Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
jacortina
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 121 of 219 (530036)
10-11-2009 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Buzsaw
10-11-2009 11:27 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
I don't think it's fair to classify intelligent design with astrology. That's as illogical as classifying a Model T Ford with a 2009 Cadilac.
Well, Astrology DOES have a lot more going for it than ID does.
After all, it can tell a LOT about HOW it has to occur: not effective before birth; directional from certain solar system bodies; influences from different bodies being qualitatively distinct from one another; such influences combinatorial in that influences from different celestial bodies amplify, modify, nullify one another depending on positions relative to each other and relative to the background star field; and more.
Maybe someday the Model T Ford of ID will catch up and figure out how/when/where design is supposed to have been applied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 11:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 122 of 219 (530064)
10-12-2009 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Buzsaw
10-11-2009 11:27 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Good to par with you once again Buzzsaw
It is nice to debate with a rather intelligent though maybe misguided Creationist than some of the wackos we have had on here recently (yes, Smooth Operator and Calypsis4, I am talking about you).
Buzzsaw writes:
I don't think it's fair to classify intelligent design with astrology. That's as illogical as classifying a Model T Ford with a 2009 Cadilac.
Can you show me exactly how the "theory" of intelligent design has followed the scientific method and should be classified differently than other pseudoscience?

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 11:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 123 of 219 (530143)
10-12-2009 12:38 PM


The topic is Silly Design Theory vs Neo-Paleyinsm
Please keep this in mind. Or I'll have to ask for Moderation to keep on topic.
Thanks

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 219 (530144)
10-12-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Buzsaw
10-10-2009 8:28 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Hi Buzsaw,
Silly design = The designer effecting the pre-evolution abiogenesis of the first living organism on tiny planet earth after which he leaves it to design itself from there on from the mirey soup.
While that certainly does have some comedic aspect to it (akin to apes bashing rocks together to make fire), that is not all that Silly Design Theory covers.
One has to ask the "intelligent" purpose behind many designs when a simpler and more effective design would work, while the addition of baroque rococo features are less intelligent in purpose, and more just plain silly in aspect.
Silly Design is more like the "reality" shows where people are given a task with limited resources, while "intelligent" design would not be so limited but able to draw from the full spectrum of available bits and pieces.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2009 8:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 219 (530169)
10-12-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICdesign
10-10-2009 5:47 PM


Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Hi again ICDesign, I've just finished entertaining guests from Canada (happy turkey day canucks), and can get back to this.
With my opening statement I remind you that my answers are not derived of the Evolutionary point of view because I believe that view to be false. Rather they are from the perspective and my belief in an Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator. Whenever I make any reference to God I am referring to the God of the Holy Bible
OK, lets get started.
So you admit off the bat to confusing the conclusion of faith with the premises of Neo-Paleyism. The problem you end up with is begging the question and other logical fallacies.
Seeing as both Neo-Paleyism and Silly Design theory assume that the god/s in question are not known but may be determined by evaluation of the evidence, your assuming the HBGod is getting ahead of the proper evaluation of the evidence
For the purpose of this thread, let's see if you can stick to the facts and the evidence and then see if Neo-Paleyism or Silly Design Theory provide better explanations for the evidence.
If, at that time, you are able to show that Neo-Paleyism beats out Silly Design theory, then we can investigate what god/s may or may not be appropriate to consider from the evidence.
You are claiming our current eyesight is best explained by your ridiculous Silly Design Theory.
I was going to give a general overview of the basic function of how the amazing eye works but that is for a later topic when I prove with the evidence that it is completely impossible for the Theory of Evolution to have produced vision.
Once again, you are making a logically false argument that the theory of evolution has anything to do with the difference between Neo-Paleyism and Silly Design Theory.
In Message 12 We have such an "overview," provided by Michael Denton, which is refuted by 6 points showing that his ad hoc explanation for the inverted retina is false, and that this flipped sense organ is an unnecessary complication that does not add to the design, but ends up reducing the effectiveness of the human eye, and the only purpose served by such reduced ability is comedy.
quote:
No, the cosmic joke is that the eyes of humans are those of Mr Magoo compared to other species.

That's silly, eh?
You are saying that if there were an intelligent Creator he would have given us vision that combines Octopus eyes and human eyes so we would have microscope vision all the way to telescopic vision. Your saying in essence that if you were God that is the way you would have done it. Your not the first one to have this despicable type of arrogant attitude. You may have heard of Lucifer?
Sadly, this does not explain why human eyes are design the way they are, and I was not under the impression that "Lucifer" was responsible for the eye design for humans.
Do you know what a non-sequitur logical fallacy is? It's where you introduce information that is not related to the issue being debated.
Well, lets explore the question at hand. First of all, is God capable of giving us this type of bionic vision. Absolutely! He is the one who invented vision of every type including the octopus. ALL things are possible for my God. OK then why didn't He? Lets don't stop there. Why didn't He give us the ability to run 100 miles an hour all day long with a pit stop every few hundred miles? If He would have done that we wouldn't even need cars and there would be no pollution.
Why didn't He just give us wings? That would solve all kinds of problems. Why didn't He give us superhuman strength such as the same ratio of strength to size of an ant? He could have given us hearing and smelling like a dog, radar like a bat or dolphin, I could go on all day. Heck, if nothing is impossible why not close our eyes, think of a destination and poof, your instantly there? Do I think He is capable of even that? Yes, with ease. In fact our future bodies will be able to do just that.
Amusingly, this still fails to deal with the specific issue at hand: why isn't the eye in humans - or in any animal - designed to take advantage of a multiple focus design similar in effect to what humans have done with lenses in microscopes and telescopes and cameras and which obviously benefit our ability to see the real world.
Do you know what a red herring logical fallacy is, where you attempt to divert attention to a different topic?
Before I go on let me point out some problems with your proposed bionic vision and why IT would be a Silly Design. I don't know about you but I don't care to see with microscopic vision, Yuck, talk about your flesh crawling. It would drive us nuts to see all the activity of the microscopic world going on around us. Ignorance is bliss in some instances.
Do you really want to see what your breathing in? How would this huge spectrum fit into every day living?
So your argument is that the human eye is intelligent design because it allows us to remain in ignorance for thousands of years about how much the world is populated by microorganisms that cause all kinds of diseases?
ie - Neo-Paleyism is demonstrated to be design to intentionally keep people ignorant of reality?
Interesting thesis, but it sounds much more like Silly Design to me, with people blundering around in ignorance just like Mr Magoo above.
We (this includes you) are unable to see the big picture of the plan of God. Our experience here on earth has a plan and a purpose that requires a process that we must go through that includes such things as developing ingenuity.
Curiously, this still has nothing to do with the design of the eye and why the simple elements in the octopus eye and the mammalian eye are not combined in any known animal.
Amusingly, this would again be more of an argument for Silly Design than for Neo-Paleyism and design with an intelligent purpose that can be discerned from the evidence.
Just to control the focus would be a huge engineering feat. A simple sneeze could be a scary experience.
And here we have the argument from ignorance and incredulity. Fascinatingly your opinion is unable to control reality in any way. We currently have the necessary elements to control the focus in each of the existing systems, and interestingly neither of them are affected by sneezing or even sudden movements of the head.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely know God could have easily given us this capability that would far exceed the work they are currently doing in that field. I'm just making the point that it would be a feature of extreme proportions.
You have a delicate little butterfly and you have an elephant. There is a huge and spectacular variety of life on His (not our) planet with a huge array of abilities as well as limitations.
His intention was not to create a super bionic human. If it was then He would have done just that. He gave us basic features to comfortably encounter our immediate surroundings. We see what we need to see with a reasonable range, hear what we need to hear with a reasonable range, so on and so-forth. Up till recently, if we wanted to go further and faster, He gave us a horse to hop on.
We (this includes you) are unable to see the big picture of the plan of God. Our experience here on earth has a plan and a purpose that requires a process that we must go through that includes such things as developing ingenuity.
And still we have no explanation of why this feature does not exist OR why it would be a bad design. All we have is apologetics and using the god-card to trump the inability to explain the lack of good design.
If you want to see far away, go get a telescope.
Want to see the other direction, go get a microscope.
In other words, use instruments created with known intelligent design by humans as means of observing reality as it exists, rather than using human eyesight and remain in ignorance?
Many things have to be developed to achieve the goals for the end purpose. This is one reason He designed our bodies with the ability to experience pain. Why? In a nutshell, no pain no gain. If you think about it, it would have been much easier to leave out all the pain sensors.
There is a grand design and God knows exactly what He is doing. After it is all said and done, those who have put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ will live in a perfect world with no more pain, no more suffering, no more crime, no more aging and no more death.
This isn't the time to address the whole free-will issue but I can tell you that most of your why questions as to the problems in the world are connected to free-will and God's judgement resulting with a tempory curse.
I think I have given a good explanation to your challenge so I will end here.
So to summarize your argument, the evidence of the design of the human eye shows intelligent design because:
  • it allows us to remain in ignorance of the real world, and
  • god/s (HBGod) could have done better.
That's a pretty silly argument. In fact what you have provided is a better example of Silly Design Theory, than of Neo-Paleyism, because you have failed to demonstrate how the design of the human eye shows an intelligent purpose rather than a silly purpose. Of course to see that this is so, you will need to open your eyes eh?
So far you have failed to make an argument that Neo-Paley "intelligent" design is a better explanation of the evidence than Silly Design Theory.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICdesign, posted 10-10-2009 5:47 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 9:04 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 132 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 9:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 126 of 219 (530174)
10-12-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Buzsaw
10-10-2009 8:28 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Silly design = The designer effecting the pre-evolution abiogenesis of the first living organism on tiny planet earth after which he leaves it to design itself from there on from the mirey soup.
YOU GOT IT! ....
...if you hold certain sorts of Deist views.
Actually this Silly Design Institute is appalling, so to speak.
the Designer just made the subatomic coefficients work out that way...auh ay..ee ay.
Good to see you might be catching on!

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2009 8:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 10-12-2009 8:27 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 219 (530262)
10-12-2009 8:06 PM


Coyote and Magdna:
1. Behe is not spokes-guru of ID or of astrology. He's just one scientist who expressed an opinion based on nothing imperical.
2. Of course you evolutionists are just as biased in your opinions as you think ID proponents are. You people have managed to narrow the definition of science to exclude any minority POV. You have the media, the academic and the establishment bully pulpit from which you can dictate evolutionism POV.
3. From a fair and balanced source, Merriam Webster, the following is the definition of science ID theory study can be regarded as a science, interpreting observable design complexity of what exists relative to laws of science, probabilities, archeology etc. Imo, astrology falls short of this in comparison whether or not a man or a court has a different opinion.
Notice the testing via scientific methodology is 3rd down from the first general definition of science.
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
Having said the above, I am aware of EvC's position on science but when you say ID is in no way science, that is just false, unfair and unbalanced.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 8:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 128 of 219 (530268)
10-12-2009 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Buzsaw
10-12-2009 8:06 PM


topic please
Hi Buz,
2. Of course you evolutionists are ...
... just as off-topic about the difference between Silly Design Theory and Neo-Paleyism.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Buzsaw, posted 10-12-2009 8:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 219 (530270)
10-12-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by xongsmith
10-12-2009 3:57 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
xongsmith writes:
the Designer just made the subatomic coefficients work out that way...auh ay..ee ay.
Hi Xong. ID science observes things relative to life, archeology, etc, studies possibilities, probabilities, etc and applies them to applicable science laws to arrive at conclusions.
Imo, subatomic coefficients, relativity, QM, etc could be compared to abstract forms of obscure modern art, i.e. (abe:silly design)
Edited by Buzsaw, : add phrase

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by xongsmith, posted 10-12-2009 3:57 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Blzebub, posted 10-12-2009 8:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 130 of 219 (530279)
10-12-2009 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
10-12-2009 8:27 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
"ID science" -- oxymoron. ID is faith-based, not evidence-based.
Behe placed ID alongside astrology in his definition of scientific theory!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 10-12-2009 8:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 9:39 PM Blzebub has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 131 of 219 (530284)
10-12-2009 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
10-12-2009 3:14 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Well hi there RAZD dude. Hey, the drum is still rolling and we're all still waiting for your technical definition of intelligent design. If its too far above your head just let me know and I will be glad to help you out with that too.
I am also waiting for you to take that little quiz that I myself designed just for you. I'll tell you what. Sense the adult version was too tough for you I will reduce it down to the child version just for you: In a pitch black room where you are also blind-folded you now have a Silly Mini-Widget broken down into just 3 pieces. You have a small pile of nuts and bolts that are of different sizes just as the holes of the Widget are not all the same diameter. You also have a small pile of tools needed for the job. How long would it take the brilliant RAZD with his big 3 degree's in design to figure out how to assemble the Sily Mini-Widget? Also please explainn the process you use to figure it out.
I put myself out there to answer YOUR challenge now lets see you step up to the plate with the two above issues.
IC
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 3:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 9:57 PM ICdesign has replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 132 of 219 (530287)
10-12-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
10-12-2009 3:14 PM


Re: Round 5: Neo-Paleyism still FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
RAZD writes:
..it allows us to remain in ignorance of the real world
If you still don't get it after I clearly explained it to you in message #110 then I certainly agree that your statement explains your problem.
IC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 3:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 133 of 219 (530288)
10-12-2009 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICdesign
10-10-2009 5:47 PM


Re: Round 2: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
ICDESIGN,
Your post (no.110) is nothing more than a "credo". You believe, but you have no evidence on which to base your belief other than an old book containing the creation mythology of some Bronze-Age Middle-Eastern desert dwellers.
This is not science. You might as well believe that the Harry Potter stories are factually true. Or that the Sun rotates around the Earth - observational data of the kind you provide supports both of these beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICdesign, posted 10-10-2009 5:47 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ICdesign, posted 10-12-2009 9:37 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 134 of 219 (530294)
10-12-2009 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Blzebub
10-12-2009 9:16 PM


Re: Round 2: Neo-Paleyism FAILS to explain all the evidence: Silly Design does.
Blzebub writes:
you believe but you have no evidence
I have an entire world of evidence. ..And yes I DO believe!
Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Blzebub, posted 10-12-2009 9:16 PM Blzebub has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 135 of 219 (530296)
10-12-2009 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Blzebub
10-12-2009 8:48 PM


topic please.
Hi Blzebub, and welcome to the fray.
"ID science" -- oxymoron. ID is faith-based, not evidence-based.
Behe placed ID alongside astrology in his definition of scientific theory!
Unfortunately this is off-topic on this thread. One of the reasons for different threads is to focus on different topics, rather than just going around spouting opinions.
You might want to post yours on The Significance of the Dover Decision rather than encourage more and more off-topic posts on this thread.
Message 133
Your post (no.110) is nothing more than a "credo". You believe, but you have no evidence on which to base your belief other than an old book containing the creation mythology of some Bronze-Age Middle-Eastern desert dwellers.
This is not science. You might as well believe that the Harry Potter stories are factually true. Or that the Sun rotates around the Earth - observational data of the kind you provide supports both of these beliefs.
Which, sadly, is also off-topic. If you are ever in doubt about the topic you can always read Message 1 on any thread.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Blzebub, posted 10-12-2009 8:48 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Blzebub, posted 10-13-2009 2:25 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024