Intelligent Design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2016, 04:28 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 04:09 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... so... where might the design be in life that isn't in the other complex natural things I've mentioned.
Oh, right. Sorry, forgot you mentioned things besides viruses.

Sedimentary rocks aren't very complicated. They're fairly uniform throughout, making a single part of it not very dissimilar from the rest. A cell, however, has numerous different components which all work together. Nuclei, mitochondria, golgi apparatus, etc.. Cells are EASILY more complicated than rocks. Stellar phenomena are more or less similar in that they're just really really big implementations of a single thing. Fusion is what drives stars and it only requires large amounts of (atomically light) matter in the same spot (which in turn creates heat, gravity, etc..). There's not a bunch of diversity in either case. Cells, however, have diversity in their design (please forgive the term) where many components serve different purposes. Cells are complicated in a way that isn't observed elsewhere in nature and cells are life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 04:37 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 04:15 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 04:09 AM)Banjo Wrote:  We do not know the true origin of life. There is nothing wrong with not knowing. There is however a great deal wrong with not knowing and pretending one does. As in religion and fairy tales.
You finally said something sensible. Good job.

I'm one up on you then.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
22-02-2016, 04:50 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
Didn't you specifically state in the other thread that you were not going to do this? Dodgy

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 04:59 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
All I did was ask for proof. None was provided.

Case closed. Black whatever lost.

Next!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 05:08 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 04:15 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 04:09 AM)Banjo Wrote:  We do not know the true origin of life. There is nothing wrong with not knowing. There is however a great deal wrong with not knowing and pretending one does. As in religion and fairy tales.
You finally said something sensible. Good job.

Hmm, wasn't it you who was bitching about someone else's "condescending tone"? Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
22-02-2016, 05:16 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(21-02-2016 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  For this forum, I'm defining "Intelligent Design" as the idea that life was originally either created or seeded on this planet by some intelligent source.

what your saying is just a fancy way of saying "god did it"

Quote:It is my stance that this is a valid possibility and shouldn't be discredited without proof.

that which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence and any argument otherwise is rendered null and void without objection
and how are we supposed to discredit something that has never had any credibility in the first place?

Quote:The evidence I claim supports this stance is the complexity of life forms as we know.

you have yet to explain why complexity requires a designer nor provide any methodology for finding out whether its true

Quote:The human brain is the most complex bit of "machinery" in the known universe, with man-made (intelligently designed) things only recently having any sort of comparable complexity.

again, why is humanity not being able to replicate it proof of a 'designer' ?

Quote:I realize this is far from a popular view in this forum, but I none-the-less hold it. I created this forum so people would have a place to tell me how stupid I am without junking up other forums.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ace's post
22-02-2016, 05:18 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 05:08 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 04:15 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  You finally said something sensible. Good job.

Hmm, wasn't it you who was bitching about someone else's "condescending tone"? Dodgy

He's a cunt. What can one expect?

Provides no evidence for his demands and fails to support his position.

One dumb mother fucker!

Next! Big Grin

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 05:22 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 02:18 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello. Smile

What I think you've failed to note, BlackEyedGhost, is that your initial opening post and subsequent messages are little more than opinion(s).

I and others have asked you to expand upon, or give hints to,

(a) What you actually mean by 'Intelligent design'.

As you seem to be bouncing between evolution and abiogenesis.

(b) Any sort of way/mechanism/idea/concept for how one might even begin to work out if something found in nature were 'designed' or not. Or, to put it another way. What you consider constitutes 'design' as it might appear should we come across such.

So far just saying "I think 'X' is really likely and that's as far as I'm going to talk about 'X'." is... pretty pointless.

I actually think the Harry Potter books are highly over rated and there have been other contemporary fantasy stories written by other artists which both explore far more interesting ideas within their fantasy, such as how the characters actually function, learn etc with such fantastic elements within their reality. (A lot of the books by 'Jeniffer Fallon' I would offer as an example)
Absolutely right, Harry potter is one of those rare occasions where the films are better than the books not by much but still better. JK Rowling is hugely overrated Imo, rather like the theory of intelligent designBig Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 06:13 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
(22-02-2016 04:28 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 04:09 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... so... where might the design be in life that isn't in the other complex natural things I've mentioned.
Oh, right. Sorry, forgot you mentioned things besides viruses.

Sedimentary rocks aren't very complicated. They're fairly uniform throughout, making a single part of it not very dissimilar from the rest. A cell, however, has numerous different components which all work together. Nuclei, mitochondria, golgi apparatus, etc.. Cells are EASILY more complicated than rocks. Stellar phenomena are more or less similar in that they're just really really big implementations of a single thing. Fusion is what drives stars and it only requires large amounts of (atomically light) matter in the same spot (which in turn creates heat, gravity, etc..). There's not a bunch of diversity in either case. Cells, however, have diversity in their design (please forgive the term) where many components serve different purposes. Cells are complicated in a way that isn't observed elsewhere in nature and cells are life.

You're simply saying complex=designed. It is not, cells do not have anything in them that requires an intelligent designer.

What does a cell with no intelligent design look like?

This is no different than someone pointing at a tree and saying goddidit.

Watch this:




Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
22-02-2016, 07:11 AM
RE: Intelligent Design
Wow, looks like I missed all the fun...

(21-02-2016 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  For this forum, I'm defining "Intelligent Design" as the idea that life was originally either created or seeded on this planet by some intelligent source.

You can define it any way you want for this thread but ID generally includes a lot more baggage than that.

Quote:It is my stance that this is a valid possibility and shouldn't be discredited without proof.

But that's not how logical arguments work. You can make up all sorts of wild, and even conflicting, scenarios and claim that they must be valid possibilities because they can't be disproven. Claiming it to be a valid possibility without any substance behind the claim is just a waste of time.

Quote:The evidence I claim supports this stance is the complexity of life forms as we know. The human brain is the most complex bit of "machinery" in the known universe, with man-made (intelligently designed) things only recently having any sort of comparable complexity.

Incredulity and ignorance are not good starting points for reasoning. As already noted in the thread this was a bad example because it isn't actually related to ID as you have defined it unless you are claiming that the life that was intentionally seeded here already had complex brains. If so, the evidence disputes that.

Quote:I realize this is far from a popular view in this forum, but I none-the-less hold it. I created this forum so people would have a place to tell me how stupid I am without junking up other forums.

I have no idea if you are stupid or not. From your frequent misuse of terms I infer a bit of dunning-kruger and from your positions I infer theistic indoctrination.

(21-02-2016 10:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(21-02-2016 09:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is to be rejected until you provide evidence for said intelligence.
I did provide evidence even if you attribute another possible explanation to it. And it shouldn't be outright rejected, we should just be skeptical, as with everything.

You have offered no evidence. You gave an argument from personal incredulity. Evidence would need to show that something that exists here could not have occurred naturally but could have been intentionally created. Without an actual reason to believe that intelligence was required it doesn't help to guess that it might have been involved.

(22-02-2016 02:08 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(21-02-2016 09:44 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Until the existence of some intelligent agency capable of performing this act is established, this is only a "valid possibility" in the same way that the existence of a wizard colony in the Alpha Centauri system is a valid possibility.
This is a good argument. Well done.

Yet you still hold that the idea that life originated on earth as the result of an intelligent agent is a valid possibility. Consider

(22-02-2016 02:23 AM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  
(21-02-2016 10:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, you didn't. You provided a non sequitur comment that offered no support to your original assertion, then claimed it was evidence.

The complexity of life is in no way evidence of intelligent design, or even of the possibility of it.

Not even a little.
Are you unable to understand how complexity could imply an intelligent source? If you look at words on a page, you think they're there because someone put them there rather than because someone spilled ink. Genetic code IS words in its own way. So, how is it that when we look at binary code we think it has an intelligent source, but when we look at the base-4 code in our genome we HAVE TO think it sprouted naturally?

We don't HAVE to think that, we have evidence to review that points to that conclusion. We've looked at the way the chemicals that make up DNA act and how they mutate over time. We've compared DNA across various organisms and identified mechanisms that drive change over time. We've figured out that given billions of years for evolution to occur there is no need to bring in an intelligent agent to explain what we see. The fine details may not be fully filled in but enough of the puzzle is solved to see the picture that it forms.

Proposing an intelligent agent offers nothing. While you could argue that it is possible in some vague, undefined way you can't reasonably claim it is a valid possibility and expect to be taken seriously.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: