Total Posts:117|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bad Design?

RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 7:38:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

Immense difference in bad design versus imperfect creation. Tell me how the argument that poor design is evidence of no designer is a shift in reference?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 7:54:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

There are a couple of different components to this subject. First of all, discussing the origin of life in the universe (not just on Earth) ultimately only has two possibilities: life from non-life (abiogenesis) or life from some eternal being. That means ID only backtracks to a god, unless the ID proponent wants to throw integrity out the window. So to argue against ID, you generally have to address a theological idea.

The second component is that the flaws evolution proponents point to are so obvious that it really doesn't matter whether the alleged designer was perfect or not. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, is simply miserable "design." A child wouldn't make that kind of mistake. So if the ID side does go the disingenuous route, "bad design" is still a relevant criticism.

Personally, I don't like to use the "bad design" argument because I think it's unnecessary when ID proponents can't come up with a meaningful method for discerning nature from design in the first place.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 10:03:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

I wouldn't know what gave you the impression evolutionists necessarily share views outside of Evolution, but I'll take that as an indication of the rigour of your analysis.

99,9% of all species that ever lived on the planet are now extinct.

Now, if you believe in an all-powerful God creator, surely, you must dwell on both the reasons and implications of the fact said omnipotent omniscient God has allowed the overwhelming majority of His creation to fail and perish.

This is not, cannot be indifferent to the God creator hypothesis.

The intelligent Design movement, as the name implies, postulates an act of creation which exhibits various qualities. Is it really that odd detractors should point to instances where they think the alleged design solutions aren't terribly intelligent?

Moreover, it's not just that these solutions aren't terribly intelligent, they much better fit the hypothesis of common ancestry and slow gradual evolution by natural selection. A good example is the Giraffe's Laryngeal nerve . Can you account for it under the Intelligent Design , ready-made creation hypothesis?
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 7:14:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

Everyone knows that ID is a front for creationism. Trying to pretend that there is a grand designer but, shush, it's not the biblical God, is just plain dishonest.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 6:57:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 3:22:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What does intelligent design teach us?

The comment above is a question I use when talking about ID because I have never seen anyone come up with an answer other than "it proves god exists" if they answer at all. If you think about it ID really has no practical use beyond that. It's not going to make atheists become religious, in fact it's not going to change anybodies thinking so you just end up in the same place you are now. After that, you can't really use it for anything, there will be no great medical breakthroughs or scientific discoveries as a result of the application of ID.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 8:11:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 7:38:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

Immense difference in bad design versus imperfect creation. Tell me how the argument that poor design is evidence of no designer is a shift in reference?
I think I made it fairly clear, but here goes.

If you're one who states that poor design refutes the idea of an intelligent designer (maybe you're not one of them) because the intelligent designer (or creator) would then be imperfect (thus wouldn't be an intelligent designer), then you're obviously shifting to theology because ID in itself does not make claim that the intelligent designer need be perfect. This idea comes from theology.

In other words, there's no claim that the designer is not subject to things like trial and error, planned obsolescence, etc.

But maybe I need to hear you out before taking this further since you maintain a vast difference between bad design, and imperfect creation.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 8:28:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 7:54:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

There are a couple of different components to this subject. First of all, discussing the origin of life in the universe (not just on Earth) ultimately only has two possibilities: life from non-life (abiogenesis) or life from some eternal being. That means ID only backtracks to a god, unless the ID proponent wants to throw integrity out the window. So to argue against ID, you generally have to address a theological idea.

No. Not so. Since in your scenario life from some eternal being could include first cause creation, we have to include deism which is not theological. Not to mention suggestions by some evolutionists that a creator may have produced the universe within the constraints of nature.

The second component is that the flaws evolution proponents point to are so obvious that it really doesn't matter whether the alleged designer was perfect or not. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, is simply miserable "design." A child wouldn't make that kind of mistake. So if the ID side does go the disingenuous route, "bad design" is still a relevant criticism.

The comment about the child is absolutely silly (maybe befitting though).

To make a claim that the laryngeal nerve is miserable design (I assume meaning serves no purpose) is, to put it nicely, unscientific. I think there are going to be a number of very embarrassing quotes in the future that are being made today by evolutionists. Do I need to explain the absurdity of making a claim that said nerve serves no purpose, given the anatomical changes both via discovery and opinion?

I'm sorry, but I can only take that as a statement of opinion, not scientific fact. In my opinion, I think the notion that said nerve is bad design excites certain evolutionists with the idea that we evolved from fish rather than any sort of solidified claim that it is (or would be) bad design.
Personally, I don't like to use the "bad design" argument because I think it's unnecessary when ID proponents can't come up with a meaningful method for discerning nature from design in the first place.
Then I don't know if the topic really applies to you or not.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 8:42:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 6:57:07 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 11/7/2015 3:22:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What does intelligent design teach us?

The comment above is a question I use when talking about ID because I have never seen anyone come up with an answer other than "it proves god exists" if they answer at all. If you think about it ID really has no practical use beyond that. It's not going to make atheists become religious, in fact it's not going to change anybodies thinking so you just end up in the same place you are now. After that, you can't really use it for anything, there will be no great medical breakthroughs or scientific discoveries as a result of the application of ID.
I would say it goes beyond merely proving God exists. I think in science, there is a desire to know the truth whether it directly affects our welfare or not. The problem with the existence of an intelligent designer is that if one exists, we can't claim evolution as fact because we can't bind the designer to natural laws.

And you can't really make the claim that there would be no great medical breakthroughs or scientific discoveries, because a number of scientists like George Washington Carver attested to being directed by the creator.

The strange argument evolutionists seem to make is that since they have no (personal) evidence of a creator, then ID should be eliminated from public arenas. Now the part about you not having to accept ID is fine. Wonderful. If someone believes there is no evidence of an intelligent designer, thus rejects any form of creationism, more power to them. But why does this right to opinion as it were result in the elimination of intelligent design from arenas like the public schools? For those who for whatever reason believe in an intelligent designer, they are being forced to accept something that contradicts their own reality.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 9:39:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 8:28:30 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:54:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

There are a couple of different components to this subject. First of all, discussing the origin of life in the universe (not just on Earth) ultimately only has two possibilities: life from non-life (abiogenesis) or life from some eternal being. That means ID only backtracks to a god, unless the ID proponent wants to throw integrity out the window. So to argue against ID, you generally have to address a theological idea.

No. Not so. Since in your scenario life from some eternal being could include first cause creation, we have to include deism which is not theological. Not to mention suggestions by some evolutionists that a creator may have produced the universe within the constraints of nature.

By definition, a deistic god wouldn't have designed life. It would have put the universe in motion and that's it. Same for if a creator produced the universe within the constraints of nature. You've phrased this as ID versus evolution/abiogenesis. If it's ID versus natural cosmology, then please say so.

The second component is that the flaws evolution proponents point to are so obvious that it really doesn't matter whether the alleged designer was perfect or not. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, is simply miserable "design." A child wouldn't make that kind of mistake. So if the ID side does go the disingenuous route, "bad design" is still a relevant criticism.

The comment about the child is absolutely silly (maybe befitting though).

To make a claim that the laryngeal nerve is miserable design (I assume meaning serves no purpose) is, to put it nicely, unscientific. I think there are going to be a number of very embarrassing quotes in the future that are being made today by evolutionists. Do I need to explain the absurdity of making a claim that said nerve serves no purpose, given the anatomical changes both via discovery and opinion?

I'm sorry, but I can only take that as a statement of opinion, not scientific fact. In my opinion, I think the notion that said nerve is bad design excites certain evolutionists with the idea that we evolved from fish rather than any sort of solidified claim that it is (or would be) bad design.

You assume incorrectly. The laryngeal nerve certainly serves a function in the body. However, it is completely unnecessary for it to branch off of the vagus nerve so far from the larynx and then loop back up. It would be like having a broadband modem and router sitting next to each other, but connecting them by running the network cable out of and then back into the room. No one capable of connecting those two things, which in that analogy at least includes my 4 and 7 year old kids, would do that.

Personally, I don't like to use the "bad design" argument because I think it's unnecessary when ID proponents can't come up with a meaningful method for discerning nature from design in the first place.
Then I don't know if the topic really applies to you or not.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 1:55:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 8:42:50 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/7/2015 6:57:07 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 11/7/2015 3:22:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What does intelligent design teach us?

The comment above is a question I use when talking about ID because I have never seen anyone come up with an answer other than "it proves god exists" if they answer at all. If you think about it ID really has no practical use beyond that. It's not going to make atheists become religious, in fact it's not going to change anybodies thinking so you just end up in the same place you are now. After that, you can't really use it for anything, there will be no great medical breakthroughs or scientific discoveries as a result of the application of ID.
I would say it goes beyond merely proving God exists. I think in science, there is a desire to know the truth whether it directly affects our welfare or not. The problem with the existence of an intelligent designer is that if one exists, we can't claim evolution as fact because we can't bind the designer to natural laws.

And you can't really make the claim that there would be no great medical breakthroughs or scientific discoveries, because a number of scientists like George Washington Carver attested to being directed by the creator.

The strange argument evolutionists seem to make is that since they have no (personal) evidence of a creator, then ID should be eliminated from public arenas. Now the part about you not having to accept ID is fine. Wonderful. If someone believes there is no evidence of an intelligent designer, thus rejects any form of creationism, more power to them. But why does this right to opinion as it were result in the elimination of intelligent design from arenas like the public schools? For those who for whatever reason believe in an intelligent designer, they are being forced to accept something that contradicts their own reality.

ID is not rejected by mainstream science because mainstream science seeks to discredit religion (or what ever wacky reason you want to use) it's rejected because no one can figure out what to do with it.

Believe me if it were useful in any way science would be all over it.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 3:59:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 9:39:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/7/2015 8:28:30 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:54:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

There are a couple of different components to this subject. First of all, discussing the origin of life in the universe (not just on Earth) ultimately only has two possibilities: life from non-life (abiogenesis) or life from some eternal being. That means ID only backtracks to a god, unless the ID proponent wants to throw integrity out the window. So to argue against ID, you generally have to address a theological idea.

No. Not so. Since in your scenario life from some eternal being could include first cause creation, we have to include deism which is not theological. Not to mention suggestions by some evolutionists that a creator may have produced the universe within the constraints of nature.

By definition, a deistic god wouldn't have designed life. It would have put the universe in motion and that's it. Same for if a creator produced the universe within the constraints of nature. You've phrased this as ID versus evolution/abiogenesis. If it's ID versus natural cosmology, then please say so.

That's not true. The World Union of Deists make it very clear their stance on intelligent design.

Intelligent Design: Intelligent Design refers to the structures in Nature, such as that of DNA, which can be observed and the complexity of which required an intelligent Designer. In this context "structure" means something arranged in a definite pattern of organization. In Deism, Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with the unreasonable Biblical myth of creation.

http://www.deism.com...

My usage of the term first cause creation was in reference to Thomas Paine's quote:

THE only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things.

is not a statement against intelligent design.
The second component is that the flaws evolution proponents point to are so obvious that it really doesn't matter whether the alleged designer was perfect or not. The recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, is simply miserable "design." A child wouldn't make that kind of mistake. So if the ID side does go the disingenuous route, "bad design" is still a relevant criticism.

The comment about the child is absolutely silly (maybe befitting though).

To make a claim that the laryngeal nerve is miserable design (I assume meaning serves no purpose) is, to put it nicely, unscientific. I think there are going to be a number of very embarrassing quotes in the future that are being made today by evolutionists. Do I need to explain the absurdity of making a claim that said nerve serves no purpose, given the anatomical changes both via discovery and opinion?

I'm sorry, but I can only take that as a statement of opinion, not scientific fact. In my opinion, I think the notion that said nerve is bad design excites certain evolutionists with the idea that we evolved from fish rather than any sort of solidified claim that it is (or would be) bad design.

You assume incorrectly. The laryngeal nerve certainly serves a function in the body. However, it is completely unnecessary for it to branch off of the vagus nerve so far from the larynx and then loop back up. It would be like having a broadband modem and router sitting next to each other, but connecting them by running the network cable out of and then back into the room. No one capable of connecting those two things, which in that analogy at least includes my 4 and 7 year old kids, would do that.

I was not suggesting you meant the laryngeal nerve does not serve as a function in the body like an alleged vestigial organ. While I'm satisfied that you could successfully hook up your cable, I'd like you to propose a superior design for the laryngeal nerve. That's something I haven't seen yet. And I don't mean simply a direct connection between the throat and the brain, but a sufficient diagram showing it's relationship to other organs the current nerve model apparently serves.

As I stated, I think the excitement of this alleged bad design revolves more around the idea that it proves evolution (which I don't believe it does), than the structure of the nerve taking an unnecessary route (or serves no purpose), being bad design.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 7:33:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 3:59:50 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/7/2015 9:39:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
By definition, a deistic god wouldn't have designed life. It would have put the universe in motion and that's it. Same for if a creator produced the universe within the constraints of nature. You've phrased this as ID versus evolution/abiogenesis. If it's ID versus natural cosmology, then please say so.

That's not true. The World Union of Deists make it very clear their stance on intelligent design.

Intelligent Design: Intelligent Design refers to the structures in Nature, such as that of DNA, which can be observed and the complexity of which required an intelligent Designer. In this context "structure" means something arranged in a definite pattern of organization. In Deism, Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with the unreasonable Biblical myth of creation.

http://www.deism.com...

My usage of the term first cause creation was in reference to Thomas Paine's quote:

THE only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things.

is not a statement against intelligent design.

Those particular deists can say that, but like so many other god-related assertions it simply doesn't comport with our understanding of reality. DNA could not have existed during the first few billion years of our universe's current form because the atoms that make up DNA did not exist until they were forged in stars. So for DNA to be the result of a god's design, that god cannot be deistic. Either that, or the god created our universe in some mid-range state within the last 3 billion years and then walked away. If the latter is what someone is going to try to claim, then you still need to expand this beyond "evolutionists" because a deistic god creating life and walking away isn't necessarily in conflict with evolution. If a god dropped the first life on this planet and then disappeared, evolution would still be the best explanation for how life reached the level of diversity that we see now.

You assume incorrectly. The laryngeal nerve certainly serves a function in the body. However, it is completely unnecessary for it to branch off of the vagus nerve so far from the larynx and then loop back up. It would be like having a broadband modem and router sitting next to each other, but connecting them by running the network cable out of and then back into the room. No one capable of connecting those two things, which in that analogy at least includes my 4 and 7 year old kids, would do that.

I was not suggesting you meant the laryngeal nerve does not serve as a function in the body like an alleged vestigial organ. While I'm satisfied that you could successfully hook up your cable, I'd like you to propose a superior design for the laryngeal nerve. That's something I haven't seen yet. And I don't mean simply a direct connection between the throat and the brain, but a sufficient diagram showing it's relationship to other organs the current nerve model apparently serves.

Why is a direct connection not enough? The superior laryngeal nerve already takes a more direct route. There is ample space for the recurrent nerve to branch off from the superior nerve rather than coming off of the vagus nerve and back up the throat.

As I stated, I think the excitement of this alleged bad design revolves more around the idea that it proves evolution (which I don't believe it does), than the structure of the nerve taking an unnecessary route (or serves no purpose), being bad design.

Evolutionary biologists aren't generally in the habit of addressing ID because ID isn't scientific. As such, yeah, they're going to focus on the nerve as evidence (not proof) for evolution, which is exactly what it is. Arguing about "bad design" is more a subject for general debate rather than any serious scientific discussion.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 3:55:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

The purpose of "bad design" arguments in response to ID is to point out the bias of the person making the ID argument. The premises are that the universe appears to be intelligently designed, and that an apparent intelligently designed universe is likely to be the product of an intelligent being. If so, then that argument should be refuted by points showing that the universe does not appear to be intelligently designed. But that never happens. When bad design is shown, ID proponents dismiss it out of hand. Focusing on what supports your views and dismissing everything that does not can lead you to any conclusion you want. It demonstrates that your argument should not be taken seriously.

Personally I don't like to waste much time with bad design arguments because I like to focus on how ID proponents determined what a designed universe looks like in the first place.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 2:46:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 8:11:42 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:38:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

Immense difference in bad design versus imperfect creation. Tell me how the argument that poor design is evidence of no designer is a shift in reference?
I think I made it fairly clear, but here goes.

If you're one who states that poor design refutes the idea of an intelligent designer (maybe you're not one of them) because the intelligent designer (or creator) would then be imperfect (thus wouldn't be an intelligent designer), then you're obviously shifting to theology because ID in itself does not make claim that the intelligent designer need be perfect. This idea comes from theology.

In other words, there's no claim that the designer is not subject to things like trial and error, planned obsolescence, etc.

But maybe I need to hear you out before taking this further since you maintain a vast difference between bad design, and imperfect creation.

Then allow me to elucidate. I'm not even talking about perfect creation, that's a whole other discussion. I'm referring to the super-genius level of intelligence that can create an entire biosphere from scratch. For such an intelligence to make so many errors in the design of the human body in so many way is simply not possible, particularly when those errors were not made in other creatures. Squid eyes are so much like ours that they are pointed out as examples of convergent evolution yet they don't have the blind spot that human ones do. Why would the same creator not use the more effective design all around? That makes no sense to anyone who works with system design. We eat and breathe through the same orifice, causing people to choke and die while cetaceans like dolphins and whales don't have that issue. Why would we be put in that unenviable position when the answer is right there in another of the creator's creatures? A lizard can grow back its tail, a starfish, cut into 5 pieces, grows into 5 more starfish. Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal? Do you see the issue here? It's not about perfection, it's about design features that would benefit us that are given to other creatures and we're left out. It's the argument of an engineer and a technician who can see the flaws in what's supposed to be the design of a mind so far beyond ours we can barely conceive of it. It's nonsensical and therefore is evidence that no designer had a hand in it,. if one is honest with oneself.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 7:26:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 2:46:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/7/2015 8:11:42 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:38:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

Immense difference in bad design versus imperfect creation. Tell me how the argument that poor design is evidence of no designer is a shift in reference?
I think I made it fairly clear, but here goes.

If you're one who states that poor design refutes the idea of an intelligent designer (maybe you're not one of them) because the intelligent designer (or creator) would then be imperfect (thus wouldn't be an intelligent designer), then you're obviously shifting to theology because ID in itself does not make claim that the intelligent designer need be perfect. This idea comes from theology.

In other words, there's no claim that the designer is not subject to things like trial and error, planned obsolescence, etc.

But maybe I need to hear you out before taking this further since you maintain a vast difference between bad design, and imperfect creation.

Then allow me to elucidate. I'm not even talking about perfect creation, that's a whole other discussion. I'm referring to the super-genius level of intelligence that can create an entire biosphere from scratch. For such an intelligence to make so many errors in the design of the human body in so many way is simply not possible, particularly when those errors were not made in other creatures. Squid eyes are so much like ours that they are pointed out as examples of convergent evolution yet they don't have the blind spot that human ones do. Why would the same creator not use the more effective design all around? That makes no sense to anyone who works with system design. We eat and breathe through the same orifice, causing people to choke and die while cetaceans like dolphins and whales don't have that issue. Why would we be put in that unenviable position when the answer is right there in another of the creator's creatures? A lizard can grow back its tail, a starfish, cut into 5 pieces, grows into 5 more starfish. Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal? Do you see the issue here? It's not about perfection, it's about design features that would benefit us that are given to other creatures and we're left out. It's the argument of an engineer and a technician who can see the flaws in what's supposed to be the design of a mind so far beyond ours we can barely conceive of it. It's nonsensical and therefore is evidence that no designer had a hand in it,. if one is honest with oneself.
You have my full permission to compare bad design and bad creation, and giving me an explanation.

As far as honesty, not a problem. My particular theology addresses the problems humans and life in general face. The fact is, all living entities die. That includes those living entities you state have been given certain anatomical advantages. I actually (in a way) sort of agree with you that the animal kingdom has certain advantages over humans, that even causes a bit of mild envy. I say mild because most humans prefer the longer life span we have in most cases, creature comforts, lavish lifestyles, etc. But wouldn't it be great to be as strong as a lion? How many people would love to save money, and avoid the hassle of going to hairstylists and tattoo parlors when many animals already have exotic designs in their fur and skin?

But you asked how does the issue of bad design reference shifts (to theology). You've done it right in this post I'm quoting. Your whys are what does it in that you're questioning the actions, and integrity of the designer, who for all you know, designed us exactly as it wished. And could have done it differently if it so chose to.

The obvious one is your quote:

Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal?

Where are you getting the supposed most important creation from? It's sounds like theology to me.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 7:46:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 7:26:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:46:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/7/2015 8:11:42 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:38:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

Immense difference in bad design versus imperfect creation. Tell me how the argument that poor design is evidence of no designer is a shift in reference?
I think I made it fairly clear, but here goes.

If you're one who states that poor design refutes the idea of an intelligent designer (maybe you're not one of them) because the intelligent designer (or creator) would then be imperfect (thus wouldn't be an intelligent designer), then you're obviously shifting to theology because ID in itself does not make claim that the intelligent designer need be perfect. This idea comes from theology.

In other words, there's no claim that the designer is not subject to things like trial and error, planned obsolescence, etc.

But maybe I need to hear you out before taking this further since you maintain a vast difference between bad design, and imperfect creation.

Then allow me to elucidate. I'm not even talking about perfect creation, that's a whole other discussion. I'm referring to the super-genius level of intelligence that can create an entire biosphere from scratch. For such an intelligence to make so many errors in the design of the human body in so many way is simply not possible, particularly when those errors were not made in other creatures. Squid eyes are so much like ours that they are pointed out as examples of convergent evolution yet they don't have the blind spot that human ones do. Why would the same creator not use the more effective design all around? That makes no sense to anyone who works with system design. We eat and breathe through the same orifice, causing people to choke and die while cetaceans like dolphins and whales don't have that issue. Why would we be put in that unenviable position when the answer is right there in another of the creator's creatures? A lizard can grow back its tail, a starfish, cut into 5 pieces, grows into 5 more starfish. Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal? Do you see the issue here? It's not about perfection, it's about design features that would benefit us that are given to other creatures and we're left out. It's the argument of an engineer and a technician who can see the flaws in what's supposed to be the design of a mind so far beyond ours we can barely conceive of it. It's nonsensical and therefore is evidence that no designer had a hand in it,. if one is honest with oneself.
You have my full permission to compare bad design and bad creation, and giving me an explanation.

As far as honesty, not a problem. My particular theology addresses the problems humans and life in general face. The fact is, all living entities die. That includes those living entities you state have been given certain anatomical advantages. I actually (in a way) sort of agree with you that the animal kingdom has certain advantages over humans, that even causes a bit of mild envy. I say mild because most humans prefer the longer life span we have in most cases, creature comforts, lavish lifestyles, etc. But wouldn't it be great to be as strong as a lion? How many people would love to save money, and avoid the hassle of going to hairstylists and tattoo parlors when many animals already have exotic designs in their fur and skin?

But you asked how does the issue of bad design reference shifts (to theology). You've done it right in this post I'm quoting. Your whys are what does it in that you're questioning the actions, and integrity of the designer, who for all you know, designed us exactly as it wished. And could have done it differently if it so chose to.

The obvious one is your quote:

Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal?

Where are you getting the supposed most important creation from? It's sounds like theology to me.

I never once mentioned a god or gods. I was very specific about a super-genius creator that made humans at the top of the chain, the apex predator, the one with all the intelligence. Why do you keep veering into theology when I've mentioned poor design choices only in humans over and over again. I've talked about better choices maid for other life forms the would have quite useful if used in other places, a design tool used by every human designer and manufacturer on the planet. It's more efficient, particularly when the design feature is more efficient and effective. Sorry you keep seeing 'God' in my use of the term creator but ID posits that life on this planet was 'designed', hence it had to be 'created' from basic building blocks of DNA.

So, explain why a designer would use different design structures, some inferior in many ways, to do the same job in different iterations of his designs? Particularly if this designer had the requisite knowledge and technical ability to basically tailor DNA to make the life forms in question?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 7:53:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

I'm not sure I have ever participated in or witnessed a discussion over ID when the definition of designer is not shifting. Anyone arguing against ID need only wait for the advocate to conflate the designer with a particular god or suggest characteristics of a particular god. When that happens, the debate has become theological and 'bad design' becomes applicable.

Plus, as Burzmali pointed out above, the 'bad design' argument is not necessary either way.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 8:00:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 7:46:35 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/9/2015 7:26:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:46:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/7/2015 8:11:42 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:38:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

Immense difference in bad design versus imperfect creation. Tell me how the argument that poor design is evidence of no designer is a shift in reference?
I think I made it fairly clear, but here goes.

If you're one who states that poor design refutes the idea of an intelligent designer (maybe you're not one of them) because the intelligent designer (or creator) would then be imperfect (thus wouldn't be an intelligent designer), then you're obviously shifting to theology because ID in itself does not make claim that the intelligent designer need be perfect. This idea comes from theology.

In other words, there's no claim that the designer is not subject to things like trial and error, planned obsolescence, etc.

But maybe I need to hear you out before taking this further since you maintain a vast difference between bad design, and imperfect creation.

Then allow me to elucidate. I'm not even talking about perfect creation, that's a whole other discussion. I'm referring to the super-genius level of intelligence that can create an entire biosphere from scratch. For such an intelligence to make so many errors in the design of the human body in so many way is simply not possible, particularly when those errors were not made in other creatures. Squid eyes are so much like ours that they are pointed out as examples of convergent evolution yet they don't have the blind spot that human ones do. Why would the same creator not use the more effective design all around? That makes no sense to anyone who works with system design. We eat and breathe through the same orifice, causing people to choke and die while cetaceans like dolphins and whales don't have that issue. Why would we be put in that unenviable position when the answer is right there in another of the creator's creatures? A lizard can grow back its tail, a starfish, cut into 5 pieces, grows into 5 more starfish. Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal? Do you see the issue here? It's not about perfection, it's about design features that would benefit us that are given to other creatures and we're left out. It's the argument of an engineer and a technician who can see the flaws in what's supposed to be the design of a mind so far beyond ours we can barely conceive of it. It's nonsensical and therefore is evidence that no designer had a hand in it,. if one is honest with oneself.
You have my full permission to compare bad design and bad creation, and giving me an explanation.

As far as honesty, not a problem. My particular theology addresses the problems humans and life in general face. The fact is, all living entities die. That includes those living entities you state have been given certain anatomical advantages. I actually (in a way) sort of agree with you that the animal kingdom has certain advantages over humans, that even causes a bit of mild envy. I say mild because most humans prefer the longer life span we have in most cases, creature comforts, lavish lifestyles, etc. But wouldn't it be great to be as strong as a lion? How many people would love to save money, and avoid the hassle of going to hairstylists and tattoo parlors when many animals already have exotic designs in their fur and skin?

But you asked how does the issue of bad design reference shifts (to theology). You've done it right in this post I'm quoting. Your whys are what does it in that you're questioning the actions, and integrity of the designer, who for all you know, designed us exactly as it wished. And could have done it differently if it so chose to.

The obvious one is your quote:

Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal?

Where are you getting the supposed most important creation from? It's sounds like theology to me.

I never once mentioned a god or gods. I was very specific about a super-genius creator that made humans at the top of the chain, the apex predator, the one with all the intelligence. Why do you keep veering into theology when I've mentioned poor design choices only in humans over and over again. I've talked about better choices maid for other life forms the would have quite useful if used in other places, a design tool used by every human designer and manufacturer on the planet. It's more efficient, particularly when the design feature is more efficient and effective. Sorry you keep seeing 'God' in my use of the term creator but ID posits that life on this planet was 'designed', hence it had to be 'created' from basic building blocks of DNA.

I'm sorry that I keep seeing 'God' (theology) in various points in your statements like

Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal?

But are you saying you don't see it?

So, explain why a designer would use different design structures, some inferior in many ways, to do the same job in different iterations of his designs? Particularly if this designer had the requisite knowledge and technical ability to basically tailor DNA to make the life forms in question?
Let me ask you first, is death a part of bad design? Could the mastermind have avoided that particular nuisance (for those who might see it that way)?

And you still haven't broken down bad design/ bad creation. But it brings up an interesting question.

Is Yosemite, Yellow Stone, Grand Canyon, Mt. Fuji, etc. products of bad design? Particularly in the area of sight-seeing and photography. I have never seen/heard a quote from Ansel Adams, or anyone claiming these icons should have been structured differently. Would have been more photogenic if 20 feet taller, Full Dome instead of Half Dome, etc.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 8:27:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 8:00:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/9/2015 7:46:35 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/9/2015 7:26:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:46:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/7/2015 8:11:42 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:38:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/6/2015 7:35:37 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It seems that whenever there's any sort of teleological debate, the evolutionist often seems to shift to theological. I've seen the extreme to this in actual live debate where the evolutionist will shift to the character of the God of the Bible (referencing of course the OT) when the debate was simply teleological, so the argument to bad design is not quite that bad (or maybe just not as direct). But to argue against ID using bad design as the excuse still reeks of reference shifting. "How can a perfect God/creator design an imperfect universe" certainly seems to shift from teleological to theological in that the Bible teaches God is perfect, but ID itself makes no particular claim to that effect.

What are evolutionists arguing here? That bad design is evidence of no designer, or evidence of no God of the Bible?

Immense difference in bad design versus imperfect creation. Tell me how the argument that poor design is evidence of no designer is a shift in reference?
I think I made it fairly clear, but here goes.

If you're one who states that poor design refutes the idea of an intelligent designer (maybe you're not one of them) because the intelligent designer (or creator) would then be imperfect (thus wouldn't be an intelligent designer), then you're obviously shifting to theology because ID in itself does not make claim that the intelligent designer need be perfect. This idea comes from theology.

In other words, there's no claim that the designer is not subject to things like trial and error, planned obsolescence, etc.

But maybe I need to hear you out before taking this further since you maintain a vast difference between bad design, and imperfect creation.

Then allow me to elucidate. I'm not even talking about perfect creation, that's a whole other discussion. I'm referring to the super-genius level of intelligence that can create an entire biosphere from scratch. For such an intelligence to make so many errors in the design of the human body in so many way is simply not possible, particularly when those errors were not made in other creatures. Squid eyes are so much like ours that they are pointed out as examples of convergent evolution yet they don't have the blind spot that human ones do. Why would the same creator not use the more effective design all around? That makes no sense to anyone who works with system design. We eat and breathe through the same orifice, causing people to choke and die while cetaceans like dolphins and whales don't have that issue. Why would we be put in that unenviable position when the answer is right there in another of the creator's creatures? A lizard can grow back its tail, a starfish, cut into 5 pieces, grows into 5 more starfish. Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal? Do you see the issue here? It's not about perfection, it's about design features that would benefit us that are given to other creatures and we're left out. It's the argument of an engineer and a technician who can see the flaws in what's supposed to be the design of a mind so far beyond ours we can barely conceive of it. It's nonsensical and therefore is evidence that no designer had a hand in it,. if one is honest with oneself.
You have my full permission to compare bad design and bad creation, and giving me an explanation.

As far as honesty, not a problem. My particular theology addresses the problems humans and life in general face. The fact is, all living entities die. That includes those living entities you state have been given certain anatomical advantages. I actually (in a way) sort of agree with you that the animal kingdom has certain advantages over humans, that even causes a bit of mild envy. I say mild because most humans prefer the longer life span we have in most cases, creature comforts, lavish lifestyles, etc. But wouldn't it be great to be as strong as a lion? How many people would love to save money, and avoid the hassle of going to hairstylists and tattoo parlors when many animals already have exotic designs in their fur and skin?

But you asked how does the issue of bad design reference shifts (to theology). You've done it right in this post I'm quoting. Your whys are what does it in that you're questioning the actions, and integrity of the designer, who for all you know, designed us exactly as it wished. And could have done it differently if it so chose to.

The obvious one is your quote:

Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal?

Where are you getting the supposed most important creation from? It's sounds like theology to me.

I never once mentioned a god or gods. I was very specific about a super-genius creator that made humans at the top of the chain, the apex predator, the one with all the intelligence. Why do you keep veering into theology when I've mentioned poor design choices only in humans over and over again. I've talked about better choices maid for other life forms the would have quite useful if used in other places, a design tool used by every human designer and manufacturer on the planet. It's more efficient, particularly when the design feature is more efficient and effective. Sorry you keep seeing 'God' in my use of the term creator but ID posits that life on this planet was 'designed', hence it had to be 'created' from basic building blocks of DNA.

I'm sorry that I keep seeing 'God' (theology) in various points in your statements like

Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal?

But are you saying you don't see it?


So, explain why a designer would use different design structures, some inferior in many ways, to do the same job in different iterations of his designs? Particularly if this designer had the requisite knowledge and technical ability to basically tailor DNA to make the life forms in question?
Let me ask you first, is death a part of bad design? Could the mastermind have avoided that particular nuisance (for those who might see it that way)?

Care to answer the question instead of ask another question? You're dodging instead of engaging. If you don't want to address it just tell me so and I'll know you don't have an answer and stop bothering you.

And you still haven't broken down bad design/ bad creation. But it brings up an interesting question.

Not talking about creation, talking about bad design. Inferior mechanisms used where superior ones exist in other products. Bad design by definition.

Is Yosemite, Yellow Stone, Grand Canyon, Mt. Fuji, etc. products of bad design? Particularly in the area of sight-seeing and photography. I have never seen/heard a quote from Ansel Adams, or anyone claiming these icons should have been structured differently. Would have been more photogenic if 20 feet taller, Full Dome instead of Half Dome, etc.

Not talking about landscape, talking about biological functions and organs. Please stay on topic or admit you have no real valid response.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 9:03:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 1:55:28 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 11/7/2015 8:42:50 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/7/2015 6:57:07 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 11/7/2015 3:22:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What does intelligent design teach us?

The comment above is a question I use when talking about ID because I have never seen anyone come up with an answer other than "it proves god exists" if they answer at all. If you think about it ID really has no practical use beyond that. It's not going to make atheists become religious, in fact it's not going to change anybodies thinking so you just end up in the same place you are now. After that, you can't really use it for anything, there will be no great medical breakthroughs or scientific discoveries as a result of the application of ID.
I would say it goes beyond merely proving God exists. I think in science, there is a desire to know the truth whether it directly affects our welfare or not. The problem with the existence of an intelligent designer is that if one exists, we can't claim evolution as fact because we can't bind the designer to natural laws.

And you can't really make the claim that there would be no great medical breakthroughs or scientific discoveries, because a number of scientists like George Washington Carver attested to being directed by the creator.

The strange argument evolutionists seem to make is that since they have no (personal) evidence of a creator, then ID should be eliminated from public arenas. Now the part about you not having to accept ID is fine. Wonderful. If someone believes there is no evidence of an intelligent designer, thus rejects any form of creationism, more power to them. But why does this right to opinion as it were result in the elimination of intelligent design from arenas like the public schools? For those who for whatever reason believe in an intelligent designer, they are being forced to accept something that contradicts their own reality.

ID is not rejected by mainstream science because mainstream science seeks to discredit religion (or what ever wacky reason you want to use) it's rejected because no one can figure out what to do with it.

I'm not implying that mainstream science seeks to discredit religion. Science, by the way, is an innocent party. It (science) is not trying to do, say, or reject anything.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by no one being able to figure out what to do with it.

Believe me if it were useful in any way science would be all over it.
What do you mean by science would be all over it? What is science all over?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 9:29:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 7:33:42 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/8/2015 3:59:50 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/7/2015 9:39:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
By definition, a deistic god wouldn't have designed life. It would have put the universe in motion and that's it. Same for if a creator produced the universe within the constraints of nature. You've phrased this as ID versus evolution/abiogenesis. If it's ID versus natural cosmology, then please say so.

That's not true. The World Union of Deists make it very clear their stance on intelligent design.

Intelligent Design: Intelligent Design refers to the structures in Nature, such as that of DNA, which can be observed and the complexity of which required an intelligent Designer. In this context "structure" means something arranged in a definite pattern of organization. In Deism, Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with the unreasonable Biblical myth of creation.

http://www.deism.com...

My usage of the term first cause creation was in reference to Thomas Paine's quote:

THE only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things.

is not a statement against intelligent design.

Those particular deists can say that, but like so many other god-related assertions it simply doesn't comport with our understanding of reality. DNA could not have existed during the first few billion years of our universe's current form because the atoms that make up DNA did not exist until they were forged in stars. So for DNA to be the result of a god's design, that god cannot be deistic. Either that, or the god created our universe in some mid-range state within the last 3 billion years and then walked away. If the latter is what someone is going to try to claim, then you still need to expand this beyond "evolutionists" because a deistic god creating life and walking away isn't necessarily in conflict with evolution. If a god dropped the first life on this planet and then disappeared, evolution would still be the best explanation for how life reached the level of diversity that we see now.

My point is that not all references to intelligent design is theology based....these particular deists being an example. (We are talking about a significant segment of deism being that of the World Union Of Deists). Wasn't that your original argument?

I'm not really sure what you mean here"

So for DNA to be the result of a god's design, that god cannot be deistic

How are you interpreting the term deistic?

You assume incorrectly. The laryngeal nerve certainly serves a function in the body. However, it is completely unnecessary for it to branch off of the vagus nerve so far from the larynx and then loop back up. It would be like having a broadband modem and router sitting next to each other, but connecting them by running the network cable out of and then back into the room. No one capable of connecting those two things, which in that analogy at least includes my 4 and 7 year old kids, would do that.

I was not suggesting you meant the laryngeal nerve does not serve as a function in the body like an alleged vestigial organ. While I'm satisfied that you could successfully hook up your cable, I'd like you to propose a superior design for the laryngeal nerve. That's something I haven't seen yet. And I don't mean simply a direct connection between the throat and the brain, but a sufficient diagram showing it's relationship to other organs the current nerve model apparently serves.

Why is a direct connection not enough? The superior laryngeal nerve already takes a more direct route. There is ample space for the recurrent nerve to branch off from the superior nerve rather than coming off of the vagus nerve and back up the throat.

If I had a modem, or any kind of electronic device that had an outlet in the back, I'm not going to try and attach a cord in the front even if it had an outlet that it fit, because I don't want to risk screwing the system up. It might be more convenient than having to get under a desk and bring the cord to the back, but it won't do any good if the outlet in the front isn't compatible with the cord for the wall outlet.

If that company gets enough complaints, someone may develop a way to plug the cord into the front. And they may be able to provide a diagram showing how the new design works in conjunction with it's internal components. I have yet to see anything like this in any claim regarding bad design in anatomy. All I've seen in this case is assertions made that a direct connection is better design. I haven't even made any suggestions that it isn't, but generally when a suggestion is made of any kind of bad design, the claimant can give a detailed example of better design. I don't expect you to draw one out, scan it, and post it here (although that would be impressive), but even a detailed diagram from another source would do.
As I stated, I think the excitement of this alleged bad design revolves more around the idea that it proves evolution (which I don't believe it does), than the structure of the nerve taking an unnecessary route (or serves no purpose), being bad design.

Evolutionary biologists aren't generally in the habit of addressing ID because ID isn't scientific. As such, yeah, they're going to focus on the nerve as evidence (not proof) for evolution, which is exactly what it is. Arguing about "bad design" is more a subject for general debate rather than any serious scientific discussion.
In your deist/creation scenario where the designer creates us and walks away, where's the scientific cutoff? Would it include whatever creation method was involved, or only after the purpose driven act of creation itself?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 9:59:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 9:03:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/8/2015 1:55:28 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 11/7/2015 8:42:50 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/7/2015 6:57:07 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 11/7/2015 3:22:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What does intelligent design teach us?

The comment above is a question I use when talking about ID because I have never seen anyone come up with an answer other than "it proves god exists" if they answer at all. If you think about it ID really has no practical use beyond that. It's not going to make atheists become religious, in fact it's not going to change anybodies thinking so you just end up in the same place you are now. After that, you can't really use it for anything, there will be no great medical breakthroughs or scientific discoveries as a result of the application of ID.
I would say it goes beyond merely proving God exists. I think in science, there is a desire to know the truth whether it directly affects our welfare or not. The problem with the existence of an intelligent designer is that if one exists, we can't claim evolution as fact because we can't bind the designer to natural laws.

And you can't really make the claim that there would be no great medical breakthroughs or scientific discoveries, because a number of scientists like George Washington Carver attested to being directed by the creator.

The strange argument evolutionists seem to make is that since they have no (personal) evidence of a creator, then ID should be eliminated from public arenas. Now the part about you not having to accept ID is fine. Wonderful. If someone believes there is no evidence of an intelligent designer, thus rejects any form of creationism, more power to them. But why does this right to opinion as it were result in the elimination of intelligent design from arenas like the public schools? For those who for whatever reason believe in an intelligent designer, they are being forced to accept something that contradicts their own reality.

ID is not rejected by mainstream science because mainstream science seeks to discredit religion (or what ever wacky reason you want to use) it's rejected because no one can figure out what to do with it.

I'm not implying that mainstream science seeks to discredit religion. Science, by the way, is an innocent party. It (science) is not trying to do, say, or reject anything.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by no one being able to figure out what to do with it.

Believe me if it were useful in any way science would be all over it.
What do you mean by science would be all over it? What is science all over?

"So far, there are no documented cases of Intelligent Design research contributing to a new scientific discovery."

http://undsci.berkeley.edu...

The bottom line is ID is worthless to science or anything else for that matter.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 1:23:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 9:29:47 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/8/2015 7:33:42 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/8/2015 3:59:50 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/7/2015 9:39:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
By definition, a deistic god wouldn't have designed life. It would have put the universe in motion and that's it. Same for if a creator produced the universe within the constraints of nature. You've phrased this as ID versus evolution/abiogenesis. If it's ID versus natural cosmology, then please say so.

That's not true. The World Union of Deists make it very clear their stance on intelligent design.

Intelligent Design: Intelligent Design refers to the structures in Nature, such as that of DNA, which can be observed and the complexity of which required an intelligent Designer. In this context "structure" means something arranged in a definite pattern of organization. In Deism, Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with the unreasonable Biblical myth of creation.

http://www.deism.com...

My usage of the term first cause creation was in reference to Thomas Paine's quote:

THE only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things.

is not a statement against intelligent design.

Those particular deists can say that, but like so many other god-related assertions it simply doesn't comport with our understanding of reality. DNA could not have existed during the first few billion years of our universe's current form because the atoms that make up DNA did not exist until they were forged in stars. So for DNA to be the result of a god's design, that god cannot be deistic. Either that, or the god created our universe in some mid-range state within the last 3 billion years and then walked away. If the latter is what someone is going to try to claim, then you still need to expand this beyond "evolutionists" because a deistic god creating life and walking away isn't necessarily in conflict with evolution. If a god dropped the first life on this planet and then disappeared, evolution would still be the best explanation for how life reached the level of diversity that we see now.

My point is that not all references to intelligent design is theology based....these particular deists being an example. (We are talking about a significant segment of deism being that of the World Union Of Deists). Wasn't that your original argument?

My original argument was that an honest ID proposal always backtracks to a theological god. The deists you reference don't rebut that because they are not being honest. Either that or at the very least they are too ignorant or in denial of our understanding of the universe to understand that their deistic belief is incompatible with ID as it pertains to life.

I'm not really sure what you mean here"

So for DNA to be the result of a god's design, that god cannot be deistic

How are you interpreting the term deistic?

I don't know how much clearer my meaning could have been. It's the normal meaning of deistic: a god created the universe and then ignored it. Deism excludes the idea of a creator god that interacts with its creation. For DNA to be the result of a god's design, that god must have interacted with the universe after kicking it off with the big bang because DNA could not have existed until billions of years after the big bang occurred.

Again, this is in a frame of ID vs evolution/abiogenesis. If deists are going to claim that DNA and life were intended to develop and evolve as a natural part of the universe, that doesn't currently conflict with modern ideas in biology.

You assume incorrectly. The laryngeal nerve certainly serves a function in the body. However, it is completely unnecessary for it to branch off of the vagus nerve so far from the larynx and then loop back up. It would be like having a broadband modem and router sitting next to each other, but connecting them by running the network cable out of and then back into the room. No one capable of connecting those two things, which in that analogy at least includes my 4 and 7 year old kids, would do that.

I was not suggesting you meant the laryngeal nerve does not serve as a function in the body like an alleged vestigial organ. While I'm satisfied that you could successfully hook up your cable, I'd like you to propose a superior design for the laryngeal nerve. That's something I haven't seen yet. And I don't mean simply a direct connection between the throat and the brain, but a sufficient diagram showing it's relationship to other organs the current nerve model apparently serves.

Why is a direct connection not enough? The superior laryngeal nerve already takes a more direct route. There is ample space for the recurrent nerve to branch off from the superior nerve rather than coming off of the vagus nerve and back up the throat.

If I had a modem, or any kind of electronic device that had an outlet in the back, I'm not going to try and attach a cord in the front even if it had an outlet that it fit, because I don't want to risk screwing the system up. It might be more convenient than having to get under a desk and bring the cord to the back, but it won't do any good if the outlet in the front isn't compatible with the cord for the wall outlet.

If that company gets enough complaints, someone may develop a way to plug the cord into the front. And they may be able to provide a diagram showing how the new design works in conjunction with it's internal components. I have yet to see anything like this in any claim regarding bad design in anatomy. All I've seen in this case is assertions made that a direct connection is better design. I haven't even made any suggestions that it isn't, but generally when a suggestion is made of any kind of bad design, the claimant can give a detailed example of better design. I don't expect you to draw one out, scan it, and post it here (although that would be impressive), but even a detailed diagram from another source would do.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. Why would a port on the back of a modem require the wire to be run under a desk? I think you might need a diagram to explain how what you're saying is properly analogous.

Anyway, look at the 3rd slide at this link: http://www.slideshare.net...

The superior laryngeal nerve is centimeters away from where the recurrent laryngeal nerve ends up. I could show this picture to my 7 year old and he would probably be able to figure out that branching off of the superior nerve would be better than looping under the aorta and coming back up.

As I stated, I think the excitement of this alleged bad design revolves more around the idea that it proves evolution (which I don't believe it does), than the structure of the nerve taking an unnecessary route (or serves no purpose), being bad design.

Evolutionary biologists aren't generally in the habit of addressing ID because ID isn't scientific. As such, yeah, they're going to focus on the nerve as evidence (not proof) for evolution, which is exactly what it is. Arguing about "bad design" is more a subject for general debate rather than any serious scientific discussion.
In your deist/creation scenario where the designer creates us and walks away, where's the scientific cutoff? Would it include whatever creation method was involved, or only after the purpose driven act of creation itself?

I don't know what a "scientific cutoff" is. ID isn't scientific because it isn't supported by evidence and it makes no falsifiable claims. "It looks designed" and "what about this unanswered question related to evolution?" are not scientific evidence.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 5:59:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 8:27:01 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:00:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


I'm sorry that I keep seeing 'God' (theology) in various points in your statements like

Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal?

But are you saying you don't see it?


So, explain why a designer would use different design structures, some inferior in many ways, to do the same job in different iterations of his designs? Particularly if this designer had the requisite knowledge and technical ability to basically tailor DNA to make the life forms in question?
Let me ask you first, is death a part of bad design? Could the mastermind have avoided that particular nuisance (for those who might see it that way)?

Care to answer the question instead of ask another question? You're dodging instead of engaging. If you don't want to address it just tell me so and I'll know you don't have an answer and stop bothering you.

Did you notice that you followed up with a question in response to a question you didn't answer?

I can address it, but I would rather you answer that question first because it's pertinent to your question. If death is a result of bad design, what difference does it make which animals seem to have greater anatomical advantages? If we were somehow afforded a blue print by a creator claiming all life should never die, and some animals do die, we know that it would have to be a result of faulty design. If death would be an acceptable form of design, we could go from there.

One of the paradoxes when it comes to death with evolutionists is that they claim Christians should be at peace with the idea of death as an inevitable feature.....provided there is no personal God intervening in human affairs.

And you still haven't broken down bad design/ bad creation. But it brings up an interesting question.

Not talking about creation, talking about bad design. Inferior mechanisms used where superior ones exist in other products. Bad design by definition.

I know you're not talking about creation. That's the problem. I've been asking you to talk about creation by explaining this vast difference you're referring to.

"Immense difference in bad design versus imperfect creation."

Is Yosemite, Yellow Stone, Grand Canyon, Mt. Fuji, etc. products of bad design? Particularly in the area of sight-seeing and photography. I have never seen/heard a quote from Ansel Adams, or anyone claiming these icons should have been structured differently. Would have been more photogenic if 20 feet taller, Full Dome instead of Half Dome, etc.

Not talking about landscape, talking about biological functions and organs. Please stay on topic or admit you have no real valid response.
This is a question posed in addition to my comments pertaining to intelligent design. It's very much on topic.

You're excellent at demanding questions of yours being answered, but not so good in answering posed at you. I don't understand your free pass to avoid questions, and still make demands that yours get answered.
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 6:07:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Randomness is a part of the design. "Perfection" or "perfect" to the Christian version of God is about the heart, not absolute, material zero. Is a circle perfect? Not if you want a square. It depends on the semantics of the situation. If you want a good heart, then being physically attractive and smart is not perfection without the good heart. We must define perfection by what that means to him in order to apply it to him.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 6:12:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:59:42 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:27:01 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:00:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:


I'm sorry that I keep seeing 'God' (theology) in various points in your statements like

Why would the creator not give his supposed most important creation the same ability to heal?

But are you saying you don't see it?

I did see that and I explained what I meant. We are the apex predators, the supposedly most intelligent and dominant species on the planet. That is actually irrelevant to the point I was making.


So, explain why a designer would use different design structures, some inferior in many ways, to do the same job in different iterations of his designs? Particularly if this designer had the requisite knowledge and technical ability to basically tailor DNA to make the life forms in question?

Let me ask you first, is death a part of bad design? Could the mastermind have avoided that particular nuisance (for those who might see it that way)?

I would say it's possible.

So, explain why a designer would use different design structures, some inferior in many ways, to do the same job in different iterations of his designs? Particularly if this designer had the requisite knowledge and technical ability to basically tailor DNA to make the life forms in question?


Care to answer the question instead of ask another question? You're dodging instead of engaging. If you don't want to address it just tell me so and I'll know you don't have an answer and stop bothering you.

Did you notice that you followed up with a question in response to a question you didn't answer?

I've answered. Your turn.

I can address it, but I would rather you answer that question first because it's pertinent to your question. If death is a result of bad design, what difference does it make which animals seem to have greater anatomical advantages? If we were somehow afforded a blue print by a creator claiming all life should never die, and some animals do die, we know that it would have to be a result of faulty design. If death would be an acceptable form of design, we could go from there.


I don't even acknowledge design as the origin of life and its characteristics and diversity, but no, I do not see death as a failure of design. There needs to be a mechanism for new generations to take over as time passes.

One of the paradoxes when it comes to death with evolutionists is that they claim Christians should be at peace with the idea of death as an inevitable feature.....provided there is no personal God intervening in human affairs.


What does that have to do with bad design?
And you still haven't broken down bad design/ bad creation. But it brings up an interesting question.

Not talking about creation, talking about bad design. Inferior mechanisms used where superior ones exist in other products. Bad design by definition.

I know you're not talking about creation. That's the problem. I've been asking you to talk about creation by explaining this vast difference you're referring to.


"Immense difference in bad design versus imperfect creation."

Yep, one implies a supernatural creator, one does not. One demands perfection, one does not. Irrelevant to the discussion, but there you are.


Is Yosemite, Yellow Stone, Grand Canyon, Mt. Fuji, etc. products of bad design? Particularly in the area of sight-seeing and photography. I have never seen/heard a quote from Ansel Adams, or anyone claiming these icons should have been structured differently. Would have been more photogenic if 20 feet taller, Full Dome instead of Half Dome, etc.

Not talking about landscape, talking about biological functions and organs. Please stay on topic or admit you have no real valid response.

This is a question posed in addition to my comments pertaining to intelligent design. It's very much on topic.

Hardly, since we're talking about the design of living things.

You're excellent at demanding questions of yours being answered, but not so good in answering posed at you. I don't understand your free pass to avoid questions, and still make demands that yours get answered.

I have answered, now go ahead. Still waiting for you.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 7:11:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 1:23:56 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/10/2015 9:29:47 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:

My point is that not all references to intelligent design is theology based....these particular deists being an example. (We are talking about a significant segment of deism being that of the World Union Of Deists). Wasn't that your original argument?

My original argument was that an honest ID proposal always backtracks to a theological god. The deists you reference don't rebut that because they are not being honest. Either that or at the very least they are too ignorant or in denial of our understanding of the universe to understand that their deistic belief is incompatible with ID as it pertains to life.

Oh I see. If they don't abide by your criteria they are not honest. We're talking about the World Union of Deists, the largest deist organization, and spokesmen for deism for crying out loud. Whether you think the alternative might be ignorance or not is unimportant.

Don't you think the WUOD might know a bit more about deism than yourself?




How are you interpreting the term deistic?

I don't know how much clearer my meaning could have been. It's the normal meaning of deistic: a god created the universe and then ignored it. Deism excludes the idea of a creator god that interacts with its creation. For DNA to be the result of a god's design, that god must have interacted with the universe after kicking it off with the big bang because DNA could not have existed until billions of years after the big bang occurred.

The reason I asked is because of what I suspected was your obvious belief that the deistic creator sat on one end of some dimension, lit a match that ignited the big bang, and then walked away. Yes, it is clear now, but it's strictly your personal interpretation. That's not a description of the deistic god.

Again, this is in a frame of ID vs evolution/abiogenesis. If deists are going to claim that DNA and life were intended to develop and evolve as a natural part of the universe, that doesn't currently conflict with modern ideas in biology.

If there is any sort of creator, Biblical or deistic, we cannot demand that it follows the opinions of modern scientists. Any act of creation conflicts with modern naturalistic ideas (see your underlined phrase for significance) of science. Yes, theoretically, the creator could have lit some symbolic match that sparked a big bang allowing for the modern idea of evolution. But such creator is not bound to that idea simply because we have no claim on uniformitarianism.




If I had a modem, or any kind of electronic device that had an outlet in the back, I'm not going to try and attach a cord in the front even if it had an outlet that it fit, because I don't want to risk screwing the system up. It might be more convenient than having to get under a desk and bring the cord to the back, but it won't do any good if the outlet in the front isn't compatible with the cord for the wall outlet.

If that company gets enough complaints, someone may develop a way to plug the cord into the front. And they may be able to provide a diagram showing how the new design works in conjunction with it's internal components. I have yet to see anything like this in any claim regarding bad design in anatomy. All I've seen in this case is assertions made that a direct connection is better design. I haven't even made any suggestions that it isn't, but generally when a suggestion is made of any kind of bad design, the claimant can give a detailed example of better design. I don't expect you to draw one out, scan it, and post it here (although that would be impressive), but even a detailed diagram from another source would do.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. Why would a port on the back of a modem require the wire to be run under a desk? I think you might need a diagram to explain how what you're saying is properly analogous.

It's just a simple analogy. Nothing to get technical over. Haven't you ever had to get under a desk and plug in a cord in the back of a modem?
Anyway, look at the 3rd slide at this link: http://www.slideshare.net...

The superior laryngeal nerve is centimeters away from where the recurrent laryngeal nerve ends up. I could show this picture to my 7 year old and he would probably be able to figure out that branching off of the superior nerve would be better than looping under the aorta and coming back up.

I'm sorry, but I'm aware of laryngeal paralysis, and this is just a sketch just like any other.

I'm sure you're aware that with all the claims of bad design in the human body, there's a counter claim. You may have seen some of them including this one. I don't buy the idea of bad design because for one, I've never seen an actual better design. Just vague references to what is wrong which to me is equal to a passenger who never never stepped foot into a cockpit telling a pilot how to fly. Humans are incapable of producing life. So claims of bad design is meaningless to me. People like Dawkins who make these claims are kind of like the Rick Flairs of science. A lot pomp, and unfortunately a certain amount of undeserved circumstance.



In your deist/creation scenario where the designer creates us and walks away, where's the scientific cutoff? Would it include whatever creation method was involved, or only after the purpose driven act of creation itself?

I don't know what a "scientific cutoff" is. ID isn't scientific because it isn't supported by evidence and it makes no falsifiable claims. "It looks designed" and

You got cut off here. I'm ran out of time, so if you can either repost it in full, or I can do it later.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 7:57:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 7:11:31 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Oh I see. If they don't abide by your criteria they are not honest. We're talking about the World Union of Deists, the largest deist organization, and spokesmen for deism for crying out loud. Whether you think the alternative might be ignorance or not is unimportant.

Don't you think the WUOD might know a bit more about deism than yourself?

About deism? Yes. About evolution and abiogenesis? Not necessarily. How many of those deists who agreed to that definition of ID, as relates to biology, and see it as agreeing with their beliefs actually hold a degree in biology? I have no issue with their understanding of deism. It's their understanding of biology and how compatible it is with their belief that seems to be the problem.

How are you interpreting the term deistic?

The reason I asked is because of what I suspected was your obvious belief that the deistic creator sat on one end of some dimension, lit a match that ignited the big bang, and then walked away. Yes, it is clear now, but it's strictly your personal interpretation. That's not a description of the deistic god.

That's not just my interpretation. The WUoD site recognizes that as one interpretation shared by many deists, while others believe the god still intervenes in human affairs sometimes. My contention here is that ID backtracks to a theistic god. A deistic god that interacts with its creation is borderline theistic. If it responded to prayers, it would be theistic. A purely deistic god that kicked off the big bang, or even created the universe with life in it as it was 3 billion years ago, is not in necessarily in contention with evolution. This quasi-theistic deist god could be. So, in light of this wishy-washy deism that I wasn't previously aware of, I'll modify my original point to be that ID backtracks to a semi- or completely theistic god, so we still wind up dealing with a theological issue at some point.

If there is any sort of creator, Biblical or deistic, we cannot demand that it follows the opinions of modern scientists. Any act of creation conflicts with modern naturalistic ideas (see your underlined phrase for significance) of science. Yes, theoretically, the creator could have lit some symbolic match that sparked a big bang allowing for the modern idea of evolution. But such creator is not bound to that idea simply because we have no claim on uniformitarianism.

You're on the border of solipsism with what you're saying there. If you're going to retreat to that, then say so now so I can stop wasting my time. I refuse to further engage in any discussion where our common ground no longer includes the physical laws of the universe.

It's just a simple analogy. Nothing to get technical over. Haven't you ever had to get under a desk and plug in a cord in the back of a modem?

Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the location of the port on the modem. Why does the port on the back of the modem, as opposed to the front, cause you to have to crawl on the floor to plug it in? Is the modem so big that the front of it is at the top of the desk and the back is on the bottom? Why not just flip it around? The analogy is too simple, and yet confusing, to help elucidate anything.

I'm sorry, but I'm aware of laryngeal paralysis, and this is just a sketch just like any other.

Laryngeal paralysis wasn't important, just the sketch. That's the first thing that matched what I was looking for when I did a GIS for a nerve diagram. Also, you said a detailed diagram will do. So if I take that one and draw in the recurrent nerve branching off of the superior nerve, that would do? I can do that, if it will actually make a difference.

I'm sure you're aware that with all the claims of bad design in the human body, there's a counter claim. You may have seen some of them including this one. I don't buy the idea of bad design because for one, I've never seen an actual better design. Just vague references to what is wrong which to me is equal to a passenger who never never stepped foot into a cockpit telling a pilot how to fly. Humans are incapable of producing life. So claims of bad design is meaningless to me. People like Dawkins who make these claims are kind of like the Rick Flairs of science. A lot pomp, and unfortunately a certain amount of undeserved circumstance.

All other things being equal, if two products do the exact same thing, but one does it with fewer materials, do you think the one that uses more (unnecessary) materials is a worse design?

You got cut off here. I'm ran out of time, so if you can either repost it in full, or I can do it later.

If you look at my actual post, it wasn't cut off. The forum cut it off to insert all of the additional colons when it was quoted. Here it is one more time:

I don't know what a "scientific cutoff" is. ID isn't scientific because it isn't supported by evidence and it makes no falsifiable claims. "It looks designed" and "what about this unanswered question related to evolution?" are not scientific evidence.