|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Drew.
traderdrew writes: Bluejay writes: traderdrew writes:
Biochemists are biologists. That may be true but why derive the numbers only from biologists? Why not take a survey of other types of scientists such as biochemists?
I had the impression that biochemists study the details of molecular machines at a lilliputian scale and biologists don't venture into that area. Yeah, perhaps that was a bit laconic of me: what I meant that message to convey to you as that, when somebody says, "something like 99% of all biologists accept evolution," the word "biologist" includes biochemists, physiologists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, cellular biologists, geneticists, bioinformaticists, zoologists, botanists, malacologists, carcinologists, entomologists, myrmecologists, mycologists, ornithologists, herpetologists, etc. -----
traderdrew writes: Well, I don't think the media would be willing or wish to explain acts of God as acts of God. Have you seen the attention given to the likeness of the Virgin Mary in water stains, clouds and French toast? -----
traderdrew writes: I think they would be more compelled to investigate or report them as some sort of natural phenomenon. Of course: if a certain method works on a regular basis, soon enough you'll have everybody out there trying to implement it. ----- This is getting a little too far from the topic. I think I'm going to bow out here. It's been a pleasure debating with you. See you on other threads. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Taq.
Tag writes: traderdrew writes: The idea that the creator should’ve or would’ve created perfect systems overlooks the possibility of multiple motives and the possibility that perfection wouldn’t serve at least one of those motives. It may also not consider some possible theological ramifications that we may or may not understand. So the designer was purposefully inept? I coach little league baseball. I can cheer for a kid who tries his hardest but doesn't make a play. However, I absolutely hate it when kids don't try and make bad plays. What you are describing is a designer who just isn't trying. No, he's not saying that the Designer is purposefully inept: he's saying that the Designer still has to deal with tradeoffs. Can you think of the reason why a Designer would make a perfect creation?Maybe if it was a work of art or hot rod designed to be displayed, I could see why perfection would be the goal. Or, if the Designer was trying to make Its creation into an efficient machine that helped It accomplish some task, some semblance of perfection would be desirable. But, would you make something perfect if imperfection could work well enough to accomplish whatever it is that you intended it to accomplish? Economically, it doesn't make sense. That's what Drew is saying. It's a stalling tactic, really: since we don't know what the purpose is, we can't pass judgment, so this discussion is pretty meaningless. Kind of boring, isn't it? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Taq.
Taq writes: That would imply that the designer is limited in both time and resources. For an all knowing, all powerful supernatural deity who lives in a realm outside of time and space this wouldn't seem to be the case. Making something perfect or imperfect would take the same amount of non-effort. So far, Drew hasn't made it clear what his views about the Intelligent Designer's power is: judging by his comments, I think it's safe to say he believes his god does not have the power to wave away tradeoffs. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Drew.
traderdrew writes: Why should I keep debating these issues other than to learn about them? I could but I really don't have the time right now to debate the rest of you anyway. I would rather allocate it into learning and understanding the real issues... I think debating is the best way to learn. Everytime I come on EvC, I find people who completely disagree with me on just about everything I want to discuss. It's important to not limit yourself just to your own viewpoints, because relying on any single viewpoint automatically increased the likelihood of encountering the exact same errors repeatedly. Everybody has a few things that they just can't get through their heads, and it's important to have other people around to remind them of that. Anyway, I hope that wasn't a good-bye from you: I hope you'll stick around. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Michamus.
Sweet! Another Mormon at EvC! I did my tenure (a.k.a. sentence) in Utah to. Stuffy place, that. Welcome to EvC (I'm on Mormon Standard Time with my welcome here)! -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Drew.
traderdrew writes: Bluejay writes: But, would you make something perfect if imperfection could work well enough to accomplish whatever it is that you intended it to accomplish? Economically, it doesn't make sense. I repeated your quote, if you can prove to me that my point doesn't economically make sense, I would define that as a blow to my belief system. Productivity generally follows a logarithmic curve: that means that, the more you go down one line, the more you have to work for each additional increment. For instance, during my undergrad, I analyzed samples of flies collected in traps. Let's say that an average trap catches about 8 species of flies. The first trap you place would then, expectedly, catch about 8 species of flies. The second trap you place would also catch about 8 species, but, some of these would be the same species collected by the first trap, so maybe 6 or 7 of them will be new. That means, after one trap, you're getting 8 species per trap, but, after two traps, you're only getting 7 or 7.5 species per trap. The third trap will have species that overlap with both the first and second, so you'll probably only get 5 or 6 new species there. Now, you're getting an average of 6.5 or 7 species per trap. Eventually, you're going to get to a point where you have to start putting out multiple traps in order to just get one new species. So, assuming there are exactly 50 species of flies in the area, you could catch 49 of them with maybe 100 traps {AbE: (numbers made up, but designed to be generous)}. But, in order to get the last species, you may have to put out an additional 50 traps. Does it really make economic sense to increase your workload by 50% in order to increase your results by 2%? Edited by Bluejay, : added disclaimer -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Drew.
traderdrew writes: Another reason why I really don't continue on with my debate here is, it obviously upsets some people and I don't want to invade their privacy. It doesn't upset us: it's just how we relate to people in science. We can't get by in a day without slandering somebody else's hypotheses: you get used to it after awhile. Don't let it be your reason for leaving. Seriously, though: science does better when scientists viciously attack every new idea. We discover which ideas are strong by beating up on everything and comparing their ability to weather the storm. I don't think you should give up just because your opponent doesn't like you: he's not supposed to like you. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024