219 (530454)
10-13-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Perdition
10-13-2009 2:47 PM


Re: The point of the thread
Ah. Please accept my unreserved apology, sir (or madam). Thanks for the welcome. It's an odd place - looks like a discussion between 21st century scientists, and a primitive, isolated tribe, at times.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Perdition, posted 10-13-2009 2:47 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19324
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


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 responded

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

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 2414 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 responded

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

    
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 2414 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 responded

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

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 148 of 219 (530517)
10-13-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by ICdesign
10-13-2009 9:05 PM


I don't got to show you no stinkin' proof!
You sir have failed to prove...

Intelligent design proponents (or is it "cdesign proponentsists"?) have the burden of proof to show that their claims are science, and that they follow the scientific method.

So far they have failed.

Instead, the evidence--including a decision from a Federal District Court--shows that ID is religion lite, and it is not hard to see that it arose after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, in an effort to sneak religion back into the classrooms.

No legitimate universities teach ID. The only ones that have a serious ID program are (surprise!) fundamentalist Christian universities.

There are no serious scientific research programs studying ID. A few fundamentalists who also happen to be scientists (e.g., Behe) try to push their religious beliefs as science, but so far they have been epic failures! The evidence just doesn't support their claims! And they can't twist and misrepresent it enough to convince anyone other than fundamentalists who share their beliefs.

The truth is they can't follow the scientific method. It leads to answers that are inconvenient for their beliefs.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by ICdesign, posted 10-13-2009 9:05 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19324
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 149 of 219 (530519)
10-13-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by ICdesign
10-13-2009 9:05 PM


Round 7: Neo-Paleyism runs away, leaving the field to Silly Design ...
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.


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 147 by ICdesign, posted 10-13-2009 9:05 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 854 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 150 of 219 (530879)
10-15-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by ICdesign
10-13-2009 8:51 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
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."

For the purpose of this thread, we're granting design. Arguing that design exists is redundant and a waste of space in this thread, because for the sake of argument, we've already granted that. It is now up to you to show WHAT TYPE of design you see. RAZD sees Silly Design because even less than perfectly intelligent beings (us) can design better and more efficient products than the one "the Designer" apparently did. This seems silly.

It is now on you to counter with things that are not silly, but rather intelligent, and even better, to counter why the silly designs RAZD is pointing out are not, in fact, silly. You would do this by citing evidence and using the scientific method. Merely stating it, or bringing religion into it are the wrong way to go in a science forum and will not be convicing in the least.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ICdesign, posted 10-13-2009 8:51 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 10-15-2009 8:40 PM Perdition has responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017