Intelligent design not so intellignt.

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Wallet:



Please explain the bacterial flagellum, as being random [/B]

its all in the video by the cell biologist i posted. knowledge never hurts you. give it a try.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

Creationist bible thumpers have long sought to have schools stop teaching evolution and instead teach that the christian god made man just as described in the bible. having failed at that they changed tactics and tried to get schools to teach that the christian god "designed" humans just as they are today. so called intelligent design.
this paper points out some of the unintelligent design found in the human genome. if you believe intelligent design you have to ask yourself. why would a self described perfect god create a flawed product?

Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome
John C. Avise1
+ Author Affiliations

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697
Abstract
Intelligent design (ID)—the latest incarnation of religious creationism—posits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent. Yet, many complex biological traits are gratuitously complicated, function poorly, and debilitate their bearers. Furthermore, such dysfunctional traits abound not only in the phenotypes but inside the genomes of eukaryotic species. Here, I highlight several outlandish features of the human genome that defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent. These range from de novo mutational glitches that collectively kill or maim...

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but on the philosophic level who says death is bad? I mean, we think death is bad, but we could as well consider it no more than transformation, as some traditions do...

So, if death isn't (necessarily) bad, then those mutations do not support bad design.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Ricter:

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but on the philosophic level who says death is bad? I mean, we think death is bad, but we could as well consider it no more than transformation, as some traditions do...

So, if death isn't (necessarily) bad, then those mutations do not support bad design.

there are things worse than death. horrible genetic defects in newborn babies come to mind.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

there are things worse than death. horrible genetic defects in newborn babies come to mind.

Agreed, but still that's on an "earthly" level. From another pov, this is all just a vale of tears, our lives but brief sparks from an eternal fire. And that's kinda the point of religion, the transcendent feeling, and imagination.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from Wallet:


Even Dawkins stated that biology gave the appearance of design....... Hummm.......looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck except I don't believe in ducks so it must be something else.

If you've read any of his books, you'd know that he then goes on to prove why complex biology gives the appearance of design, but is in fact not design. Natural selection.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Ricter:

Agreed, but still that's on an "earthly" level. From another pov, this is all just a vale of tears, our lives but brief sparks from an eternal fire. And that's kinda the point of religion, the transcendent feeling, and imagination.

can you think of any reason a self described loving god would design suffering of newborn babies into his perfect design?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Free Thinker:

Intelligent design not so intellignt

Neither is your obsession with all things anti religious.
(My spell checker indicates you misspelled intelligent, genius)



BTW how many converts to, whatever you are, have you counted since your campaign to educate the uneducated began?

 

[Wallet]

Quote from Free Thinker:

its all in the video by the cell biologist i posted. knowledge never hurts you. give it a try.

Millers explanation of irreducible complexity is flawed imho. In all things we find ourselves digging deeper or smaller into the material of matter, when we look at the cell, now we realize the complexity of it's inner workings, Miller addresses this as breaking the flagellum into smaller but identifiable parts thus possibly proving evolution.

How ever when taking those parts to the next level we find our selves looking at the basic bio-building blocks being assembled. To me this is outside the possibility of chance

Again, the complexity of the body, at every level, all biology down to the most basic level/quantum, screams design.


An Atheist who disagrees with a Christian (?) who disagrees with Creationism.

Why I disagree with Ken Miller, by Massimo Pigliucci

http://www.scientificblogging.com/rationally_speaking/why_i_disagree_ken_miller

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

can you think of any reason a self described loving god would design suffering of newborn babies into his perfect design?

I'd have to consider that the designer's (if there is one) notion of loving might be far beyond what I think loving is, particularly since the designer appears to be working at a "divine" level, from my pov. Then I might have to consider the possibility that the suffering is, from that pov, neither ultimate or eternal and could well be akin to "ripping a bandage off". This "god" feeling is a feeling billions have, so it's not likely going away.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Lucrum:

Neither is your obsession with all things anti religious.
(My spell checker indicates you misspelled intelligent, genius)



BTW how many converts to, whatever you are, have you counted since your campaign to educate the uneducated began?

are you anti education?


"The masses have never thirsted after truth...Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim."
- Gustave Le Bon