Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8782 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2017 5:29 PM
92 online now:
Coyote, Meddle (2 members, 90 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,669 Year: 21,275/21,208 Month: 1,708/2,326 Week: 163/881 Day: 85/78 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Why would an intelligent designer design these?
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 108 (226399)
07-26-2005 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Electron
02-15-2005 6:13 AM


Flood
You'll disagree vehemently I suppose, and not all ID's are Christian and not all Christians are YECs and believe that Noah's Flood is responsible for the fossil layers, but I am and do.

It isn't that there is a continual "improvement" by the forces of evolution, but rather that only a relatively few major kinds of creatures have survived the Flood. The Flood caused the massive extinction and is responsible for the fossils and layers, in which the fossils are found.

That is the answer from the YEC paradigm -- so far as I understand it.

Your problem is that you are examining certain of the ID theories by mixing its postulates, paradigms, assumptions, etc. with your own postulates, paradigms, assumptions, etc. You cannot truly examine it that way.

In this case, you are assuming that the prevalent (certainly not the only) body plan today is an "improvement" over what you think are ancient body plans -- improved upon, of course, by natural selection.

The YEC paradigm doesn't assume that anything has "improved" in the way you are thinking. Instead, we see a massive, world-wide extinction (Noah's Flood) -- therefore, there are now fewer body plans whereas there used to be greater diversity.

There are other ID paradigms (like panspermia), but I am unfamiliar with those...I am a YEC.

--Jason


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Electron, posted 02-15-2005 6:13 AM Electron has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 6:09 AM TheLiteralist has responded
 Message 98 by kuresu, posted 04-02-2006 3:48 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2006 8:32 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 62 of 108 (226403)
07-26-2005 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by TheLiteralist
07-26-2005 5:52 AM


Re: Flood
and not all ID's are Christian

yeah, but does anyone count the raelians?

Noah's Flood is responsible for the fossil layers

how do you explain angular unconformities? (never seen a flood-layer-person answer this one yet)


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-26-2005 5:52 AM TheLiteralist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-26-2005 6:35 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 108 (226407)
07-26-2005 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Electron
02-14-2005 12:42 PM


ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
All Christians are IDers, but not all IDers are Christian -- in other words, not all IDers say that the intelligent designer is the omnipotent, omniscient God of the Bible.

The God of the Bible (who is the God I believe in) is omnipotent and omniscient, and he has not been trying to come up with the best body plan over the last 3 billion years.

However, your statement:

Why would an intelligent designer seem to be following the same path as us?

Contradicts your own position if you are trying to argue against ID, because humans are intelligent designers and you have just argued that the evidence (as you interpret it) indicates that there is an intelligent designer behaving much like us humans.

Funny, no?

--Jason


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Electron, posted 02-14-2005 12:42 PM Electron has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by CK, posted 07-26-2005 6:40 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Electron, posted 07-26-2005 12:07 PM TheLiteralist has responded

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 108 (226408)
07-26-2005 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by arachnophilia
07-26-2005 6:09 AM


Re: Flood
I don't know what raelians are.

However, IIRC, one of the co-discoverers of DNA (cant remember the name), eventually decided that aliens planted the first life forms (or something like that), because he understood the DNA and related cellular machinery to be too complex to have arisen spontaneously.

It is as many here say, abiogenesis is not evolution. Not all IDers are anti-evolution, but some are (me, for instance)

No, I probably can't explain angular unconformities. But if they can occur slowly, can they occur quickly? If the land can shift axis slowly can it shift axis quickly? Can the flood deposit layers on one axis, and then on the other axis, wash away some of the original layers and then deposit more? I think that is the standard YEC explanation, but if it gets overanalyzed here it will drag the thread into the realm of "Geology and the Great Flood" -- i.e., go off topic.

--Jason


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 6:09 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 9:39 PM TheLiteralist has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 1626 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 65 of 108 (226410)
07-26-2005 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by TheLiteralist
07-26-2005 6:25 AM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
Why does God have Nipples?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-26-2005 6:25 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 9:35 PM CK has responded

  
Electron
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 108 (226466)
07-26-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by TheLiteralist
07-26-2005 6:25 AM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
quote:
However, your statement:
quote:

Why would an intelligent designer seem to be following the same path as us?

Contradicts your own position if you are trying to argue against ID, because humans are intelligent designers and you have just argued that the evidence (as you interpret it) indicates that there is an intelligent designer behaving much like us humans.

Funny, no?



No, not really. Rather than being a contradiction, the observation that god would seem to have gone about his design work in the same way that we do makes him just as clumsy as us. Look at how long we both took to master the art of flying for example. The pattern of wide initial diversity followed by later convergence towards optimality parallels the human engineering aproach -- we learn on "the job" finding optimal solutions as we get to know more about our materials and theories. I very much doubt that you would wish to translate similar limitations upon your concept of your almighty designer?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-26-2005 6:25 AM TheLiteralist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 3:04 AM Electron has responded
 Message 76 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 3:43 AM Electron has not yet responded
 Message 77 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 4:01 AM Electron has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 67 of 108 (226590)
07-26-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by CK
07-26-2005 6:40 AM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
Why does God have Nipples?

because people suck.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by CK, posted 07-26-2005 6:40 AM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 3:52 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 71 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 3:52 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 68 of 108 (226591)
07-26-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by TheLiteralist
07-26-2005 6:35 AM


Re: Flood
I don't know what raelians are.

the believe we were intelligently designed -- by space aliens.

However, IIRC, one of the co-discoverers of DNA (cant remember the name), eventually decided that aliens planted the first life forms (or something like that), because he understood the DNA and related cellular machinery to be too complex to have arisen spontaneously.

that sounds entirely apocryphal.

No, I probably can't explain angular unconformities. But if they can occur slowly, can they occur quickly?

well, they indicate that the strata were formed sequentially. each new layer requires the every one below it to be entirely solid.

If the land can shift axis slowly can it shift axis quickly?

many of the events that do it ARE quick events, such as earthquakes. but it means that such a thing has to happen before new layers are put on it.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-26-2005 6:35 AM TheLiteralist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by MangyTiger, posted 07-26-2005 10:27 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 78 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 4:10 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 69 of 108 (226610)
07-26-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by arachnophilia
07-26-2005 9:39 PM


Re: Flood
quote:
However, IIRC, one of the co-discoverers of DNA (cant remember the name), eventually decided that aliens planted the first life forms (or something like that), because he understood the DNA and related cellular machinery to be too complex to have arisen spontaneously.

that sounds entirely apocryphal.


Francis Crick was a believer in directed panspermia - as far as I remember he felt it unlikely life had evolved on Earth (don't know why) and proposed that aliens had seeded the Earth in the distant past. He co-authored a paper called Directed Panspermia in 1973.


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 9:39 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 3:05 AM MangyTiger has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 1626 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 70 of 108 (226648)
07-27-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by arachnophilia
07-26-2005 9:35 PM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
it may appear I was talking the piss with that question - I was not.

If man is created in the image of the intelligent designer (in this case, the christian god), then why would he have them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 9:35 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 1626 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 71 of 108 (226649)
07-27-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by arachnophilia
07-26-2005 9:35 PM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
it may appear I was taking the piss with that question - I was not.

If man is created in the image of the intelligent designer (in this case, the christian god), then why would he have them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 9:35 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by arachnophilia, posted 07-27-2005 5:57 PM CK has not yet responded
 Message 75 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 3:31 AM CK has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 232 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 72 of 108 (226866)
07-27-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by CK
07-27-2005 3:52 AM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
it may appear I was taking the piss with that question - I was not.

If man is created in the image of the intelligent designer (in this case, the christian god), then why would he have them?

it is my opinion that "created in the image of god" is not exactly 100% literal. more that we are patterned after god's qualities.

but that's just my take.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 3:52 AM CK has not yet responded

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 108 (226941)
07-28-2005 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Electron
07-26-2005 12:07 PM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
quote:
I very much doubt that you would wish to translate similar limitations upon your concept of your almighty designer.

You are missing my point.

The OP indicates that at least a human-like intelligence is at work and therefore actually supports the general notion of ID.

It is true that the OP does not support the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent God (i.e., the Christian God). But the OP, as currently stated, is arguing against ID in general, not the Christian God in particular. Therefore, since the OP presents "evidence" that a human-like intelligence is at work while trying to disprove ID in general, the OP contradicts itself.

Christianity is only ONE form of ID -- there are many others. The general idea of ID does NOT require that the intelligent designer be all-knowing and all-powerful (as the Christian God is).

My comments -- far from placing any limitations on the One, whom I consider to be the Intelligent Designer -- indicate that the person who wrote the O.P. is confusing ID in general with Christianity in particular.

--Jason

AbE: before I get inundated with comments, I DO understand what the OP is trying to get across, but all too often I see people confuse ID in general with Christianity, and I think it's good to point out that they are different. Christianity is a subset of ID, just like humans are a subset of "mammals"...if thinking of it that way helps.

Just like evolutionists keep telling YECers "You can be a Christian and believe in evolution, too"...You can be and IDer and not believe any of the Bible at all. You can even be an atheist and be an IDer.

The distinction is important, that's why I brought it up.

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 03:16 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Electron, posted 07-26-2005 12:07 PM Electron has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Electron, posted 07-28-2005 5:30 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 108 (226942)
07-28-2005 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by MangyTiger
07-26-2005 10:27 PM


Francis Crick -- the chief raelian?
Thanks for the info, Mangy Tiger.

AbE: perhaps I have erroneously supplied a "reason" for Francis Crick to have chosen to believe in "directed panspermia" -- i.e., that the DNA and related cellular machinery are too complicated to have arisen via chance (i.e., abiogenesis). If it turns out that was not his reason, then I will rescind that particular assertion.

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 03:05 AM

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 03:38 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by MangyTiger, posted 07-26-2005 10:27 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 108 (226946)
07-28-2005 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by CK
07-27-2005 3:52 AM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
Well, I DID think it was rude...at first...and was planning on simply ignoring it.

If it's a sincere question, well, then it's rather different than most I get asked, I must say.

I'm not sure I have a good answer for it, either.

To echo Arach (which I will not often do, I assure you -- our beliefs being so dissimilar), yes, I have never taken "in God's image" to mean an exact copy of God.

But the question is more difficult than that because God is an omnipresent Spirit and does not have nipples (as a Spirit).

However, God (I refer to the God of the Bible), for the last 2000 or so years HAS had and DOES have a body, which is the Christ (the Son of God). Christ is the incarnation of God Himself (I am NOT a trinitarian, btw...I consider the trinity to be polytheism...and a bit strange for "God the Father" (who is mentioned in the Bible) to send "God the Son" (who is NEVER mentioned in the Bible) down to die for His creation. No, in the Bible, God Himself suffers in the flesh for us as Jesus Christ. The term "Son of God" is referencing the body, which was born of the Holy Spirit ("Holy Spirit" is just another way to reference God the Father -- you might say, "the Spirit of God" -- it is NOT a different person in the Godhead, or whatever -- in the same way that when I say "the spirit of Jason" I am not referencing another person in me).

So, we are patterned after Christ, imo. But really Christ now has a glorified body, which I assume is different from the ones we have now in significant ways. The glorified bodies may not have nipples, but I assume the same basic bipedal form will be kept. I would tend to think that nipples are temporary thing, but I could be wrong about that.

I wish I could do better answering it than that. Hope it helps in some way.

--Jason

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 03:33 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 3:52 AM CK has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017