|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
We are not all created by God; none of us alive today or yesterday or last year or last month, last century, last millennium etc have been created by God; not even Noah. This then begs the question, in keeping with the OP, what then IS the Physical evidence that is consistent with a designer, Buz?
All others have procreated from Adam without God designing or creating each. Does this mean that currently there is no way to "see" design other than to accept on faith that one particular creation story is accurate? Does this mean that there is NO Physical evidence that is consistent with a designer? - Oni "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Same reaction as Coyote: all your talk of God and Adam and the sabbath and resting on the seventh day just convinces people that intelligent design is not science but religion.Advocates of intelligent design must cringe every time you post. One of your guys prodded me in #53 of this science thread above:
Rrhain writes: We're back to the question nobody ever answers! Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? I'm damned if I respond and damned if I don't. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
onifre writes: This then begs the question, in keeping with the OP, what then IS the Physical evidence that is consistent with a designer, Buz? All others have procreated from Adam without God designing or creating each. Does this mean that currently there is no way to "see" design other than to accept on faith that one particular creation story is accurate? 1. One time sudden design/creation of the species affords limited physical process evidences to cite. Therefor the evidence lies in the corroborative evidences archeological, historical, math probabilities pertaining to complexity, etc supportive to the Biblical record.
Does this mean that there is NO Physical evidence that is consistent with a designer? A lot of this has been reiterated in other threads corroborating the BR (Biblical record) and supportive to falsification of the secularist mainline non-ID science POV. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: I'm damned if I respond and damned if I don't. Only according to your god, not my God. This is central to the whole debate. Should all people on earth at the end of the barrel of a gun be forced to renounce science, democracy, and questioning authority. Should 'your' 'interpretation' of the Bible override all physics, chemistry, geology, biology, history, linguistics, and so on, in order to create the Christian version of Iran, where mullahs of your liking dictate all discourse or indeed even all fashion? Your designer, like your infallible author of the OT, whose rules are only applicable to others and not oneself, is simply an appeal to the psychological defect called Right Wing Authoritarianism.That is why you seem to curse any interpretation of the NT as being too 'soft' because of an apparent claim that Jesus was all about damnation and nothing about proper behavior. I feel we are not even reading the same book when you apparently state that the message of Jesus is solely one of hate and fear. As one who believes in a just God, a veteran, and a direct product of the enlightenment, I have no choice but to oppose all your misinterpreted, misogynistic, and provincial appeals to authority. I know you disagree but I hold the rest of the world should not be subject to your psychological aberrations. So to be more on topic, do you actually have a designer hypothesis that is superior in curing disease, superior in creating more food, or superior in basic understanding of the importance genes have in our subsequent behavior or conditions, as in Parkinson's, Sickle cell anemia or Tay-Sachs? I think not, but this is your opportunity to 'prove' me wrong. Edited by anglagard, : etrudition Edited by anglagard, : No reason given. Edited by anglagard, : a bit more clarity Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Buzsaw writes: One of your guys prodded me in #53 of this science thread above... That at a single mention of God you immediately drop into "preach" mode makes clear that what you're spouting is your religious beliefs. The degree to which your successful at restraining yourself from saying what you really believe does not fool anyone. To you the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible, just as it was to Behe at Dover. We're up to message 65, it's well past time to answer the question. What's the physical evidence for the intelligent designer? Please don't wast everyone's time and just make stuff up off the top of your head. If you don't have an answer, don't reply. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote: So close, and yet still nothing concrete. I understand the reticence: Nobody wants to go on the record because that would require living with the consequences of that claim. Please, Buzsaw, humor me. Say it directly. Do you claim that there are things that happen on their own or do you insist that god is required for everything? You can explicate your answer after you actually give your answer. You certainly are hinting that you are saying that there are things that can happen on their own, but I need you to say it directly and simply without embellishment. Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote: Not at all. If you respond, then we can have a discussion about the consequences of your claim. Otherwise, we are left to guess at what you're actually claiming and then you get to be disingenuous and whine, "I never said that!" That's why I need you to say it directly and simply. Go ahead and provide your justification of your answer, but you have to give your answer first. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The overwhelming and overpowering observation in biology is the nested hierarchy. This is an observation that is independent of evolution. In fact, it was first noticed by a creationist named Linnaeus before Darwin was ever born.
So if I were working backwards in order to describe the designer I would have no choice but to think that the designer (if it was a single designer) was suffering from a very serious case of amnesia. Why do I say this? Each change seen in the progression of life is completely uninformed by every other change out there. It's as if the designer is handed a species and asked to change in somehow. After doing so the designer's memory is wiped clean and the designer is handed a new species to modify. This is the ONLY way I can think of to explain the nested hierarchy as part of an intelligent design paradigm. To use specific examples, what was the designer thinking when the designer made bats and birds? Why not give bats some feathers? Why not give birds three middle ear bones so they could hear airborne vibrations a little better? Why not give birds teats so that they don't have to puke up food for their young? Why not give bats flow through lungs? Why not give birds the improved hemoglobin found in bats? Why are there two completely different and uninformed solutions to flight (not to mention flying fish, insects, gliding squirrels, etc.)? For a single designer, amnesia or Alzheimer's is the only explanation. The only other solution is a designer for each and every species, designers that are never allowed to talk to one another or share trade secrets.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray, Tag.
For a single designer, amnesia or Alzheimer's is the only explanation. I beg to differ. There is always another option Enjoy.
ps ... 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: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I beg to differ. There is always another option The bill of the platypus is a perfect example of what I am talking about. An examination of the skeletal structure of both the duck and platypus bill leaves one obvious question, WHY ARE THEY SO DIFFERENT? The outer morphology is pretty close, but the skeletal structure underneath is completely different. As with all mammals, the platypus has a single dentary bone (i.e. lower jaw bone), and this dentary bone actually can produced cusped molars (i.e. mammalian teeth). Compare this to the duck bill that has three bones, just as in dinosaurs. The upper maxilla is split to form the span in the front and top of the bill for the platypus, a ver mammalian feature. In the duck there is no split in the upper maxilla. The nares are placed very differently also. It's as if the designer completely forgot about designing the duck when the designer was asked to form a shovel-like jaw for the platypus. It is exactly what we would expect to find if a designer suffering from amnesia was asked to design a shovel-like jaw from the mammalian jaw even after that same designer made the duck. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hari Junior Member (Idle past 5519 days) Posts: 15 From: Harmandar Joined: |
I would like to discuss the Intelligent Designer who would be consistent with the physical evidence available 1. Evolution should not be discounted as a design option. A very effective way to develop robot control software is to have it learn from experience. 2. Everything about our world, from the lay of the land to the layout of the stars and our organs, kind of screams out that it evolved. 3. If the Intelligent Designer = God then He is timeless, unbowed by space-time, caring not a jot for the passing of 13.7 million years. So, for instance, God created a zillion universes with differing laws and starting conditions, and watched to see which ones evolved into something interesting, with beings in His own image. He chose this particular plan because we will never be able to prove that we and our universe were designed, and so can only believe in Him by faith alone - God likes faith. power=omnipotent - we can’t make universes yetintelligence>=competent - Darwin thought of it too benevolence=? - way complicated Does ID let God choose this intelligent design option, and if not, how come?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 446 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
My arguments for this position are (1) that a God with great power could learn how to engineer something as complex as a human body, but would not be able to make it absolutely perfect; Our definition of "perfect" and God's, may be two entirely different things.
(2) that God has all knowledge that is possible to have, but that “all knowledge” does not include the knowledge of how to do things that physics does not allow; Until all physics can be explained, then we don't know the answer to that.
(3) that God is benevolent because He allows us to appreciate beauty and good taste, etc., but often sacrifices benevolence for practicality (makes us feel pain; allows things to die because it maintains the balance of the ecosystem, etc.). Refer to the answer for #1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Taq writes: To use specific examples, what was the designer thinking when the designer made bats and birds? Why not give bats some feathers? Why not give birds three middle ear bones so they could hear airborne vibrations a little better? Why not give birds teats so that they don't have to puke up food for their young? Why not give bats flow through lungs? Why not give birds the improved hemoglobin found in bats? Why are there two completely different and uninformed solutions to flight (not to mention flying fish, insects, gliding squirrels, etc.)? there is a good reason why bats dont have the same functions as birds do bats are nocturnal mammals birds are not
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The only other solution is a designer for each and every species, designers that are never allowed to talk to one another or share trade secrets. It's even more insane than that. To explain the nested hierarchies, the designers must have been working in committees or with subcontractors. The vertebrate committee designed the basic vertebrate design, then broke up into the fish subcommittee, the reptile subcommittee, and the mammal subcommittee. The mammal subcommittee designed the basic mammal plan, then subcontracted out whales to one group, bats to another, primates to still another, and so on. The bat guys were intrigued by one of the reptile group's bird designs and so tried to make their own, but were constrained by the overall mammal design that they had to work with. I do agree, though, that common features do not imply a common designer -- the pattern of similarities seems to imply a nested hierarchy of committees of designers. Maybe that's what Genesis meant when God said, "let us make humans in our image?" Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes. -- M. Alan Kazlev
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
there is a good reason why bats dont have the same functions as birds do bats are nocturnal mammals birds are not Wow! You actually have an answer for these questions!! Amazing. Now could you give the answer? How do the difference in functions and the difference between nocturnal and diurnal produce the differences taq mentioned. If you don't connect them there is no answer.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024