Intelligent Design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2016, 01:09 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(23-02-2016 07:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  I rather doubt your honesty. Drinking Beverage
Why is that? Are you convinced I'm an evangelical who doesn't actually believe what I said about ID or something?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 01:11 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(23-02-2016 06:50 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Here is some context on the whole ID thing, we had a nasty troll Godexists on this forum.

Basically he ran an ID website and posted almost the entire content of his inane website on this forum through a series of posts, which eventually led to him getting banned. This crap pops it's ugly head up now and then, and it gets roundly criticized every time it does.

Here's one of the troll's threads:

All cellular functions are irreducibly complex.

ID died a legal death at the Kitzmiller vs, Dover trial, justifiably so, it's entered the pantheon of failed creationist arguments. Now it's down to being regurgitated by clueless/dishonest creationists pretending that it's some sort of science on internet forums.

ID'ers don't really think through the consequence of reducing their god to a mystical molecule mover. You see, if god is this mystical molecule mover, then it is creating diseases to destroy humankind and modifying theses diseases as we create vaccines to thwart this god. This god is actively engaged in biological warfare to wipe out life on Earth and we are fighting against it with medical science.

Come to think of it, I suppose that is consistent with a god that flooded the planet 4400 years ago. Laughat
I was actually unfamiliar with the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. Thanks for referencing it, it was interesting to read up on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(23-02-2016 01:09 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 07:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  I rather doubt your honesty. Drinking Beverage
Why is that? Are you convinced I'm an evangelical who doesn't actually believe what I said about ID or something?

I'm convinced that you presented the subject disingenuously. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-02-2016, 02:46 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
I listened to a guy do a 2 hour video about this subject. Like every such it had a fatal flaw. He said there is a message in our DNA and since every message has to have someone sending the message. He went on to say that there were 4 choices. Let's see how close I can come to remembering it all: #1 The message just got there, and he called that impossible, #2 Aliens did it, but then where did the aliens come from. #3 Sorry i don;t remember his #3 #4 God did it. I wrote to him and asked him how God was any different from any other alien which can be dismissed out of hand, and of course he didn't choose to attempt to answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 03:46 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 09:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 09:01 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  So what the heck is this?

God is a spider.





So where are the spiders?

If god evolved from spiders then why are there still spider monkeys?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
23-02-2016, 06:38 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(23-02-2016 01:09 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Why is that? Are you convinced I'm an evangelical who doesn't actually believe what I said about ID or something?

No. You simply didn't come across as entirely honest in regard to this matter. Some of that may be our preconceptions. Popping onto an atheist forum to discuss the merits of ID is much like wearing a "kick me" sign.

If it's honesty you want, then I'll give it a shot.

Yes, it's *possible* that humans, life and the universe are all intelligently designed. That something is not impossible does not make it either plausible, believable or in any way scientific. Have you been introduced to Russel's Teapot?

ID is dismissed for two very good reasons:

(1) It has been demonstrated to be the bastard child of fundamentalist religion whored out by creationists. In this incarnation it is little more than a morally bankrupt abuse of scripture and science both. My impression of you is that this isn't actually what you're interested in but this is how it originated. That's the bagage with which ID is laden so you need to be very careful in trying to strip it of that in your opening remarks if you want to discuss it in any other way.

(2) Design is typically easy to spot. You don't need a lot of hand-waving and nonsensical "what if" blather. If ID were real it would be shockingly simple to demonstrate and somebody would have gotten a very nice Nobel Prize or two out of it. All of this nonsense of inserting "god" anywhere science doesn't have a complete understanding that we've come to know and love as Irreductible Complexity is utterly unnecessary.

Design is typically easy to spot for two reasons, only one of which is ever adressed by proponents of ID:

(2a) Any competent design is both organized and purposeful. We're talking "competent" here because the only plausible designers are highly advanced aliens or deities. Incompetents need not apply.

Any good blueprint is neat, tidy, explains how to build the bridge properly, has sequentially numbered versions, a big "Final" stamped onto the last copy and the signatures of the guilty parties so we know who to blame when it all comes crashing down.

A well-designed item functions as advertised and does so efficiently and effectively. Based on this, certain natural phenomena look as if they might have been designed because the self-organizing systems can be exceptionally efficient too. This almost inevitably turns out to be explicable through a combination of imperfect understanding and the egocentric view-point that we're the reason for it all.

(2b) The often overlooked reason that design is easy to spot doesn't stem from what something is and does as much as from what it isn't and doesn't. An efficient design doesn't have extra fiddley bits. This is the reason that ID proponents never address because the instant you look at it the whole thing unravels. Looking at anything it's hard to miss the fact that it's pretty random and organic.

Take a pop can for example. Yes, I'm stealing shamelessly from Ray Comfort here. Sonofabitch deserves it. Assuming that we are an alien archeologist that has just discovered it amongst the still faintly glowing rubble of human society, what can we infer from its design?

It's obviously a container for liquids, and pretty thin ones at that. The opening's useless for solids or even thick liquids. Not a useful soup can. Equally useless for dispensing gasses unless you want them to randomly float around. Disposable, as demonstrated by the cheap materials and impossibility of closing it back up again. Light-weight container just the right size for an individual use.

Kindly observe the lack of mast, sails and rudder. Do you care how many gigaFLOPs of computing power or terrabytes of memory it has? Will you file a complaint that its optics do not adequately resolve distant planets? No. Because that would make it more expensive and less effective at being a pop can. Design is blindingly obvious by what it is not.

So just quickly:

The Universe: The 5% that you can interact with consists almost entirely of cold vacuum, hard radiation and super-heated H-He plasma. The other 95% is dark matter and dark energy. That's what it's all about. Either that or making light elements into heavier elements at a pace that drives the olympic champion paint watchers mad.

The Solar System: All about throwing rocks at things. Look at the moon or ask the dinosaurs. Still mostly cold vacuum, hard radiation and solar plasma. One of the bigger rocks might have a skin blemish but it's too early to say.

Life: All about making more DNA. Everything else decays but the DNA has been going for ~4 billion years non-stop. Get with the program and start fucking already. Seriously, the rabbits figured it out.

The Human Body: Talk to a woman who has just given birth about the intelligence of our design. We'll rate your success based on the number of stitches you'll need. From the pelvis-cracking head to the spine-shattering posture complete with an appendix that serves no function except to get infected and kill you horribly, the human body is a textbook example of an organic system with no design or forethought. Here's a decent list of the flaws. Google "Unintelligent Design" for more.

There is a joke that says that god must have been a civil engineer because nobody else would have run the sewer main through the recreation area.

The Genetic Code: 90% of this doesn't seem to do anything, though occasionally it does in really baffling ways. The 10% that does code for something is so randomly jumbled together as to defy sense. Care to guess which of these 23 chromosomes codes for your brain? All of them! It's like a salad recipe written by a corporate lawyer using a phone autocorrect that knew only excel formulas.

The genetic code is home to one of my favorite silver bullets for creationists, the ERV. Retroviri have a nasty habit of jumping in and out of your genome. Every now and then there's a mutation and one gets stuck. And very rarely one gets stuck in the germ line and passed on down the generations. They're genetic fossils. Useless, functionless insertions preserved for paleovirologists.

Not only do we share the overwhelming majority of our ERV with chimps, but they are in the same locations in the genome and have the same mutations. Similarity of ERV declines with progressively more distant relatives. You can build a phylogenic tree based on nothing more than these viral accidents.

So what sort of designers used copy-N-paste so mindlessly that we all just happen to have ERV that make it look like we're descended from common ancestors? If this was designed it was done so with the intent to make it look as if we were all related. Maybe the universe was designed to make creationists look stupid, but as epic trolls go that's a bit over the top.

DNA: Seriously? You want me to describe every aspect of several million species of orgamisms using just four letters? And the letters will keep changing if I don't keep the book locked away under just the right conditions? Who the fuck designed that?

So that's the quick-N-dirty of design, or lack thereof. I know, TL;DR.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 13 users Like Paleophyte's post
23-02-2016, 07:00 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(23-02-2016 06:38 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  So that's the quick-N-dirty of design, or lack thereof. I know, TL;DR.

Allow me.

TL;DR - intelligent design has no explanatory power whatsoever, and, in fact, only serves to raise more questions due to the glaring issues present in biological life forms (and, of course, the obvious question of where the designer came from).

Beyond this, it is only "possible" in the broadest, most meaningless sense - the same sense in which it is possible that the Death Star is real and George Lucas wrote Star Wars as the result of a prophetic vision, or that magic is real and we have simply failed to notice it thus far, or that there is an ancient and thriving civilization in Pluto's core.

Which is to say that it's not really possible at all.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
23-02-2016, 07:17 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(23-02-2016 06:38 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 01:09 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Why is that? Are you convinced I'm an evangelical who doesn't actually believe what I said about ID or something?

No. You simply didn't come across as entirely honest in regard to this matter. Some of that may be our preconceptions. Popping onto an atheist forum to discuss the merits of ID is much like wearing a "kick me" sign.

If it's honesty you want, then I'll give it a shot.

Yes, it's *possible* that humans, life and the universe are all intelligently designed. That something is not impossible does not make it either plausible, believable or in any way scientific. Have you been introduced to Russel's Teapot?

ID is dismissed for two very good reasons:

(1) It has been demonstrated to be the bastard child of fundamentalist religion whored out by creationists. In this incarnation it is little more than a morally bankrupt abuse of scripture and science both. My impression of you is that this isn't actually what you're interested in but this is how it originated. That's the bagage with which ID is laden so you need to be very careful in trying to strip it of that in your opening remarks if you want to discuss it in any other way.

(2) Design is typically easy to spot. You don't need a lot of hand-waving and nonsensical "what if" blather. If ID were real it would be shockingly simple to demonstrate and somebody would have gotten a very nice Nobel Prize or two out of it. All of this nonsense of inserting "god" anywhere science doesn't have a complete understanding that we've come to know and love as Irreductible Complexity is utterly unnecessary.

Design is typically easy to spot for two reasons, only one of which is ever adressed by proponents of ID:

(2a) Any competent design is both organized and purposeful. We're talking "competent" here because the only plausible designers are highly advanced aliens or deities. Incompetents need not apply.

Any good blueprint is neat, tidy, explains how to build the bridge properly, has sequentially numbered versions, a big "Final" stamped onto the last copy and the signatures of the guilty parties so we know who to blame when it all comes crashing down.

A well-designed item functions as advertised and does so efficiently and effectively. Based on this, certain natural phenomena look as if they might have been designed because the self-organizing systems can be exceptionally efficient too. This almost inevitably turns out to be explicable through a combination of imperfect understanding and the egocentric view-point that we're the reason for it all.

(2b) The often overlooked reason that design is easy to spot doesn't stem from what something is and does as much as from what it isn't and doesn't. An efficient design doesn't have extra fiddley bits. This is the reason that ID proponents never address because the instant you look at it the whole thing unravels. Looking at anything it's hard to miss the fact that it's pretty random and organic.

Take a pop can for example. Yes, I'm stealing shamelessly from Ray Comfort here. Sonofabitch deserves it. Assuming that we are an alien archeologist that has just discovered it amongst the still faintly glowing rubble of human society, what can we infer from its design?

It's obviously a container for liquids, and pretty thin ones at that. The opening's useless for solids or even thick liquids. Not a useful soup can. Equally useless for dispensing gasses unless you want them to randomly float around. Disposable, as demonstrated by the cheap materials and impossibility of closing it back up again. Light-weight container just the right size for an individual use.

Kindly observe the lack of mast, sails and rudder. Do you care how many gigaFLOPs of computing power or terrabytes of memory it has? Will you file a complaint that its optics do not adequately resolve distant planets? No. Because that would make it more expensive and less effective at being a pop can. Design is blindingly obvious by what it is not.

So just quickly:

The Universe: The 5% that you can interact with consists almost entirely of cold vacuum, hard radiation and super-heated H-He plasma. The other 95% is dark matter and dark energy. That's what it's all about. Either that or making light elements into heavier elements at a pace that drives the olympic champion paint watchers mad.

The Solar System: All about throwing rocks at things. Look at the moon or ask the dinosaurs. Still mostly cold vacuum, hard radiation and solar plasma. One of the bigger rocks might have a skin blemish but it's too early to say.

Life: All about making more DNA. Everything else decays but the DNA has been going for ~4 billion years non-stop. Get with the program and start fucking already. Seriously, the rabbits figured it out.

The Human Body: Talk to a woman who has just given birth about the intelligence of our design. We'll rate your success based on the number of stitches you'll need. From the pelvis-cracking head to the spine-shattering posture complete with an appendix that serves no function except to get infected and kill you horribly, the human body is a textbook example of an organic system with no design or forethought. Here's a decent list of the flaws. Google "Unintelligent Design" for more.

There is a joke that says that god must have been a civil engineer because nobody else would have run the sewer main through the recreation area.

The Genetic Code: 90% of this doesn't seem to do anything, though occasionally it does in really baffling ways. The 10% that does code for something is so randomly jumbled together as to defy sense. Care to guess which of these 23 chromosomes codes for your brain? All of them! It's like a salad recipe written by a corporate lawyer using a phone autocorrect that knew only excel formulas.

The genetic code is home to one of my favorite silver bullets for creationists, the ERV. Retroviri have a nasty habit of jumping in and out of your genome. Every now and then there's a mutation and one gets stuck. And very rarely one gets stuck in the germ line and passed on down the generations. They're genetic fossils. Useless, functionless insertions preserved for paleovirologists.

Not only do we share the overwhelming majority of our ERV with chimps, but they are in the same locations in the genome and have the same mutations. Similarity of ERV declines with progressively more distant relatives. You can build a phylogenic tree based on nothing more than these viral accidents.

So what sort of designers used copy-N-paste so mindlessly that we all just happen to have ERV that make it look like we're descended from common ancestors? If this was designed it was done so with the intent to make it look as if we were all related. Maybe the universe was designed to make creationists look stupid, but as epic trolls go that's a bit over the top.

DNA: Seriously? You want me to describe every aspect of several million species of orgamisms using just four letters? And the letters will keep changing if I don't keep the book locked away under just the right conditions? Who the fuck designed that?

So that's the quick-N-dirty of design, or lack thereof. I know, TL;DR.

That, sir, was inspired. Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
23-02-2016, 07:21 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
(23-02-2016 02:46 PM)DerFish Wrote:  I listened to a guy do a 2 hour video about this subject. Like every such it had a fatal flaw. He said there is a message in our DNA and since every message has to have someone sending the message. He went on to say that there were 4 choices. Let's see how close I can come to remembering it all: #1 The message just got there, and he called that impossible, #2 Aliens did it, but then where did the aliens come from. #3 Sorry i don;t remember his #3 #4 God did it. I wrote to him and asked him how God was any different from any other alien which can be dismissed out of hand, and of course he didn't choose to attempt to answer.

Lee Strobel, by any chance ? If so, that's par for the course. He's an expert on nothing ... and it's relatively easy to stump him with a question. He gets cranky, and won't answer.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 08:07 PM
RE: Intelligent Design
Paleophyte done fucked shit up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: