Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy?

and your point is what? if we are talking about a designer who stands outside the criteria of what is considered designed, then it would have to be a god and the god in question from most IDests 99% say its the christian god who is all-knowing and outside time and knows everything in time
so by what IDiests define as the designer, this designer would know what would happen to his designed life, unlike humans who have no ability to know things in advance like god. but like all living things we can assess problems with something, so claiming that the design isn't what god wanted it to be is irrelevent and begging the question, since we can never know eather way unless god tells us.the evidence alone shows that the design doesn't show intelligence at all but shows some other answer because of the utter faulitiness of the 'design'
as far as i can see not one Idist has shown anyway to show ID much less show how it is designed or why, since how is rather irrelevent if the designer can poof life into existance

i agree ringo, to argue a designer requires he be incompetent or malevolent since a lot of the 'designs' show nothing that would indicate a good designer
i mean if the way we get more people kills people what good is that? or if we can choke easily just by eating there is something wrong with the design or the answer isn't design at all

how is agreeing with ringo or not relevent? the fact that we can look at how things are structured verses how well they work, show people who bother to learn about this, that they are crappy 'designs' that the designer is not what people think it is?

everyone loves to stop at this scared at accepting this because it makes ID not science at all. ok give me a real answer what else could it be then? this is not faith and i've getting sick of people saying this like its true, its elimination based on how ID preposes its arguments agenst evolution and this is relevent how?, were was i talking about evolution? evolution is a better answer than an Intelliegence yes of course thats your default answer isn't it? claim that the spine doesn't work for standing on two legs nor does the eye show intelligence with its pointless blind spot, your answer is "thats just your point of view!!"
you got nothing

ok since you claim everything is opinion, why should i bother to answer you?
but, the evidence is, the spine, it is not built for two legs, the eye has a blind spot because the retina is in backwards, the legs of female humans are inverted and make birth painful and lead to death, is that what you need to show how crappy design is and show nothing of intelligence? ID can't come up with a reason that it wouldn't be god other than to deny it, so they look like science, even though to prepose a non-god answer begs the question of who designed the designer. the other problem with this is ID preposes that the universe looks designed, what thing other than god can do that?

no, this is not the way science works, if you have to make concessions like this, its not science anyway. the fact that the designs are flawed in such a way that they kill the animal makes the designer horrible at designing and not very intelligent. if you have to make stuff up why its flawed, then i can ask you why not make it without the flaws and not able to gain them? why make them one way over another have you read aobut ID at all? ID excludes evolution from the start, its arguements try to eliminate evolution instead of arguing for why ID is right. why i say ID is wrong? because life doesn't show design at all! why should we accept ID when it doesn't show design?
anyway evolution answers why life has crappy 'design' NS and mutation co-opt organs and biological structures for other useages and its incriments. the spine shows this rather than a designer, its halfway between four legs and two leaning to two now you are really confused i am not talking about faith in god i am talking about arguments and thier conclusions about design, namely to point out design you have to have a designer, when if you argue a designer based on how complex things are, and claim its not god then how is the designer not designed? for you to eliminate the possiblity of this question coming up you eather have to not name the designer, which raises questions of scientific honesty, e.g: why don;t you answer the question? or you say its god and be considered religion in order to be science you have to show how something is ID, and you have to explain the designer, well so far neather have ever been shown nor does anyone seem to want to. as for god, it is the conclution shown by how ID arguements work and elimination

BS, this is pure BS.
if something is flawed to the point of it killing the lifeform or causing pain for no reason other than it doesn't work, its a flawed design. how is this perfection by any reasoning?i mean who would keep making things that harm themselves? thats insane

again you are not even reading what i posted at all. I was saying that a designer who includes flaws that kill life, is a useless designer, and as an aswer is flawed, since by useing the mind they should have, should not include the flaws, this is based on human design and reasoning for a designer. as a lifeform that can design things we know we wouldn't make designs that cause faults like this, at least if we are using our brains properly
where in this quote did i say anything about science? you are just trying to put words in my mouth.
evolution as an answer works far better to answer this, evolution theory expects this. until ID can answer this problem then i will consider it BS well woop-dee-doo,did i say that ID is used to reinforce faith in god? are you going to answer my questions? how could id be shown, have you read what ID says, how can you handwave away the main gist of ID?
which happens to be "evolution is wrong, only ID is the answer" do you not bother to read anything i post? it seems to me you need to go read about ID and evolution both, you shouldn't try to defend something you don't bother to read about. ToE says that biological structures will be co-opted for other uses by NS and adapted as well, like the appendix has been, the spine also shows this via the fact that our spine is better suited for 4 legs than 2Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

philosophical junk, sorry but what is the point to all of this?
you make no sense, this is from the standpoint of engineering, which is based on logic and how things function in relation to others
what the hell does design from the point of ID have to do with anything you said?
where is your evidence of design, or evidence of a designer or anything having to do with ID
you are just evading and changing the topic, this is a science fora please stick to bloody topic for once

more philosophical junk, i don't care about what you think death is. tell me how something is useful to a lifeform if its dead, or has bent legs that can kill it. i don't consider something designed because a designer, say a person could design it another way and not have this problem than can kill something
death is a flaw, despite your philosophical handwaving, how is death useful if the thing gains nothing from this

ok you really should just stop bothering to debate, you have nothing at all to add to this, all you do is handwave away what other people say. go watch tv or something, saying "this is just your opinion" is not an answer to anything. you have no clue about ID or evolution or anything about science please go read a book
it all has to do with mechanics! even a human with the brain we have can tell this is not intelligent i don't really give a crap about what your view is on what is opinon ore not you have nothing relevent to anything, you seem to have none, other than to say "thats just your opinion" a cop-out statement is all you have sure i can i can LOOK at things we have and see if they LOOK designed, even DI says this and they started it.
you know nothing about what you are talking about
this is about science, they show nothing that could be counted as science, if you want to philosophize about the nature of the universe and whether its designed in your OPINION then go look to the faith forums not the science forums.
i have given evidence for why things don't show design and why evolution is an answer for why there is no design other than NS, but of course YOU can't seem to unstand that. YOU have to add something other than dismissing it by saying "well you don't know the larger picture" by adding something useful instead
you have shown nothing but contempt for anyone else trying to debate, why are you on this, a DEBATE forum if all you are going to do is make vague statements and call what others consider logical reasoning "opinion" and handwaving it away?

but you arn't answering me, you are just claiming its my opinion so anything i say is meaningless to you as an arguement. if you think i care if you disagree with me then you need to look at what this site is for. yes and that is ID's argument, its all based on identifying via the mechanics of nature that theres a designer, if you have a problem with how YOUR side argues take it up with them so provide some SCIENTIFIC evidence then, my point which you seem to have not grasped is, that it isn't science, so in a word it is unthinking blasphemy
and the usage of blasphemy would preclude the usage of god since scienence doesn't use this termand by the way where is YOUR argument using science? where is your evidence? you are claiming ID is shown but i don't see it, all i've seen is philosophy put up as an argument yes becuase you have been full of such a derth of answers! i just keep having to repeat myself over and over again trying to get you to say something a bit more than "thats your opinion!" where did i say NS was crap? where? i believe evolution answers the questions being asked! NS and mutation account for why we have spines that don't work well for standing on two legs
did i say god? no i said a crappy designer!!! do you even read what i write or just make shit up!?stop fucking distorting my posts FFS!my arguement on why anything but god from how ID works, is the same fucking arguement critics of ID argue, which i happen to agree with and use as one of my beliefs that ID as a theory is useless.it has zero to do with the fact that its god, it has to do with how they construct the arguments for ID!my arguments for why the designer is bad is, one: what do we know about his designs? they don't work from a stand point of how humans design, they design for effency and for structural stability first, then for how it looks. if a designer of a building builds a building without these in mind and many more things he is a bad designer!
unless you are trying to be contrary just to be contrary, then you are just an asshole where? my gods where did you post anything useful?, all i've seen is a bunch of babble and claiming stuff you don't know a thing about.
i mean come on! disagreeing that a spine that gives you backproblems dissallows you from standing very well, a backwards retina and having bones that arn't set right, and just saying "i disagree with you" is not a debate! this is like the fucking monty python skit "no i don'T" "yes i do!" "no i don't!"
you don't know a damn thing about the topic, he's talking about both god and science, while claiming that if devout people hold to this belief they are saying god is erroring, you can ignore this if you want to, but ID claims its science, so it tries to hide the designer, which according to all IDiests it seems outside the public or hell in the public is GOD, anything they can use to push crap they want doesn't bother themif my responses are "childish" then you arn't much better saying "well thats just your opinion" or "you just don't see the bigger picture"
are just as childish considering how much effort you put into debating by using such vague garbageby trying to play it both ways ID caters to both groups while trying to burn both ends, but i think i give up on this topic, i just really don't care