Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy?
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 121 of 162 (348201)
09-11-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by ringo
09-11-2006 6:44 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
My point is that we and we alone decide what is a good design and what is not. We have no way of knowing what the "designer's" intentions were, so the only criteria we have for judgement are our own.
By our (human) standards, the "design" of many living things is crap. That implies that if living things were "designed", the "designer" is either incompetent or malevolent.
So all humans share this view? I do not. This is your personal opinion.
So yes, you have an opinion, what is your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by ringo, posted 09-11-2006 6:44 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 7:29 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 09-11-2006 7:50 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 122 of 162 (348204)
09-11-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 7:24 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
So all humans share this view? I do not. This is your personal opinion.
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'
So yes, you have an opinion, what is your point?
that the designer is not what people think it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 7:24 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 7:59 PM ReverendDG has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 123 of 162 (348208)
09-11-2006 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by ReverendDG
09-11-2006 6:49 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
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
Who says it has to be a God? That is a matter of faith and another subject.
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'
Evolution does not work? Pffft!
This is simply your point of view. One I do not share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 6:49 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 8:07 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 124 of 162 (348210)
09-11-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 7:24 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
2ice_baked_taters writes:
So all humans share this view? I do not. This is your personal opinion.
The argument from design suggests that "we" - i.e. humans - can detect design. Do all humans share that view? I do not. It is your personal opinion.
So yes, you have an opinion, what is your point?
My point seems to coincide with what others are expressing. What's your point?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 7:24 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 8:07 PM ringo has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 125 of 162 (348211)
09-11-2006 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ReverendDG
09-11-2006 7:29 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
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'
Show me evidence for this assertion that is not opinion.
that the designer is not what people think it is?
That is a good place to start. A long way to go but a relavant starting point. However, to prove to the faithful that an omnipotent source capable of more than we can ever comprehend did not design the whole shebang is a none starter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 7:29 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 8:13 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 126 of 162 (348212)
09-11-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 7:45 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
Who says it has to be a God? That is a matter of faith and another subject.
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
Evolution does not work? Pffft!
and this is relevent how?, were was i talking about evolution? evolution is a better answer than an Intelliegence
This is simply your point of view. One I do not share.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 7:45 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 8:26 PM ReverendDG has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 127 of 162 (348213)
09-11-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
09-11-2006 7:50 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
The argument from design suggests that "we" - i.e. humans - can detect design. Do all humans share that view? I do not. It is your personal opinion
I have not expressed my opinion.
ID to prove God is faith. What if we remove the assumtion of God from ID and simply ask if there is evidence of design?
My point seems to coincide with what others are expressing. What's your point?
Others share your belief, and?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 09-11-2006 7:50 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 09-11-2006 8:08 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 09-11-2006 8:19 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 128 of 162 (348214)
09-11-2006 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 8:07 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
What if we remove the assumtion of God from ID and simply ask if there is evidence of design?
The answer is simple. No!

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 8:07 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-12-2006 3:02 AM jar has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 129 of 162 (348216)
09-11-2006 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 7:59 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
Show me evidence for this assertion that is not opinion.
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?
That is a good place to start. A long way to go but a relavant starting point. However, to prove to the faithful that an omnipotent source capable of more than we can ever comprehend did not design the whole shebang is a none starter.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 7:59 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-12-2006 3:55 AM ReverendDG has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 130 of 162 (348217)
09-11-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 8:07 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
2ice_baked_taters writes:
What if we remove the assumtion of God from ID and simply ask if there is evidence of design?
Try reading the OP:
quote:
... the definition of "Intelligent Design" and the definition of "God" are totally incompatible.
God- Again difficulty in a concise definition, but there's some things all Creationists believe, He's omniscient,omnipotent and eternal, those are the important ones.
Now design, essentially, is when we replace the actual trial and error process with an abstract version of same. Suggesting God did this means He can err.
We are not removing the assumption of God in this topic. We are discussing specifically whether or not "intelligent design" is a blasphemous concept. Removing the assumption of God removes the possibility of blasphemy and the topic dies.
This is not just another venue for pseudo-philosophical blatherings. Please discuss the topic.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 8:07 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 8:49 PM ringo has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 131 of 162 (348218)
09-11-2006 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ReverendDG
09-11-2006 8:07 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
and this is relevent how?, were was i talking about evolution? evolution is a better answer than an Intelliegence
You claimed that the design was flawed.
It depends upon the answer you seek.
How is it that evolution contradicts intelligent design?
Where does one eliminate or exclude the other?
As I understand it evolution can say nothing of God. It does not address this question. God is a matter of faith.
Now wether or not something is intelligently designed seems like a reasonable endeavor to me. One that does not require faith in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 8:07 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 8:47 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 132 of 162 (348224)
09-11-2006 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 8:26 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
You claimed that the design was flawed.
It depends upon the answer you seek.
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
How is it that evolution contradicts intelligent design?
Where does one eliminate or exclude the other?
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
As I understand it evolution can say nothing of God. It does not address this question. God is a matter of faith.
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
Now wether or not something is intelligently designed seems like a reasonable endeavor to me. One that does not require faith in God.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 8:26 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 9:10 PM ReverendDG has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 133 of 162 (348225)
09-11-2006 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ringo
09-11-2006 8:19 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
It is only blasphemy if you assume the design is flawed. What constitutes a flaw is simply a matter of opinion. One persons flaw is anothers perfection.
Now design, essentially, is when we replace the actual trial and error process with an abstract version of same. Suggesting God did this means He can err.
Explain this more clearly. Suggestion is your implication. What is the indication of err? Assuming God is omnipotent there would be no need for trial and error.
This is not just another venue for pseudo-philosophical blatherings. Please discuss the topic.
In case you hadn't looked at the title it is characterised by your above statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 09-11-2006 8:19 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 8:53 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 138 by ringo, posted 09-11-2006 9:41 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 134 of 162 (348227)
09-11-2006 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 8:49 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
It is only blasphemy if you assume the design is flawed. What constitutes a flaw is simply a matter of opinion. One persons flaw is anothers perfection.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 8:49 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 9:31 PM ReverendDG has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 135 of 162 (348230)
09-11-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ReverendDG
09-11-2006 8:47 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
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
Again, death is a flaw to you. It is your opinion. This is your personal feeling and has nothing to do with science.
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?
I do not need others to give me my view. As I said, ID to further ones belief in God is faith. That is clear. But I do not see anything wrong with pursuing the simple question of wether or not the complexity of life systems indicates intellignence.
anyway evolution answers why life has crappy 'design'
Again this is your assertion. Show me evidence that is not opinion.
This is your view. Your belief based on what you think should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 8:47 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 9:29 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024