Intelligent Design is not creationism

Entropy is measured against what, non entropy?

LOL...

The entire concept of random floats on the lake of design...

Randomness is assumed, not a fact in evidence...

Then an argument is made for random ignorant change fabricated out of an assumption of randomness being the basis of change, with a conclusion of randomness based on the previous assumption of randomness...

Classic circular argument.

That's why those who are plugged into this circular thinking are so reticent to examine the very first assumption...as it is the foundation for all that follows.

Pull one leg of a centipede, they all follow...


Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Nonsense.

Do you know what a temperature is? (hint: it's related to something called "entropy.")

If you don't, don't open your mouth.
More...
 
Quote from jack hershey:

See attached
More...

I had to read it twice to understand your thought stream.

I haven't investigated any recent peer reviewed science that finds that environmental stress effects germ cell DNA in any predictable manner. I don't discount the possibility, however.

Assuming you're correct, then living organisms are in some part their own intelligent designer. What you would have, then, would be a relatively unguided random evolution at the beginning, stressed by a much more hostile but also varied environment, relatively free of other organic competition. Then, as time progresses and life becomes more specialized and competitive, the environment becomes less of the channel for change, and the organisms more.

Probably some inversely proportionate ratio involved. In which case, randomness would become less important as evolution progresses.

And, at present, humans being the first lifeform (on this planet, anyway) that can substantially effect their environment, perhaps randomness will be relegated to a very minor participant in evolution (except, that statistically, whatever we do as humans, seems to fall along a normal distribution curve, so maybe randomness continues to prevail despite our best efforts to thwart its inexorable effect).

But, however interesting this proposition may be (and it certainly is interesting to me) none of this really addresses the argument in this thread, which is mainly, and typically for ET, an argument over the existence of an "extrinsic" vis-a-vis an "intrinsic" intelligent designer.

My position is still that there is no evidence for extrinsic intelligent design. As for intrinsic, I don't have enough background knowledge to discuss the possibility intelligently.

But, I'll have to investigate further. Thanks for your thoughts.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The entire concept of random floats on the lake of design...

Randomness is assumed, not a fact in evidence...
More...

Randomness is assumed in exactly the same manner as circles are assumed to be round -- via statistical measurement within stated limits.

Your belief that somehow this makes evolution equivalent to pulling a rabbit out of a hat is simply incorrect.

Q: Take a million randomly selected hats and reach inside -- how many rabbits will you find?

A: A statistically insignificant number, so small that it is less than one.

Q: Take one magician's hat and reach inside -- how many rabbits are inside?

A: As many as the magician wishes you to find.

You are attempting to show that evolution is the equivalent of a magic hat, when in fact, ID is the real hat trick.

If ID were real, the evidence would absolutely shout "here I am" from every corner of creation. But it doesn't. Instead, lifeforms are filled with junk DNA, retrovirus insertions, and all manner of bizarre and random nonnecessities.

Allow me to return you to the subject of a thread, long discarded:

The female human reproductive system totally sucks. No sane human designer would put together such an error prone system, for fear of being sued.

God, however, evidently enjoys administering women with designed-in sadistic torture, by making the woman's pelvic opening too small generally to fit a baby's head through comfortably.

And, then, of course there's PMS and all the wonders of the intelligently designed menstrual cycle. It all works so perfectly -- mood swings and all.

If that system was designed, then it was designed by the Marque De Sade.
 
If ID were real, the evidence would absolutely shout "here I am" from every corner of creation. But it doesn't. Instead, lifeforms are filled with junk DNA, retrovirus insertions, and all manner of bizarre and random nonnecessities.

Do you hear the frequencies a dog hears?

Does that mean that the high pitched noise isn't screaming, because you don't hear it?

Again, you make an argument from incompleteness and ignorance, that ignorance and random chance is the foundation of life.

Full on circular argument...

God, however, evidently enjoys administering women with designed-in sadistic torture, by making the woman's pelvic opening too small generally to fit a baby's head through comfortably.

And, then, of course there's PMS and all the wonders of the intelligently designed menstrual cycle. It all works so perfectly -- mood swings and all.

If that system was designed, then it was designed by the Marque De Sade.

There you go again. So you would know better than the intelligence that designed all of life as we know it. Created any life forms from non life lately? Created the perfect woman, have you?

I don't believe the unlimited universe could withstand the size of your ego...

Oh well, strike that, that was ad hominem.

Back to logic, unless you know the intelligence capable of creating life, know the reasons and design, how could you judge God? By your standards of reason? A creator of the universe must conform to your standards of reason? You know all that there is to know?

On the one hand you argue for non design, then say that the current design is flawed.

Now that is funny, really very very funny.



Quote from kjkent1:

Randomness is assumed in exactly the same manner as circles are assumed to be round -- via statistical measurement within stated limits.

Your belief that somehow this makes evolution equivalent to pulling a rabbit out of a hat is simply incorrect.

Q: Take a million randomly selected hats and reach inside -- how many rabbits will you find?

A: A statistically insignificant number, so small that it is less than one.

Q: Take one magician's hat and reach inside -- how many rabbits are inside?

A: As many as the magician wishes you to find.

You are attempting to show that evolution is the equivalent of a magic hat, when in fact, ID is the real hat trick.

If ID were real, the evidence would absolutely shout "here I am" from every corner of creation. But it doesn't. Instead, lifeforms are filled with junk DNA, retrovirus insertions, and all manner of bizarre and random nonnecessities.

Allow me to return you to the subject of a thread, long discarded:

The female human reproductive system totally sucks. No sane human designer would put together such an error prone system, for fear of being sued.

God, however, evidently enjoys administering women with designed-in sadistic torture, by making the woman's pelvic opening too small generally to fit a baby's head through comfortably.

And, then, of course there's PMS and all the wonders of the intelligently designed menstrual cycle. It all works so perfectly -- mood swings and all.

If that system was designed, then it was designed by the Marque De Sade.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

If ID were real, the evidence would absolutely shout "here I am" from every corner of creation. But it doesn't. Instead, lifeforms are filled with junk DNA, retrovirus insertions, and all manner of bizarre and random nonnecessities.

Do you hear the frequencies a dog hears?

Does that mean that the high pitched noise isn't screaming, because you don't hear it?

Again, you make an argument from incompleteness and ignorance, that ignorance and random chance is the foundation of life.

Full on circular argument...

God, however, evidently enjoys administering women with designed-in sadistic torture, by making the woman's pelvic opening too small generally to fit a baby's head through comfortably.

And, then, of course there's PMS and all the wonders of the intelligently designed menstrual cycle. It all works so perfectly -- mood swings and all.

If that system was designed, then it was designed by the Marque De Sade.

There you go again. So you would know better than the intelligence that designed all of life as we know it. Created any life forms from non life lately? Created the perfect woman, have you?

I don't believe the unlimited universe could withstand the size of your ego...

Oh well, strike that, that was ad hominem.

Back to logic, unless you know the intelligence capable of creating life, know the reasons and design, how could you judge God? By your standards of reason? A creator of the universe must conform to your standards of reason? You know all that there is to know?

On the one hand you argue for non design, then say that the current design is flawed.

Now that is funny, really very very funny.
More...

My post is directly on point, and the point is that the statistical and observed evidence overwhelmingly favors random evolution in preference to any intelligent thought process.

Furthermore, your intelligent designer doesn't appear very capable at avoiding problems in his designs.

Your response is the oldest saw of all -- the "no one can know the mind of god," argument, which is completely ridiculous, since neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate any evidence that a designer with a mind actually exists.

Do you really have to fall back on some fundamentalist doctrine that permits no one to challenge the deity's thought processes?

In a nutshell, your position remains steadfast obedience to Karl Popper's impractical philosophy, which is far too simplistic to deal with a universe where uncertainty requires statistical analysis.
 
Once again, argument from ignorance and assumption.

You are placing yourself in a position to evaluate a possible intelligence that would have designed life itself, programmed life itself, is maintaining and guiding life itself.....yet you don't have any clue at all how that could be even be possible, and then life has to meet your personal concept of order and fairness as if you know better how to create, maintain, and sustain all of life....all the while not knowing the entire story, plan or purpose of an intelligence who could create life and the universe, and all of this is because you have come to these conclusions by positioning yourself as a greater intelligence to evaluate such an intelligence that would be behind all the activity of life...

Reading your argument is a bit like watching a little child who complains that his parents aren't fair...

Here is an analogy:

A stranger from another country comes to the United States. He has never seen a sporting event.

He is taken to a football game, and watches a bunch of men gather together in a very orderly fashion (in the huddle) then line up in an orderly fashion, then he observes nothing but "random and chaotic" events (the play).

After the play, the players once again go back to their orderly huddles, then to the orderly formation, then to what he observes again as "random and chaotic" events....

The strangers sees people cheering and yelling, and thinks everyone is insane...

He spends the next several years in study of the men, and their lives outside of the game (but no study of football itself).

He goes to another football game several years later, and sees the same thing he saw the first time, and concludes that these people who play football, and those who watch it are insane...

Until you know the rules and strategies, the intelligence behind the game, it makes no sense to the ignorant observer...

Quote from kjkent1:

My post is directly on point, and the point is that the statistical and observed evidence overwhelmingly favors random evolution in preference to any intelligent thought process.

Furthermore, your intelligent designer doesn't appear very capable at avoiding problems in his designs.

Your response is the oldest saw of all -- the "no one can know the mind of god," argument, which is completely ridiculous, since neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate any evidence that a designer with a mind actually exists.

Do you really have to fall back on some fundamentalist doctrine that permits no one to challenge the deity's thought processes?

In a nutshell, your position remains steadfast obedience to Karl Popper's impractical philosophy, which is far too simplistic to deal with a universe where uncertainty requires statistical analysis.
More...
 
You took the bait, it was a joke rubber worm, and you thought it was real...

Sorry, it was too easy.

Anyway...

Heat exists, cold is the absence of heat.

Light exists, darkness is the absence of light.

Order exists, chaos is the absence of order.

Design exists, random is the absence of design.

The second law of thermodynamics, like gravity is constant and always working to do its job, and it is the genius of design to balance these forces with the nature of life to expand...

Life does not exist without the balance of these opposing forces...and if someone chooses to belief this amazing balancing act is just ignorant chance, that is certainly their right to do so...

Teaching it as a fact, that this is all random and accidental, doesn't belong on the public school systems though...



Quote from james_bond_3rd:

That seals it. Ignorance is bliss.

I nominate this for ET's quote of the year.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:


Order exists, chaos is the absence of order.

Design exists, random is the absence of design.
More...

Trying to cover up ignorance with more ignorance?

Do you know anything about chaos theory? Have you ever heard of "self-organization?" Do you know how order arises out of disorder spontaneously? (That is, without any outside influence).

Who designed the snow flakes? Who designed the pattern of bubbles boiling out of your spaghetti pot? Who designed the great Northeast blackout of 2003? Who designed the Black Monday of 1987?

What is common among all these examples? They're all patterns produced by pure accidents, "ignorant chance" in z10's words. Snowflakes are the best illustrations of "ignorant chance:" despite their perfect symmetries, not two snowflakes are alike! They are, however, well understood in terms of nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory.

Life, of course, is the mother of all accidents. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top