Unintelligent Design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-01-2014, 01:27 PM (This post was last modified: 12-01-2014 01:30 PM by Baruch.)
RE: Unintelligent Design
Are bumble bees somewhat like Jihadists ? God should admire them for sacrifice !!!
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSgoDXgueHYNlH0X4H185V...FChphh1B9k]

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRix07zSvTzXvU-UtlsdSW...ralONxxf64]

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYe4J8q6TtEADAeUtOznM...mwhlaZntcw]

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
04-02-2014, 10:03 AM
RE: Unintelligent Design
Some fine points, to be sure. But honestly - Ass crack hair ..even general body hair has gotta be the most obvious example of stupid design. It preforms no function, impacts sanitary attempts and, in general, looks haggard.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Badagris's post
04-02-2014, 11:29 AM
RE: Unintelligent Design
(04-02-2014 10:03 AM)Badagris Wrote:  Some fine points, to be sure. But honestly - Ass crack hair ..even general body hair has gotta be the most obvious example of stupid design. It preforms no function, impacts sanitary attempts and, in general, looks haggard.

This is why the almighty gave us anal bleach.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 12:14 PM
RE: Unintelligent Design
(04-02-2014 11:29 AM)Cephalotus Wrote:  
(04-02-2014 10:03 AM)Badagris Wrote:  Some fine points, to be sure. But honestly - Ass crack hair ..even general body hair has gotta be the most obvious example of stupid design. It preforms no function, impacts sanitary attempts and, in general, looks haggard.

This is why the almighty gave us anal bleach.

[Image: 9c7.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-08-2014, 03:53 AM
RE: Unintelligent Design
(18-12-2013 01:25 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  A little thread for you to post your favorite examples of why evolution is obviously not the result of any intelligent design.

I'm saving my all-time favorite for later but will kick things off with Dawkin's example from The Greatest Show on Earth of the human eye:
  • Blood vessels overlying the retina
  • Blind spots
  • Floaties in the vitreous humour
  • Defects in the lens, cornea and overall shape of the eyeball
  • Many of which get removed by post-processing in your vision centers.
A system so badly put together that anybody designing it for an electronics company would be out looking for new employment so fast it'd make their head spin.


OK I think there's a logical fallacy here. The fact that some aspects of the system lack design is not proof that the system as existent has not been "designed".

I'll give you a concrete example - I'm an electronic design engineer, sometimes there will be some aspect of my circuit design that I failed to consider. Perhaps there's just some dumb inefficiency there, or perhaps in a certain situation, the circuit overheats and blows up or something.

The fact that it does so does not disprove the idea that the circuit as existent was "designed".

Repeating what I said on another thread, I think that ID may be more rationally refuted thusly:

Godel's incompleteness theorem proves mathematically that it's impossible to define a system in terms of itself. And yet, this is exactly what ID does, when looking to define proof of the "creator" in terms of the "created". In short - ID is a circular argument.

There's a big hazard here though for anyone debating against ID. The validity of any attempt to refute ID on it's own terms (e.g. debate the ID "evidence") falls foul of the exact same problem, e.g. the validity of any such refutation will be denied by Godel's incompleteness theorem.

Poor old Richard Dawkins! Godel's theorem puts his argument in the same bucket as the intelligent design argument ;P

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 11:34 PM
My personal Creatard stumpers:
Appendix
Wisdom Teeth
Coccyx
RLN(Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve)



Upon encountering an ID theorist, these examples always always always stop them right in their tracks, reverting them back to, "Well, you can't prove that,"(which I can) or, "You don't know God's plan," which can technically refute anything since the logic is absent from it Laughat .


A) Appendix:

This one ties in with wisdom teeth, so throw them out in a tandem fashion.

The appendix, now vestigial, used to have a purpose. It has reduced to a worm-like structure at the end of the cecum for its vestigiality because of the change in our diet. Our diet used to consist of much more plant matter, which contains cellulose. As you may know, we now do not digest cellulose at all. The appendix assisted in such digestion, but has now evolved to a blob of nothingness that is likely to inflame and cause you intense pain or even death. I will further this point in my next one.

B) Wisdom Teeth:

This one is very relatable, as not all people have had an appendectomy, but many know the troubles of wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth now don't fit in our jaw. Well, they do sometimes, but most of the time, they cause you intense amounts of pain and you have to go through a painful(and very expensive) procedure to get those little bastards taken out. Wisdom teeth used to aid in our rough diet of hard and tough cellulose, which had to be extra broken down to help digest the stuff in the first place. Well, as I have stated, we have changed our diet, and no longer need such large masseters, buccinators, as well as zygomatici, mandibles, and so on. They reduced in size for the lack of need for the heavy amount of chewing we used to do. But those little buggers stuck in there, and they sit in your mouth waiting to turn your day into a hell of a toothache. Now, if they argue that they did once have a purpose, they either A: have to concede that evolution exists(which it does, but they deny science anyways), or B: have to concede that Adam and Eve were not humans. Either way, they're screwed.

C) Coccyx:

This one really insults creationists, as they hate believing that they evolved from monkeys(actually a common ancestor shared between us, but whatever). The coccyx, as you might know if you have taken anatomy, is a tail like structure at the end of the sacrum. If you go back the human tree in archaeology, you see that coccyges(which is the plural of coccyx) used to resemble tails in former beings. That's right, we have remnants of tails. In some people, its actually very prominent. We are in the process of losing this structure, and muscles are gradually losing their attachment to it, and is recessing over time.

D) RLN:

This is one of my personal favorites, as it is very plain to see how DUMB this is.
Pro-tip, prefice your argument against an ID creationist with a question like this:
"If we are so intelligently designed, why does the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the one that controls our larynx, or voicebox, run from our brain, down our neck, through our chest, all the way to our heart, wrap around the aortic arch, and turn right back around to go straight back up, all the way to your larynx?" < Not one creationist can answer this. Consider
They stammer, coming up with some illogical face-saver like, "God did it, so you have no right to question it" or some bull. Facepalm
Now here's the kicker. This makes them furious. You start off by saying how evolution explains how we descended from an ancestor like a fish. You then let them picture a fish, or show them a picture even. You show them how the RLN in a fish can make a B-line from the brain to the gills, which are basically their equivalent of the voicebox, as that is what the correspondent nerve controls. The nerve goes through the heart because the gills are right there, no big deal. But then you explain how over time, as we grew necks, evolved from quadrupeds and bipeds, and gradually the nerve never sought the need to reroute, so it just stayed, and gradually lengthened to do what it did before, which was perfectly fine at the time, it became silly, redundant, and over 10x the length it needed to be. Then you close with this: "If that's intelligence, God is a dumbass." Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 06:05 AM
RE: Unintelligent Design
(16-08-2014 03:53 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I'll give you a concrete example - I'm an electronic design engineer, sometimes there will be some aspect of my circuit design that I failed to consider. Perhaps there's just some dumb inefficiency there, or perhaps in a certain situation, the circuit overheats and blows up or something.
The fact that it does so does not disprove the idea that the circuit as existent was "designed".

It depends on what you are trying to conclude. I'm not aware of anyone in the ID field who can honestly be said to be working from the evidence. They all seem to be trying to get to their particular conception of God. If God is a perfect designer, then imperfect design is a sign that he was not present as the designer. That said, many faulty design arguments come down to waste or impracticability. Perhaps an infinite god has no sense or care for waste, even if some design flaw yields failed units.

(16-08-2014 03:53 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Godel's incompleteness theorem proves mathematically that it's impossible to define a system in terms of itself. And yet, this is exactly what ID does, when looking to define proof of the "creator" in terms of the "created". In short - ID is a circular argument.

This seems overly abstract and complicated. The average apologist here is standing up ID as one of their many incomplete pillars in an argument for God. "Oh, so none of them may be convincing on their own", they will say, "but taken together all of these incomplete proofs should seem convincing".

The scientific argument against ID goes a little more simply, I think:
* Scientific hypotheses make unerringly accurate predictions within some definable context
* ID depending on how it is formulated either fails to make predictions or makes predictions that fail
* Therefore, ID fails as a scientific hypothesis.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 06:07 AM
RE: Unintelligent Design
(16-08-2014 03:53 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 01:25 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  A little thread for you to post your favorite examples of why evolution is obviously not the result of any intelligent design.

I'm saving my all-time favorite for later but will kick things off with Dawkin's example from The Greatest Show on Earth of the human eye:
  • Blood vessels overlying the retina
  • Blind spots
  • Floaties in the vitreous humour
  • Defects in the lens, cornea and overall shape of the eyeball
  • Many of which get removed by post-processing in your vision centers.
A system so badly put together that anybody designing it for an electronics company would be out looking for new employment so fast it'd make their head spin.


OK I think there's a logical fallacy here. The fact that some aspects of the system lack design is not proof that the system as existent has not been "designed".

I'll give you a concrete example - I'm an electronic design engineer, sometimes there will be some aspect of my circuit design that I failed to consider. Perhaps there's just some dumb inefficiency there, or perhaps in a certain situation, the circuit overheats and blows up or something.

The fact that it does so does not disprove the idea that the circuit as existent was "designed".

Repeating what I said on another thread, I think that ID may be more rationally refuted thusly:

Godel's incompleteness theorem proves mathematically that it's impossible to define a system in terms of itself. And yet, this is exactly what ID does, when looking to define proof of the "creator" in terms of the "created". In short - ID is a circular argument.

There's a big hazard here though for anyone debating against ID. The validity of any attempt to refute ID on it's own terms (e.g. debate the ID "evidence") falls foul of the exact same problem, e.g. the validity of any such refutation will be denied by Godel's incompleteness theorem.

Poor old Richard Dawkins! Godel's theorem puts his argument in the same bucket as the intelligent design argument ;P

Phil

You vastly over-interpret Gödel's incompleteness theorems. They are about formal systems.

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
17-08-2014, 08:19 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2014 08:25 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Unintelligent Design
“… The idea of perfect design is an illusion. Every species is imperfect in many ways. Kiwis have useless wings, whales have a vestigial pelvis, and our appendix is a nefarious organ”.… “If organisms were built from scratch by a designer – one who used biological building blocks of nerves, muscles, bone, and so on – they would not have created such imperfections. Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it is precisely what we expect from evolution.” (Coyne 2009 p81)

“One of nature’s worst designs is shown by the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals. Running from the brain to the larynx, this nerve helps us speak and swallow. The curious thing is that is much longer than it needs to be. Rather than taking a direct route the brain to larynx, a distance of about a foot in humans, the nerve runs down into our chest, loops around the aorta and a ligament derived from an artery, and travels back up to connect to larynx.” (Coyne 2009 p82)

Another good example of “bad engineering”would be the human eye. Rather than regurgitate a very lengthy explanation of how imperfect the design of the human eye is, I instead will provide a link to a video (Ref B) made by a world renowned specialist, Richard Dawkins, as well as a link to a written breakdown by Doctor Pitman. (Pitman 2008)

A different angle showing evolution or in this case almost a de-evolution, would be the cave fish that has eye stalks, nerve endings, but no eyeball. (Jeffery 2012)

I could post pages of examples showing “bad design” of many living organisms that would solidly refute the deliberate engineering concept. However, these should suffice.

To the educated, intellectual and rational person, the fact that the fossil record does not give any evidence in support of intelligent design or creationism, which posits that all species appeared suddenly and remain unchanged is of no surprise.

To me the biggest blow to creationism, besides the fact that the whole idea is fabricated and can be traced back to its inception, is a simple fact that scientifically we can disprove it in so many ways. The biggest being the fossil record does not reflect or support in any way all life appearing at one time on the earth.

For me the single biggest piece of evidence is transitional fossils such as Tiklaalik, or Archaeopteryx, which show major transitions from fish to amphibian and reptile to bird. This is of course very inconvenient to those who clutch a delusion in order to comprehend the real world around us.

For example; wings of an ostrich, the human appendix which was very important to our ancestors who primarily ate vegetation but is of no use to us, and the human coccyx. These are all vestigial traits which only makes sense to consider evolution as the cause. Another oddity is atavisms; an anomaly which appears to be the reoccurrence of an ancient ancestral trait. A human baby born with a tail, or a horse born with extra toes. They differ from vestigial traits because they rarely occur, rather than be present in every individual.

I found these examples personally fascinating, how interesting that even today we can see the rare appearance of ancient traits and human and animal species. If we were created, by some anthropocentric, Abrahamic based version of a God for example, why would we have these ancestral traits which reflect our mutation as a species from another species over a very long period of time. If we were created from a handful of dirt, or so the fairytale goes, why would we have the remnants of a tail inside of our body, and a fishlike circulatory system? Why would we have gill arch structures in our embryonic structure during our early development stages? Another one is how the male's gonads are located high in the chest cavity, like a fish during the early embryonic stages, then descends through a hole in the muscle wall at the bottom of the torso and dangles inside a sac of skin, making us for ever weak towards getting hernias....great design "god"

References:

Coyne, J. (2009) Why evolution is true. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Retrieved from http://youtu.be/Nwew5gHoh3E

Pitman, S. (2008) Retrieved from http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

Jeffery, W. To See or Not to See: Evolution of Eye Degeneration in Mexican Blind Cavefish. Retrieved from http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/4/531.long

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 10:36 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2014 11:18 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Unintelligent Design
A real deity could make life happen, no matter what the design. It would not need a finely designed system. ID is an example of "affirming the consequent" fallacy.
The premises are not valid, thus thus the conclusion could be false.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: