too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

quote:

---

Honestly, this is laughable to me.

---

Sure. You've already stated that. But the argument of personal incredulity is an acknowledged fallacy.-

quote:

---

next

---

That's more properly rendered NEXT

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

But in this example, you'd be wrong - half of them were "Intelligently Arranged".Doesn't that tell you something about your ability to recognize "Intelligent Design"?

---

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

...your right, I repent. Please forgive me...

yes I would have been wrong in that case..I retract that-
following a random pattern is not an intelligent design.Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

How do you know that? How do you know the Intelligent Designer didn't just copy the picture on the Tinker Toy box?

---

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

No, I'm telling you that there's no reliable test for intelligence in design. That a design seems clever is not enough, for two reasons:1) It fails to detect intelligent designs that aren't clever, like my penny example. Clearly it took a considerable amount of planning and intelligence to place all those pennies exactly as though they had fallen there by random, but your test doesn't detect my use of intelligence.2) It fails to discern the difference between designs that are clever because intelligence was applied to make them clever, and designs that are clever because of the action of the forces of mutation and selection. For instance, in this case, your test would tell us that the radio was the product of intelligence, but we know by other means that this radio developed purely by mutation and selection, by accident.Your test returns false negatives and false positives, so it's not a test we can rely on. You claim to be able to detect intelligence in the complexity of the human body, but how can you trust your detection when it returns false results under controlled situations? It may very well be. But until you can explain why, how do you know that you are right to laugh?Have you considered the possibility that the rest of us are finding your ignorance laughable? Even if I had used my intelligence to lay them out?You would be wrong, then. What else might you be wrong about? Heh. I appreciate the joke.

...because a picture on a tinker toy box was not random.
Now if you can toss a blank box in the air (however
many times you desire) and it comes down with a picture
on it- you will make a believer out of me.
IC

I wasn't joking and thanks for calling me ignorant again.
I'll be back for more romper room later...

I don't mean it as an insult or a personal attack. But surely you have to realize that there's a great deal of biology that you don't know?I mean it takes at least 7-8 years - after 4 years of undergraduate university - to get a doctorate in biology. What do you think they're doing for all that time? Twiddling their thumbs?No, of course not. It takes that long to become an expert because biology is a very deep field with a lot to learn. I'm not asking you to become an expert. I'm simply asking you to recognize that there's a great deal of biology that you literally don't know. I don't know what to call that but "ignorance." If you have a suggestion for a word with a less negative connotation, I'd like to hear it.But I'd like you to stop ignoring my arguments because you perceive some personal attack that isn't intended. I wrote a bunch of paragraphs and your reply is two lines? There's a lot there you didn't respond to, because you believe my reference to things you didn't know obviates the need to respond meaningfully. But that's not the case.I don't claim universal knowledge on every subject, but I do know a lot more about biology than you do. Just as I'm sure there are countless topics for which you would be perfectly justified in calling me ignorant. And I'm not asking you to accept my arguments just because I know something about biology. Since you consider my arguments flawed, however, I'm just asking you to tell me how.

But we've already established that you can't determine reliably what is random and what is not. You would have thought the pennies were arranged randomly, but they were not. I'm not even claiming that the picture on the box is random. I'm saying that what you think is "intelligently designed" could just as easily be a copy of something else.The original "something else" might also be intelligently designed or it might be a random arrangement. If you can't tell a random arrangement from a copy - or a series of copies of copies - why should we believe that UCDESIGN?

---

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

Why not? Earlier you made it clear that, any time an intelligence is at work, that's an intelligent design.If you're retracting from your claim, and now you admit that it's possible for an intelligence to create an unintelligent design, why isn't the reverse true? Why can't an unintelligent process result in an intelligent design?

Fine. If you can toss two handfuls of pennies up in the air and have them come down in the exact same design, then you'll have convinced me that there's a discernible difference between designs that happen by natural forces and designs that happen by intelligent design.Look, think it through. If you come across two piles of scattered pennies, but the piles are exactly the same, at least one of them has to be intelligent design. Right? I mean, what random force in the universe could scatter pennies exactly the same way twice?So which pile is random and which is intelligent? If you can't discern intelligence in a simple example of pennies, how could you possibly do it for something as complex as the human body?

Here are two sequences of heads and tails:1. TTTHHHTTHHTHHTT2. THHTTHTTHTHHHTTOne of sequences I made by following a deliberate pattern (and, in fact, I can tell you what the pattern is). The other I produced by tossing a real penny a bunch of times.Which one is the designed sequence, and which one is the randomly created one?Just in case this example is relevant to what people are talking about.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Crash has said on several occasions that you folks have
presented a mountian of evidence. I have seen a pattern
emerge that I would call a sea of half truths,mis-information,
outright lies and bias opinion cloaked in a false
intellectualism!This isn't a fair place to air your opinion-this is the
lyons den of a bunch of evolutionary gang-bangers looking
for their next feeding frenzy. Seems like 99% of you
are hiding amist this above mentioned sea thinking you
are so justified because of all the big intellectual
'sounding' phrases you have learned at school.Crash comes up with his penny analogy and I come back
with a far better one and it goes right over everybody's
head and its "good one Crash"! ...and wasn't even his
to begin with.I was going to come back and address a lot of the questions
posed as I have been but it only leads deeper into
the sea of noise & illusions.If you guys want to believe you can have a design without
a designer go right ahead- God has given you the free will
to make that choice.Let me close my last post for this thread with this:
"you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent
and have revealed them to the infants. Yes father, for this
was well-pleasing in your sight. Jesus Christ Luke 10:21I admit I am an infant and consider it a great honor!!!!!!!!!!!!

good for you. but you're playing with the big boys here, and you're bound to get hurt. you have some grave misunderstandings (typical of infants), and we're just trying to teach you some things.your tinker toy picture is not a better analogy then the penny one--you only think so because you still don't understand it (the penny analogy).but hey, what can I do? you're an infant and proud of it. you claim to be a christian, right? aren't you guys supposed to be humble?my last warning--you're playing with the big boys (and girls). you will get hurt, but if you manage to stick around and actually open your ears you might just learn a thing or two.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John AdamsWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.