Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
40 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric, vimesey (7 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,775 Year: 16,811/19,786 Month: 936/2,598 Week: 182/251 Day: 11/59 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 108 of 219 (529304)
10-08-2009 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ICdesign
10-08-2009 7:34 PM


Re: Round 3: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain anything, declares victory and leaves?
So as we can all see here, this is an example of a design that you consider to be "intelligent design".

So, do you not see it as being intelligent? or do you think the need for glasses IS intelligent?

If we are the forefront of creation, why are there creatures on this planet that have better features that would definitely suit us? (i can't say we could utilize poison stingers like a scorpion, but eagle vision or ant strength?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 7:34 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ICdesign, posted 10-08-2009 8:29 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 151 of 219 (531036)
10-15-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Perdition
10-15-2009 11:37 AM


The human skull is silly
I'm not a professional, so pardon my lack of technical jargon.

The human skull ssems to be pretty sill, if you ask me. How easy is it to get whiplash? A concussion?

Shouldn't our neck be able to better support or enormous (proportionally) head? Think of the dog neck/skull combo. Especially a buff ass pit bull or rottweiller. Virtually solid muscle. Is there even a way to give a dog whiplah? (I am NOT advocating that experiment). Sure, tehy dont have the neck range/movement we do. But wouldn't a good designer find a way incorporate the two?

Shouldn't we have some soft padding like barrier between our brain and skull cavity? I can't think of an alternate example in nature, but the human brain is pretty much what sets us apart from all other creatures, right? Shouldn't it be a little more protected? Also think of an infants soft spot that exists for almost 2 years after birth.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 11:37 AM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Perdition, posted 10-16-2009 12:44 PM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 10-16-2009 8:57 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 154 of 219 (531291)
10-16-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Buzsaw
10-16-2009 8:57 PM


Re: The Human Skull Not Silly.
What does the genesis account and the fall have to do with ID? I thought ID was a strictly scientific movement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 10-16-2009 8:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 155 of 219 (531292)
10-16-2009 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Perdition
10-16-2009 12:44 PM


Re: The human skull is silly
I suppose I didn't think about that. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Perdition, posted 10-16-2009 12:44 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 172 of 219 (652940)
02-16-2012 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Genomicus
02-16-2012 10:45 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Your "approach" is that this intelligent designer only designs half-ass? He puts forth his intelligence into some things and not others?

the genetic code

Yes. The genetic code is GREAT. The genetic code that says some people are predisposed to disease no matter what. Was the designer so intelligently lazy that it used practically the same code on all of life so as to give the appearance of a common ancestor?

bacterial flagellum

Without mentioning Behe, explain what is so great about the bacterial flagellum.

Lastly, your approach is simply "count the hits, ignore the misses" unless your designer is a bumbling fool.


"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Genomicus, posted 02-16-2012 10:45 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Genomicus, posted 02-16-2012 11:27 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 175 of 219 (652944)
02-16-2012 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Genomicus
02-16-2012 11:27 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
The problem with the above statement is that you're assuming that I'm arguing for one particular model of ID

Have there been breakthroughs in ID since the Wedge Document or Dover? I didn't realize the ID movement had multiple "models".

You further assume, unfortunately, that common ancestry and ID are not compatible.

Damn skippy I do. Especially since the ID movement is creationism repackaged and sold as "SCIENCE!! (insert jazz hands here). You guys even use sciencey sounding words. Jenny McCarthy does that too.

Common descent and ID are compatible under the front-loading hypothesis. Briefly, the ID hypothesis of front-loading proposes that the earth (or more broadly, the solar system) was seeded with unicellular organisms that contained the necessary genomic information to shape future evolution in a particular direction.

This "hypothesis". Is there somewhere I could find it published? Preferably in a mainstream journal? It sounds an awful lot like panspermia to me.


"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Genomicus, posted 02-16-2012 11:27 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:04 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 183 of 219 (652953)
02-17-2012 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 12:04 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Well, I'm not part of the ID movement

Ahh. So you distance yourself from the official movement. Does that mean you've written your own papers, documented your own findings? So far all you've done is give us your say so and not provided one iota of work.

In response to your assumption that ID and common descent are incompatible, I described the ID hypothesis of front-loading

You don't have a hypothesis unless you can show some peer reviews. Until then all you have is an idea that sounds an awful lot like the already established panspermia just wrapped up in ID clothes.

It is an extension of Crick and Orgel's directed panspermia hypothesis.

In what way? In that you are asserting a designer? or in that you are calling it something else entirely and wrapping it up in ID clothes to make it palatable to the ID crowd?

An idea need not be peer-reviewed in the scientific literature in order to have merit as an idea that deserves discussion.

If your name was Feynman or Dawkins, I'd buy it. However, you're some yahoo on a message board blathering on about ID so forgive me if I need more than your sayso.

my query as to who are arguing that the genetic code is predisposed to disease

1: retroviruses.
2: Sickle cell


"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:04 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 3:16 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 184 of 219 (652954)
02-17-2012 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by subbie
02-17-2012 12:22 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Well, here is where this guy got all his shit from: The Design Matrix!!!

"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 12:22 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 190 of 219 (652962)
02-17-2012 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 1:08 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
My statement was not merely that the flagellum has functioning parts, but rather that the arrangement of the parts is optimal for flagellar function. If the ATP synthase had F1 subunits that clogged up the FliF pore, this would be evidence that the flagellum does not have properties of rational design. But it does: the ATP synthase fits neatly into the FliF pore - which adds to the efficiency of the flagellum, and again, efficiency is a hall mark of rational design. From a structural point of view, there is nothing about the flagellum that is sub-optimal. It displays properties of rational design.

So because the flagellum is the way it is, and not some way that wouldn't work, it's "rationally designed"? Like saying homosapiens are "rationally designed" to walk bipedally because if we only had one leg, we wouldn't be bipedal and therefor couldn't walk?

It's funny to see how many different ways you guys can say "irreducible complexity" without ever substantially defining the criteria for it, hoping that using a different word for it will suffice.


"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 1:08 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 201 of 219 (653015)
02-17-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 3:16 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
No scholar of the philosophy of science has stated that an idea must be peer-reviewed in order to fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis. It seems to me that that's an idea you made up. Can you cite a single scholarly source that states an idea must be peer-reviewed in order to be a scientific hypothesis? I'll be waiting for that citation.

"Hey guys! Look at me! I just read a book by Mike Gene and I think it has some neat-o ideas that change the ID movement. I haven't actually done any work myself, all I have is some claims I am making. If you can't refute these unevidenced assertions of mine...."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've still provided none.

The front-loading hypothesis goes a step further and states that these life forms contained the necessary genomic information to shape future evolution.

Any evidence for that assertion since it seems to be such a big part of your idea?

The take-home message here: genetic diseases would exist even with the most optimal genetic codes.

No. Any designer who was half intelligent wouldn't make his prime candidate prone to genetic disease that was passed on from mother to child.


"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 3:16 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 8:54 PM hooah212002 has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019