Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,661 Year: 983/6,935 Month: 264/719 Week: 52/204 Day: 1/35 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Social and Religious Issues ⇒ Theological Creationism and ID ⇒

Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
Straggler
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

Normal Thread Display
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
Straggler
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 181 of 352 (505652)
04-14-2009 3:43 PM 		Reply to: Message 179 by JGBurgess
04-14-2009 6:54 AM

Predictions
Physical defects are not evidence for an inept Creator but are instead explained as the by-product of Sin.
​
Based on this hypothesis is it a reasonable prediction to suggest that those who are most sinful should produce a lineage with the most physical defects?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by JGBurgess, posted 04-14-2009 6:54 AM JGBurgess has not replied
Straggler
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 192 of 352 (506578)
04-27-2009 4:57 PM 		Reply to: Message 190 by traderdrew
04-27-2009 4:48 PM

Re: Trade Off
Does your computer need more memory?
​
Yes.
​
Is the screen to small?
​
Yes.
​
I am not here in an attempt to convince you otherwise.
​
OK.
​
I am not here in an attempt to convince you otherwise. I am here to sharpen my skills as a proponent of I.D.
​
Then you need to find an objective method of differentiating those things which are designed from those things which are not. The simple assertion that it is "obvious" holds no water at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by traderdrew, posted 04-27-2009 4:48 PM traderdrew has not replied
Straggler
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 232 of 352 (507285)
05-03-2009 1:43 PM 		Reply to: Message 230 by traderdrew
05-03-2009 12:58 PM

Once again, you are another person who sees the universe according to the way you think things ought to be if you were a god and running it. I saw the movie in the theater last year. I'm sorry if I don't remember it correctly and based on your point of view I should blame my creator but I don't. Far far as I know my creator hasn't told me to intellectually duel anyone here.
​
You don't have to intellectually duel anyone here.
​
But that is no excuse for being simply wrong.
​
You misrepresented Dawkins position. That needs to be rectified on the basis of honesty if nothing else.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by traderdrew, posted 05-03-2009 12:58 PM traderdrew has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by traderdrew, posted 05-03-2009 1:47 PM Straggler has replied
Straggler
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 235 of 352 (507288)
05-03-2009 1:48 PM 		Reply to: Message 234 by traderdrew
05-03-2009 1:47 PM

Paradigm
Do you think that I won't admit that I am wrong? I was wrong but that doesn't change or invalidate my paradigm.
​
OK. But would you remind me what your paradigm is?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by traderdrew, posted 05-03-2009 1:47 PM traderdrew has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by traderdrew, posted 05-03-2009 1:54 PM Straggler has replied
Straggler
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 239 of 352 (507298)
05-03-2009 2:22 PM 		Reply to: Message 237 by traderdrew
05-03-2009 1:54 PM

Re: Paradigm
Isn't it obvious? I.D.
​
Is that a paradigm?
​
Or an unevidenced assumption?
​
Has ID been confirmed by the standard scientific method of verification of predicted results?
​
Or does it remain an untested hypothesis?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by traderdrew, posted 05-03-2009 1:54 PM traderdrew has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by traderdrew, posted 05-03-2009 2:29 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 241 by Coyote, posted 05-03-2009 2:31 PM Straggler has replied
Straggler
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 242 of 352 (507304)
05-03-2009 2:32 PM 		Reply to: Message 240 by traderdrew
05-03-2009 2:29 PM

Re: Paradigm
Straggler writes:
​
Or an unevidenced assumption? Or does it remain an untested hypothesis?
​
That is why I don't categorize I.D. as science.
​
Can a paradigm be an unevidenced assumption? I would say yes but it could very well be a weak one but I don't think I.D. is weak.
​
If it is not science can it be a "paradigm"?
​
Evolution is evidenced by means of prediction and verification.
​
ID is not.
​
Surely by whatever measure we are to use regarding such things ID must be considered inferior on this basis even if no other?
​
No?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by traderdrew, posted 05-03-2009 2:29 PM traderdrew has not replied
Straggler
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 243 of 352 (507306)
05-03-2009 2:34 PM 		Reply to: Message 241 by Coyote
05-03-2009 2:31 PM

Re: Paradigm
It is a religious belief seeking to distort and misrepresent scientific evidence in order to fool school boards and courts into believing it is really science.
Religious belief is the exact opposite of science.
​
Oh I agree with all of that.
​
But demonstrating that this is the case is another question.
​
For example "irreducible complexity" is arguably a scientific argument.
​
It is just one that has failed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Coyote, posted 05-03-2009 2:31 PM Coyote has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Coyote, posted 05-03-2009 3:10 PM Straggler has replied
Straggler
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 246 of 352 (507316)
05-03-2009 3:52 PM 		Reply to: Message 244 by Coyote
05-03-2009 3:10 PM

Re: Paradigm
The way Behe approached ID, through irreducible complexity, was arguably not science.
I think this was demonstrated on the witness stand at Dover when he was asked about the background research he had conducted. The attorney interrogating him was able to produce a huge stack of articles (50 or more if I remember correctly) that he was not familiar with. He had to admit, in essence, that he came to his conclusions without benefit of scientific research and in contrast to existing scientific knowledge.
​
That's pretty much the same as creation "science," from which ID is evolved.
​
True.
​
Because Behe set out to prove his hypothesis correct rather than attempting to objectively test it by means of prediction and verification (or as would be the case in this instance refutation).
​
However I think that the irreducible complexity hypothesis is a valid hypothesis in scientific terms. Just. It's derivation is admittedly dodgy (although ID of some sort has arguably been the prevalent hypothesis for the majority of human history) and the attempts of it's proponents to verify/refute it are undeniably woeful.....
​
But I think it remains a valid, testable (albeit failed) hypothesis in scientific terms.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Coyote, posted 05-03-2009 3:10 PM Coyote has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025