ID taken to the end

First of all, I see that years ago when you started this thread you had a really good ID counterpart who seemed more informed than the usual creationist/IDist. Are you implying that if tomorrow we stumble onto huge ancient structures that are obviously artificial on the planet Mars but we couldn't find anything else, we must, therefore, conclude that these obviously artificial structures were naturally made? What if there are little machineries still operating inside these structures?I'm not criticizing what you're saying. I'm just trying to understand how what you're saying could encompass certain situations. It is conceivable for me that there could have been a group of now extinct aliens who evolved naturally via evolution and decided to intelligently design all life on Earth. Why couldn't this be the case? Why couldn't the intelligent designer had evolved naturally and then created us artificially? Haha, this is why when I talk to "IDists" I like to keep pushing their buttons until they admit that they believe the designer is the judeo-christian god. Of course after they admit that they'd try to weasle their way out by saying that's the personal belief but it's not ID's official stance.

Why couldn't the other evolution create life that were a lot less complex than our form of life? There's absolutely nothing that requires the designer to be more complex than us.

There you go again with the strawman.You've made up your mind that a thing can only invent and use technology that is less complex than it. I see no reason why it has to be this way. Perhaps designer(s) started out a lot less complex than the simplest life on earth and eventually evolved to more complex forms. I don't know. You'd have to ask the designer. Just take a few cyanide pills and ask your questions then.Added by edit.By the way, congrats on resorting to the most common creationist argument: argument from incredulity.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

How in the world did you arrive at this faulty logic?There is nothing that prevents the designer to have started out less complex than the simplest life on earth but then eventually evolved into something more complex. And that's exactly what you've done. You haven't explained why a thing necessarily must start out and be more complex than what it creates. You don't believe any other possibility, therefore you dismiss ID.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I meant the IDist Lam that was a really good counter part to Nuggin. Why?

MuahahahahahahahahahaAnd I really thought I'd found a creo/IDist that knew what he was talking about.

No. I may not agree with ID, but I know it just well enough that this isn't what is said, at least not by people like Ben Stein anyway.ID states that everything looks very complex and designed. It doesn't require the designer to be more complex or unevolvable. This is absolutely the worst counter-argument to the ID claim. It's been bothering me for a while, but I've been keeping my mouth shut. Let me explain.I recently sectioned off a part of my home office to house my tortoise that will become this 100 lb monster in a couple years. Seriously, this guy eats constantly. So, after I sectioned off his space, I began to put in plants for him to munch on. After I did everything, I realized that I should have put plastic sheets on the floor before I added these plants and his dog house. So, I had to take everything out, put the plastic sheets down, and then put everything back in.This took longer than it sounds. And I felt like an idiot afterward for having done the job twice.The equivalent of your argument there is because there was no need for plastic sheets I didn't need to redo the job to put in the plastic sheets. And you're right, there's no need for the plastic. I just thought it was better to have the plastic there.Confused? Me, too, actually.The point is just because there didn't need to be a designer for the result that we see doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a designer. Just like just because there doesn't need to be plastic sheets on the floor doesn't mean I can't put plastic sheets there.This is a simple concept that's hard to explain, so let me try again with another example.One time we drove to Indianapolis to visit a relative. We got lost for 2 hours before we found the damn place. Afterwards, I went on google map and saw that I had been driving in a really big circle, and that a much shorter way was to take this one street straight from the interstate to his house.Your argument is that because there was a much shorter route than the one I took, I must not have taken that long route that I took. See how nonsensical your argument is? I don't know if you make that claim or not, but you are certainly sticking with it.I ask again. Why does it necessarily have to be the case that the designer has to have started out and still is more complex than whatever it designed? And here you imply another strawman about ID.Remember that ID deals more with the origin of life than evolution itself. I know that most self-proclaimed IDists don't know this. This is why I was impressed with Lam's posts earlier in this thread. Too bad he wasn't a real IDist. There are a few things I'd like to point out... but that's another theme.But more to the point. Behe even admits that evolution takes place regardless if ID was true or not. As I understand it, ID comes in at 2 places: (1) the origin of life and (2) the mechanism that drives evolution. IDists don't accept random mutation and natural selection as adequate enough for the diversity of life, a diversity that, according to conservatives, we should aim to destroy. The world is, after all, ours to rape and plunder...Anyway, the real IDists seem to claim that the biodiversity we see today seems to fit too perfect together to have come about through random mutation and natural selection. The ignorant IDists then come in and began to insert a lot of other bullshit. Nuggin, as much as I appreciate your contribution, I'm beginning to get irritated at how you criticize just for the sake of criticism. This doesn't contribute well to the debate. Let me explain.Suppose an alien lands in the middle of the amazon forest and meets some natives who are still living in huts and drink water straight out of the amazon river. The alien being only has an hour before he has to get back in his vehicle and launches back into deep space. Is it a reasonable assessment that, based on his observation of the natives in the amazon forest, the intelligent species on this planet is incapable of higher technology than bows and arrows made out of wood?We have one data point for our assessment of what's possible and what's not possible as accomplishment of different lifeforms. That's right, the one data point is life on Earth. You want to use this one single data point as your logical conclusion that it is impossible for less complex life than human life to produce any technology? What's next, based on our single data point alien life must speak English? This is the only part of all your arguments that make sense. Haha. And What do I believe?

And I'm telling you, there is nothing that prevents this designer from starting out a lot less complex than the simplest life on earth but then evolved to something more complex. Remember that ID has no problem with evolution. This is where your logic goes wrong. We can examine life on earth. We can't yet examine the designer. What makes you think the designer must adhere to the initial claim?For all we know, the designer could have been made of crystals. Correction. Life whith occurred naturally must necessarily have STARTED OUT less complex than life on Earth. You keep trying to push forward your strawman. Let me repeat. ID doesn't reject evolution. Not at all. But just because it's not reasonable for ID proponents to claim there is a designer without any evidence doesn't necessarily mean it's ok for you to present an argument that is obviously BS.Again, just because there is a better route to a destination doesn't necessarily mean I didn't take the longer route. Just because there didn't need to be a designer doesn't mean there was not a designer. I keep seeing you and others use this argument against ID. We're suppose to more logical, remember? I'm just against you using a BS argument against ID. Then it's their problem. That doesn't mean you can present any BS argument against them that you want. I see that you conveniently left out the part where I said even though ID deals more with the origin of life it also deals partly with the mechanics of evolution. You know, the random mutation and natural selection stuff?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Ok, let's just stop with the clutter.Do you or do you not agree that just because there didn't need to be a designer doesn't mean that there wasn't a designer? Don't try to introduce other elements. Just answer this very simple question.

What contradiction?IDists don't have a problem with things evolving over time. This is what I meant when I said ID doesn't have a problem with evolution. IDists, however, want to introduce another mechanism that drives and guides evolution. They call this mechanism intelligent design.Jesus christ, do you know anything about ID or are you just criticising ID to show people how smart you are?Edited by Taz, : removing obscene language

Occasionally, we do see people on the evolution/science side who make outrageous claims. Actually, there was one guy here who claims to be a geologist and claims that he could read people's minds. He once explained this as syncing his bio-electric field with the other person's bio-electric field. According to him, the reason people usually can't read other people's minds is because there is no "signal" louder than their own. It's like the radio where you can't talk and listen at the same time. So, this guy claims that he could shut down all his thoughts in order to "tune in" with the other person's thoughts. Anyone know who I'm talking about? I can't remember his username on here.Of course, we all jumped all over him for this. This is one of the strongest characteristics of mainstream scientific community. We criticize our own if they step out of line.The ID/creationism side, however, has a different mentality. They are always afraid to criticize their own. And at times, they would rally to defend their own even if it meant defending a ridiculous position.An example of this is all those racist slurs yelled at the McCain rallies. Not a single conservative stepped up to condemn those nutcases. McCain never even said a thing about it. If these things were to happen at a more liberal rally like a gay rights march or women's rights you can bet your ass that the nutcases would have been ostracized by the people in the rally pretty quickly.Another example is our very own Ray Martinez. Can anyone remember any instance where another creationist criticize Mr. Martinez for his wildly crazy ideas? Just do a search for his posts and you will see that Ray represents probably the worst crackpots out there.If you look carefully at the official position of ID and what happened with the Rover school board, you would have realized that members of the school board were in fact creationists who thought they could bend ID to their liking. I highly doubt those school board members knew anything about ID. All they knew was that it was an alternative to mainstream theory of evolution, so they just assumed it was to their benefit as creationists.Unfortunately for ID/creationism, the mentality among their side of the spectrum is they would defend their own no matter how crackpot their own turns out to be. And that's exactly what happened with the Rover trial.

Good. Then stop using this argument against ID. Stop saying that there doesn't need to be a designer therefore there was no designer. It's annoying as hell everytime I read someone criticizing ID with this argument. I agree completely. However, this doesn't excuse you from keep using the "there's no need for a designer therefore there was no designer" argument.

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Let's have the password.

Ok, as far as the need or not need for a designer argument thing, I could have sworn you said somewhere along the line. A quick look through you posts and I can't find it. May be I'm remembering from what someone else said. I apologize for the misunderstanding.Post # 76 This still bothers me. You're making 2 assumptions here that I have been rejecting since the beginning.(1) A thing of certain complexity cannot create another thing that is more complex than itself.(2) The designer IDists are referring to started out as less complex than the least complex life on earth and remained less complex than the least complex life on earth.Again, prominent IDists have made it abundantly clear that they do not reject the notion that things "evolve" over time. This leaves the door wide open for the designer to have started out a lot less complex than the least complex life on earth and that this designer "evolved" over time to become more complex.I think the problem here is you're referring to the non-prominent IDists who have identified the designer as the judeo-christian god, an ever unchanging being.Edit.And I still want the password. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm about to get on a train to go on a little vacation. I want that password by the time I get back next week.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.