Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

Forgive me, but it really looks like you are using a very cleverly disguised creationist strawman. You worded your 'essay' to sound like the entire bone just popped up from mutation overnight. In other words, you are arguing from the point of view that evolution says something like the mandible just came into existence fully formed fully functional. That's not how evolution works!PS You're not talking to a bunch of dumbasses. Flashy words and clever sentences won't impress anyone here.Edited by gasby, : further thought

Actually, if the intelligent designer is infinitely knowledgable, it could no doubt be able to consider an infinite number of forms.

This is not an argument against intelligent design. In fact, it is an argument for intelligent design. After all, I could point to architects that use recurring themes in their lives' works. Musicians also use recurring themes (hint: mozart). And it's not reasonable to assume that Frank Loyd Wright's designs are the absolute best architectural engineering designs ever. I don't agree. Your argument is somewhat a cross breed between a no true scot and strawman.We could always always always always look at an engineering piece, nitpick it a little, and say that it could have been engineered better, if not structurally then aesthetically. For the past year, I've been paying attention to minute details of my house and have found many flaws both structurally and aesthetically. Should I, then, assume that there was no engineer planning behind the whole thing?The other thing is your argument is based on the assumption that intelligent design "theory" must absolutely have an infinitely wise and knowledgable designer that decided to create everything perfectly. This is like demanding that every engineer and architect to design everything structurally and aesthetically perfect all their lives, and if you run into an architect that wanted to design and build his own house based on a theme that is neither structurally nor aesthetically perfect then you'd declare him non-existant.I've painted and worked on some parts of my house. Don't ever come into my house and demand perfection for every little detail. I could also easily point out that structures and artworks are designed and created based on previous designs and experiences. I could also as easily point out that buildings become structurally unsound eventually and some collapse over time. There's a reason why there's such a thing as maintainance. I could also just as easily point out that this sentence doesn't belong in the Intelligent Design forum What's wrong with a stupid intelligent designer? Now, you just sound like an angry child pissing and moaning about the flat nose he got from his daddy

Notice that I used the word "could" rather than "would".

Hahahahaha. Never thought I'd see you walk right into a logic trap like this.Before I explain why, I first need to explain something about the human consciousness.A human can look at 1 object and without counting "1" in his head he can know that it's 1 object. He can look at 2 objects and know right away that it's 2 objects. He can do this up to 5 objects. But as soon as there are 6 objects, he would actually have to count in his head "1, 2, 3, 4, etc." There is a word to describe this aspect of the human consciousness, but it escapes me for now.The point is we can instantaneously perceive up to 5 objects and know that there are 5.But what about the objects themselves? Most people can instantaneously recognize 1 object given that it is recognizable to the observer. When I say recognize, I mean not having to go through the mental process of "hm... this one is a _____ and that one is a ______."But that's as far as human consciousness goes.You are assuming that the intelligent designer, although infinitely knowledgable, is operating at the same level of consciousness as we do. You can't do that. For all we know, the intelligent designer could perceive and recognize instantaneously an infinitely number of objects. It's a toss up.So, when you say "there's always one more to consider", you are assuming that the intelligent designer has to go through the mental process of counting and considering "1, 2, 3, 4, etc." like we do. You can't assume something like that.

Intelligent design and creationism are two different things. What, it couldn't simply created us that way for amusement? That's not the point, though. No IDists (real ones, not the creos) claim to know who/what the designer is.

As far as I know, no IDists (again, the real ones not the creo ones) have ever made a strong claim that the intelligent designer is one single almighty super being. They've been clever enough to leave that portion blank.What if the intelligent designer is actually a team of flying spag monsters?

I suppose you're right... but consider this. Why the hell does an intelligent designer have to consider every possible form for a biological structure before snapping its fingers?When I was going around shopping for the right material at the most reasonable price to put in my backyard fencing, I certainly didn't go check out every company, every brand, every shop, every contractor, etc. in the state, let alone the world. I only checked out as many as I wanted to in my town.I simply don't see why an intelligent designer has to consider every possible form before waving that big magic wand to do the magic.

While it is true that they haven't officially named the intelligent designer, they have most certainly tried to make it clear in court that more research had to be done before a reasonable answer could be given.You're not helping debunking ID by demanding that the IDists know everything about everything. They use the same tactic against real scientists in debates. I've seen a creationist hammer an astronomer with geology questions only to get "I don't know" from the astronomer. A lot of people in the audience that night thought that the astronomer was a dumbass and the creationist was the true intellectual.

I occasionally have the pleasure of talking to an "evolutionist" (I still don't feel comfortable with that term) who doesn't know jack poop about what he's talking about. There are those out there that are (1) loud mouthed, (2) not very knowledgable, (3) misrepresent their own side, and (4) make everybody else on their side look bad. For a more classic example of this, just look up Fred Phelps.

Questioning someone's motive isn't exactly what I like to do in a debate.But here's some junk food for thought. I recently read a book called "calculating god". It's about an alien race finding fantastic coincidences in the geological records of its planet and the planets of other life supporting planets that harbor technologically advance civilizations, especially about the major mass extinctions. The book talks about how unlikely it is that an intelligent race could arise through the evolutionary process at relatively the same time as another intelligent race on another planet. The mass extinctions in the geological records of all these planets happened at about the same time giving rise to intelligent races at relatively the same time.But that's not all. Nearby supernovas that happened in the past that should have sterilized every planet within light years somehow didn't harm any of the life harboring planet in this part of the galaxy.Anyway, the alien race begins to suspect that there must be some kind of intelligent force behind all these coincidences, and they're calling it god for lack of a better word.It turns out that the intelligent force is a space dwelling creature who thought the universe was too boring so decided to get involve with the evolutionary processes on the various planets with the intention of coercing evolution to give rice to technologically advance races at about the same time so they could converse with each other. This creature is anything but an all powerful being like the christian god, but advance enough (and big enough) to smash asteroids onto planets and block the angry photons from exploding suns.It's science fiction, I know. Yet, it is an interesting concept. You generally see 2 polar opposite views in the EvC debate: the ones that insist on an all powerful creator and the ones that insist on no intelligence at all. Neither side would ever consider for a moment that if there is an intelligent designer that the designer would be like a child playing with his ant colony while we are the ants trying to understand the ant farm (aka the universe). I'm intellectually neutral in these matters. I just like to look at and consider all sides.

There are varying degrees of intelligent design folks out there. Some believe in an all powerful creator while others simply don't feel comfortable with a purposeless existence. I'm just trying to help out the ones (if they exist at all) that are noble enough to say "I don't know" when asked who the intelligent designer is.By the way, it should be noted that I'm a hardcore atheist.

Evidence? I'll get back to you in, oh I don't know, may be a million years from now. Obviously...Let me ask you this question. If tomorrow an alien race makes contact with us and present evidence of fantastic coincidences in the geological and fossil records of several planets that ultimately led to the emergence of technologically advance civilizations on these planets at relatively the same time for them to talk to one another, would you budge?The reason I'm asking is after months of reading people's comments here I'd have to say that your views are almost at the very far end of the opinion spectrum. My experiences tell me that people whose too opinionated in one specific area (no matter how right the opinion may be) are always in danger of deluding themselves.

See, sometimes I think people like me can make a better argument for ID or creationism better than the actual IDists or creationists.

Here is my take on how people approach their philosophical beliefs. We all started out believing in fairy tales as kids. Remember how fun it was to believe in santa? We couldn't really understand the dynamics of sound waves or gravity, so in our minds all of these things were magic. I remember growing up believing that the piano made the sound through magic rather than simple mechanical devices. But the most important thing about being kids was we all thought that what we knew at the time was the extend of knowledge for everybody else. I have a few nephews and nieces, all very little. They no doubt learn a lot from school and everytime I babysit them they'd tell me about what they learned from school. The thing that is always apparent is that they all assume I didn't know these things.As we grow older, we begin to see the world differently. We begin to realize that the world wasn't operating by magic, that there are principles to which the tv and radio are based on. And here is where people started spliting off. Some people began to develop the ability to empathize, some began to learn how to operate on a more objective level, while others simply remained child-like (I'm not going to name anyone, but all you have to do is look at certain members on this forum and see the apparent child-like attitude they still possess while being biologically adults).I arrived at my atheism through many years of pondering about the moral and spiritual aspects of the human psyche. On the way, I learned objectivity. Naturally, I also evaluated many many so-called evidence presented by both the honest to god adults and the child-like adults.So, to answer your question directly, no I don't think my atheism gives me some kind of superpower to make a better case. I think it's from all those years of intellectual exercises such as examining evidence and developing my BS detector.The real creos and IDists, for the most part, are still child-like. I have no doubt that most of them are honest. They just haven't developed their BS detector. They are more gullible than the rest of us. This is why their arguments can be so easily shot down. They can't tell the difference between real evidence and BS evidence. Ok, I'm sitting back and waiting for a temp suspension for leading you poor souls off topic.