When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

Like I said in my very first post here, as long as it is designed by an intelligent something, it is intelligent design. That doesn't mean that it isn't stupid design however.Computer simulation quite clearly show that you don't need intelligence to get a very good design. If anything done on computers mean it requres intelligence, then gravity requires intelligene, volcanic eruptions require intelligence, earthquakes require intelligence, and a whole host of other things that we simulate on a computer.In short, "intelligent design" is an arbitrary label stuck on stuff by cdesign proponentsists, and until they can show how it is designed, it remains stupid too say "this was designed", simply becuase you think it is.

Hi ICANT,I didn't realize this thread was going to be closed. Last night I rigged together a simple evolution generator program. You can find it here: It is a much more accurate representation than Marshall's of what evolution is really like.I would appreciate feedback on the program, but I guess not in this thread. I'll start another thread.AbE: I started a thread for the Evolution Generator program over at Evolution Generator Program.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE

I had 5 minutes to post a quick closing comment before having to leave for work this morning. Please allow this part B to complete my closing comment.I still contend that evolution cannot account for a design that shows clear purpose and irreducible complexity.
Besides the flagellum on the cellular level, we see purpose and irreducible complexity throughout every system of the body.
I focused on the skeletal system in this thread but could have chosen among dozens of other examples to show the same truth.
The skeletal system is made up of 206 bones (208 if the sternum is considered as 3 bones). Every bone in the system connects together in perfect symmetry and obvious purpose to create the necessary framework to build the entire body upon,
Evolution claims to have no purpose therefore must account for every single bone in the skeletal system to have been part of something else and randomly came together by accident.
Trial and error cannot be the mechanism by which to account for the right bone to be in the right position nor all the joints to end up where they needed to be as well.To try something and then determine it is a failure or a success requires reasoning ability of which only an intelligent mind is capable of.Natural selection is incapable of determining how to structure the skeletal system.
None of you have given any valid evidence to support how the skeletal system could have evolved.I understand the argument based on the frailties and weaknesses we see in the human body. It does beg the question of "why" ? Yes God is more than capable of designing (and building I might add) perfection.
If you read the book of Revelations in the bible you will see it IS in His future plans.
As I have tried to explain before the reasons are profound but in a nutshell we are going through this bootcamp of pain and suffering to achieve an end result of growth that could only be reached by putting us on this path.
I'm sure any honest person will admit the most meaningful growth they have experienced in life came at the hands of pain and suffering.God wants us to learn to believe and trust in him by faith.
Its all about the faith.I wish God's best for each of you,
ICDESIGN

This statement is as equally useless as that of which you accuse Buzzsaw. there is nothing that is not designed, whether by properties affected upon directly or processess already set in motion by a designer. You on the other hand could give me no example of anything undesigned or demonstrate that it was not designedNow watch.The question of design is and always has been secondary to the question of the existence of God. If there is enough reasonable evidence to support a creators existence from standpoint of logic and reason (and there is ofcourse), then the question of design is really a moot pointDBEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And that is the basis for the disagreement right there.With your presupposition that everything is designed, you will see evidence of a designer in everything you look at. And the more obvious it is that a thing was not designed, the cleverer will be the designer you have to conjure up, in order to not contradict your presupposition that everything is designed.

{Hidden because is 2nd final comment - Adminnemooseus}DBEdited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

{Hidden because is 2nd final comment - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

{Hidden because is 2nd final comment - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

OK - as a closing comment:
The notion of irreducible complexity is one which has been thoroughly gone over. The example of the cilia (cf Behe) was refuted almost as soon as Behe produced it and I am surprised that creationists still raise it.
ID is, as anyone who has paid attention knows, a front for creationists. The history is clear and well documented, from the original concepts, put forward by the Discovery Institute, to the attempts at utilitising this newly defined 'subject' to infiltrate school curriculae (cf the Wedge Document and the Dover Case - below).
Wedge strategy - Wikipedia
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - WikipediaID is a thoroughly pseudo-scientific trojan horse and the notion that it offers a serious alternative to evolution exists only in the mind of creationists.

When does design become intelligent?1) To start with something has to be designed
2) An intelligent being must design it.That precludes such things as the Andromeda Galaxy, The Planet Jupiter, Mount Everest, a Sequoia Tree, A human Being, An Amoeba, A spirochete, An Oxygen Atom or a neutrino.That which is designed are all designed by humans, such things as
A Ferrari, A Moon Rocket, A PC, A digital camera or my daughters Thanksgiving Dinner (She has a degree in Culinary Arts).

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

You said you had no idea how it could happen and I gave you a way it could.You're just exposing your dishonesty at this point.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

And thus another topic ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.Adminnemooseus