Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
33 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, jar, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (6 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,486 Year: 18,522/19,786 Month: 942/1,705 Week: 194/518 Day: 18/50 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3082 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 1 of 304 (390115)
03-18-2007 6:46 PM


In the recently closed thread 'True science follows the evidence wherever it leads (The design of the eye)- it was stated by
Crashfrog in message #37:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the best- the absolute, tip top best designs in the history
of design- is unable to match the complexity and effectiveness
of the human body, isn't it proof that it is too complex to have been designed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Also stated by Chiroptera in message #38:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The human body is far too complex to have been designed by a sentient entity"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Forget what he means by "sentient" for now- I am just dying
to know how a design can 1. be so complex as to rule out a designer
and 2. is so far beyond intelligent that it proves an accident is
the only logical explanation. Where I come from (called the real world), the more intelligent a design is the smarter it proves the designer is!! This is why we Creationsts call a person smart enough
to come up with a design as intelligent as the human body GOD!!!
I (still) CDESIGN


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2007 7:25 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 4 by Larni, posted 03-18-2007 7:37 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2007 7:40 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 6 by DrJones*, posted 03-18-2007 7:44 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2007 7:50 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-18-2007 8:04 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2007 7:52 AM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-20-2007 12:26 AM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 248 by Chiroptera, posted 03-24-2007 4:29 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 304 (390117)
03-18-2007 7:17 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 304 (390120)
03-18-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 6:46 PM


Where I come from (called the real world), the more intelligent a design is the smarter it proves the designer is!!

How do you measure the "intelligence" of a design?

...eh, never mind. It's not like you respond to rebuttals, anyway. Are you ever going to address the evidence put before you in that thread?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 6:46 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:01 PM crashfrog has responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 4 of 304 (390121)
03-18-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 6:46 PM


ICDESIGN writes:

I am just dying to know how a design can 1. be so complex as to rule out a designer

Please provide a disigner that can design a human body and provide evidence of said designers existence.

ICDESIGN writes:

2. and is so far beyond intelligent that it proves an accident is the only logical explanation.

Your faliure to resloves 1 leads (inevitably) to 2.

Sleep tight.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 6:46 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6802
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 5 of 304 (390122)
03-18-2007 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 6:46 PM


Hi, IC. Glad to see that you've decided to stay with us.

quote:
I am just dying
to know how a design can 1. be so complex as to rule out a designer
and 2. is so far beyond intelligent that it proves an accident is
the only logical explanation.

I dunno. Me, I'm dying to know how a "design" can be so complex as to rule out selection of best designs among naturally occurring variations over a long period of time.

I'm also dying to find out who, exactly, is saying, "an accident is the only logical explanation."

-

quote:
Where I come from (called the real world), the more intelligent a design is the smarter it proves the designer is!!

That's interesting. This "real world" you come from...do you live there, or does it treat you on an out-patient basis?

Edited by Chiroptera, : Added "over a long period of time."


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 6:46 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:11 PM Chiroptera has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1953
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 304 (390123)
03-18-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 6:46 PM


This is why we Creationsts call a person smart enough
to come up with a design as intelligent as the human body GOD!!!

And what do you call the being that designed this alleged "God"?


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 6:46 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 7 of 304 (390124)
03-18-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 6:46 PM


Complex Designs vs Good Designs
When we look at "designs" they can, at one level, be devided into two camps:

1: Those designs which are known to be designed by an intelligence (ours). These designs are, when done well, "elegant"; using only what is needed to solve the problem. Designs which, in a family of objects, (e.g., cars) undergo periodic major changes of the structure of components with no connection to the component before (e.g., drum brakes to disk brakes)

2. Those designs that we have seen built by computerized evolutionary processes. These designs are usually almost or entirely incomprehensible. They are "messy" not "elegant". They exhibit connections to previous designs that arose during the process.

I'm not aware of any other overall types of design families.

When we examine the "design" of living things we see a type 2 "design". They are enormously messy and complex. When we can sort out what is going on we see that much of the complexity can be done without. We see connections to earlier "models".

In other words, living things exhibit precisely the kind of very complex designs that we know evolutionary processes produce. They do NOT exhibit the characteristics of a design done by the only intelligent designer we know of.

Edited by NosyNed, : spelling boo boo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 6:46 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-18-2007 8:19 PM NosyNed has responded

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3082 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 8 of 304 (390125)
03-18-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
03-18-2007 7:25 PM


How do you measure the "intelligence" of a design?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I measure the "intelligence' of a design by how complicated it
was to achieve the goal. When a feature of the body has to have many
functions working together to achieve the feature- and each functions
design is complex in and of itself- and everything has to have an exact order or it won't work at all, I call that intelligent design.

You haven't answer my questions that opened this thread Crashfrog.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2007 7:25 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2007 8:15 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 15 by jar, posted 03-18-2007 8:28 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 20 by nator, posted 03-18-2007 8:57 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-19-2007 6:21 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 304 (390127)
03-18-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 6:46 PM


Let's say you're designing a device to move small portion of food from a plate to your mouth.

You have two choices. You can design a series of levers, pullies, and shovels that, when hooked up to a motor and power source, will cause a scooping mechanism to lower itself into the food, raise a small portion into the air, carry it towards your mouth, and tip forward.

Or, you can stick three prongs of metal onto the end of a longer piece of metal.

The second design, which we'll go ahead and call a "fork," is much simpler. The second design, which we'll call "a ridiculous Rude Goldberg contraption," is much more complex. Both will, quite effectively, move food to your mouth.

Which would you say is the more intelligent design?


"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 6:46 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 3082 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 10 of 304 (390129)
03-18-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Chiroptera
03-18-2007 7:40 PM


I love your sense of humor Chiroptera, I really do- I bet you are a blast to be around.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm also dying to find out who, exactly, is saying, "an accident is the only logical explanation."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't the whole idea behind evolution about accidental mutations resulting in higher forms of life? By the way where ARE all the accidents that should be all around us? How come ,for instance,
we don't have like some monkeys with a mouth that ended up on the side of their head type of thing?
IC

Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2007 7:40 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2007 8:19 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2007 8:20 PM ICdesign has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Jon, posted 03-18-2007 8:39 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 03-18-2007 8:49 PM ICdesign has responded
 Message 143 by truthlover, posted 03-21-2007 8:24 AM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 304 (390130)
03-18-2007 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:01 PM


When a feature of the body has to have many
functions working together to achieve the feature- and each functions
design is complex in and of itself- and everything has to have an exact order or it won't work at all, I call that intelligent design.

Why, when we know that mutation and selection working together can produce the same kind of designs?

You haven't answer my questions that opened this thread Crashfrog.

You didn't ask any questions. Did you notice that there wasn't a single sentence in your post that ended with a question mark? The only questions in your post are the ones that you quoted but didn't address.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:01 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:49 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 304 (390133)
03-18-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:11 PM


How come ,for instance,
we don't have like some monkeys with a mouth that ended up on the side of their head type of thing?

What makes you think we don't? Deformed animals are kind of creepy but there's no shortage of specimens. How many of your objections to evolution are based on asserting that something doesn't exist just because you don't know about it? It continually amazes me that people like you conclude that ignorance is a great basis from which to attack a scientific theory.

Oh, and just to point out how you're not really thinking these things through - all monkeys, and indeed, all hominids, have mouths on the sides of their heads - the front side. Strictly speaking a mouth in-line with the digestive tract, like most animals have, would be on the top of the head.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:11 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31465
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 13 of 304 (390134)
03-18-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
03-18-2007 7:50 PM


Re: Complex Designs vs Good Designs
I think that you raise a very important point. If we look at living things, what we see is not Intelligent Design but rather Ignorant Design.

Another sure sign that living things were not designed by some designer is the fact that good ideas do not get replicated across all living things.

See this thread for a discussion of that aspect.

Frankly, complexity and piss poor design, crap just barely good enough to get by is all that is seen when we look at living things. The human is a great example, overly complex. poorly designed, sloppy build, light of no QC or error correction built into the critter.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2007 7:50 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2007 8:30 PM jar has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6802
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 14 of 304 (390135)
03-18-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:11 PM


quote:
I love your sense of humor Chiroptera, I really do- I bet you are a blast to be around.

It all depends on the company I keep.

-

quote:
Isn't the whole idea behind evolution about accidental mutations resulting in higher forms of life?

No. Selection is important, too. Here is a brief description of the theory of evolution that I wrote; I'd make some changes if I were to rewrite it today, but it gives the basic idea of what evolution is all about.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:11 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31465
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 15 of 304 (390136)
03-18-2007 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:01 PM


Actually Ignorant Design.
When a feature of the body has to have many
functions working together to achieve the feature- and each functions
design is complex in and of itself- and everything has to have an exact order or it won't work at all, I call that intelligent design.

Actually that is an good description of Ignorant Design.

Intelligent Design should be as simple as possible, with as many redundant systems as possible and as few possible areas for failure as possible.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:01 PM ICdesign 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