Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8998 total)
75 online now:
dwise1, Hyroglyphx, kjsimons, NosyNed (AdminNosy), PaulK, Pollux, Tangle (7 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,509 Year: 11,257/23,288 Month: 509/1,763 Week: 148/328 Day: 63/22 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 141 of 219 (530401)
10-13-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by ICdesign
10-12-2009 10:29 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
You don't seem to be understanding the point of the thread. What does fumbling in the dark have to do with Silly Design versus Intelligent Design? It seems to be you're trying to argue against Evolution, but considering this thread has nothing to do with evolution, you're the one flailing in the dark.

Now that that's cleared up, can you get back to the point? Explaining why the obvious design in the world (as we're assuming in this thread) points to an "Intelligent" designer despite the unintelligent, and indeed, quite silly designs we see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 10:29 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 2:21 PM Perdition has responded
 Message 146 by ICdesign, posted 10-13-2009 8:51 PM Perdition has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 143 of 219 (530449)
10-13-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Blzebub
10-13-2009 2:21 PM


The point of the thread
I know. However, for this thread, design is assumed. Once we make that assumption, we're left with, at least, two options: Silly Design and Intelligent Design. RAZD is doing a hell of a job explaining why it looks more like Silly Design. ICDESIGN has appeared to take up the mantle of defending the Intelligent Design side of the argument, however, he seems to be able to defend it only by arguing against evolution, which doesn't even come close to refuting Silly Design, let a lone providing a reason to believe in Intelligent Design. I was attempting to let ICDESIGN know that he was arguing against the wrong thing.

AbE: Welcome to the forum, btw. It may take a while to figure out which side everyone is on, but I'm definitely not a proponent of ID or Creationism.

Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 2:21 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 3:35 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 150 of 219 (530879)
10-15-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by ICdesign
10-13-2009 8:51 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Only a fool can look at design and say "It looks like design, and appears to be design in every way shape and form. You have multiple systems working together to achieve a meaningful purpose, but nope, no design here."

For the purpose of this thread, we're granting design. Arguing that design exists is redundant and a waste of space in this thread, because for the sake of argument, we've already granted that. It is now up to you to show WHAT TYPE of design you see. RAZD sees Silly Design because even less than perfectly intelligent beings (us) can design better and more efficient products than the one "the Designer" apparently did. This seems silly.

It is now on you to counter with things that are not silly, but rather intelligent, and even better, to counter why the silly designs RAZD is pointing out are not, in fact, silly. You would do this by citing evidence and using the scientific method. Merely stating it, or bringing religion into it are the wrong way to go in a science forum and will not be convicing in the least.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ICdesign, posted 10-13-2009 8:51 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 10-15-2009 8:40 PM Perdition has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 152 of 219 (531189)
10-16-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by hooah212002
10-15-2009 8:40 PM


Re: The human skull is silly
Shouldn't it be a little more protected? Also think of an infants soft spot that exists for almost 2 years after birth.

This one could be filed under either, I suppose. The soft spot allows the baby's head to deform enough to fit out the birth canal. The only other options are a smaller head (and thus smaller brain), accelerated head growth during infancy, or a larger birth canal. I suppose there could be arguments for and against each solution...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 10-15-2009 8:40 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by hooah212002, posted 10-16-2009 9:13 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2009 9:32 PM Perdition has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 158 of 219 (531366)
10-17-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by RAZD
10-16-2009 9:32 PM


Re: opportunity for a silly limerick
A young couple from New Delhi
got stuck together belly to belly
for in their haste
they used library paste
instead of petroleum jelly

LOL. Take every opportunity you can to sneak in limericks, they're one of my guilty pleasures.

Yep, it's pretty silly to limit further development of human intelligence that way.

If intelligence truly equates to surface area of the brain, there may be some room yet if we wrinkle up even more, though I'm not sure where the limit would be...

If course the work around that we have is Caesarian sections, but then you have to think that if the "pleasure dome" were located above the pubic bone, not only would it be isolated from the waste treatement outlets, but you wouldn't need to pass through the pelvis.

A need for C-sections would be silly...unless it were designed to be so easy to do that one wouldn't need a team fo doctors and an anesthesiologist on hand...perhaps like on the new Oreo packs where you can lift the flap and seal it down again?

The "pleasure dome" is certainly in a funny spot, and if you go further and consider modesty regarding sexual organs funny as well, it would make much for sense for them to be near the hands or feet...extendable for many opportunites for creativity...

As for the pelvic bone...I actually think it's silly the other way. SHouldn't our bodies (or female bodies at least) be designed in such a way that the fetus is protected better? The possibility of killing the fetus, or causing complications merely from tripping and falling on your stomach seems a bit silly. Perhaps there should be a shell of bone around the womb with a trap door right under the Oreo flap? Joints are essentially hinges, so it shouldn't have been too hard to extrapolate from one to the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2009 9:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 160 of 219 (531371)
10-17-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Granny Magda
10-17-2009 11:07 AM


Re: Silly Ammonites
Awful. Just awful. It's a wonder it had the gall to show itself in public. Clearly no intelligent designer would come up with something so patently impractical and ridiculous.

Very strange. One wonders why it is the way it is. Does the folding give it some balance benefit, or is it simply one of those things that fell through the cracks of "good enough?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Granny Magda, posted 10-17-2009 11:07 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Dr Jack, posted 10-17-2009 1:38 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020