Intelligent Design is not creationism

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Okay boys and girls, put on your thinking caps and see if you can see why this statement is flawed, and does nothing to counter the concept of Design.

Need some more time?

Okay, so you can't figure it out.

Design means design, nothing more.

Okay boys and girls, put on your thinking caps and see if you can see why this statement is flawed.

Need some more time?

Okay, so you can't figure it out.

Hmmm, let's see. The earth was designed? Oh, that's interesting. It was designed but.... there is no designer. Ah, right. That makes sense. That represents a logical thought process. It was designed... by... nothing. No one. So some action was taken by... nothing. No one. A result (the designing of life) was produced by... nothing. No one.

It was vetoed by the president. It was hit by the home-run king. It was posted by the Disgusting Troll, which was banned by Baron. It was manufactured by the Chinese. It was climbed by a Sherpa. It was traded by Soros. It was invaded by Ghengis Khan. It was orbited by John Glenn.

But it was designed by.... nothing. No one.

Is it not amazing that the believers are willing to throw their beliefs into the toilet and disavow them simply to win a debating point on an anonymous internet forum?

Q: Disgusting Troll, Thrice Banned Liar, Evader of Adult Responsibilities, Alcoholic Relapser, please tell us... what, in your view, is the origin of life on earth?

Troll: Magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality.

Ah yes... design means designed, nothing more. And Magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Member of the Anti-Troll League

iustus ignarus troll

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

When you do actually look, things don't "look like" they are intelligently designed.

Tell that to your buddy Richard Dawkins. He says:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

He also says:

If you want to understand life, don't think about vibrant, throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology.

Bruce Alberts, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, once proposed that biologists should think more like engineers and in an article entitled, The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines, he says:

The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . .Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts . .

Paul Davies, in his book The Fifth Miracle says:

Human achievements of microengineering are breathtaking in their implications, but we should not lose sight of the fact that nature got there first. The world is already full of nanomachines: they are called living cells. Each cell is packed with tiny structures that might have come straight from an engineer's manual. Miniscule tweezers, scissors, pumps, motors, levers, valves, pipes, chains, and even vehicles abound. But of course the cell is more than just a bag of gadgets. The various components fit together to form a smoothly functioning whole, like an elaborate factory production line.

This sure looks like design to me.

 

[jem]

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu wrote:


Tell that to your buddy Richard Dawkins. He says:



He also says:



Bruce Alberts, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, once proposed that biologists should think more like engineers and in an article entitled, The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines, he says:



Paul Davies, in his book The Fifth Miracle says:



This sure looks like design to me.

please don't confuse atheists with words from top scientists it will cause them to examine their faith.

 

[I am...]

Quote from traderNik:

But it was designed by.... nothing. No one.

Think of it this way...

Reality had to be denied to achieve what seems now to be designed. If only reality is real, there must not really be a design. But while you believe there is, you give it power.



To restore your awareness of reality, you deny the alternative design.

This is the proper use of denial.

This will restore power to your awareness.

As power is restored, it becomes easier to renounce the world and make it meaningless.

When fully restored, the world you've denied will no longer been seen.

It will be laughed away and forgotten.

At first, it feels odd to deny what's in front of your face.

But the power of heaven will meet you to replace it with something better, until you are home again.

Jesus

 

[2cents]

just went to the Chicago Field Museum http://www.fieldmuseum.org/ ... pretty good place you guys got there! looked well designed to me

only thing, they didn't seem to have any herbertsmithite sample http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/NSart-wen.html ... but no big deal, its just fun to think that we are about to design matter itself on a much bigger scale... long live the alchemists!

 

[2cents]

other interesting stuff for the lost souls on this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

 

[2cents]

closer to home perhaps, we are about to understand how our sun and our solar system self-arranged itself http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Has_SOHO_Ended_A_30_Year_Quest_For_Solar_Ripples_999.html ...

we even know where the alien atoms are coming from, beware Ophiuchus, we know where u live...
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=30956 scroll down

and we are about to go there and look for designers http://www.adastrarocket.com/AdAstraPressRelease013007.pdf
http://www.physorg.com/news10605.html


stay tuned!

 

[Teleologist]

The vertebrate eye does not have a compromised design

by David Tyler


Glial cells have been known to neuroscientists for over a century and they perform numerous essential functions. Now we can add another. In the vertebrate eye, there are "radial glial cells spanning the entire retinal thickness" known as Muller cells. Shaped like an extended funnel, they are "oriented along the direction of light propagation". These cells "provide a low-scattering passage for light from the retinal surface to the photoreceptor cells", thus acting as optical fibres. Their function is to "mediate the image transfer through the vertebrate retina with minimal distortion and low loss".

For years, we have been told by "blind watchmaker" Darwinians that the eye is an example of bad design because light has to pass through the retina to reach the photoreceptor cells. These folk insist that a good Designer wouldn't have wired our retinas the "wrong" way. The response from those who advocate design has been to show that the eye is an example of optimum design: there are good reasons that can be advanced for having an inverted retina. This approach has satisfied many but certainly not all. The "bad design" claim is still widespread.

This new paper has finally nailed the argument: by revealing yet another level of exquisite design. The authors modestly say: "This finding elucidates a fundamental feature of the inverted retina as an optical system". They describe the Muller cells as "ingeniously designed light collectors". ScienceNow says: "For an organ that delivers such crystal-clear images, the eye is curiously designed. Its light-sensing rods and cones lie hidden behind a blanket of nerve cells that carry visual information to the brain. So what prevents those neurons from obscuring our vision? The answer may be surprisingly high-tech."

So, in addition to optimal design arguments, we can now appreciate how these distinctive cells address completely the main perception of compromised design. One of the authors is quoted as saying: "Nature is so clever". Surely, it has to be myopic not to discern here the hallmarks of an intelligent designer. This is argument from evidence par excellence!

Muller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina
Kristian Franze, Jens Grosche, Serguei N. Skatchkov, Stefan Schinkinger, Christian Foja, Detlev Schild, Ortrud Uckermann, Kort Travis, Andreas Reichenbach, and Jochen Guck.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0611180104
Published online before print May 7, 2007

Abstract: Although biological cells are mostly transparent, they are phase objects that differ in shape and refractive index. Any image that is projected through layers of randomly oriented cells will normally be distorted by refraction, reflection, and scattering. Counterintuitively, the retina of the vertebrate eye is inverted with respect to its optical function and light must pass through several tissue layers before reaching the light-detecting photoreceptor cells. Here we report on the specific optical properties of glial cells present in the retina, which might contribute to optimize this apparently unfavorable situation. We investigated intact retinal tissue and individual Muller cells, which are radial glial cells spanning the entire retinal thickness. Muller cells have an extended funnel shape, a higher refractive index than their surrounding tissue, and are oriented along the direction of light propagation. Transmission and reflection confocal microscopy of retinal tissue in vitro and in vivo showed that these cells provide a low-scattering passage for light from the retinal surface to the photoreceptor cells. Using a modified dual-beam laser trap we could also demonstrate that individual Muller cells act as optical fibers. Furthermore, their parallel array in the retina is reminiscent of fiberoptic plates used for low-distortion image transfer. Thus, Muller cells seem to mediate the image transfer through the vertebrate retina with minimal distortion and low loss. This finding elucidates a fundamental feature of the inverted retina as an optical system and ascribes a new function to glial cells.

 

[stu]

..... another c&p essay that "looks like" it might do the job

Quote from Teleologist:

we have been told [.... ] the eye is an example of bad design because light has to pass through the retina to reach the photoreceptor cells
[...]
This new paper has finally nailed the argument: by revealing yet another level of exquisite design.
[.....]
The authors modestly say: "This finding elucidates a fundamental feature of the inverted retina as an optical system".

ok, come on,, show the evidence in this so called new paper...just purporting more " exquisite design." does not disclaim "bad design"

Quote from Teleologist:

They describe the Muller cells as "ingeniously designed light collectors".

yes, yes, they would most likely describe cancer as the "ingeniously designed failure of the ingeniously designed cell ".

where is the peer reviewed scientific new paper which disclaims the eye is not all that well "designed"...
..

Quote from Teleologist:

"The answer may be surprisingly high-tech."

So that's it !!?? There isn't any new paper . It's just David Tyler saying the answer to why the eye isn't a poor design may be "high tech" !!


Nothing but more and more misdirection. Another article pretending to be scientific, full of big scientific description without any scientific substance in an argument whatsoever.. Pure unadulterated ID rhetoric.


....and all that to make just one main assertion ......
"Nature is so clever". Surely, it has to be myopic not to discern here the hallmarks of an intelligent designer."

The sheer irony of it! . To support an argument of 'exquisite intelligent design' , a creationist confirms the hallmarks of bad eye "design" . Myopia. .
ID is obviously the art of making ridiculous argument by trying to sound intelligent.

ID is creationism
Worse still.
It is dishonest creationism.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Nobody would make these kinds of "poor design" arguments about a mud puddle since it doesn't seem designed in the first place.

Which has now utterly destroyed your argument for teleology.

With all its intricate components ,compounds , particles, minerals and elements , with the molecular complexity of water, the mud puddle doesn't "seem designed in the first place". Here is something complex which a teleologist declares has no teleology.

So too then, along with those very same particles components and molecules, is another complex "design" which is the Universe.. Now teleologist / creationist shows how , the Universe too looks like it , " doesn't seem designed in the first place"..

Quote from Teleologist:
Dysteleology arguments assume what they are trying to disprove. Nobody would make these kinds of "poor design" arguments about a mud puddle since it doesn't seem designed in the first place. Something has to have been made for a purpose before it makes any sense to look at it and declare that it coulda/shoulda been done better. It opens up the question to the theist about why God doesn't ensure that everything in the world meets some standard of perfection but it's a contradictory argument against teleology. Also, since it's explicitly a philosophical argument against theism, it's inconsistent for someone to use it, while at the same time insisting that the evidence can say nothing about the supernatural, and that they aren't arguing for philosophical naturalism.