A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

This seems to be a good new topic, to discuss what is evidence of intelligent design, or refutations for why there isn't intelligent design in anything. Discuss, debate, exchange Ideas. I'll be happy to respond to anyones perspectives and ideas. Try to keep the amount of examples if you have a vast list to as minimum as you can, explain why you think it is or isn't intelligent design, I used to get long lists and it was just troublesom to respond to.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-31-2001]

Just to start us off lets begin with the giraffe, I noticed the giraffe design argument topic, I flipped through it and didn't find anything interesting, lets start it in a whole 'design argument topic' rather than a 'giraffe argument' so we can move with the whole intelligent design attitude within these threads.If one feature did change, would it not affect the whole? Let's consider the giraffe.The giraffe is a mammal, therefore much of its anatomy is similar to that of other mammals. Like most other mammals, the giraffe has seven neck bones. What if it did not have seven bones between the shoulders and the base of the skull? Man's short neck supports a perfectly balanced head in the erect posture with very little effort. The giraffe's huge head must be held aloft at all times. When standing, nearly half of its approximately 225-kilogram (500 pound) neck muscles are in tension. The amount of muscle required is directly related to the number of joints that must be supported. Reducing the joints to just two, at the skull and at the chest, would reduce the weight considerably and require less energy for survival. If the shortage of food drove the neck to change, would not the number of neck bones and joints be changeable also by such evolutionary processes? Of course the problem with this design would be a loss of flexibility, and would severely increase breakability if the giraffe received a blow to the head or neck.In the same respect, having a megajointed neck would require the exact opposite - greater energy use and greater muscle mass to be supported. This would cause the giraffe's centre of gravity to shift ahead of the front legs when the head is extended straight forward, causing the hind legs to come off the ground - assuming the front legs were strong enough. Seven neck bones is excellent design.With the head being so high in the air, the huge heart of the giraffe must be capable of delivering sufficient oxygen-rich blood three metres (10 feet) up to the brain. This would be a problem (involving too high blood pressure) when the giraffe was head-down drinking water, were it not for a unique collection of reinforced artery walls, by-pass and antipooling valves, a web of small blood vessels (the rete mirabile, or 'marvellous net') and pressure-sensing signals that keep adequate blood flow to the brain at just the right pressure. Even to those who consider this as just 'adaptation to high gravitational pressures in its cardiovascular system', the giraffe is unique.The giraffe's heart is probably the most powerful among animals, because about double normal pressure is required to pump blood up the giraffe's long neck to the brain. With such high blood pressure, only special design features prevent it from 'blowing its mind' when it bends down to take a drink.Equally marvellous is the fact the blood does not pool in the legs, and a giraffe does not bleed profusely if cut on the leg. The secret lies in an extremely tough skin and an inner fascia that prevents blood pooling. This skin combination has been studied extensively by NASA scientists in their development of gravity-suits for astronauts. Equally helpful to prevent profuse bleeding is that all arteries and veins in the giraffe's legs are very internal.The capillaries that reach the surface are extremely small, and the red blood cells are about one-third the size of their human counterparts, making capillary passage possible. It quickly becomes apparent that these unique facets of the giraffe are all interactive and interdependent with its long neck.But there's more. The smaller red blood cells allow for more surface area and a higher and faster absorption of oxygen into the blood. This helps to retain adequate oxygen to all extremities, including the head.The lungs work in conjunction with the heart to supply the giraffe with the necessary oxygen, but in a way that is unique to the giraffe. The giraffe's lungs are eight times the size of those of humans, and its respiratory rate is about one-third that of humans. Breathing more slowly is necessary in order to exchange the required large volume of air without causing windburn to the giraffe's rippled 3.6 metres (12 feet) of trachea. When the animal takes in a fresh breath, the oxygen-depleted previous breath cannot be totally expelled. For the giraffe this problem is compounded by the long trachea that will retain more dead air than man can inhale in one breath. There must be enough lung volume to make this 'bad air' a small percentage of the total. This is a physics problem that the giraffe has solved.To add to the wonder, the birth of a newborn giraffe seals the case for an intelligent design. The new calf drops into life from 1.5 metres (five feet) up, as the mother is incapable of comfortably squatting to the ground, and to lie down during birth would be a sure invitation for a lion or other predator to attack the mother. As in all mammals, the head is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the body at birth, and it becomes a challenge to pass it down the birth canal.The baby giraffe has the added challenge of having a very fragile long neck attaching it to the rest of its 70-kilogram (150-pound) newborn body. If the head came out first, the neck would surely break when the rest of the body fell on top of it. If the head came out last, the neck would surely break as the body weight attempted to jerk the head out of the mother. Such an apparent impasse is solved by the rear hips being much smaller than the front shoulders, and the neck is just long enough to allow the head to pass through the birth canal resting on the rear hips. The hind feet exit first to break the fall on the rest of the animal, The head is supported and cushioned by the rear hips, and the neck is pliable, allowing a sharp bend around the front shoulders.This is a perfect exit, that would be impossible in any other combination or with any other new length of neck. Within minutes the new calf is gracefully standing between the mother's legs. From birth to adulthood in just four years, the neck grows from being one-sixth to one-third of the giraffe's total height. Such growth is required for the animal to overcome its leg height and to bend to get a drink of water. The calf's first year of food is almost exclusively its mother's rich milk, which can be reached easily.Ecologically, the giraffe is perfectly matched to its environment. There is need of a tree trimmer to keep the fast-growing shade trees from overshadowing the ground and killing the much needed grass that provides food for the other savanna animals. There is also need of a sentinel that can see above the tall grass and observe the movements of the predator cats. The giraffe is not only tall enough for this, but has excellent eyesight and a curious disposition. After warning other animals with several swishes of the tail, the giraffe boldly strides out of harm's way. The great body height, tough skin layers, deadly rear hoof kick, and long, rapid stride make the adult giraffe an undesirable prey for any carnivore.To suggest that all of this could have evolved in one class of animal, lacking any conceivable close relatives, and becoming so developed solely due to a supposed lack of food at ground level, is preposterous. Should not others which feed at ground level, being vulnerable to big cats, and being bombarded by the same cosmic radiation, have achieved a more giraffe-like stature?

This should be a question old earthers are dieing to get into, I know all of you guys arent just avoiding this thread because it is too hard. Seeing that creationists love using this as proof that things had to have a designer Im sure you guys would just jump right in, right?

Is there a problem schrafinator? I have no problem in telling of the source of works. But I see you have a very large problem in trying to 'expose' creationists because their questions are too hard for you to comprehend, and their answers are too vast for you to look over. If not Im very sure you would have much more to say than 'cutting and pasting is discouraging'.

Yes the topic of the giraffe is being covered in another thread and I am aware of it. This thread isn't just about the giraffe, it is about intelligent design in general, no specifics in this thread, I just used the giraffe because it is a very good start. Unless someone would like to move on to another animal, plant, etc. for a topic of discussion.

I wish we could rather discuss this argument in situation in this thread instead of leading through the various links on the internet, anyone can do that.

I would have to say you leave me in no less than , aww. Very well said Phi, I applaud your insite. Nothing short of, Amen.

The whole debate arrousing Intelligent design is the fact that we have complexity in our environment, complexity is everywhere, in every form of life. Intelligent design is assuming a creator and looking at what he created and seeing how complex it is, evolution will always be able to explain almost every aspect of life, it just matters how far you will drift off from science into fantasy to give that answer, humans will always have a great imagination. There are many animals that it is simply overwhelming to the mind such as the giraffe, Bombardiar Beetle, birds nest fungi, turtle migration, armadillo, spiders, etc, they all fortell intelligent design, to realize the unity in its working systems is utterly amazing, thus posed intelligent design.-----------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-07-2002]

"I think what Joz & Moose are getting at, is that if the ID that created life on earth isn't supernatural, then what created the IDer?"
--The intelligent designer is outside of the universe, meaning it is not governed by scientific laws, not general relativity, not quantum theory, no laws of thermodynamics, gravity, any of it, and is thus outside of it and outside of time itself being the creator of time. Being the creator of time, means that there was no concept of a 'time' before 'time' was created, thus there need not be a cause and effect that governs actions or effects of any cause before time and space were created. As the creation of matter is a problem, the creation of a supernatural entity, is illogical.------------

"The sun travelling across the sky used to be "utterly amazing" to us, so Apollo was the sun god in his firey chariot."
--Thats because they used mythology to explain, not logic."Before the connection between pregnancy and intercourse was made, reproduction used to be "utterly amazing" and baffling to humans, so we worshipped female fertility goddesses, as females were thought to solely be responsible for bringing new life into the world."
--Ditto"Lightning used to be "utterly amazing" to humans, so Zeus was the mighty god who hurled the lightning bolts down to earth."
--Double Ditto, though I still find lighting pretty fantastic (certainly doesn't imply a God striking the earth or anything!)"The fact that humans have ALWAYS attributed that which amazed and puzzled us to the divine or something "otherworldly" is nothing new."
--So we should get a new theory of evolution because it can't explain them without using amazingly abstract numbers?"Isn't it interesting that all of these ideas about the gods are thought to be rather quaint?"
--People of those times didn't use logicical reasoning to figure out something, they just said hey thats amazing and I can't explain it with my intelligence so I'll give the contribute to a God! Thats why some ancient civilizations had so many Gods!"at a organism or system found in nature is amazing to humans does not equal ID or God."
--Amazing must not be too amazing to you then. This doesn't apply to the ID argument.----------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-11-2002]

To imply that ID is an unscientific concept is partly true, but it has a major part in science. The unscientific area would be to assume a creator and say that because so and so is so complex it had to have a designer, this is conjector. The scientific method is looking at this, figuring out how it works, find out the odds, in an evolutionists case it must be feasibly possible to contribute to evolving kinds, ie molecules to man evolution (kinds to kinds). If there is an impossibility, then ID has an argument, explinations shouldn't be contributed by assumptions or conjectors, like saying well we know that it happend so it isn't a problem, but it is.------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-12-2002]

"ID is not scientific because there is no theory, the notion makes no predictions, and there is no positive evidence for an IDer."
--Ofcourse there is a theory, the theory is, all things to their own degree admit their own unique design in biological complexity and unity. ID would more accurately be portrayed as a concept, or a study more than a theory. The predictions as are the theory tells. And as for the positive evidence, disregarding the fact that it has even rarely been discussed in this thread, its the way your going to interperet that evidence, its a study of the origin of complex unity and their explinations."Negative or lacking evidence for the ToE does not constitute positive evidence for any other theory or notion, including ID."
--I never said it did? Though if evolution cannot explain it and creation can, that is the ID argument."The ToE could [B]never have existed at all, or be completely falsified tomorrow, but this in no way can be considered positive evidence for Creationism."
--Well, my own personal opinion on that would have to be that I never said it was evidence for creationism, overwhelming or minusqual (if thats how you spell it). Its about the best possible explination, can evolution explain it, or can Creationism? Though you would object correctly, if evolution cannot explain it, Creationism always can, ID is not an argument against Creationism, it is an argument against 'E'volution. I originaly planned this thread to be where to discuss whether it can or cannot be falsified, though I have not been able to get many on my chain."How do you tell the difference between, "It's impossible!" and "We don't know yet", or, "We don't have the brain power to comprehend it."?"--I guess 'impossibility' was not the right word for it, be it more 'feasability', because there is always a possibility, it just how far you will drift off into fantasy to be it so. 'We don't know yet' contributes to 'We don't have the brain power to comprehend it'. I have not had the trouble in any way of being unable to comprehend anything if it is observable, can be tested or experimented on. The supernatural for one is not comprehendable, but naturalistic phenomena is. I would consider the 'we don't know yet' valid as long as there is nothing to point to either view, or logical hypothesii can be suggested for an explination. ID is much more down to earth than what you seem to be implying it as ('We cannot comprehend it' or 'We don't know yet') Because we do know how things work, and how things function. There is an argument waiting to be argued."Oh, BTW, TC, have you looked at the thread I started entitled "Questions Creationists Never Answer"? One of the question I haven't had answered yet is "Define Kind. IOW, how can I tell the difference between one kind and another?" "
--Yes I viewed the thread when you started it."Since you used the word "kind" in your reply, I was thinking that you must be able to define the word and tell me how I can tell what "kind" an animal is."
--To define kind, first we must get a little insite on what makes something a 'kind', I'm no biologist, but I know what is a kind and what isn't, I can look at a rhrino, and a bird and say they are not the same kind (obviously) but I can also look at a rhino and an elephant and say their not kinds, but then I can look at them again and contemplate, mabye they are the same 'kind' antomy can tell. I do know that in order to produce a new kind a new characteristic must be added, something such as say a good sized tail from the coccyx with a slight complexion of a dogs tail, nerves, muscles, etc working in unity to give it new function. A new organ would make a new kind, give humans the function to produce a new cell. What would not be contributed to a new 'kind' would be something to the degree of an extra arm growing out of your back, or anything that you already have, that was mistakenly trying to grow where it isn't suppost to.-----------

"conducting research under a Biblical framework" presupposes scripture validity, & isn't science."
--I thought you wanted to know what a biblical 'kind' was?---------------

"Meaning 12S-rRNA sequences showed humans & primates to be very similar indeed. Priceless."
--I would expect much simmilarity, wouldn't you? We both have significantly simmilar structure, but then again when you look at this close resemblance and see exactly how large a quantity the similarity is (97-99% similarity) you see the ratio of even this 3-1 and even less is an emense amount of information, and thus, the differentation.---------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-19-2002]

Not too many of my posts get many replies need there be a one. ------------------