Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
109 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 108 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,315 Year: 4,427/6,534 Month: 641/900 Week: 165/182 Day: 45/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why would an intelligent designer design these?
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 108 (226399)
07-26-2005 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Electron
02-15-2005 6:13 AM


Flood
You'll disagree vehemently I suppose, and not all ID's are Christian and not all Christians are YECs and believe that Noah's Flood is responsible for the fossil layers, but I am and do.

It isn't that there is a continual "improvement" by the forces of evolution, but rather that only a relatively few major kinds of creatures have survived the Flood. The Flood caused the massive extinction and is responsible for the fossils and layers, in which the fossils are found.

That is the answer from the YEC paradigm -- so far as I understand it.

Your problem is that you are examining certain of the ID theories by mixing its postulates, paradigms, assumptions, etc. with your own postulates, paradigms, assumptions, etc. You cannot truly examine it that way.

In this case, you are assuming that the prevalent (certainly not the only) body plan today is an "improvement" over what you think are ancient body plans -- improved upon, of course, by natural selection.

The YEC paradigm doesn't assume that anything has "improved" in the way you are thinking. Instead, we see a massive, world-wide extinction (Noah's Flood) -- therefore, there are now fewer body plans whereas there used to be greater diversity.

There are other ID paradigms (like panspermia), but I am unfamiliar with those...I am a YEC.

--Jason


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Electron, posted 02-15-2005 6:13 AM Electron has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 6:09 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 98 by kuresu, posted 04-02-2006 3:48 PM TheLiteralist has taken no action
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2006 8:32 PM TheLiteralist has taken no action

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 108 (226407)
07-26-2005 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Electron
02-14-2005 12:42 PM


ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
All Christians are IDers, but not all IDers are Christian -- in other words, not all IDers say that the intelligent designer is the omnipotent, omniscient God of the Bible.

The God of the Bible (who is the God I believe in) is omnipotent and omniscient, and he has not been trying to come up with the best body plan over the last 3 billion years.

However, your statement:

Why would an intelligent designer seem to be following the same path as us?

Contradicts your own position if you are trying to argue against ID, because humans are intelligent designers and you have just argued that the evidence (as you interpret it) indicates that there is an intelligent designer behaving much like us humans.

Funny, no?

--Jason


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Electron, posted 02-14-2005 12:42 PM Electron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by CK, posted 07-26-2005 6:40 AM TheLiteralist has taken no action
 Message 66 by Electron, posted 07-26-2005 12:07 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 108 (226408)
07-26-2005 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by arachnophilia
07-26-2005 6:09 AM


Re: Flood
I don't know what raelians are.

However, IIRC, one of the co-discoverers of DNA (cant remember the name), eventually decided that aliens planted the first life forms (or something like that), because he understood the DNA and related cellular machinery to be too complex to have arisen spontaneously.

It is as many here say, abiogenesis is not evolution. Not all IDers are anti-evolution, but some are (me, for instance)

No, I probably can't explain angular unconformities. But if they can occur slowly, can they occur quickly? If the land can shift axis slowly can it shift axis quickly? Can the flood deposit layers on one axis, and then on the other axis, wash away some of the original layers and then deposit more? I think that is the standard YEC explanation, but if it gets overanalyzed here it will drag the thread into the realm of "Geology and the Great Flood" -- i.e., go off topic.

--Jason


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 6:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 9:39 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 108 (226941)
07-28-2005 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Electron
07-26-2005 12:07 PM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
quote:
I very much doubt that you would wish to translate similar limitations upon your concept of your almighty designer.

You are missing my point.

The OP indicates that at least a human-like intelligence is at work and therefore actually supports the general notion of ID.

It is true that the OP does not support the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent God (i.e., the Christian God). But the OP, as currently stated, is arguing against ID in general, not the Christian God in particular. Therefore, since the OP presents "evidence" that a human-like intelligence is at work while trying to disprove ID in general, the OP contradicts itself.

Christianity is only ONE form of ID -- there are many others. The general idea of ID does NOT require that the intelligent designer be all-knowing and all-powerful (as the Christian God is).

My comments -- far from placing any limitations on the One, whom I consider to be the Intelligent Designer -- indicate that the person who wrote the O.P. is confusing ID in general with Christianity in particular.

--Jason

AbE: before I get inundated with comments, I DO understand what the OP is trying to get across, but all too often I see people confuse ID in general with Christianity, and I think it's good to point out that they are different. Christianity is a subset of ID, just like humans are a subset of "mammals"...if thinking of it that way helps.

Just like evolutionists keep telling YECers "You can be a Christian and believe in evolution, too"...You can be and IDer and not believe any of the Bible at all. You can even be an atheist and be an IDer.

The distinction is important, that's why I brought it up.

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 03:16 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Electron, posted 07-26-2005 12:07 PM Electron has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Electron, posted 07-28-2005 5:30 AM TheLiteralist has taken no action

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 108 (226942)
07-28-2005 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by MangyTiger
07-26-2005 10:27 PM


Francis Crick -- the chief raelian?
Thanks for the info, Mangy Tiger.

AbE: perhaps I have erroneously supplied a "reason" for Francis Crick to have chosen to believe in "directed panspermia" -- i.e., that the DNA and related cellular machinery are too complicated to have arisen via chance (i.e., abiogenesis). If it turns out that was not his reason, then I will rescind that particular assertion.

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 03:05 AM

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 03:38 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by MangyTiger, posted 07-26-2005 10:27 PM MangyTiger has taken no action

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 108 (226946)
07-28-2005 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by CK
07-27-2005 3:52 AM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
Well, I DID think it was rude...at first...and was planning on simply ignoring it.

If it's a sincere question, well, then it's rather different than most I get asked, I must say.

I'm not sure I have a good answer for it, either.

To echo Arach (which I will not often do, I assure you -- our beliefs being so dissimilar), yes, I have never taken "in God's image" to mean an exact copy of God.

But the question is more difficult than that because God is an omnipresent Spirit and does not have nipples (as a Spirit).

However, God (I refer to the God of the Bible), for the last 2000 or so years HAS had and DOES have a body, which is the Christ (the Son of God). Christ is the incarnation of God Himself (I am NOT a trinitarian, btw...I consider the trinity to be polytheism...and a bit strange for "God the Father" (who is mentioned in the Bible) to send "God the Son" (who is NEVER mentioned in the Bible) down to die for His creation. No, in the Bible, God Himself suffers in the flesh for us as Jesus Christ. The term "Son of God" is referencing the body, which was born of the Holy Spirit ("Holy Spirit" is just another way to reference God the Father -- you might say, "the Spirit of God" -- it is NOT a different person in the Godhead, or whatever -- in the same way that when I say "the spirit of Jason" I am not referencing another person in me).

So, we are patterned after Christ, imo. But really Christ now has a glorified body, which I assume is different from the ones we have now in significant ways. The glorified bodies may not have nipples, but I assume the same basic bipedal form will be kept. I would tend to think that nipples are temporary thing, but I could be wrong about that.

I wish I could do better answering it than that. Hope it helps in some way.

--Jason

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 03:33 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by CK, posted 07-27-2005 3:52 AM CK has taken no action

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 108 (226948)
07-28-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Electron
07-26-2005 12:07 PM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
Electron,

I just looked back at the OP...I didn't know you were the one who wrote it.

ooops.

Do you see my point, though? If you are arguing against the existence of the God of the Bible, then you should have said that. Instead, you referenced only a general "intelligent designer," who most certainly COULD be experimenting in a human-like way.

Does that make sense?

--Jason

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 03:46 AM

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 03:57 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Electron, posted 07-26-2005 12:07 PM Electron has taken no action

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 108 (226949)
07-28-2005 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Electron
07-26-2005 12:07 PM


Re: ID is not Christianity / Your Argument Supports ID
My answer to the point you intended to make, though, is in Message 61.

Here is the gist of it quoted here:

quote:
The YEC paradigm doesn't assume that anything has "improved" in the way you are thinking. Instead, we see a massive, world-wide extinction (Noah's Flood) -- therefore, there are now fewer body plans whereas there used to be greater diversity.

There, that should get the discussion back on the track you intended it to be on. Sorry about the diversion.

--Jason

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 04:03 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Electron, posted 07-26-2005 12:07 PM Electron has taken no action

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 108 (226950)
07-28-2005 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by arachnophilia
07-26-2005 9:39 PM


angular unconformities
In reference to angular unconformities (AUs) you say:
quote:
well, they indicate that the strata were formed sequentially. each new layer requires the every one below it to be entirely solid.

Well, I would tend to think that, at best, AUs make a case that at least two events occurred: one for the layers at the one angle and one for the layers at the other. I fail to see how AUs indicate that all the layers involved are sequential and that every lower layer must be entirely solid before another layer can be deposited on it.

Or have I misunderstood you?

--Jason

AbE: my topic-drift-o-meter is starting to go off...do you think we should start a new thread for this topic?

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 04:13 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2005 9:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by arachnophilia, posted 07-28-2005 10:47 PM TheLiteralist has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022