Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

hmmm, well frankly I don't agree at all but you have a great imagination.

How 'bout those whales, seals, and porpoises, who live in the same environment as the squid and octopi? They have mammalian retinas, with the light-sensitive part on the back side, but they look through the same seawater as the squid. Some of them spend their days looking for squid to eat!Why not two designers? A God for mammals and a God for cephalopods? And the mammal god just forgot that baleen whales didn't need teeth, so he had them grow tooth buds before they were born? What's wrong with that?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

I believe I am not alone in seeing design absolutely everywhere - it's in the organization of information. Perhaps not but it sure shows that there is a lot wrong with the ToE and we really should be looking at that not just writing it off as irrelevant when we don't want to see it. Not at all, I'm saying that the design apparent everywhere is evidence of a designer.i'm also saying that total or even partial understanding of the designer is not a prerequisite for what is actually obvious to those with eyes to see and a brain to comprehend. Those who cannot see what is obvious to so many are blinded by human wisdom and human wisdom is really very limited. What is superstitious about being able to see design? ID deals with what is observable. Evolution is a supposition based on a belief that a designer is not necessary - perhaps evolution should be called a superstition based on denial of the obvious. How about first things first -lets just get it on the table for consideration and take it from there instead of steadfastly ignoring the very obvious and real possibility that a designer is required. There we go, the limitations of science -we see erosion, we see water as a causative agent. We see design, we are sure there is no designer.It doesn't follow, so one should not limit oneself to what we cannot possibly know for sure. Something like the ToE which is really not so well supported by the evidence despite all the religious dogma and absolute God-like assurance of the evolutionary believers who for some reason are absolutely sure that no God is required.

But "we" don't see design! We see chemical reactions and evolution; physical matter and a whole load of time.The only folks who see design are those who have a religious outlook to support. You talk as if science is in desperate need of a designer to explain the natural world. I can assure you that it isn't. What's to see? Where is this design? How do I spot it? All you can tell me is that it's "obvious". Yet if it is so "obvious" then it should be easy for anyone to identify it.How do I spot design?

Perhaps that's where education has led us -people who don't see design where it is so absolutely obvious to so many. Even Richard Dawkins concurs that it looks like design, only problem is he's absolutely sure that it didn't require a designer and is not in fact design. That is a belief system not based on fact -it is a philosophy that obscures the obvious with the utterly ridiculous.
How does one really imagine that all different kinds of incredible eyes in all different kinds of incredible creatures all fell into place by random events and the selection of the best random events that apparently worked by chance without the slightest bit of intelligence. We see chemical reactions and physical laws but we do not see evolution -we believe in it and we believe that no designer was required for the design which is apparent. We see physical matter and we believe as a matter of necessity that a whole bunch of time was required for what we believe must have happened.In fact without a whole bunch of time, the entire story falls apart completely. No time, no evolution. Even with time, how can we be sure that evolution could have happened? We see what we want to see sometimes and we believe what we've been led to believe and while you think that that is true of ID, I have no doubt that that is true of the whole evolutionary myth and all its supposed support which is really thin on the ground and hopeful beyond what is reasonable. The only ones that see evolution are the ones that have been indoctrinated into believing it and have a religious outlook to support. It's called 'blind to the obvious,' you see what you're supposed to see and all the 'evidence' convinces you because if so many others are convinced, then it must be true. But consider the intricacies, how many many absolutely miraculous chance mutations had to come along by purely random processes at just the right time. It isn't happening now -only variation which is already written into the genetic code.You don't know how the first cell came to be and just because peppered moths changed their relative proportions and finch beaks got longer and shorter you have to imagine that that same observable process created peppered moths and finches from pre-existing one-celled organisms millions of years ago.It's pure belief, it's not supported by the evidence -it's believed despite the evidence against it. It's actually tragic. I don't believe for a moment that science is in desparate need of a designer -I believe that scientists in general are in desperate need of making sure that a designer is never allowed to be considered despite the designs. It's in the nature of man to flee accountability to anyone apart from themselves. You look at your own hand, you consider the capabilities of your own brain and you break out of the box that you're living in -you've been deceived and you don't even have the slightest recognition of the problem.Unlike evolutionists and their constant carping about ID supporters and their lies, I don't believe that you are lying, but I'm absolutely sure that you're deceived.

No, we know for a certainty, confirmed by perhaps ten independent lines of evidence, that we live on a planet that's over 4,000,000,000 years old. And we can trace how life changed over the last couple of billions of those years. The bunch of time is incontrivertibly there, Beretta.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Hi, Beretta. Maybe scientists are, in fact, being blinded by human wisdom; but, at least we're trying. God gave us about five senses and a relatively large brain, and we're just using these meager facilities to try to understand the world around us. All you're doing is telling us we shouldn't even bother, because the answer is so obvious that we shouldn't have to work to find it. Yet, when we do work to find it, we find something entirely different from what you thought was obvious. And, of course, you criticize us for that too.Still, you haven't put forward the method you use to determine what design is and how to distinguish it from non-design. Beretta, scientists are people who, in fact, have looked at their hand, considered the capabilities of their own brains, then said, "That's amazing!" and spent the time trying to figure out how they work. Creationists are people who looked at their hand, considered the capabilities of their own brains, then said, "That's amazing!" and decided that they didn't really need to understand how they work, because God designed them.This line of attack of yours is extremely rude and, frankly, extremely ignorant.

---

Darwin loves you.

Your entire post is one long argument from incredulity, Beretta. What is "obvious" and what is observed in the world around us are not the same thing. Education frees humanity from a reliance on the "obvious".Consider:Is it "obvious" how one can make a fire?
Is it "obvious" how one can make a bow and arrow?
Is it "obvious" how one can extract metal from ore?
Is it "obvious" how one can make a gearing system?
Is it "obvious" how one can make a steam engine?
Is it "obvious" how one can make electricity?
Is it "obvious" how one can make a machine that will fly?
Is it "obvious" how matter is formed from atoms?
Is it "obvious" that each living organism contains DNA?The computer that you are typing on works, not because it was "obvious" to those who created it, but because it is the cumulative result of thousands of educated minds investigating the world around them.Observations and education are key. "Obvious" counts for nothing at all in science. The only obvious thing in this discussion is that you have no evidence whatsoever for a designer. The rest is just window dressing, I'm afraid.On a side note:- Eyes pose no problem for the ToE whatsoever. All the stages can be seen in molluscs.Eye evolution

Yes, this is absolutely where eductation leads us. Being educated leads us to know that what is "obvious to so many" is bollocks. This is kinda why people need to be educated.You should try it yourself some time. Of course. This is the most basic argument in favor of evolution.Of course evolution deludes people into imagining design. We don't need to imagine it, we can prove it. That's kind of the difference between biology and the shit you make up in your head. And, whoopie-do-dah, we can prove it.Isn't science great? You could spend thirty seconds with this little thing we call "logic", and then you could slap yourself on the forehead and say "Damn, how silly I've been".Don't worry, it's not going to happen. Thirty seconds of logical thought is not something that you or any other creationist will undertake. Relax. Mmm ... do you know what the word "mutation" means? Only if you did, you'd lie less often. Your beliefs are most amusing, but do not constitute evidence for anything except that you're a bigoted religious fanatic frightened of the facts that contradict your crazy beliefs. On the one hand, I see why you're desparate to dodge the question you were asked.On the other hand, we can all see that you're desparate to dodge the question you were asked.Let's ask it again.How do I spot design?That was kind of the topic. So let's ask it again.How do I spot design? How, for example, can I tell a snowflake designed in a laboratory from one that just dropped out of the sky?Answer the frickin' question.

quote:

---

How does one really imagine that all different kinds of incredible eyes in all different kinds of incredible creatures all fell into place by random events and the selection of the best random events that apparently worked by chance without the slightest bit of intelligence.

---

It's really quite impossible for you to conclude that something like this must be the product of a designer until you completely understand the natural processes that biologists believe were responsible for their creation. And, it's impossible for you to understand these processes so long as you begin with the conclusion that, since it looks designed it must be, and end your inquiry there.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well perhaps I'm just incredulous because of how little it takes to satisfy the average philisophical naturalist that what he wants to believe is in fact true because no other alternative is even allowed leaving evolution in some form as the only candidate in the running.Tom Bethell put it this way:"No digging for fossils, no test tubes or microscopes, no further experiments are needed.For birds,bats and bees do exist. They came into existance somehow.Your consistent materialist has no choice but to allow that,yes,molecules in motion succeeded, over the eons, in whirling themselves into even more complex conglomerations, some of them called bats, some birds, some bees. He 'knows' that is true, not because he sees it in the genes, in the lab or in the fossils, but because it is embedded in his philosophy."After all if nature is all that exists then some purely naturalistic process must have generated life in all its diversity. For the materialist, real evidence is not needed, it's a matter of logical necessity to believe in evolution. The same old same old...
Can't seem to divide these two because it is convenient. Science advances technology, therefore evolution must be true. No. Repeatable, experimental science advances technology (oh and a vast number of those scientists that advance technology do not believe in evolution nor need to in order to carry out their experimental advances). You see, whether you 'believe' in evolution or not, you are able to do science well - evolution is not about science, it is about philosophical presuppositions and recalcitrant 'evidence'being forced to fit into the party storyline. And that satisfies you completely? For every macro change,how many random micro genetic changes do you think you require? You have one possible, maybe, could be line (without all the diffucult details filled in) and that apparently enables the committed evolutionist to fill in all the enormous macro gaps in the fossil record with what they believe must have happened. It's one thing to point out the gaps, it's another altogether to claim the right to fill the gaps with what you have already decided is true despite the lack of evidence.

Instead of accusing other people of being biased or brainwashed because they don't agree with you perhaps you would like to actually discuss the evidence.You say that you like Dembski's method of identifying design. Well how about giving us a worked example to show that there really IS design in nature ?

But once you've identified the design what can be done to understand the design without knowing who the designer was? When asked a simple question about the different methods of reproduction your only reply was 'Design?' , so what more can we infer about why those specific designs were chosen?
As for who the designer(s) is you must have some ideas, since you accept that things are 'designed'. However, you admit that the designer(s) is basically incomprehensible. Can you even guess if they are supernatural in origin or simply very advanced aliens?This is why the hypothesis of a designer or designers is completely useless to science, since there is no possibility to further our understanding of the universe, since as you admit, we can't comprehend the designer, so we can't understand their design choices. In other words there is no how, and we can't ask why. Unless there is some other procedure we can follow. Any suggestions?

sooo i guess you are still looking for that creature that is a good example of design ? May be you should go look at that computer game called Spore .. where you get to design a creature ....might give you a hint or two ...by the way when i look at my hand .. from a design point of view .. i think ... hmm two thunmbs would be much better , and double jointedness for the fingers ...nails that either grow much slower or dont break and get ragged .. hang on why nails at all ....and the thing the hand is mounted on .. the arm that is a bit limited in design , better rotation at the shoulder , being able to effectivly use your hands behind your back , now that would be a useful design ....Oh no i forgot the hand WAS designed .. and that means it cant be changed .. a design is a FIXED product .. i will have to go back to the desginer to get a upgrade .. is HAND ver 2.037.03 beta released yet ?sorry my imagination ran wild there ...Soo if everything is designed .. how do we get upgrades .. and what does the designer think of cross breeds ..clearley changing the design that was intended ? ? ? are all the modern roses growing in peoples gardens a crime vs design ... i mean mere humans selectivly breed then for colour and flower shape .. chnaging how they where meant to be ..if it is a crime .. what will be the punishment ....if its not does that mean we can go around evolving new looks .... like a extra thumb ??

It's has nothing to do with what anyone believes, it has everything to do with where the evidence points whether anyone likes it or not. When we investigate life on earth ALL the evidence points to evolution and to an old Earth. In this way, the science of evolution is no different from the science that made your computer.The "alternative" you offer amounts to saying more little more than saying "No, God did it". That's not an answer, it's willful ignorance. It's a fear of learning. Of course, you could attempt to answer the topic question and tell us how "design" can be spotted, otherwise all you offer is ignorance. Even if I wasn't satisfied, it tells me a hell of a lot more than "Godidit"!-------------So lets recap on what we have from you about design:- So we have have a designer who is very talented and all, but there no point investigating because we wouldn't understand him/her/it anyway. We don't need to understand design because it is "obvious".-----------------We're not doing so well with this ID thing....So, as an alternative to evolution can you please tell us how design can be spotted, other than that it is "obvious"?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.