Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 166 of 352 (480198)
09-01-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Buzsaw
09-01-2008 10:36 AM


Re: Provoking the designer
You forgot (12): avoid wearing clothing made of mixed fibres. Freakin' essential to a healthy life, Buz.
What absurdity! Where the hell does the Pentateuch warn about high cholesterol? Or tell how to treat melanomas?

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Buzsaw, posted 09-01-2008 10:36 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Buzsaw, posted 09-01-2008 10:02 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 167 of 352 (480223)
09-01-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Buzsaw
09-01-2008 11:20 AM


Re: Provoking the designer
Again, it is the ignorance and departure from the designer's precepts and not the incompetence of the designer that becomes problematic for the creature as the creature is designed.
So, exactly how is "ignorance and departure from the designer's precepts" responsible for my tailbone, or my appendix? What is the mechanism by which "ignorance and departure from the designer's precepts" results in such flaws?
This is a very popular claim, Buz, but it doesn't actually explain anything. It's a bare assertion used by apologetics to rationalize your bullshit beliefs with reality, and to any party with an IQ above freezing, it's obviously devoid of any explanatory value, completely untestable, and wholly detached from reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Buzsaw, posted 09-01-2008 11:20 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 168 of 352 (480239)
09-01-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Buzsaw
09-01-2008 10:36 AM


Re: Provoking the designer
Where in the bible would I find:
a. recommended daily intake of Vitamin A?
b. maximum lifetime exposure to radiation?
c. the procedure to replace a faulty OEM part?

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 162 by Buzsaw, posted 09-01-2008 10:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2008 7:53 PM DrJones* has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 169 of 352 (480241)
09-01-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Buzsaw
09-01-2008 10:36 AM


Hiccups
Why do we hiccup? There is an evolutionary explanation for hiccups but I wondered what creationist/IDist make of this phenomenon.
This latest theory, originally published in the journal BioEssays and reported in New Scientist magazine, says the key to hiccuping lies in a group of animals for whom combining closure of the glottis and contraction of the "breathing in" muscles does serve a clear purpose.
They are the primitive air breathers, such as lungfish, gar and many amphibians that still possess gills.
These creatures push water across their gills by squeezing their mouth cavity while closing the glottis to stop water getting into their lungs.
From BBC NEWS | Health | Why we hiccup
Basically according to evolutionary theory hiccups are a result of our amphibious ancestry.
What is the creationist/IDist take on why humans hiccup?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Buzsaw, posted 09-01-2008 10:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 170 of 352 (480252)
09-01-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by DrJones*
09-01-2008 6:26 PM


Re: Provoking the designer
{Content hidden. This is like the topic irrelevant chit-chat that induced me to close the topic earlier. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hid content and added comment.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by DrJones*, posted 09-01-2008 6:26 PM DrJones* has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 352 (480263)
09-01-2008 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Coragyps
09-01-2008 11:49 AM


Re: Provoking the designer
Coragyps writes:
What absurdity! Where the hell does the Pentateuch warn about high cholesterol? Or tell how to treat melanomas?
The OT is loaded with the pros and cons of wine. In the NT the apostle Paul wisely advised young Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake and his often infirmities. Lo and behold, modern science has discovered the resveratrol and other aspects of the red wine which nicely stabilize the cholesterol to the consistency which the body requires. The enzymes in the natural processing etc all work for good natural health as was designed so masterfully.
Btw, the designer's wine was intended to be grown on land which was fertilized with the dung of all living on the land. It was not intended to be produced for more $$ by adding such harmful chemicals as nitrites to speed up the processing.
Relative to colerterol, your natural grass feed red meats and your natural eggs have inbuilt properties which eliminate the problems we moderns are experiencing.
There is less $$ profits in growing and producing natural foods as designed. The designer shouldn't be blamed for the greed of our food growers and processors.

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 166 by Coragyps, posted 09-01-2008 11:49 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Rahvin, posted 09-01-2008 10:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 172 of 352 (480264)
09-01-2008 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Buzsaw
09-01-2008 10:02 PM


Re: Provoking the designer
The OT is loaded with the pros and cons of wine. In the NT the apostle Paul wisely advised young Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake and his often infirmities. Lo and behold, modern science has discovered the resveratrol and other aspects of the red wine which nicely stabilize the cholesterol to the consistency which the body requires. The enzymes in the natural processing etc all work for good natural health as was designed so masterfully.
Btw, the designer's wine was intended to be grown on land which was fertilized with the dung of all living on the land. It was not intended to be produced for more $$ by adding such harmful chemicals as nitrites to speed up the processing.
Relative to colerterol, your natural grass feed red meats and your natural eggs have inbuilt properties which eliminate the problems we moderns are experiencing.
There is less $$ profits in growing and producing natural foods as designed. The designer shouldn't be blamed for the greed of our food growers and processors.
Actually, Buz, the reason ancient peoples drank wine was the alcohol content. you see, they didnt know about those germ things swimming around in ye olde water well, and dysentary kills. The alcohol content of wine made wine quite literally safer to drink than water.
Your apologetic bullshit about a designer for wine is simple nonsense - the Biblical characters had no way of knowing about such things as cholesterol. What they did know is that drinking water sometimes gives you a lethal case of diarrhea, and wine doesn't.
Your natural foods BS is not only off-topic, it's wrong. You do know why we use pesticides and other "unnatural" treatments for foods, right?
It's becasue the natural stuff can kill us. Why does your all-wise "designer" make milk need to be pasteurized? Why does meat need to be cooked so thoroughly? More bullshit about how we've abandoned the designer's plans and these are the results?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Buzsaw, posted 09-01-2008 10:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 173 of 352 (485057)
10-04-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-11-2008 7:19 AM


More realism
cavediver writes:
Why should us bipeds have to put up with a skeletel structure that designed for walking on all fours? Did God force us into second-hand body-plans post-fall, just so that we could enjoy the delights of back-pain?
Maybe it's for added realism in a world that's supposed to be made completely by chance and so that humans would believe in this theory. I don't think if god made himself known to us, we'd all be happy about it. Wouldn't we want to have our own separate lives independent of God? Would we have the desire to live the life of someone else(God/Creator) with no air of human free will?
I know i am making god a lier, but i don't subscribe to the biblical(or any religious) god, so in my eyes the Intelligent Agent seems to be a good lier.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-11-2008 7:19 AM cavediver has not replied

Kevin123
Junior Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 23
From: Texas, USA
Joined: 10-11-2008


Message 174 of 352 (485782)
10-11-2008 5:42 PM


Who says the intelligent agent was a perfect being? It could just as easily have been a mad alien scientist (judging by human behavior mad scientist may be the best assumtption)
A perfect being is not necessary to argue for the theory of intelligent design. As for calling the agent an idot...well he, she or it was a lot smarter than humans are now since we can't even replicate creation of a living cell.
The fact is that creationism is a much better observable theory than evolution. Creation can be observed when intelligent agents (both humans and animals) arrange items into a purposefull system. Evolution of complex systems such as plants, animals or even a single living cell from random particles has never been observed.
The argument that creationism must be false because the created object isn't perfect is like arguing that my computer was not created because it keeps crashing and therefore isn't perfect.

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2008 5:51 PM Kevin123 has not replied
 Message 176 by Granny Magda, posted 10-11-2008 6:56 PM Kevin123 has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 175 of 352 (485784)
10-11-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Kevin123
10-11-2008 5:42 PM


Infinite regress?
So, are you postulating an infinite regress of intelligent yet imperfect beings successively creating new biospheres (or entire universes)? Or have you some other idea as to how life could originally arise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Kevin123, posted 10-11-2008 5:42 PM Kevin123 has not replied

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


Message 176 of 352 (485789)
10-11-2008 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Kevin123
10-11-2008 5:42 PM


Why the Design Flaws?
Hi Kevin123 and welcome to EvC,
Who says the intelligent agent was a perfect being? It could just as easily have been a mad alien scientist (judging by human behavior mad scientist may be the best assumtption)
A perfect being is not necessary to argue for the theory of intelligent design.
Agreed. Strange then, with so many possibilities, that the hypothesis of choice amongst ID advocates for the identity of the designer should be God. Who do you suspect the designer to be, Kevin123?
As for calling the agent an idot...well he, she or it was a lot smarter than humans are now since we can't even replicate creation of a living cell.
And yet the designer, who could make living cells, also seems to have made many elementary design errors, that even we stupid humans can spot. Why did he gives us hips and lower backs that would make more sense in a quadruped? Why did he give us eyes that display such appalling flaws as near/far sightedness and blind spots?
Much has already been made in this thread of the comparative high quality of octopus eyes. Clearly the designer could have done better with human eyes. Why did he give us such poor quality optical equipment? Does he not like us or something?
What about genetic illness? Why include conditions such as sickle cell or fragile-X syndrome? Is that really an example of good design?
The fact is that creationism is a much better observable theory than evolution. Creation can be observed when intelligent agents (both humans and animals) arrange items into a purposeful system.
A clearly false comparison. Proving that one thing is created does not prove that any other thing is created. Proving that humans design computers does nothing at all to prove that living organisms were designed.
Evolution of complex systems such as plants, animals or even a single living cell from random particles has never been observed.
Short of a time machine and a multi-billion year life span, it is going to be quite hard to observe the evolution of a modern life form, all the way from a single cell. Just as well that we have the fossil record then, isn't it.
When scientists can't observe an event directly, they look for evidence that the event may have left. Do you have some kind of a problem with that approach? One would hope not, since the supposed creation of life by God, sorry, "the designer", most certainly can't be directly observed.
The argument that creationism must be false because the created object isn't perfect is like arguing that my computer was not created because it keeps crashing and therefore isn't perfect.
Except that's not quite what's being argued here. The issue at hand is the clear contradiction between the undoubted brilliance that would be necessary of the "designer" and the utter stupidity of his many mistakes. This glaring inconsistency doesn't really disprove ID altogether, but it certainly casts grave doubts upon it, especially for those ID'ers who would like to identify the designer as the perfect Christian god.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Kevin123, posted 10-11-2008 5:42 PM Kevin123 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by ikabod, posted 10-13-2008 3:31 AM Granny Magda has not replied

ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 177 of 352 (485917)
10-13-2008 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Granny Magda
10-11-2008 6:56 PM


Re: Why the Design Flaws?
hmm .. given all the bad design features , the inclusion toxins , germs , vermin , and other major nasties .. may be these are evidence for creation .. i mean they all sound very Old testemant like punishments ...
may be our hip and lower back design is there because someone worshiped a tree ...
the duff eye for chatting to a outsider on the wrong day of the week
and sickle cell et al must be due to taking a name in vain ...
Would any creationist agree with these theories ? i mean it all fits from book one on through the OT ... if it is not wrath then why would a designer make such errors ??
was he/she/it in a rush , or watching the TV while creating ...??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Granny Magda, posted 10-11-2008 6:56 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 178 of 352 (486231)
10-17-2008 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
08-11-2008 7:19 AM


cavediver writes:
He's either an idiot, or for a deity, remarkably hard-up when it comes to paying for design plans.
For the sake of clairty, you forgot to include that he's an idiot for creating so many young earth creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 08-11-2008 7:19 AM cavediver has not replied

JGBurgess
Junior Member (Idle past 5462 days)
Posts: 1
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Joined: 04-14-2009


Message 179 of 352 (505613)
04-14-2009 6:54 AM


The author of this topic is evidently ill-informed of the Bible.
We believe that the world before the Fall had no death, disease or suffering, as God proclaimed the finished creation "very good" (Gen 1:31)
Post Fall, we have continued to acquire genetic defects as a result of duplication or deletion of genetic code - accounting for the many hereditary problems that we have today.
Physical defects are not evidence for an inept Creator but are instead explained as the by-product of Sin.

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 04-14-2009 8:21 AM JGBurgess has not replied
 Message 181 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2009 3:43 PM JGBurgess has not replied
 Message 182 by Coragyps, posted 04-14-2009 6:15 PM JGBurgess has not replied
 Message 183 by Taq, posted 04-15-2009 12:20 AM JGBurgess has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 180 of 352 (505621)
04-14-2009 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by JGBurgess
04-14-2009 6:54 AM


JGBurgess writes:
Physical defects are not evidence for an inept Creator but are instead explained as the by-product of Sin.
This sounds like a testable hypothesis. Is there any evidence supporting it?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by JGBurgess, posted 04-14-2009 6:54 AM JGBurgess 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