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:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 91 of 219 (528021)
10-04-2009 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by AdminModulous
10-03-2009 10:58 PM


Sir, I am requesting an answer to why message # 77 does not apply to a thread that states "Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy". The ID side is that evolution could not have done it and I gave a well thought out argument that supports my view.
Why then am I being booted off the thread?
Thank you for a response.
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by AdminModulous, posted 10-03-2009 10:58 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by AdminModulous, posted 10-04-2009 11:18 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2009 3:22 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 92 of 219 (528074)
10-04-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICdesign
10-04-2009 12:02 AM


First, please accept a 24 hour suspension for replying to a post from a moderator that said 'please do not reply'...twice.
Do not reply to this post.
You may continue to post in this thread.
You must remain on topic for this thread.
The topic of this thread is Silly Design.
If you have any examples of Silly Design, or comments about any of the examples so far raised, you may discuss that.
If you want to show examples of Intelligent Design, find a thread where that is the topic or start a new thread.
If you want to show the limitations of evolution, find a thread where that is the topic or start a new thread.
I have given you the tools with which to do this.
If you reply to this message you will receive a further suspension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICdesign, posted 10-04-2009 12:02 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 219 (528122)
10-04-2009 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICdesign
10-04-2009 12:02 AM


Silly Design Theory is NOT evolution, and evolution is NOT a part of the topic
Hi ICDesign,
Sir, I am requesting an answer to why message # 77 does not apply to a thread that states "Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy". The ID side is that evolution could not have done it and I gave a well thought out argument that supports my view.
Why then am I being booted off the thread?
Thank you for a response.
Simple: disproving evolution does not disprove the Silly Design Theory.
It's like attacking democrats in a republican primary.
First we need to establish whether the so called "Intelligent" Neo-Paleyism design theory explains the evidence as well or better than the Silly Design Theory.
Perhaps when you get back from suspension you can address this issue.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICdesign, posted 10-04-2009 12:02 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 94 of 219 (528143)
10-04-2009 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by ICdesign
10-03-2009 8:13 PM


Round 1: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Hi ICDesign,
Thanks for taking up the challenge. Unfortunately you seem to be under some misunderstanding about Silly Design Theory -- it is NOT evolution. Please read Message 1 again.
If one could imagine making a horizontal slice through a capillary and then magnifying it ten-thousandfold, the view might resemble the most congested street in Bombay at the busiest hour-
So you're saying that traffic jams and congestion show intelligent design. Yet no comedy is written about smooth flowing traffic, and instead we see comedic references to what people do when stuck in traffic.
Conclusion: This certainly doesn't invalidate Silly Design Theory, while Neo-Paleyism ("Intelligent" design) cannot explain the need for congestion. Silly Design is more likely as an explanation for this congestion.
yet the carts, cars, trucks, buses, birds, animals, and pedestrians are odd-shaped packages that know where to go and how to get there. A simplified list of passerby at any one moment could include hundreds of white and thousands of red cells, tens of thousands of platelets, millions of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen molecules, scores of antibodies to old infections and previous vaccinations, every component of the clotting cascade, anticlotting factors,erythropoietin to simulate red-cell production, iron, calcium, magnesium, manganese, cobalt, chromium, copper, zink, nearly every vitamin, numerous proteins and amino acids, salts like sodium and potassium, ammonia, sugar, insulin, uric acid, liver enzymes, prostate enzymes, cancer markers, genetic markers, thyroid hormone, adrenal hormones, ACTH, TSH, GH, FSH, LH, vasopressin, parathyroid hormones, pancreas enzymes, glucagon, somatostatin, all types of cholesterol, fatty acids, blood pressure-regulating chemicals, muscle enzymes, brain enzymes, hormones that communicate between the stomach and the gall bladder, hormones that communicate between the kidneys and the thirst mechanism, adrenaline, noradrenalin, and albumin. This list is far from complete. Each component is regulated, controlled, and maintained at very specific concentrations. As with an orchestra playing a symphony, every instrument, every note, every pause is perfectly coordinated.
Just as it is in good comedy, and here we commonly see near misses and just avoided catastrophe used for comedy.
Conclusion: This too does not invalidate illy Design Theory, and while Neo-Paleyism ("Intelligent" design) cannot explain the need for near misses and barely avoided catastrophes. Silly Design is more likely as an explanation for this congestion.
-HERE IS MY QUESTION FOR YOU-
Evolutionary development would have had to account for each of the circulatory system's characteristics separately AND simultaneously to explain the human species. There could not have been blood vessels without a heart to pump blood or a brain to monitor the heart's work. There could not have been a human being without a circulatory system capable of delivering its goods to every cell. There could not have been blood with out bone marrow to produce it or a spleen to remove aging cells. There could not have been a viable human
(OR INDEED ANY ANIMAL) without a way to deliver cellular waist products to the kidneys. The human species could not exist unless millions of extremely unlikely occurrences came about at exactly the right time and in exactly the right manner!
How do you explain this?
By Silly Design Theory. This explains why the "entertainment center" is located in the same place as the waste water disposal center and adjacent to the sewage disposal plant. Lots of room for comedy.
Silly Design Theory also explains why the same inlet is used for breathing and eating and talking, so that you can have great comedic effect of people trying to talk while eating, spewing food all over, and then choking on a morsel, someone delivers the "Heimlaff" maneuver and the morsel is jettisoned across the room onto some dour person.
Neo-Paleyism ("Intelligent" design) cannot explain these locational setups, while Silly Design is very likely as an explanation for this juxtaposed processes and intermixed locations.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ICdesign, posted 10-03-2009 8:13 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ICdesign, posted 10-05-2009 10:39 PM RAZD has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 95 of 219 (528361)
10-05-2009 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
10-04-2009 7:00 PM


Re: Round 1: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Definition: Silly
Silly
Adjective
1. (informal terms) "gave me a cockamamie reason for not going"; "wore a goofy hat"; "a silly idea"; "some wacky plan for selling more books".
2. Lacking seriousness; given to frivolity; "a dizzy blonde"; "light-headed teenagers"; "silly giggles".
3. Inspiring scornful pity; "how silly an ardent and unsuccessful wooer can be especially if he is getting on in years"- Dashiell Hammett.
4. (informal) dazed from or as if from repeated blows; "knocked silly by the impact"; "slaphappy with exhaustion".
Noun
1. A word used for misbehaving children; "don't be a silly".
Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
Date "silly" was first used in popular English literature: sometime before 1258. (references)
Note: Silly \Sil"ly\, adjective. [Comparative Sillier; superlative Silliest.]. (references)
RAZD, I don't have all that much to say about silly design but you are silly for coming up with the thread...you silly man you...
Basically I see it this way. Yes, there are some animals and fish and so-forth that have a very unusual look and function. So what? Its not a problem for me to believe in a creative God with so much imagination to express designs 'outside of the box' if you will. Who am I (or anyone else) to criticize the way He chooses to do ANYthing. He is God and we are not. Simple as that.
I am writing this to send when my suspension ends and just saw your last post. First of all, where was anything mentioned about traffic jams? Its plain to see the reference to congestion refers to quantity. When you look further down (as you copied) I said it was an orchestra playing a symphony....perfectly coordinated. The laughable comedy is how you twist the facts of a design operating smooth as silk into a fumble on the scale of a catastrophe.
As far as your unimpressive opinion about the same inlet being used for breathing, eating and talking? I think it was a genius display of design to use one inlet for three purposes. Very smart. I do agree though how laughable it is that people like you can't chew and talk at the same time without spewing food all over the place. Very funny indeed, thanks for pointing that out.Any engineer would agree that using one feature for multiple purposes is smart design. If you would like to show us what your made of and submit your better design proposal,(like two peckers or something) I would be gad to show you the reasons it is inferior to the current design. I would be more than happy in fact. The only thing your Silly Design Theory seems to explain is that how even a man with 3 degrees can end up being brainwashed to the point where he is completely devoid of basic common sense. I want to get some posts under a new topic so I can bring you out from hiding behind all this silliness so you can answer some serious problems with the Theory of Evolution I want to bring to your attention.
And I have one more thing to say about your failed attempt to discredit the intelligent aspect of design. I think you are disingenuous to claim that The Silly Design Theory isn't evolution. Your whole premise is that there isn't an intelligent Designer leaving The Theory of Evolution as the only choice. The least you can do is try to be honest.
....Anyway as far as design flaws go, (not any of the ones you made up) I have said it before and I will say it again. There are flaws that show up throughout all of His creation. The reason for this is due to the curse He put upon His world as a result of man's sin and rebellion. This is a temporary curse that He will remove when the necessary process has been completed.
So, can God be proven in a science lab through a repeatable experiment? Of course not. Can you prove that life began from nothing with a BIG BANG explosion in a science lab through a repeatable experiment. Of course not. Can we look at the evidence and make a reasonable conclusion that at some point in the past it appears their was an explosion that started everything? Most people agree that to be true. People of faith as myself believe that was when God said "LET THERE BE"...... and BANG!!
......no, you enjoy......
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2009 7:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 2:15 PM ICdesign has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 96 of 219 (528604)
10-06-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICdesign
10-05-2009 10:39 PM


Re: Round 2: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Hi ICDesign,
Basically I see it this way. Yes, there are some animals and fish and so-forth that have a very unusual look and function. So what? Its not a problem for me to believe in a creative God with so much imagination to express designs 'outside of the box' if you will. Who am I (or anyone else) to criticize the way He chooses to do ANYthing. He is God and we are not. Simple as that.
Even to the point of getting silly?
The problem for you is to show that the designs are inherently more intelligent than silly, and curiously you have not done this.
And I have one more thing to say about your failed attempt to discredit the intelligent aspect of design. I think you are disingenuous to claim that The Silly Design Theory isn't evolution. Your whole premise is that there isn't an intelligent Designer leaving The Theory of Evolution as the only choice. The least you can do is try to be honest.
Sorry, but disproving one theory does not make a different theory more likely, no matter how well formed or what it is. This is why the Neo-Paleyist (NP) attempts to "prove" design by disproving evolution -- as you attempted -- are doomed to failure.
I want to get some posts under a new topic so I can bring you out from hiding behind all this silliness so you can answer some serious problems with the Theory of Evolution I want to bring to your attention.
And once again we see that YOU are trying to argue that Neo-Paleyism is viable by attacking evolution instead of seeing if NP can explain all the evidence as well as silly design can. Amusingly, if you did show "serious problems" you would STILL need to deal with Silly Design Theory, and need to demonstrate that they are serious rather than silly.
No, and sorry to disappoint, but the point of this thread is to demonstrate that Silly Design Theory is the best explanation of the purpose of life.
Message 1:
quote:
  • that the ultimate purpose of the designs can be determined by investigation of multitudes of features to see if they more accurately reflect (a) random design, the result totally natural forces, (b) highly specific design, for some intelligent purpose, or (c) variations on a silly design, for some silly (entertainment, amusement, reality tv) purpose;
  • that the design purpose, as determined by rigorous scientific investigation, will then make clear whether the designer is (a) a Natural Nothing (NaNo), (b) an Intelligent Designer (IDr) or (c) a Cosmic Imp (CImp), and that this will then finally resolve whether there is or is not a designer as well as the nature of that designer: a metaphysical two-fer.
  • Silly Design takes on all comers.
    ....Anyway as far as design flaws go, (not any of the ones you made up) I have said it before and I will say it again. There are flaws that show up throughout all of His creation. The reason for this is due to the curse He put upon His world as a result of man's sin and rebellion. This is a temporary curse that He will remove when the necessary process has been completed.
    Ah so the design "flaws" are due to the failure of his supposedly primary design to stay on track. Now that is a demonstration that there was a design flaw - if we assume that the design in intelligent ...
    ... but are you sure they are "flaws"? They seem to work perfectly well, usable as they are, just that they serve a silly purpose rather than reflect intelligence in design.
    When we look at life in general do we see an intelligent purpose? Or that there is another purpose to the silly things we see in life around us, like the Copepod eye, as seen in Message 4. Something I don't consider "flawed" but it certainly is silly:
    quote:

    Copepod:

    This is a little critter that (shown here as a larvae) has a single eye and a single photoreceptor ... and yet it has a lens.
    Why would it have a lens with only one photoreceptor (that is basically an on\off signal processor)? Because the photoreceptor is at the end of a little stalk that can move back and forth and up and down, covering the area that a more complete retina would cover with this single sensor. The stalk dances for the light.
    Copepods are predators and use this dancing eye to build up a picture of their surroundings in much the same way that a laser light show can produce an image with one dancing light, or a television can produce an image with a dancing beam (of course both examples are commonly used to expand the intelligence of their viewers ... or is it just for silly entertainment?).
    So even your ad hoc excuse of "flaws" (and trying to shift the blame to someone else) does not cover all the evidence, while silly design theory does - without needing to invoke scapegoats as an excuse for what are really silly design features instead.
    So, can God be proven in a science lab through a repeatable experiment? Of course not. Can you prove that life began from nothing with a BIG BANG explosion in a science lab through a repeatable experiment. Of course not. Can we look at the evidence and make a reasonable conclusion that at some point in the past it appears their was an explosion that started everything? Most people agree that to be true. People of faith as myself believe that was when God said "LET THERE BE"...... and BANG!!
    And out came silly design.
    ... even a man with 3 degrees can end up being brainwashed to the point where he is completely devoid of basic common sense.
    ooo the ad hominem card again. Curiously all three degrees are in design.
    I think it was a genius display of design to use one inlet for three purposes. Very smart. I do agree though how laughable it is that people like you can't chew and talk at the same time without spewing food all over the place. Very funny indeed, thanks for pointing that out.Any engineer would agree that using one feature for multiple purposes is smart design.
    Argument from incredulity, sorry, but your opinion is not able to change reality.
    A good designer would design fail-safes in such designs if it endangered the whole design, and have backup systems, such as a mechanism to flush out the stuck food automatically, and an alternative option for breathing, perhaps a storage system that lasts more than a few seconds. One way would be to have a secondary system for obtaining oxygen, such as through the skin, as done by amphibians (which would also have the added benefit of being able to breath underwater).
    If you would like to show us what your made of and submit your better design proposal,(like two peckers or something) I would be gad to show you the reasons it is inferior to the current design.
    Easy. Take just one example with the eye: if we combine elements of the octopus eye with the human eye we would have telescopic and microscopic vision, like the zoom lenses in cameras that we know are designed to cover a range of vision requirements and stay in focus. That would be intelligent design, yet such a design appears nowhere in the natural world. Is your designer less intelligent than human designers, that have done this, even though he already has all the parts necessary?
    I think it was a genius display of design to use one inlet for three purposes.
    So why doesn't this genius combine the design of octopus eyes and human eyes into a more intelligent eye?
    Conclusion: his purpose is not intelligent design, but something else. Perhaps something silly.
    So, again you fail to demonstrate that NP - "intelligent" design - is as good as Silly Design Theory in explaining the evidence.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : clrty
    Edited by RAZD, : skin
    Edited by RAZD, : porpoise
    Edited by RAZD, : msg instead of mid to show subtitle

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by ICdesign, posted 10-05-2009 10:39 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 97 by ICdesign, posted 10-06-2009 10:31 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 110 by ICdesign, posted 10-10-2009 5:47 PM RAZD has replied

      
    ICdesign
    Member (Idle past 4797 days)
    Posts: 360
    From: Phoenix Arizona USA
    Joined: 03-10-2007


    Message 97 of 219 (528771)
    10-06-2009 10:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
    10-06-2009 2:15 PM


    Re: Round 2: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
    To be honest with you there RAZD, everything you said is foolishness to me and is a waist of my precious time of which is very limited.
    I could refute everything you said with half my brain tied behind my back but whats the point? I mean, I don't agree with one thing you said and you disagree with my views. I know I'm not going to reach you with the truth but I can pray God would open your eyes of understanding. I am flabergasted that your degrees are in design. Honestly, I am embarrassed for you.
    Anyway,the question is what will happen to you when you die RAZD?
    If the bible is false you have no worries. If it is true, I can promise you your rejection of God won't be viewed as silly.
    I may be back in a few days, we'll see. I am extremely busy.
    IC
    Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 2:15 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 98 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2009 7:53 PM ICdesign has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 98 of 219 (529006)
    10-07-2009 7:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 97 by ICdesign
    10-06-2009 10:31 PM


    Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
    Hi ICDesign,
    I understand you are having trouble comprehending the problem facing you, and thus we see a common reaction of avoidance behavior (not dealing with the issue) and attempts to portray the contrary evidence as unworthy of consideration.
    When you only look at the evidence that supports your beliefs, this is called confirmation bias:
    Confirmation Bias (Wikipedia, 2009)
    In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
    Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.[1]
    This is a reaction well known to psychiatry, affecting people from all stripes of beliefs, including theists, atheists and agnostics. The task for an open minded skeptic is to look beyond just those things you like to use as evidence, because they support your beliefs, to see if there is evidence contrary to your beliefs, and then try to explain those.
    If instead of confronting such contrary evidence you attempt to deny it and portray it as necessarily false because it contradicts your beliefs, then we see a patter consistent with cognitive dissonance:
    Cognitive dissonance(Wikipedia, 2009)
    Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
    A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can lead to rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice. It can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
    This too is a reaction well known to psychiatry, affecting people from all stripes of beliefs, including theists, atheists and agnostics. The task for an open minded skeptic is to confront the evidence contrary to your beliefs, and then try to explain those. Failing that one needs to consider changing one's beliefs that have now been falsified.
    ... I know I'm not going to reach you with the truth but I can pray God would open your eyes of understanding. ...
    Anyway,the question is what will happen to you when you die RAZD?
    If the bible is false you have no worries. If it is true, I can promise you your rejection of God won't be viewed as silly.
    In logic this is known as the logical fallacy of the appeal to consequences:
    quote:
    Definition:
    The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.
    Example:
    1. You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were, then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
    2. You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have no meaning. (Perhaps, but it is equally possible that since life has no meaning that God does not exist.)
    Proof:
    Identify the consequences to and argue that what we want to be the case does not affect what is in fact the case.
    Interestingly if you have real evidence for your beliefs, objective, validated, repeated by skeptic evidence, I'd be interested in seeing it. I suspect that it will be similar in content (none) and validity (weak) to the arguments by atheists on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread. If you do, then it needs to be a different thread, as this certainly does not apply to Neo-Paleyism or Silly Design Theory.
    So far your argument falls into several categories of non-rational behavior (cherry picking evidence, denial\avoidance, etc) and logical fallacies (false dichotomies, strawman, appeal to consequences, etc) so far, and you have still FAILED to show that Neo-Paleyism is a better explanation than Silly Design Theory.
    I mean, I don't agree with one thing you said and you disagree with my views.
    Curiously, your opinion is irrelevant as an argument against the evidence.
    I am flabergasted that your degrees are in design.
    And the fact that I should know way more about design than you as a consequence? Does that maybe give you a clue that your opinion is false or at best incomplete as regards what constitutes good design?
    To be honest with you there RAZD, everything you said is foolishness to me and is a waist of my precious time of which is very limited.
    I could refute everything you said with half my brain tied behind my back but whats the point?
    Honestly, I am embarrassed for you.
    Another logical fallacy, the ad hominem and an assertion unsupported by evidence.
    I may be back in a few days, we'll see. I am extremely busy.
    Take your time, the evidence won't go away.
    Enjoy.
    ps - while you are away, you can put together your promised reply for my answer to your challenge:
    quote:
    (Message 96)
    (Message 95) If you would like to show us what your made of and submit your better design proposal,(like two peckers or something) I would be gad to show you the reasons it is inferior to the current design.
    Easy. Take just one example with the eye: if we combine elements of the octopus eye with the human eye we would have telescopic and microscopic vision, like the zoom lenses in cameras that we know are designed to cover a range of vision requirements and stay in focus. That would be intelligent design, yet such a design appears nowhere in the natural world. Is your designer less intelligent than human designers, that have done this, even though he already has all the parts necessary?
    I'm on pins and needle waiting to see why telescopic vision is a bad idea, why microscopic vision is a bad idea, and why eyes that can adjust from one to the other at will, never needing glasses, is a bad design idea.
    There's more.
    Edited by RAZD, : clrty
    Edited by RAZD, : ps

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by ICdesign, posted 10-06-2009 10:31 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 99 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 8:26 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 100 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 10:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 101 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 10:46 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 102 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 11:16 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 107 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 7:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    ICdesign
    Member (Idle past 4797 days)
    Posts: 360
    From: Phoenix Arizona USA
    Joined: 03-10-2007


    Message 99 of 219 (529009)
    10-07-2009 8:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
    10-07-2009 7:53 PM


    Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
    You must have missed designing 101 where you learn their can't be a design without a designer.
    Lets give you a little test that you should be able to pass with flying colors with your big three degrees in design: Your in a pitch black room with a blindfold on as well. In front of you on the floor is a pile of 10 parts that belong to a silly widget. Along with that is enough nuts and bolts to put it together, however the nuts and bolts are different sizes to accommodate the different sizes of holes on the pieces. Finally, you have a small pile of wrenches and screwdrivers to choose from.
    How long would you guess it would take you to put the silly widget together and please describe the process you would undergo to accomplish the mission.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2009 7:53 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 103 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 8:08 AM ICdesign has replied

      
    ICdesign
    Member (Idle past 4797 days)
    Posts: 360
    From: Phoenix Arizona USA
    Joined: 03-10-2007


    Message 100 of 219 (529026)
    10-07-2009 10:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
    10-07-2009 7:53 PM


    Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
    I will be responding to your eye idea, and more

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2009 7:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    ICdesign
    Member (Idle past 4797 days)
    Posts: 360
    From: Phoenix Arizona USA
    Joined: 03-10-2007


    Message 101 of 219 (529030)
    10-07-2009 10:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
    10-07-2009 7:53 PM


    Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
    all b bauk
    Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2009 7:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    ICdesign
    Member (Idle past 4797 days)
    Posts: 360
    From: Phoenix Arizona USA
    Joined: 03-10-2007


    (1)
    Message 102 of 219 (529043)
    10-07-2009 11:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
    10-07-2009 7:53 PM


    Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
    Dang it RAZD now you got my juices flowing making me want to stay up late. This just became fun to me and I finally figured out the little tricks with the dbcodes. I didn't see your vision challenge till later.
    I credit you with a question I am impressed with. I have what I think are some good answers for you but I get up at 2am and work 14 hour days. It may be the weekend before I have time to respond with an answer worthy of the question but you have my attention and I will be back with you. I would still like to see your answers to that test.
    IC
    Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.
    Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2009 7:53 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 5:49 PM ICdesign has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 103 of 219 (529092)
    10-08-2009 8:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 99 by ICdesign
    10-07-2009 8:26 PM


    Round 4: Neo-Paleyism vs Silly Design FAILS to distinguish itself from SD
    Hi ICDesign
    You must have failed debate 101.
    Lets give you a little test that you should be able to pass with flying colors with your big three degrees in design: Your in a pitch black room with a blindfold on as well. In front of you on the floor is a pile of 10 parts that belong to a silly widget. Along with that is enough nuts and bolts to put it together, however the nuts and bolts are different sizes to accommodate the different sizes of holes on the pieces. Finally, you have a small pile of wrenches and screwdrivers to choose from.
    LOL. Thanks for another example of what would be a silly approach to design. What could be more fun than watching someone fumble around in the dark.
    Curiously, you do not show that your designer would do any better in the same situation, so this fails to be a test of Neo-Paleyism versus the Theory Of Silly Design.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 99 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 8:26 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 105 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 5:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 104 of 219 (529260)
    10-08-2009 5:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 102 by ICdesign
    10-07-2009 11:16 PM


    some intelligent design information
    Hi ICDesign
    I credit you with a question I am impressed with. I have what I think are some good answers for you but I get up at 2am and work 14 hour days. It may be the weekend before I have time to respond with an answer worthy of the question but you have my attention and I will be back with you. I would still like to see your answers to that test.
    And I'll be interested in your reply.
    Dang it RAZD now you got my juices flowing making me want to stay up late. This just became fun to me and I finally figured out the little tricks with the dbcodes. I didn't see your vision challenge till later.
    Always happy to help get the creative juices going. Just remember that we want this to be evidence based.
    For some posting tips:
    type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
    quotes are easy
    or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
    quote:
    quotes are easy
    also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
    For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
    If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

    ... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
    We know this was intelligent design because Percy did it.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 102 by ICdesign, posted 10-07-2009 11:16 PM ICdesign has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 106 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 6:02 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    ICdesign
    Member (Idle past 4797 days)
    Posts: 360
    From: Phoenix Arizona USA
    Joined: 03-10-2007


    Message 105 of 219 (529269)
    10-08-2009 5:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
    10-08-2009 8:08 AM


    Re: Round 4: Neo-Paleyism vs Silly Design FAILS to distinguish itself from SD
    RAZD writes:
    LOL, Thanks for another example of what would be a silly approach to design. What could be more fun than watching someone fumble around in the dark.
    I know you think you know where I was headed but its not what you think. What, its above you to play along with a harmless exercise?
    I would really to hear your answers.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 8:08 AM RAZD has seen this message but 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