Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!

[superstring01]

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?

At this point, it's time to turn off the computer and get an education. Give the key board back to daddy. See, in a world of rational human beings, the POSITIVE assertion must be the one that's proven. You're asking us to prove a negative. That is-- you make the fucked-up assertion like the existence of a magical homicidal Israeli War God of Death & Destruction--and then demand that everybody disproves it.

Tell you what Kai Wynn. You're a pedophile. Not only that, you're a cannibalistic pedophile. You've raped little boys and girls, done A Serbian Film level of atrocities to them. Then ate them. Now. Prove that you have NEVER done such a thing EVER in your entire life. Prove with absolute certainty. Where's the proof! Teach the controversy!!!

See, in a grown up world filled with grown ups talking about grown up things, we understand that positive assertions demand positive proofs. Since there is ZERO evidence for a sky fairy and that there is NO evidence for ID and that there is--in fact--evidence for the physical, natural universe around us--the burden of proof is completely on you, not us.

And you don't get to use the facile Theist bullshit about "you should just know by observing the universe around you." Because that's you offering your personal, subjective viewpoint as a maxim that all people should accept. Rubbish.

~String

Damnit. I'm doing it again.

 

[Neverfly]

ROFLMAO (<<<Yeah, I used that <) @ Kai Wynn

On topic uhmm... the O.P. Have we, the readers, been had? :bugeye:

Garbonzo's other posts don't seem as...hmmm....

 

[superstring01]

I am saying that the explanations you give are incomplete.

No shit Jonestown resident! It's what you and every theist says. It's because admitting that your little pet theory has no merit and that science does is like admitting defeat. Ergo, regardless of what evidence is offered, you'll claim it's "incomplete". ("Something, something, something . . . complete!")

And why would evolutionist/atheists need to disprove the existence of a magical space deity? You've yet to demonstrate that one exists.

When theists demand fossil evidence of evolution, they reject the evidence because it doesn't contain a record, with Dewie Decemal System level of references showing that X fossil is the ancestor of Y fossil and the specific quantum dating signature along with digital 3D IMAX video and THX sound quality of each animal "changing" from one to the next.

And, one wonders what theists would come up with next. "Okay theist, here's the proof you asked for!" Theist: "Um, you can't disprove that God mad that change happen."

~String

 

[Hipparchia]

Perfection to do what?

To survive and to heritably replicate, since this is what clearly distinguishes life from non-life. Major improvements could be made in living organisms were they intelligently designed.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grumpy,

Jan Ardena
Why do you think we are?

I've already stated why.
But for starters, we look designed, and seem to act with a purpose.

Looking at the built in flaws in almost every lifeform indicates that even if we conceed design(and I do not), he/she/it was far from intelligent, not even competent.

Unless you know the intention, how can you comment on whether the designer is incompetent?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

But for starters, we look designed, and seem to act with a purpose.

We look designed?
How would you know? i.e. how would you be able to tell the difference between something that is designed and something that is the result of a non-sentient process such as evolution? Or do you consider the latter to be "design" also?

And how does it seem that we act with a purpose? What purpose? Do we all have the same?
Again, how can you tell that this is given to us rather than just the result of a non-sentient process such as evolution?

Unless you know the intention, how can you comment on whether the designer is incompetent?

And unless you know the intention, how can you comment on whether the designer is intelligent, let alone actually knowing that there is an intention?

 

[superstring01]

But for starters, we look designed, and seem to act with a purpose.

We "look" designed? We are a cluster of massive amounts of useless "junk DNA", we have left over genetic material for fur, Vitamin C production, tails, immunity to HIV (yes, it's in our DNA but turned off) and a host of other weird flaws like--say--the appendix and the laryngeal nerve. We have to wipe our ass because our anus hasn't caught up with the fact that our gluteal muscles have to be gigantic to support us while standing on two feet.

This gets even weirder when we're talking about cetaceans, avians and bats, all of whom contain crazy DNA for things they no longer use. Monotremes (one of two extant survivors of which is the platypus) has the DNA for a full stomach, despite not having it. And the list goes on and on.

If there is a creator god, he's pretty damned uncreative and goddamned lazy. He sure left a lot of evidence for the many related clades that bind us, a fossil record that demonstrates speciation and mountains of shitty traits that we are all stuck with.

~String

 

[wynn]

These flaws may not be "bad," but they demonstrate a lack of conscious design.

You skipped a few steps. You yet need to explain why those things are "flaws" and "demonstrate a lack of conscious design."

 

[wynn]

To survive and to heritably replicate, since this is what clearly distinguishes life from non-life. Major improvements could be made in living organisms were they intelligently designed.

In that case, you need to substantiate why you think "To survive and to heritably replicate" is the purpose of life.


One of the ID arguments is that the way the bodies of living beings are made is suitable for realizing the Absolute Truth.

 

[wynn]

At this point, it's time to turn off the computer and get an education. Give the key board back to daddy. See, in a world of rational human beings, the POSITIVE assertion must be the one that's proven. You're asking us to prove a negative. That is-- you make the fucked-up assertion like the existence of a magical homicidal Israeli War God of Death & Destruction--and then demand that everybody disproves it.

Tell you what Kai Wynn. You're a pedophile. Not only that, you're a cannibalistic pedophile. You've raped little boys and girls, done A Serbian Film level of atrocities to them. Then ate them. Now. Prove that you have NEVER done such a thing EVER in your entire life. Prove with absolute certainty. Where's the proof! Teach the controversy!!!

See, in a grown up world filled with grown ups talking about grown up things, we understand that positive assertions demand positive proofs. Since there is ZERO evidence for a sky fairy and that there is NO evidence for ID and that there is--in fact--evidence for the physical, natural universe around us--the burden of proof is completely on you, not us.

And you don't get to use the facile Theist bullshit about "you should just know by observing the universe around you." Because that's you offering your personal, subjective viewpoint as a maxim that all people should accept. Rubbish.

~String

Damnit. I'm doing it again.

No shit Jonestown resident! It's what you and every theist says. It's because admitting that your little pet theory has no merit and that science does is like admitting defeat. Ergo, regardless of what evidence is offered, you'll claim it's "incomplete". ("Something, something, something . . . complete!")

And why would evolutionist/atheists need to disprove the existence of a magical space deity? You've yet to demonstrate that one exists.

When theists demand fossil evidence of evolution, they reject the evidence because it doesn't contain a record, with Dewie Decemal System level of references showing that X fossil is the ancestor of Y fossil and the specific quantum dating signature along with digital 3D IMAX video and THX sound quality of each animal "changing" from one to the next.

And, one wonders what theists would come up with next. "Okay theist, here's the proof you asked for!" Theist: "Um, you can't disprove that God mad that change happen."

~String

Rather than discuss why having an appendix, teeth that rot etc. is bad, or a sign of lack of design or lack of intelligence in said design,

you launch into a personal attack?

 

[wynn]

I think that what underlies most arguments against ID is a line of reasoning like this:


"I should have a body that is not subject to aging, illness and death. I should have a body that would be as big, or as small, as I would want to have it. I should have a body that would be as strong as I would want it to be. I should have a body that would have the skin color, the hair color, the eye color, the size of bodily appendages, etc., all the bodily qualities and specifics as I want them to be.
Given that I don't have such a body, this is proof that there is no God, or that if God exists, he is stupid and has a perverse sense of humor."


IOW, arguments against ID are based on a particular set of expectations of what bodies and life in general should be.
But as those expectations aren't or don't seem to be met, people who hold those expectations are upset and conclude that there is no God or that God is incompetent.

It would be prudent though to look into those expectations and check how rational they are.

 

[Aqueous Id]

It would be prudent though to look into those expectations and check how rational they are.

Except that this is not the theme of the defective-body argument. The theme is that the human body (and that of other creatures) suffers from what we would call design defects - if in fact it had been designed. They are not defects in subjective emotional terms. They are functional and structural defects - from a design perspective. Logic dictates that even a creator of the intelligence of an average human designer would not have overlooked some or most of these.

 

[Neverfly]

You skipped a few steps. You yet need to explain why those things are "flaws" and "demonstrate a lack of conscious design."

No, you need to go over post number 17 and others. You need to address how there is evidence of an Intelligent Designer if you're going to support it. Otherwise, you need to admit that you cannot.
You keep thinking that it's everyone else's job to Prove You Wrong.
No.
It's been repeated several times that that is simply not how it works, no matter how much you may find that distasteful.

If you want it handed to you on a silver platter- see post #107.

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

But for starters, we look designed, and seem to act with a purpose.

The points I illustrated(and you ignored)show that we DO NOT appear designed to those who actually look beyond the superficial appearance. And the only purpose Nature gives you is to reproduce the next generation. Any other purpose is self chosen.

Unless you know the intention, how can you comment on whether the designer is incompetent?

By the results. Our bodies are horribly designed(again, given design). What we see in Nature is that there is no intent, no goal, no final product. Just an ad hoc collection of traits and structures inherited from previous generations and modified(slowly and badly)for current conditions by the survival of those traits and structures in current conditions. Your skeletal system is over 400 million years old, it is shared by everything from amphibians to birds to frogs and lizards. It is far from perfect(in some cases even barely marginally useful), one size does not fit all, and in the case of humans it is crap as design. But it is all Nature has had to work with for several hundred million years. Intent has nothing to do with evaluating results of the product. You may intend to design a perfect breakfast, but your intention means nothing if you burn the toast, fry the bacon into carbon and leave the eggs with runny whites.

Grumpy

 

[wynn]

Except that this is not the theme of the defective-body argument. The theme is that the human body (and that of other creatures) suffers from what we would call design defects - if in fact it had been designed. They are not defects in subjective emotional terms. They are functional and structural defects - from a design perspective. Logic dictates that even a creator of the intelligence of an average human designer would not have overlooked some or most of these.

The only way we can talk about any kind of defects is precisely in relation to particular standards or expectations.


(And logic doesn't dictate anything.)

 

[wynn]

No, you need to go over post number 17 and others. You need to address how there is evidence of an Intelligent Designer if you're going to support it. Otherwise, you need to admit that you cannot.
You keep thinking that it's everyone else's job to Prove You Wrong.
No.
It's been repeated several times that that is simply not how it works, no matter how much you may find that distasteful.

If you want it handed to you on a silver platter- see post #107.

I'm not asking anyone to prove me wrong.

I am asking for others to reveal more about their position.

Which you are quite reluctant to do.

 

[Grumpy]

wynn

I think that what underlies most arguments against ID is a line of reasoning like this:


"I should have a body that is not subject to aging, illness and death. I should have a body that would be as big, or as small, as I would want to have it. I should have a body that would be as strong as I would want it to be. I should have a body that would have the skin color, the hair color, the eye color, the size of bodily appendages, etc., all the bodily qualities and specifics as I want them to be.
Given that I don't have such a body, this is proof that there is no God, or that if God exists, he is stupid and has a perverse sense of humor."

What a load of male bovine excrement! Design is your argument, not ours. We ACCEPT that the body is not perfect, but we don't seek someone to blame, we look to see how those defects were passed down to us from our forebearers, why they exist in the form they do, wonder at how Nature was able to adapt things evolved for one era and purpose into adequate(but far from perfect)answers for another era's needs WITHOUT the interference of a designer or any evidence of design at all, simply by the survival of certain variations in form tested by that survival with every change supporting the organism on a continuous spectrum. There was never a half an eye, every form of eye gave the creature who had it a survival advantage in the struggle that is life, the eye was in no way designed(in our eyes the retina is backwards, which causes all sorts of unnecessary problems).

Rather than discuss why having an appendix, teeth that rot etc. is bad, or a sign of lack of design or lack of intelligence in said design,

you launch into a personal attack?

Originally Posted by Grumpy
Modelling something does not mean designing something, the body came into existence before the model was made, NEITHER were designed in any way(though the process for producing the model was designed). Design requires a plan to build something to, a goal you are trying to reach, an end goal that does not exist prior to the start of a process and does exist at it's end. None of these things are present in Nature, there is no goal, no plan, no final outcome, everything in Nature continues to evolve to this minute. ”

I know you're good at strawmaning.

Pot, meet kettle. Stop attacking me and address the damned point. Or shut the hell up. Your choice.

Grumpy

 

[wynn]

What a load of male bovine excrement! Design is your argument, not ours. We ACCEPT that the body is not perfect, but we don't seek someone to blame, we look to see how those defects were passed down to us from our forebearers, why they exist in the form they do, wonder at how Nature was able to adapt things evolved for one era and purpose into adequate(but far from perfect)answers for another era's needs WITHOUT the interference of a designer or any evidence of design at all, simply by the survival of certain variations in form tested by that survival with every change supporting the organism on a continuous spectrum. There was never a half an eye, every form of eye gave the creature who had it a survival advantage in the struggle that is life, the eye was in no way designed(in our eyes the retina is backwards, which causes all sorts of unnecessary problems).

Again: The only way we can talk about any kind of defects is precisely in relation to particular standards or expectations.

So I'd like to see you say more about those standards or expectations.


For example:

in our eyes the retina is backwards, which causes all sorts of unnecessary problems

On the grounds of what do you say that those problems are unnecessary?

 

[AlexG]

Why?
Can you substantiate your ideas?

Why? Because no design would include things deleterious to the organism.

As far as substantiating it, I already have.

 

[Balerion]

Again: The only way we can talk about any kind of defects is precisely in relation to particular standards or expectations.

Again, this is simply your illogical escape hatch from any point made against your argument. You demand an answer, and say this when one is given. So it comes to your ignorance of how evolution works, your ignorance of the flaws in ID, and your desire for their to be a skydaddy. I don't see the point of you continuing this conversation.

You're just trolling. Nothing more, nothing less.