What's funny is that of the dozen or so creationists/seekers/apologists who will read this, for most it will be the first they'd heard of it.
Or is it more sad than funny?
Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
What's funny is that of the dozen or so creationists/seekers/apologists who will read this, for most it will be the first they'd heard of it.
Or is it more sad than funny?
Lets solve this problem scientifically...
If we have observed evolution then it is not wack because God facilitated it's creation.
So our question then becomes, "Have we observed evolution?"
And that answer is no... Unless your an archeologist or museum enthusiast...
I find it hard to believe in this day so many try so hard and so ferociously to stick to a certain "side" when their beliefs are concerned. There is no side to take against the beliefs of others but for them. If not to enlighten the philosophy behind these beliefs, then to lure the poor believer deeper into delusion. The same methodology works for those who bear "Absolute truth".
Thus the issue is never resolved...
If we have observed evolution then it is not wack because God facilitated it's creation.
So our question then becomes, "Have we observed evolution?"
And that answer is no... Unless your an archeologist or museum enthusiast...
I find it hard to believe in this day so many try so hard and so ferociously to stick to a certain "side" when their beliefs are concerned. There is no side to take against the beliefs of others but for them. If not to enlighten the philosophy behind these beliefs, then to lure the poor believer deeper into delusion. The same methodology works for those who bear "Absolute truth".
Thus the issue is never resolved...
Again:
Why would such things be proof of unintelligent design?
Can you or anyone explain?
Or are we to be completely unaware of the values driving such claims?
So you refuse to explain why you believe that teeth rot is proof of bad design?
I know you're good at strawmaning.
You and lightgigantic have both been doing this: Claiming that other parties are not explaining things that they have been explaining, or claiming they are refusing to explain.
See post 17.
I have explained where I.D. fails and so has everyone else. What's left is only you claiming that no one has and that we refuse.
I am saying that the explanations you give are incomplete.
Clearly, there are things that you see as evidence of a lack of design or evidence of a lack of intelligence in said design.
But you refuse to explicate the values that you hold, on which your assertions about those lacks are based.
Clearly, there are things that you see as evidence of a lack of design or evidence of a lack of intelligence in said design.
But you refuse to explicate the values that you hold, on which your assertions about those lacks are based.
Oh... now they are incomplete.
Ok...
No.
If that was how you saw it, you'd simply ask me to clarify or complete my explanations.
Then you go on to say, again, that I "refuse to explicate the values I hold..."
Jan Ardena did the thing you accuse me of. Refused to explain and, instead, demanded that I prove Jan Ardena Wrong.
These tactics are purely diversionary.
I listed it out in post 17. Others listed it out in many posts. If you have any desire to debate the topic- Quote those relevant posts and address the issues fairly.
Otherwise, there is no reason to pay attention to the diversionary tactics any longer.
A case of design would be a respiratory system which did not drain back into itself. A case of design would not include a vestigal organ which has no use and becomes inflamed, killing it's body. A case of design would not include teeth made out of a material which can rot, become infected, and kill it's body.
What we have here in the human body just developed, it was never planned or designed.
I meant WYNN
Is a house made of straw in tornado valley unintelligent design?
It's really hard to imagine someone sitting through the lectures, doing the labs, reading and studying, preparing for all the exams, completing all the assignments, interacting in with the class and teacher, then finally passing the exam....
....only to chuck it all away and revert to denialism. This is why it must be that they don't understand the basics at all. They can refuse to take their medicine up until the point where the class requires it. This has to be the central fear of the ID-er's challenge to teaching it. They probably have figured out that once their kinds learn it, there's going to be hell to pay in Sunday School (or youth bible study).
It permeates so much of the information around us - all the normal media outlets discuss it, and resources like Wikipedia, all the government science offices, and boards like Sci, where they may drop an occasional homework question - all are rife with more and more to say about it, yet that drum beat keeps coming from the other side of the hill.
What I suspect is happening is that the hard core denialists are becoming marginalized and the younger ones are maybe catching on at an ever-faster rate. That would be a good poll. I know I was disappointed about the poll that came up in one of the other threads that showed 15% of high school biology teachers in the US believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago.
It all depends on the point you wanted to make by building a house made of straw in tornado valley.
If it was to demonstrate that straw houses are not likely to withstand a tornado, then you've made your point and your design was intelligent.
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
Design is a process whereby things are made fit for purpose. The concept of a perfect design is idealistic rather than realistic, but the intention of design, implicitly, is to approach perfection.
The examples of non-perfect design cited by others above are so gross in their ineffectiveness that one could really only continue to assert conscious design by conceding that the designer was incompetent, or warped.
If you wish to assert unconscious design that's fine. I believe we call that evolution by natural selection.
Perfection to do what?
Gross in their ineffectiveness to do what?
The complaints against the idea of intelligent design are based on an idealistic, vague notion of what something is supposed to be like. But so far, nobody has explained why things should be that way.
For example, why should humans not have an appendix? What exactly is wrong with having an appendix? Because it can get inflamed and be fatal?
And why is that bad? Can you explain?
If, as the fans of science would have us believe, it is perfectly normal that living beings age, grow ill, and die, then where exactly is the problem?
If, as the fans of science would have us believe, it is perfectly normal that living beings age, grow ill, and die, then why exactly should we not have an appendix, teeth that rot and such?
You've focused on the flaws that can kill you. What about the ones that make no sense?
Like the nerve leading to the voicebox on the Giraffe- and if that is not human enough for ya: That us human males have that problem with the tub leading from scrotum to appendage used for mating.
As the scrotum dropped, the tubing got looped around.
These flaws may not be "bad," but they demonstrate a lack of conscious design. These looping tubes and nerves show that the original creature did not have a long neck or a dropped scrotal sack. As our ancestors evolved, these traits remained, even when they make no sense. But they DID make sense on the animals that developed them way back then.
- Status