INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

Hi Limbosis,
You said:I agree. That's why I believe homology--the "common parts" of certain animals is more proof of intelligent design than just random chance.
I know too little of science. But, whenever I see my Adidas shoes having the same material as my bag, having the same brand (Adidas) I say that these come from a single designer and maker. Never in my mind will it enter that my shoes evolved from my bag.
PJ

JAZZNS said:But you also forgot the fact that a manufacturer of car if he sets his factory in an "automatic mode" would produce 100 identical copies of say, 2007 Honda civic, just for example. 20 of these colored black w/ automatic transmission, 10 of that colored red w/ slight modification on spoiler, etc. The point is not the car reproducing itself but the manufacturer replicating that model 100 times.

Chriptera said:Your link on nested hierarchy was interesting. It showed for example external skeleton as "common part" of crustaceans and millepedes. It should not be hard enough--if we observe a car assembly--that different models of cars have common parts. In fact by analogy we could say that the present car was actually descended from the ancient horse and carriage mechanism. Only that the engine (measured in horsepower)replaced the horse, etc. etc.

Jazzns said:Are you saying this argument?Premise 1: Simple things like shoes, cars have designers who are known.
Premise 2: We do not know who is the designer--if ever there is one-- of Biological beings which are more complex than shoes and cars.conclusion: Therefore there is no designer for biological beings which are more complex than shoes and cars ??

Crashfrog said:LOL! :=):=) :=)I agree its a dumb argument against ID. Its a variant of this: The less complex a thing is the MORE is the need for a designer; the more complex it is the LEAST is the need for a designer.

Crashfrog said:Have you thought of the possibility of simplicity, elegance, and complexity all rolled into one? What does this mean? No designer?I don't know about you. But my Grandpa who crossified a Jewish carpenter was so astounded by the simplicity, elegance, and at the same time complexity of a folding rocking chair (designed & made by that carpenter). He sat on that chair while he pronounced judgment on that poor fellow. Later, Grandpa was so remorseful he didn't listen to Grandma's dream. Know what he did? He drank a simple, elegant, yet complex tasting wine--a remnant from a wedding in Cana. :=) :=) LOL!Common, Frog. Don't be labor the obvious!!PJ

Hi 1.61803 Hey, does it play on x-box? I've tried it on my PC but my cursor's too slow? Any cheats on that? He! he! he he!Please teach where and how did you post that silly grin at the end of your post? LOL! Poor Gov. Pilate, he is so outdated. Please help!

Crashfrog said:Sometimes silence is better. Let the reader decide.

Hi Chiroptera,
Thanks for the link "nested hierarchy". Among other things that article from Talk of Origin pointed out these common characteristics of living things: "(1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree."Then it said that these characteristics proves there is no designer; that all came from "one tree".I could argue the similarly /or contradictory can't I? I could say: 'NON living things--like cars, computers,etc-- have these "commonalities" (a) they are non replicating, (b)they don't have heritability, (c) they don't metabolize. Therefore, none of these were made.Of course there are 2 types of listener: (1)the incredulous, or (b) who will vehemently disagree.. How many do you think are (1), or (2) in this forum?Edited by pilate_judas, : grammarEdited by pilate_judas, : clarity

Hi fallacycop,
You said:I guess we just differ on how we look at things? If I see a pyramid, I know it was made by someone; if I see a mountain--more complex than a pyramid--I know someone w/ greater intelligence than the maker of the pyramid made it. For, how can he create something more complex than a mountain if his knowledge doesn't surpass that of the pyramid's maker?Many scientists are actually protesting Darwinism--which if I understand correctly was expounded by Dawkins; who in turn influenced many to think that because the universe is such a complex system no one made it; that that very rare chance (more than 1:1Trillion) hapenned. To me and to many scientist this is pure unadulterated crap. Stuff for fantasy movies.

Iceage said:2 Questions, please: (1) can you name at least 5 examples of "the marks of a untold number of trial-and-error experiments; and why you think these are 'trial and error experiments?(2)If we omit the word "Omnipotent", would you at least agree that someone or beings more intelligent than human makers made nature--though to repeat they are also prone to 'errors'? For the sake of argument--he or they are also 'dumb' just like Edison?

Dr Adequate asked:Believe it or not the company I worked w/ did just that. Reason? Economics! The industry? Chemicals.Edited by pilate_judas, : for clarity.

Jar gave not 5 but 1: What critter are you talking about? In my place, they are not extinct. They make noise that my cousin and I would immitate if we are drunk. Actually, some of them are delicasies to some of my friends. LOL!Seriously, are you saying that critters (whatever they are) must be designed for 'perpetuity'? Have you considered that their designer/maker made them for a LIMITED PURPOSE, LIMITED EXISTENCE, say, for food of apes and drunks like me and my cousin?And, why can't you accept a "dumb", "error-prone" creator of the universe--but more intelligent than humans? Is it not also a possibility, in the same way that you insist that there is no such creator?Edited by pilate_judas, : for clarity.

Chiroptera wrote:Don’t underestimate drunks. Some drunk lawyers have made minced meat of sober ones in court. Some priceless works of arts were made by drunkards. Ha ha ha! Ha!You skirted answering the main points of my post # 28. In that post I pointed out the weakness of the “nested hierarchy” argument. In that link that you provided, the authors said”in effect, at least that’s how I understood it”that because of the “commonalities” of living beings ( ability to replicate themselves, etc) they could be traced to one single “mother” (or source being). And, therefore these “daughters” or replicates have no direct creator.I countered citing “common traits” of non-living things--cars, etc-- like (a) they are non-replicating, (b) they don’t metabolize, etc. And by way of using the REASONING used by the “nested hierarchy” argument, I asked if it was also reasonable to conclude that non-living things (cars, etc) has no maker since they share the mentioned traits. To emphasise: this being the case”the nested hierarchy of non living things”should also lead us to the conclusion that no one made them. (See post # 28)You skirted this and went to give an illustration about (a) medieval manuscript, and (b) cars. You said that the medieval manuscript aptly illustrated “replications” in nature. And, you went to conclude by way of a conjectural question: “why would a common designer design according to a single hierarchy?”You realize of course that your argument has weakness: (a) that medieval manuscript had a maker and that the replicators were just the processors set in “automatic mode” by that maker. (b) your conjectural question has really an answer. The answer is this: why not? For economy or efficiency reasons?

Chiroptera wrote:Don’t underestimate drunks. Some drunk lawyers have made minced meat of sober ones in court. Some priceless works of arts were made by drunkards. Ha ha ha! Ha!You skirted answering the main points of my post # 28. In that post I pointed out the weakness of the “nested hierarchy” argument. In that link that you provided, the authors said”in effect, at least that’s how I understood it”that because of the “commonalities” of living beings ( ability to replicate themselves, etc) they could be traced to one single “mother” (or source being). And, therefore these “daughters” or replicates have no direct creator.I countered citing “common traits” of non-living things--cars, etc-- like (a) they are non-replicating, (b) they don’t metabolize, etc. And by way of using the REASONING used by the “nested hierarchy” argument, I asked if it was also reasonable to conclude that non-living things (cars, etc) has no maker since they share the mentioned traits. To emphasise: this being the case”the nested hierarchy of non living things”should also lead us to the conclusion that no one made them. (See post # 28)You skirted this and went to give an illustration about (a) medieval manuscript, and (b) cars. You said that the medieval manuscript aptly illustrated “replications” in nature. And, you went to conclude by way of a conjectural question: “why would a common designer design according to a single hierarchy?”You realize of course that your argument has weakness: (a) that medieval manuscript had a maker and that the replicators were just the processors set in “automatic mode” by that maker. (b) your conjectural question has really an answer. The answer is this: why not? For economy or efficiency reasons?