Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 9:54 AM
51 online now:
CosmicChimp, Diomedes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko (6 members, 45 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,542 Year: 3,579/19,786 Month: 574/1,087 Week: 164/212 Day: 6/25 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Is the Designer Still Designing?
Mike O Risal
Junior Member (Idle past 4285 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 03-26-2007


Message 16 of 40 (392169)
03-29-2007 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Taz
03-29-2007 3:14 PM


Primitive Neanderthals (as opposed to modern ones, I suppose) were still intelligent. Educated as we would think of it, no, but certainly not mindless and certainly capable of making decisions.

In essence, though, you're entire argument boils down to us being unable to know anything about the designer, not being able to predict anything about the designer, and, since we can't tell what the designer is doing, because it can do anything (including not allowing us to perceive that it was designing anything in the first place, since it can do anything and we have no way of knowing what the thing its doing is), then there's no point to positing a designer in the first place.

What is the point of positing something that we can't know anything about? If knowledge of it is impossible in the first place, then there's nothing we can say about it. If Intelligent Design is to be put forward as an explanatory model (e.g., a scientific theory, as it is claimed to be), then it has to be able to explain things. If it maintains the existence of a designer, it has to be able to explain the nature of that designer.

Your statement about biologists not being able to create a worm in a laboratory is quite silly. Of course we can't; it took hundreds of millions of years for them to come about. Yours is in part an argument from incredulity and in part an argument from complexity. The fact that we can't create a worm in a laboratory isn't evidence of some non-human being able to do so, though.

I find it interesting that you're claiming atheism here while defending this; Intelligent Design advocates generally claim theirs not to be a religious idea, and I haven't once brought up anything about any notion of deity or theology. In fact, I haven't even assigned the posited designer any identity, not even a gender.

I do like the veiled threat about your experience with "kicking ass," though. It does wonders for your credibility in this discussion.

And by the way, I've never been to the Amazon, but I have had the opportunity to discuss modern biological science with the "baba" who maintains a temple to the goddess Kali in the Trinidadian rain forest. Not a tribesman, but not exactly the beneficiary of a classical education, either. He never resorted to comments about kicking ass and had no problem at all reconciling his ideas about the universe with the new information, and I learned a few things from him, too. Given a little time and effort toward putting things into familiar terms, you'd be surprised what "native tribesmen" are capable of grasping.

In any case, with such brilliant arguments as the ones you've made here, I'm sure that the Intelligent Design folks are overjoyed to have you sticking up for them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 03-29-2007 3:14 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 03-29-2007 8:51 PM Mike O Risal has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 17 of 40 (392175)
03-29-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mike O Risal
03-26-2007 8:10 PM


Mike O Risal writes:

If an initial intelligent designer is posited as the reason for the biodiversity we see today, does that intelligent designer still exist? If not, what happened to it? If so, is it still designing? If the latter of these two possibilities is the case, then why do we not see radically new body plans appearing currently? Just taking animals as an example, we see a very limited number of basic body plans. If the designer still exists and is still designing, why don't we see much departure from these.

You never would've been able to observe radical changes in one lifetime, Mike, as I suspect you know. It's because the designer designs in very small, incremental steps. That's because he wants to hide his existence, and to make it appear to any careful observers that evolution is the culprit. That's the only kind of designer who fits the evidence that biologists and paleontoligists find.

Perhaps a better O.P. question would've been "why does the designer always design within the parameters of evolutionary possibility, and on the time scale that evolution would require?"

I'm quite new here, as well, and I expect that's already been asked by someone, somewhere on the site, at least once!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-26-2007 8:10 PM Mike O Risal has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 40 (392212)
03-29-2007 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Mike O Risal
03-29-2007 3:44 PM


Mike writes:

In essence, though, you're entire argument boils down to us being unable to know anything about the designer, not being able to predict anything about the designer, and, since we can't tell what the designer is doing, because it can do anything (including not allowing us to perceive that it was designing anything in the first place, since it can do anything and we have no way of knowing what the thing its doing is), then there's no point to positing a designer in the first place.


That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not an IDist, so I'm not going to pretend to be able to speak as one. What I am saying is that there are better questions to ask than a question we know noone can answer. It's like asking what Bush is thinking at this very exact moment.

What is the point of positing something that we can't know anything about? If knowledge of it is impossible in the first place, then there's nothing we can say about it. If Intelligent Design is to be put forward as an explanatory model (e.g., a scientific theory, as it is claimed to be), then it has to be able to explain things.

From the original post in this thread...

quote:
If an initial intelligent designer is posited as the reason for the biodiversity we see today...

My responses have been made under the assumption that there really is an initial intelligent designer.

If it maintains the existence of a designer, it has to be able to explain the nature of that designer.

There you go again. IDists have never claimed to "know" the nature of the designer. What they do claim is to be able to see the affects of what this designer has done.

Can you tell me if I'm married or not from looking at my programs? Can you tell how many times I go to the bathroom each day from my programs? Can you tell if I am bald or not from my programs?

You are asking unfair questions, questions you knew noone could answer.

Your statement about biologists not being able to create a worm in a laboratory is quite silly. Of course we can't; it took hundreds of millions of years for them to come about. Yours is in part an argument from incredulity and in part an argument from complexity. The fact that we can't create a worm in a laboratory isn't evidence of some non-human being able to do so, though.

Nope, that's not my argument at all. If anything, I could accuse you of trying to get off subject by introducing evolution into this thread.

When I said biologists can't create a worm in a lab, I didn't use it as an argument for an intelligent designer. I said IFF there is an intelligent designer and IFF the designer created the worm and we can't, obviously we are not as technical and sophisticated as the designer.

I find it interesting that you're claiming atheism here while defending this; Intelligent Design advocates generally claim theirs not to be a religious idea, and I haven't once brought up anything about any notion of deity or theology. In fact, I haven't even assigned the posited designer any identity, not even a gender.

I'm not an IDist either. It doesn't mean I have to agree with you. Your questions (where is the designer now? how come it stopped designing? etc.) are unfair because the questions expect IDists to know personally what the designer is or how it operates.

Look at it this way. If you take a walk in one of the cookie cutter neighborhoods, you should be able to recognize that the designs of all those homes are very similar and that they were all designed by the same engineer or group of engineers. Without any other information except the houses (and I'm assuming you can analyze the houses all you want), can you tell me where all the engineers who designed these houses at this very moment? How come they've stopped designing these houses? What are they doing now?

The answers to these questions are probably the following. They are probably elsewhere designing other houses in other areas. In the same way, I could probably say that the designer is elsewhere in the universe designing other echo systems. Who knows...?

I do like the veiled threat about your experience with "kicking ass," though. It does wonders for your credibility in this discussion.

Goodness... do you not have a sense of humor?

And by the way, I've never been to the Amazon, but I have had the opportunity to discuss modern biological science with the "baba" who maintains a temple to the goddess Kali in the Trinidadian rain forest. Not a tribesman, but not exactly the beneficiary of a classical education, either. He never resorted to comments about kicking ass and had no problem at all reconciling his ideas about the universe with the new information, and I learned a few things from him, too. Given a little time and effort toward putting things into familiar terms, you'd be surprised what "native tribesmen" are capable of grasping.

During world war 2, there was a an undeveloped island in the south pacific with natives who had never had contact with the outside world. Above the island was a battleground for some of the south pacific air battles between the US navy fighter planes and the Japanese air force. These planes were seen as gods to these natives. After the war, the natives prayed and prayed and prayed for their gods to return. When some white contacts arrived on the island, they saw these natives had built life size models of WW2 war planes and worshipped them.

What I am trying to get at is that IFF there is an intelligent designer, our technological and mental level compared to the intelligent designer would resemble something like the technological and mental level of the mentioned natives compared to us.

In any case, with such brilliant arguments as the ones you've made here, I'm sure that the Intelligent Design folks are overjoyed to have you sticking up for them.

I'm not sticking up to them. I simply see your questions as unfair.

In my time, I've seen (heard) questions such as "if people came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around?" Everytime someone asks such a nonsensical question, he undermines his own position as a creationist/IDist. Everytime one of us asks a silly question such as "where is the designer right now?", our position that claims to be rational and scientific is undermined.

If you really want to ask a valid question about ID, ask something like what are the foreseeable benefits ID could contribute to the scientific community as well as humanity? After all, the theory of evolution has directly resulted in anti-biotics, which have saved literally millions and millions of lives, agricultural advancement, which have helped fed hundreds of millions of people, and a myriad other things that are regarded as the high marks of the 20th century developed society.

Asking rhetorical questions, like where is the designer at this very moment, contribute absolutely nothing to the debate.

Oh, and have I mentioned that the ass kicking thing was a joke, although sometimes I do hope they'd invent a way for me to hurt someone physically over the internet...?

Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-29-2007 3:44 PM Mike O Risal has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 3986 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 19 of 40 (392224)
03-29-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Mike O Risal
03-29-2007 2:24 PM


Mike O Risal writes:

Even so, if the designer is making that happen, we're still stuck with the question of why we don't see any radically new life forms suddenly coming into existence.

Just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't occurring. The builder who built my house is still working, but I don't see him working on my house.

Maybe the designer is working on other planets? After all, even with six days each, there could be many trillions of planets this designer has to get around to making.

Although given the quality of the work here on Earth, maybe we were his high school 'Planetary Design' project...


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Entomology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-29-2007 2:24 PM Mike O Risal has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 20 of 40 (392581)
04-01-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mike O Risal
03-26-2007 8:10 PM


An Offense... of an answer!
Mike O Risal:
If an initial intelligent designer is posited as the reason for the biodiversity we see today, does that intelligent designer still exist? If not, what happened to it? If so, is it still designing? If the latter of these two possibilities is the case, then why do we not see radically new body plans appearing currently? Just taking animals as an example, we see a very limited number of basic body plans. If the designer still exists and is still designing, why don't we see much departure from these.

The designer is no longer designing. he is in the business of recovery...

Hang with me here Mike. I am going to move fast...

Personally, I think the most encouraging aspect of Intelligent Design, is that it brings into focus the true nature of natural selections role in nature.

So to answer your question, I don't think that the designer is at work in the direct sense you presuppose with your question.

I believe that the creation was designed without error. And sidestepping the questions of free will and the emergence of evil which make that another problem, the creatures are now adapting to a changing environment.

So this idea of evolution is actually backwards. The design (or creation) is actually devolving into new forms that are not better, but often worse than their predesessors. For example, the sun is using up it's energy. The moon is slowly but steadily losing it's place relative to it's earth. The role of the 2nd law of thermodynamics we see clearly affirmed.

I think that is why genetic co-mingling within species produces hybrid vigor. Because the combination of two members of a species that have diverged over time, are more complete, healthy, and whole when put back together.

So things are coming undone we see. It is a fallen and broken world, that needs restoration and salvation.

And things that are coming apart must have once been whole (or together)... Holy if you will!

Biblically speaking:

Genesis 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

This corrosponds nicely to the first law of thermodynamics. It is finished. Energy can niether be created nor destroyed.

However, once we stepped in and decided to tinker with the laws as they were, things began to come apart. That get's into this whole other free will issue, and whether or not a perfect creation would allow such freedom. Again, I am forced to leave that alone for now in respect of the topic.

So, everything is not designed. Some changes we see in organisms are the result of simple consequence. Cause and effect may not be intelligeble to us, but who ever said tinkering with laws was intelligent?

This random variation we see, is only random outside the constraints of law. It is quite predictable, in the sense it is mindless.

With all the physical laws being relative to one another and interdependent, why do some assume that 'moral laws', if changed or bent, will not cause an opposite and equal reaction of mindless deterioration?

Why is it that a dichotomy is introduced between physical and metaphysical realitites?

We say often in science today, that metaphysics has nothing to do with hard physical science...

Oh yeah?

Tell that to the sub atomic particles!

The metaphysical reality that underlies this physical plane does transcend it, and makes it's presence known.

I don't know where you are coming from, so forgive me if I am preaching to the chior, but never forget that the word transcendant does not mean 'outside' but rather 'connected', as in the overlap of our atmosphere and the outer space beyond.

It's a relational universe...

There is no seperation of things existing, from that of one strand against another. To do so, is the disintegation of the whole for the sake of single entities. It would be less than 'real' and complete.

But there will be that seperation eventually. Some beings demand it... for themselves.

Be careful what you wish for, and think...

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-26-2007 8:10 PM Mike O Risal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 04-02-2007 12:59 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 24 by IamJoseph, posted 11-23-2007 10:47 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 40 (392817)
04-02-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rob
04-01-2007 12:37 PM


Re: An Offense... of an answer!
Rob writes:

So to answer your question, I don't think that the designer is at work in the direct sense you presuppose with your question.


Thank you for promptly answering the question.

Next?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rob, posted 04-01-2007 12:37 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
Pharaoh205 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 22 of 40 (434869)
11-17-2007 8:38 PM


spam removed
spam

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 23 of 40 (435960)
11-23-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Mike O Risal
03-29-2007 2:24 PM


quote:
Mike O Risal writes:
if the designer is making that happen, we're still stuck with the question of why we don't see any radically new life forms suddenly coming into existence.

If there is any place in the observable universe without a design, please point it out? - it will instantly negate the faculty of science altogether! If the world is still turning as it did before, there is no reasoning to question whether the design still subsists.

The reason we do not see any new life forms, is an affirmation of the source which first declared that speech endowed humans are the final one: here, Genesis is fully vindicated today. By subsequence, the primal factors of ToE are negated: why are there no more life forms when it is asked in accordance of the 'on-going process' premise of Evolutiuon?!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-29-2007 2:24 PM Mike O Risal has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1745 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 24 of 40 (435962)
11-23-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rob
04-01-2007 12:37 PM


Re: An Offense... of an answer!
Your questions are as intelligent as some of the fine factors made in the post.

quote:
With all the physical laws being relative to one another and interdependent, why do some assume that 'moral laws', if changed or bent, will not cause an opposite and equal reaction of mindless deterioration?

Does not the first part of your statement above, answer the rest: namely that the universe is an intergrated system?

quote:

Why is it that a dichotomy is introduced between physical and metaphysical realitites?

Why is this in dispute? Consider the inter-active dependency between the physical brain and the non-physical mind? Consider that in a finite universe, all physicality had to be subsequent to a non-physical proponent: because the physical components once never existed!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rob, posted 04-01-2007 12:37 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
wisdom
Junior Member (Idle past 4018 days)
Posts: 8
From: London
Joined: 12-21-2007


Message 25 of 40 (442561)
12-21-2007 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mike O Risal
03-26-2007 8:10 PM


Who is the intelligent designer?
I seriously know who the intelligent designer is.

Do you belive that he should be recognised, thanked, and submitted to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-26-2007 8:10 PM Mike O Risal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 12-21-2007 5:23 PM wisdom has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 40 (442570)
12-21-2007 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by wisdom
12-21-2007 5:02 PM


Re: Who is the intelligent designer?
No. He should be scorned, fired and laughed at.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by wisdom, posted 12-21-2007 5:02 PM wisdom has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by wisdom, posted 12-21-2007 5:28 PM jar has responded
 Message 32 by Volunteer, posted 12-22-2007 8:54 PM jar has responded

  
wisdom
Junior Member (Idle past 4018 days)
Posts: 8
From: London
Joined: 12-21-2007


Message 27 of 40 (442572)
12-21-2007 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
12-21-2007 5:23 PM


Re: Who is the intelligent designer?
Did you guys know there is a lot of science in the Quran - which there is no way it could have been known in the 14th century, see the links below:

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1.htm

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_u5bkXHuJE

Did you guys know these miracles in the Quran have been confirmed by top scientists:

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1.htm

Did you guys know that there is not a single contradiction in quran against establibshed modern science, this is proven by a french scientist named Maurice Bucaille in his book "The Bible, Quran and Science: Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-Quran-Science-Scriptures-Knowledge...

Did you guys know that the Quran gives us a falsefication test, that if you can find a single contradiction from it, this is enough to say that it is not from the lord of the worlds, because he cannot make a mistake?

Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed page width yet again


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 12-21-2007 5:23 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 12-21-2007 5:36 PM wisdom has not yet responded
 Message 29 by AdminNosy, posted 12-21-2007 5:40 PM wisdom has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 40 (442575)
12-21-2007 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by wisdom
12-21-2007 5:28 PM


I'm sorry but that is just spam
Spam is not appreciated here.

When you actually have something worthwhile to say, let us know.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by wisdom, posted 12-21-2007 5:28 PM wisdom has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 29 of 40 (442578)
12-21-2007 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by wisdom
12-21-2007 5:28 PM


Guidelines!!!
When you signed up here Wisdom you agreed to follow the rules. Your post sends some crashing to the ground.

1) Do not use bare links. If you have a point to put forward use your own words. You may then refer to the link for more information for those interested.

2) Follow the topic here. It doesn't appear that your post as anything to do with the current topic. If you wish to discuss science in the Quran then suggest an opening post for such a thread.

These only make sense when you think of it.

You want people to be interested in your links. You have to get them started. So just posting links is not likely to do much good.

You want to be able to follow discussions yourself just as others do. If there is a whole bunch of separate discussions on separate topics going on in one thread no one can follow them.

And another word of advice: be careful about claims you make. You do not want to make your religion look foolish as some of the "christians" here make theirs look ridiculous. I will be very, very surprised if you claims prove to be anything very impressive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by wisdom, posted 12-21-2007 5:28 PM wisdom has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by wisdom, posted 12-21-2007 5:42 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 12-22-2007 10:30 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
wisdom
Junior Member (Idle past 4018 days)
Posts: 8
From: London
Joined: 12-21-2007


Message 30 of 40 (442580)
12-21-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by AdminNosy
12-21-2007 5:40 PM


Re: Guidelines!!!
Sorry about that, got carried away. This wont happen again, but I assure you, they are not nonsense, just see one of the links.

Edited by wisdom, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by AdminNosy, posted 12-21-2007 5:40 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019