Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 61 of 352 (478307)
08-14-2008 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Rahvin
08-13-2008 4:42 PM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
This I suppose is the major flaw of the "if there was a designer, he must have been an idiot" argument. It begins by assuming the logically unfounded conclusion of the opponent, and is essencially an appeal to consequence (in that the argument is still intended to convince the audience that there is no designer because such a designer would need to be stupid).
Yes, it is called 'reductio ad absurdam' - a very powerful tool in mathematics and science.
I'd much rather stick with the "where's your evidence of a designer" argument, as it forces the cdesign proponentist to meet the burden of proof by providing evidence of any design at all.
Yes, so would I. But we have seen the utter failure of such attempts here at EvC. We have been told of the mountains of evidence that points to fiat-creation but so little is brought to the table. Yes, the little that has been brought has been demolished, but the proponents apparently have not even begun to show the real evidence so they sit back, and smugly continue to deride our scientific efforts to understand the Universe, while we bleat about how they need to bring more evidence.
I, for one, am sick of this behaviour - I look at the hours wasted by myself and others in trying to explain the science behind this Universe, as we understand it, and see that effort simply spat back at us.
and while it never convinces the cdesign proponentist to concede, the undecideds in the audience are typically aware of which side is full of shit.
We have been extremely reactive and defensive in this debate. This one isn't for the peanut gallery as such - it is an offensive to demonstrate quite clearly to the cdesign proponentists that their position is extremely weak, ON THEIR TERMS. I have resisted starting this thread for a couple of years, because it can be a broad brush and we can already see that it causes angst to a degree with those outside the pure cdesign propentists. But I am sure that many of us have been thinking it, and biting our tongues out of courtesy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Rahvin, posted 08-13-2008 4:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RickJB, posted 08-14-2008 5:45 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 62 of 352 (478308)
08-14-2008 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by LucyTheApe
08-14-2008 2:32 AM


Re: Cavediver or Plato's cavedweller?
And We'll also provide the dust that you need to create your beings.
Thanks, that's very generous of you. But I notice you're holding back on that omnipotence and omniscience... afraid that with those I might just knock up a creation that would have every living creature falling at my feet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-14-2008 2:32 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 63 of 352 (478309)
08-14-2008 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by cavediver
08-14-2008 4:15 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Rahvin writes:
I'd much rather stick with the "where's your evidence of a designer" argument, as it forces the cdesign proponentist to meet the burden of proof by providing evidence of any design at all.
Cavediver writes:
Yes, so would I. But we have seen the utter failure of such attempts here at EvC.
Totally disagree. How is ID's inability to provide evidence a failure on the part of those who ask for it? The thread on spotting Beretta's designer was intended to demonstrate that no evidence is forthcoming. The failure of ID proponents to provide evidence was the very issue it was intended to highlight!
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by cavediver, posted 08-14-2008 4:15 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by cavediver, posted 08-14-2008 6:29 AM RickJB has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 64 of 352 (478312)
08-14-2008 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by RickJB
08-14-2008 5:45 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
How is ID's inability to provide evidence a failure on the part of those who ask for it?
It's not - the failure is in our inability to respond to every post they make with 'very good, but where's your evidence for a designer?' Every time Berreta makes a dig at evolution in that thread, many of us make Pavlovian defences. And that constitutes the vast majority of that thread. Without the topic title, you'd be hard pressed to guess the specific topic.
The failure of ID proponents to provide evidence was the very issue it was intended to highlight!
And what it really highlighted was our desire to defend science. As indeed we should. But I felt it was time for a thread where such defenses were not going to be required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RickJB, posted 08-14-2008 5:45 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by RickJB, posted 08-14-2008 6:53 AM cavediver has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 65 of 352 (478313)
08-14-2008 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by cavediver
08-14-2008 6:29 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Cavediver writes:
It's not - the failure is in our inability to respond to every post they make with 'very good, but where's your evidence for a designer?
Having looked through many threads I was amazed that this simple question wasn't being asked anywhere near as much as it should be. That's why I started my thread. I make a habit of it now.
Cavediver writes:
And what it really highlighted was our desire to defend science. As indeed we should. But I felt it was time for a thread where such defenses were not going to be required.
Yes, there were topic drifts at the end, but myself and others put the question of evidence to Beretta perhaps 40 or 50 times. He ignored the vast majority of those requests, as you might expect.
Anyway, this is getting OT. The last word is yours if you want it.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by cavediver, posted 08-14-2008 6:29 AM cavediver has not replied

IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 66 of 352 (478314)
08-14-2008 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coyote
08-13-2008 12:17 AM


Re: The Biblically Designed Human
Are you a scientist? If so accuracy is not your strong point. Do you even pay attention to what forum you are on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2008 12:17 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Brian, posted 08-14-2008 7:59 AM IchiBan has not replied
 Message 68 by Admin, posted 08-14-2008 9:00 AM IchiBan has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 67 of 352 (478315)
08-14-2008 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by IchiBan
08-14-2008 7:29 AM


Re: The Biblically Designed Human
If YOU had follwed the thread you would realise that this topic has been moved very recently and did indeed begin in the science forum when Coyote posted.
If you had taken a scientific approach and looked at the evidence you would have known this.
Edited by Brian, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by IchiBan, posted 08-14-2008 7:29 AM IchiBan has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 68 of 352 (478321)
08-14-2008 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by IchiBan
08-14-2008 7:29 AM


Moderator Warning
You're giving every indication of having joined just to dog coyote.
Please, no more off-topic posts like this or I'll have to begin issuing suspensions, starting with short ones but getting longer with each one and eventuatually becoming permanent.
No replies, please.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by IchiBan, posted 08-14-2008 7:29 AM IchiBan has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 69 of 352 (478324)
08-14-2008 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by LucyTheApe
08-14-2008 2:32 AM


Re: Cavediver or Plato's cavedweller?
LucyTheApe writes:
Tuesday before last, just as I arrived home, I had a visit from a good friend. As we were sitting talking, I noticed that he, for the first time, was seriously contemplating his imminent death. He was into the 14th month of his 12 month terminal prognosis, a failed liver. He already looked dead, not being a doctor, but I wouldn't have given him 30 more days.
His phone rang, it was the hospital calling him to let him know they had a liver for him. I drove him straight to hospital. He gets out tomorrow 10 days later, with a new lease on life.
All thanks to the bumbling fools made according to the 'idiot plans'.
Well, I hope your friend does well with his new liver and the subsequent treatments. That is an uplifting story.
However, I fail to see how this observation of a failed liver and the ability of scientists to find a solution for the problem, constitutes a positive affirmation of the engineering prowess that you attribute to your Designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-14-2008 2:32 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 70 of 352 (478330)
08-14-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by LucyTheApe
08-14-2008 2:32 AM


Re: Cavediver or Plato's cavedweller?
quote:
Me? I would not be afraid of anything...
Right, including the 'Rhaivin'gs of ungrateful, blasphemous whingers.
Wait...your "all-powerful" deity is afraid of mere human beings? You don't usually make a lot of sense, Lucy, but this is just absurd.
I'ts easy to bag things that you don't understand, it seems to be a human trait.
It's certainly a Creationist trait, I'll give you that.
So cavediver, give us an example of one of your creatures. I'll give you a leg up,
I'll assume that that you are the brightest person in the world, most knowledgeable in biology, computer science, physics, chemistry and mathematics. And We'll also provide the dust that you need to create your beings.
So far the best you can do is an idiot robot; so can you improve on this?
This is a strawman. Nobody is claiming that human beings can create something better than humanity from scratch (yet). However, we can improve on a lot of features that would reduce suffering and/or result in a more surviveable and adaptable design. For instance, the very first thing I'd do is make separate tubes for eating and breathing so you could never choke while eating ever again. That's an obvious improvement over the human design, something that would have been trivially simple to do for any being that could design and create humanity.
Granny, the way I see it is that you have been blessed with the miracle of life. Your kidneys might be dodgy but you've still got a good brain. Why not use it in a positive way and move forward rather than begrudgingly ponder on what might have been?
"Sure many of the features are stupid; let's just ignore them and concentrate on the things that aren't completely broken!"
That's not much of an argument. If I gave you a piece of chocolate and smashed your legs with a hammer, would you really say "sure my legs are shattered, I'll never walk again, I might even die, and it hurts really bad, but hey I've got this chocolate!"? Ignoring the negative and insisting that we should just be thankful for whatever we have is not an example of critical thinking, it's an example of brainwashed idiocy where you'll refuse to acknowledge the negative no matter how its pointed out.
Tuesday before last, just as I arrived home, I had a visit from a good friend. As we were sitting talking, I noticed that he, for the first time, was seriously contemplating his imminent death. He was into the 14th month of his 12 month terminal prognosis, a failed liver. He already looked dead, not being a doctor, but I wouldn't have given him 30 more days.
His phone rang, it was the hospital calling him to let him know they had a liver for him. I drove him straight to hospital. He gets out tomorrow 10 days later, with a new lease on life.
All thanks to the bumbling fools made according to the 'idiot plans'.(cavediver EVC 2008).
I'm very happy for your friend.
However, if the idiot plans have been less stupid, perhaps your friend's liver would not have needed to fail. Personally, if I were an all-knowing omnipotent designer who was going to make a sentient lifeform, I'd make it a whole lot easier to change out bad parts like faulty livers, and I'd be sure that everyone had interchangeable organs so we wouldn't have to worry about rejection. But that's just me.
But here's what really bugs me. Your designer gives your buddy a bad liver (I don't know what caused his liver failure, since you haven't told us, but this still serves to illustrate the silliness of your mindset). You don't think this is a bad thing, even though your friend is likely to die. You don't think the design is flawed. And when your friend receives a replacement, not from your designer but by human science, you actually thank your designer for repairing the faulty part he designed, even though the designer wasn't the one to repair it - human beings replaced it with a new one!
This reminds me of a story I heard from North Korea once. An American doctor was allowed to visit the country and do some charity medical work; specifically, he was perfoming various eye surgeries, repairing cataracts, etc. Invariably, the people whose vision he restored would not thank him. Instead, they'd drop to teir knees in front of the large poster of Kim Jung Ill, and thank "Great Leader" for restoring their vision, which would likely not have been lost in the first place if "Great Leader" was running something better than a third-world dictatorship hellhole where normal people will almost never receive medical care. Jung Ill was in a way responsible for these people's vision problems, and yet they thanked him instead of the doctor actually performing the surgery when their vision was restored. This is eaxtly like you with your friend's liver.
The "design," assuming there is one, is so bad that human doctors have to try to repair its failures all the time. This isn't just maintenance, or repairing parts that were broken due to external forces like a fall; in many cases the problems doctors are trying to solve are the direct result of the flaws of the human body, flaws that are inherent in our "design." I'm very tall, and it's extremely likely I'm going to have back problems because of my height. An engineer wouldn't have made me taller than my back could safely support without wearing out. People choke on their food every day because the same tube is used for breathing and eating. The human eye cannot compensate for imperfections in the lenses and has a blind spot not because better parts weren't available to your "designer," but becasue he apparently just felt like giving us the shitty eyes.
Most Creationists will never acknowledge that any part of the human body was "designed" with less than perfection. They'll try to sidestep the issue by blaming problems on "the fall," or say that their Gdesignerod must have included the flaws to encourage personal growth. They'll ignore it by saying "you've got a perfectly good brain, why not do something constructive with it," because to the cdesign proponentist, critical thinking is a sin when it comes to their religious beliefs.
The rest of us can see quite plainly that the human body is a perfect example of inefficient design and detrimental features that a first-year engineering student would never make. If we assume that there is design just for the purposes of this debate, the Gdesignerod is either an idiot, cruel, or uncaring and working very hard to leave no trace of his intelligence for his cdesignreations to find.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-14-2008 2:32 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-14-2008 11:27 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 76 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2008 1:00 PM Rahvin has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 352 (478331)
08-14-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rahvin
08-14-2008 11:10 AM


Re: Cavediver or Plato's cavedweller?
If we assume that there is design just for the purposes of this debate, the Gdesignerod is either an idiot, cruel, or uncaring and working very hard to leave no trace of his intelligence for his cdesignreations to find.
My apology for the phenomenon of the designer looking like an idiot is your bolded section. I think that god doesn't want to be proven and wants us to believe in him on faith (although I'm not totally sure why yet). If he had designed us in a way that showed his design, then we wouldn't need to have faith in him anymore. To prevent us from "knowing" that we were designed, he did it in a way that leaves no trace. I can see how this makes him look like an idiot to some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rahvin, posted 08-14-2008 11:10 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Agobot, posted 08-14-2008 2:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 352 (478332)
08-14-2008 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by cavediver
08-12-2008 9:01 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
cavediver writes:
If I were the designer, it wouldn't be possible to lose fingernails, nor have those ever so delicate fingers break so damn easily.
Optimal health fingernails do not break easily. To make them unbreakable would be to make them incapable of some of the functions they are useful for. To make them unbreakable would be to make them untrimmable as some of us like them short and some long, depending on our individual desires and uses of them.
cavediver writes:
If I were the designer, you wouldn't have joints with such a pathetic mumber of degrees of freedom. And they certainly wouldn't need to use cartilage.
Universal joints are fine for functions they are designed for, but not for others. How would you like for the suspension system on your automobile to be designed as a universal joint?
I do a lot of carrying loads in my business. Not good if the arm joints were universal tending to go every which way. If I want the load to go sideways, the wonderfully designed agility of the feet and legs do fine and dandy.
How about universal joint leg joints? No thanks. Too unstable.
cavediver writes:
If I were the designer, there would be no such things as blurry vision, colourblindness, nor indeed blindness. And your eyes would see a damn site better than they do now, and would have a much greater range of frequency reception.
Oh. You would disallow your creature the free will to create junk food and do things detrimental to the eyes.
cavediver writes:
If I were the designer, you wouldn't need any of those protection mechanisms we have for our appallingly delicate eyes.
If you were a (abe: wise and knowledgeable creator), you'd have enough wisdom and knowledge to know that for all the eyes are capable of, they must be designed relatively delicate as the masterful engineer must design some things delicately.
I'm ever so thankful and appreciative to God for designing the human eye back in it's protective socket and with all the properties it has. The trillions of blinks it must do; the eyelids; the tears to wash toxins and dust out, etc.
The fact that so relatively few among the billions of earth humans have lost their eyesight due to damage speaks for a devinely intelligent designer.
Why the hell can I not fly??? If I were the designer, you would be soaring with the birds. The designer has taunted us with that one for millenia.
Earth's atmosphere would be cluttered with billions of creatures. Then there would be the need for arms, hands, wings and legs, feet. Too much and a lota poop, hamburger wrappers and other human junk flying as many free choice (abe: critters) have no scrupples.
cavediver writes:
And if I were the designer, you would never have the need for your blood to coagulate. Actually, you wouldn't need blood.
So you wouldn't allow for the pleasure of eating and if there were the eating, you'd have no method of distributing the nutrients to the body. How idiotic, the notion!
cavediver writes:
And these are just a few of the areas where I could do a hell of a lot better. Unless, that is, I was constrained within a physical/evolutionary framework...
Oh yah, sure. A lot of BS; not a term I generally use, but for this nonsense it fit's nicely.
Edited by Buzsaw, : found time to proof read

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by cavediver, posted 08-12-2008 9:01 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by lyx2no, posted 08-14-2008 11:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 79 by cavediver, posted 08-14-2008 2:36 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 95 by Jaderis, posted 08-14-2008 10:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 73 of 352 (478334)
08-14-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by LucyTheApe
08-14-2008 2:32 AM


Re: Cavediver or Plato's cavedweller?
Right, including the 'Rhaivin'gs of ungrateful, blasphemous whingers.
What's so bad about blasphemy? Every time you recite the Lord's Prayer, you blaspheme against Krishna.
Granny, the way I see it is that you have been blessed with the miracle of life. Your kidneys might be dodgy but you've still got a good brain. Why not use it in a positive way and move forward rather than begrudgingly ponder on what might have been?
Hmmm... I was nine when my kidneys failed. How good a brain do you think I had then? Personally, I'm quite glad that I was given the chance to develop the brain I have now, rather than dying at nine years old. Positive enough for you?
Actually, I'm not concerned about myself; I'm fine after all. What bothers me is not what might have happened, but what definitely did happen; millions of kids died horrible deaths because of nefrotic syndrome. There was no cure for NS until the 1930's. Before that all the kids who developed it died. They died because their kidney's were not up to the job. Most of them would have been about two to three years old.
Are you telling me that the designer/creator didn't foresee this flaw? If so, then he is not omniscient.
Are you telling me that the designer/creator couldn't prevent this flaw? If so, then he is not omnipotent.
Are you telling me that the designer/creator deliberately created this flaw? If so, then he is not omnibenevolent.
In fact, if the flaw is deliberate, I would go so far as to say that he is a child murderer, on a scale that makes the worst human killers look like amateurs.
I have no idea why you mention your friend and his liver problems. It isn't relevant. He has been saved by human intervention, just as I was, not your creator God, who stood back on the sidelines and watched, doing nothing, as usual. What exactly do we have to thank him for?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-14-2008 2:32 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 74 of 352 (478337)
08-14-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Buzsaw
08-14-2008 11:40 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Why does it not amaze me that your god is no brighter than you are. Not one of the things you mentioned would be a limitation of a being without limitations. It sort of goes with the territory of not being limited.
My God would have made us out of the dust of the earth and we'd have no innards at all. We live the lives of the bad guys on the A-team. Our small-arms fire disabled helicopter would slam into a cliff 300 feet above the beach, explode and tumble down into a burning heap. Then all the occupants stumble out holding their arms out to balance their dizzy selves. Except we'd offer it up as a carnival ride. (Whee!)
Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

Kindly
When I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2008 11:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by cavediver, posted 08-14-2008 12:19 PM lyx2no has not replied
 Message 92 by Coyote, posted 08-14-2008 9:58 PM lyx2no has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 75 of 352 (478339)
08-14-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by lyx2no
08-14-2008 11:59 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
My God would have made us out of the dust of the earth and we'd have no innards at all.
Now why can't everyone see this obvious point???
Did Buz really ask how we'd get our nutrients without eating

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by lyx2no, posted 08-14-2008 11:59 AM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2008 2:48 PM cavediver has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024