Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 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?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 91 of 352 (478389)
08-14-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Agobot
08-14-2008 6:06 PM


Although non-existant, god is good vent for my anger at the injustice, suffering and death of innocent living creatures(human or animals).
It seems like you are insane
You place all of the blame for human and animal suffering on something that you claim is non-existant?
You're right, thats the perfect way to solve injustice, suffering and death of the innocent...by blaming that which is non-existant!
Were you working in Bush's cabinet when WMD's were blamed for the Iraq invasion?
How bout we don't blame, nor reward, non-existant things, that way we can keep them non-existant and irrelevant?
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Agobot, posted 08-14-2008 6:06 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Agobot, posted 08-15-2008 10:20 AM onifre has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 92 of 352 (478394)
08-14-2008 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by lyx2no
08-14-2008 11:59 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Why does it not amaze me that your god is no brighter than you are.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 352 (478395)
08-14-2008 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
08-14-2008 3:10 PM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Cavediver, the reason this thread is a looser for you is that if you were the designer, you'd design, not for the creature perse, but you'd design to suit yourself as supreme majesty of your creation for your purpose and pleasure as owner, designer and operator of the universe.
When it involves other life forms, that's no excuse for doing shoddy work.
I still like Heinlein's vision of all of this as expressed in his book Job: A Comedy of Justice, 1984.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2008 3:10 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2008 10:36 PM Coyote has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 352 (478396)
08-14-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Coyote
08-14-2008 10:04 PM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Coyote writes:
When it involves other life forms, that's no excuse for doing shoddy work.
The only people who would describe all of the wonders of what is observed on this planet and in in the cosmos as shoddy or the work of an idiot designer would be people who for one reason or another deny ID or anything supernatural to earthlings; likely people who have an aversion to accountability to a higher power.
The work is clearly not shoddy to rational observers who have no axe to grind. It is how the designer desired for it to be for the purpose and pleasure of the designer.
The creator of an army designs the army to the needs and purposes of the government, not according to the whims and desires of the individuals which make it up. Savvy?

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 93 by Coyote, posted 08-14-2008 10:04 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 08-14-2008 10:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 97 by DrJones*, posted 08-14-2008 11:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 98 by lyx2no, posted 08-14-2008 11:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 105 by Rahvin, posted 08-15-2008 1:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 107 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2008 4:16 AM Buzsaw has replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 95 of 352 (478398)
08-14-2008 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Buzsaw
08-14-2008 11:40 AM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
Oh. You would disallow your creature the free will to create junk food and do things detrimental to the eyes.
Sorry for not responding to the rest of your post, but this just ticked me off.
I was raised on a pretty strict no-junk food diet. No sugary cereals, no potato chips, no McDonalds (except the occasional happy meal on road trips...and i mean like once a year maybe). Always homemade meals and packed lunches, fresh fruits and oatmeal for breakfast, etc. I started losing my vision at 13 and tested for near-sightedness when I got my learner's permit at 15 and I am blind without lenses and I still have especially crappy night vision even with corrective lenses. And I ate a LOT of carrots (used to dip them in dijon mustard as a snack...yummy!). Oh, and my peripheral vision is for shit.
Most of my family wears glasses. I am one more. It had absolutely nothing to do with my diet as a child or now. It has to do with genetics and the piss poor design of the eyes in my family's lineage.
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.
So your god hates all of those "relatively few" people whose eyes do not work?
Just for kicks...who do you thank when your body fails you? Is it always your fault?
And if it is always your fault when things go badly, why is it not your own doing when things go well? How do you know the difference?
Edited by Jaderis, : grammar and capitalization

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

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

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 96 of 352 (478400)
08-14-2008 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
08-14-2008 10:36 PM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
The only people who would describe all of the wonders of what is observed on this planet and in in the cosmos as shoddy or the work of an idiot designer would be people who for one reason or another deny ID or anything supernatural to earthlings; likely people who have an aversion to accountability to a higher power.
There is no evidence for either ID or for anything supernatural.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2008 10:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 97 of 352 (478401)
08-14-2008 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
08-14-2008 10:36 PM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
The creator of an army designs the army to the needs and purposes of the government, not according to the whims and desires of the individuals which make it up
And sometimes the creator of that army is wrong and the individuals who make up the army know better than they do what works or not. For example, say a high ranking member of the army sets out the number of troops needed to occupy a country and the Secretary of Defense ignores him and sends in a small number, leading to widespread chaos. Similary the "intellegent designer" makes shoddy parts in humans that need replacing or just don't function from the start and so the humans have to come up with work arounds.
edited to add: Your analogy is flawed anyways. The creator of the Army is limited in the creation of the army by budget, technology, politics and intellegence of threats and thus can't make the perfect army. The alleged intellegent designer supposedly has no limits and yet still creates flawed designs.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2008 10:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 98 of 352 (478402)
08-14-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
08-14-2008 10:36 PM


Sans Axe
The work is clearly not shoddy to rational observers who have no axe to grind.
I am a rational observer and have no axe to grind and the work is clearly shoddy. If, with this statement, you were attempting to top the "No one can deny . " statement, you failed. Your tendency to speak in universals doesn't do much to establish you as a rational observer.
You also seem to be missing an important point. If God made us exactly as He wanted us then He is a Dickhead. If God only made us as best He could He's not all powerful. If you are . and you are, going to claim omnicompetence and omniniceness for Him you're going to have to explain, as opposed to merely asserting, that it is possible. But really, this isn't a new problem ” Why do bad things happen to nice people? ” and we shouldn't have to ask or be waiting for you to tell us how.
The creator of an army designs the army to the needs and purposes of the government, not according to the whims and desires of the individuals which make it up.
Are you making some type of claim that creators of armies only make their armies as tough as the war calls for them to be? Wouldn't a government make their army omnistudly if they could? Governments take the "best they can" option. Not that they don't also take the "dickhead" option.
Why, Buzsaw, do bad things happen to good people if the Intelligent designer isn't an idiot (or in the alternative, a dickhead)?

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 94 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2008 10:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 352 (478403)
08-14-2008 11:30 PM


Natures Folly
cavediver writes:
.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.
Thanks for your effort in explaining the universe as you see it.
  • 74% Dark Energy we can't feel
  • 22% Dark Matter we can't see
  • 4% Matter we don't understand.
Great work cavediver, keep it up.
cavediver writes:
Thanks, that's very generous of you. But I notice you're holding back on that omnipotence and omniscience.
Am I?
There's a bag full of O's feel free to use any you think you'll need whilst designing your beings.
cavediver writes:
afraid that with those I might just knock up a creation that would have every living creature falling at my feet?
I'm starting to think it wasn't such a good idea to give you so much power cavediver, now all we have is a stumbling idiot robot with stainless steel fingernails.
LinearAq writes:
..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 thread isn't about evidence or affirmation of anything. It's a free-for-all blasphemy thread.
Anyway evidence needs interpretation and you need the wherewithal to interpret evidence.
For example: a filed down pigs tooth can be interpreted by the elite scientific community as evidence enough of common descent. That's because they have the special skills and knowledge necessary to make such a determination. For the rest of us uneducated, uninitiated, it will always be just a pigs tooth.
Rahvin writes:
...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.
Or you could try chewing your food before swallowing, that's what your teeth are for. Adding another tube introduces redundancy.
Rahvin writes:
..You don't think this is a bad thing, even though your friend is likely to die.
We're all going to die. What happens then is what is important.
Rahvin writes:
. 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!
We actually thanked the doctors, nurses, the donor family and other hospital staff.
I never said that the human body was perfect, you're making that up. It fulfills it's purpose. If it didn't have a purpose, it would be nothing but a folly.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : Granny pointed out the fact that I can't add up!

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Granny Magda, posted 08-14-2008 11:46 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 101 by DrJones*, posted 08-14-2008 11:48 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 104 by Rahvin, posted 08-15-2008 1:09 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 106 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2008 3:50 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

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


Message 100 of 352 (478404)
08-14-2008 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by LucyTheApe
08-14-2008 11:30 PM


Lucy's Folly
Thanks for your effort in explaining the universe as you see it.
* 76% Dark Energy we can't feel
* 22% Dark Matter we can't see
* 4% Matter we don't understand.
Great work cavediver, keep it up.
76%+22%+4%=102%
Great work Lucy, keep it up.
For example: a filed down pigs tooth can be interpreted by the elite scientific community as evidence enough of common descent. That's because they have the special skills and knowledge necessary to make such a determination. For the rest of us uneducated, uninitiated, it will always be just a pigs tooth.
Have you forgotten the last time I called you on conflating Piltdown Man with Nebraska Man? No-one filed down any pig's teeth, you're mixing up your dodgy hominids again. Nebraska Man was a pig tooth, but it was an honest mistake. It was not filed down. Piltdown Man didn't contain any pig's teeth.
Great work Lucy, keep it up.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add off-topic banner.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-14-2008 11:30 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2008 12:09 AM Granny Magda has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 101 of 352 (478405)
08-14-2008 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by LucyTheApe
08-14-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Natures Folly
It's a free-for-all blasphemy thread.
What? the only person I've seen blaspheme against Odin the Allfather has been Buz, it's hardly been a free-for-all.
Adding another tube introduces redundancy.
Redundancy in design is good, it prevents catastrophe. Do you think that a bridge is designed only to the maximum load it's expected to experience?

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-14-2008 11:30 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 102 of 352 (478406)
08-15-2008 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Granny Magda
08-14-2008 11:46 PM


Re: Lucy's Folly
Have you forgotten the last time I called you on conflating Piltdown Man with Nebraska Man? No-one filed down any pig's teeth, you're mixing up your dodgy hominids again. Nebraska Man was a pig tooth, but it was an honest mistake. It was not filed down. Piltdown Man didn't contain any pig's teeth.
Judging from posts I have seen spanning several years, when one is doing creation "science" rather than real science, these little details don't matter.
It is the witnessing or some such that counts, not the accuracy of the statement.
In that, it is the exact opposite of real science.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add off-topic banner.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Granny Magda, posted 08-14-2008 11:46 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 103 of 352 (478409)
08-15-2008 12:40 AM


Topic drift and/or abandonment alert
Some off-topic banners just added by edit to some above messages.
The topic concerns scientific, philosophical, theological etc. considerations of bad design. All message content should connect up to that theme.
This is the warning. Departure from these guidelines are subject to suspension.
NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE.
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Activate "signature".

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

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


Message 104 of 352 (478411)
08-15-2008 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by LucyTheApe
08-14-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Natures Folly
quote:
Rahvin writes:
...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.
Or you could try chewing your food before swallowing, that's what your teeth are for. Adding another tube introduces redundancy.
People also choke on their food when they do chew, and people typically choke by accident, not because they tried to swallow without chewing, smartass.
Further, redundancy is a good thing. in fact, some of the best features of the human body are redundant. Your kidneys are redundant, so if one fails you still have another. Your lungs are redundant. your eyes, ears, arms, legs, testicles/ovaries, all redundant. Redundancy prevents a single point of failure, as any engineer or IT person will tell you. The question is, why are there so many features in teh human body that are not redundant? It's obvious any Gdesignerod knows of the concept of redundancy, but chooses not to use it in extremely obvious places. This appears to be a foolish choice on its face.
What you don't want is a single point of failure, or unnecessary complexity. For example, that single tube for breathing and eating is a single point of failure. Our eyes are an example of unnecessary complexity - the nerve bundle passes through the retina, creating a blind spot. A simpler design would be like the eyes many other non-mammalian species have, and have the nerve cluster attach from behind eliminating the blind spot.
If it didn't have a purpose, it would be nothing but a folly.
If the human body is a "folly" without its "purpose," what purpose could it fulfill that is not either stupid or unnecessarily cruel? If blinding a child serves a "purpose," how is that purpose not cruel? If having one tube for both breathing and eating serves a "purpose," what purpose could that possibly be that is not also compeltely stupid or unnecessarily cruel?
If you admit that the human body is "nothing but a folly" when deprived of its supposed purpose, how does that not demonstrate that the purpose itself must be unnecessarily cruel or stupid in order to require such a flawed creation?
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-14-2008 11:30 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

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


Message 105 of 352 (478412)
08-15-2008 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
08-14-2008 10:36 PM


Re: Unappreciative Blasphemy Thread
The only people who would describe all of the wonders of what is observed on this planet and in in the cosmos as shoddy or the work of an idiot designer would be people who for one reason or another deny ID or anything supernatural to earthlings; likely people who have an aversion to accountability to a higher power.
The work is clearly not shoddy to rational observers who have no axe to grind. It is how the designer desired for it to be for the purpose and pleasure of the designer.
Appeal to motive. You are not attacking the argument, but rather our motivation for making the argument. This is fallacious reasoning. Try again.
The creator of an army designs the army to the needs and purposes of the government, not according to the whims and desires of the individuals which make it up. Savvy?
Army engineers tend not to create unnecessary complexity or leave out beneficial redundancy, though. Why does your supposed Gdesignerod's" purpose involve such foolish design concepts as have been mentioned in this thread? If your Gdesignerod's purpose requires flawed eyesight, vestigial organs that have a tendency to become lethally infected, and a single tube for breathing and eating, doesn't that make your Gdesignerod's purpose either stupid or cruel as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2008 10:36 PM Buzsaw 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