Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 30 of 352 (478187)
08-12-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
08-12-2008 5:19 PM


Re: How I See It
The former argument, the argument from perfection, loses just from sheer incompatibility with the real world. More than 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, and no current species is perfectly adapted to its environment - so much for perfection.
I am not disagreeing with your entire post but wouldn't this suggest that the enviroment was imperfect, and not the species that is doing everything it can to adapt/survive?
LIFE has not become extict...if we are all the descendants of those past species then we are all connected, as long as ONE species survives LIFE continues. The species tries to survive, some make it, some don't, but LIFE continues. Seems like a perfect system.
Anyone pushing the argument for perfection has to immediately begin qualifying their definition of perfection, usually in theological and religious ways having nothing to do with science.
But scientifically organisms are perfect in the sense that they can adapt. Maybe the definition of 'perfection' needs to be redefined when we discuss natural phenomenons. Im NOT an ID supporter but if you made a design wouldn't you make the design adaptable to all kinds of different conditions? That to me would seem to be a perfect creation, one that can reconfigure its body structure(granted over a long period of time), to adapt to new conditions for the sole benefit of survival.
So I would say that individual species are NOT perfect when seen independently of the system, but when viewing the LIFE system as a whole, the fact that there is still life, and intelligent life, seems to indicate that it is perfect, if not we'd be dead.
The OP is in regards to the hands-on Diety that designed us to specifics, in that respect I agree that it is a poor design. But lets also note the fact that if such a Designer simply had the desire for LIFE to survive then He/She nailed it.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 08-12-2008 5:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 08-12-2008 7:51 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 54 of 352 (478290)
08-13-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
08-12-2008 7:51 PM


Re: How I See It
I wouldn't call it perfect, but if designed it's one damn fine one.
Why wouldn't you call it perfect?
IMO, the fact that it DOESN'T require design nor a Designer makes it perfect.
An imperfect system would almost require guildance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 08-12-2008 7:51 PM Percy has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 91 of 352 (478389)
08-14-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Agobot
08-14-2008 6:06 PM


Although non-existant, god is good vent for my anger at the injustice, suffering and death of innocent living creatures(human or animals).
It seems like you are insane
You place all of the blame for human and animal suffering on something that you claim is non-existant?
You're right, thats the perfect way to solve injustice, suffering and death of the innocent...by blaming that which is non-existant!
Were you working in Bush's cabinet when WMD's were blamed for the Iraq invasion?
How bout we don't blame, nor reward, non-existant things, that way we can keep them non-existant and irrelevant?
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Agobot, posted 08-14-2008 6:06 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Agobot, posted 08-15-2008 10:20 AM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 196 of 352 (506594)
04-27-2009 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Theodoric
04-27-2009 4:50 PM


Re: Trade Off
my computer was not designed by an all knowing entity.
You must have an Mac.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Theodoric, posted 04-27-2009 4:50 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Theodoric, posted 04-27-2009 7:14 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 200 of 352 (506698)
04-28-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by traderdrew
04-28-2009 10:33 AM


Re: Your Computer
"Why are you asking me that? What is a perfect computer? How fast does it have to be to be perfect? Your computer doesn't have to be perfect. It will do just fine for all of your needs."
What if the environment, in which the computer was adequately capable of working to it's fullest capacity, gradualy changes over time, making it's original uses not as adequate anymore. What functions does this "awesome computer" have that makes it adapt to this new changes?
Do you just throw it away because nothing within it can adapt?
Do you think biological systems would adapt to the changes, given the same senario?
Would you have to get rid of the current biological organisms and start all over due to the new environmental changes, or, do these biological organisms come equipt with a function that allows them to adapt to their new environment?
Say you start with a single organism, who adapts over time to the new environment, but the environment changes again, and so does the bio organism, how many changes, due to the environmental changes, will this organism go through before the original organism and the one which has adapted multiple times differ completely in features?
Can you say the same about a computer?

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by traderdrew, posted 04-28-2009 10:33 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by traderdrew, posted 04-29-2009 12:03 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 205 of 352 (506808)
04-29-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by traderdrew
04-29-2009 12:03 PM


Re: Your Computer
I can't disagree with you. The others who responded to my post are just attempting to equivocate my statement because they don't have an answer for it.
Cool. So we can agree that bio systems are much more complex and do have a feature which allows them to adapt.
I think my creator enabled organisms to adapt to their environments via some kind of evolution but not neo-Darwinism.
Let's then ignore neo-Darwinism.
Would you be willing to accept that the adaptable mechanisms - (to support your belief) - given by the creator, is mutations, which are selected because they prove benefitial to the organism in it's new found environment?
In other words: Mutation + Natural selection = Evolvement due to environmental pressure.
Does this seem like a reasonable process to you?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by traderdrew, posted 04-29-2009 12:03 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by traderdrew, posted 04-30-2009 11:52 AM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 214 of 352 (506953)
04-30-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by traderdrew
04-30-2009 11:52 AM


Re: Your Computer
That sounds like neo-Darwinism to me.
Can you explain then?
What do you consider "neo-darwinism" and what do you consider "evolution"?
If you are going to be involved in a debate don't just brush off everything that is said to you without explaining why you reject it.
- 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by traderdrew, posted 04-30-2009 11:52 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by traderdrew, posted 05-01-2009 10:54 AM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 297 of 352 (508825)
05-16-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by traderdrew
05-16-2009 12:12 PM


Re: General Reply
Consider for instance a total solar eclipse. Has it ever struck you that this phenomenon suggests design? The moon covers the sun just perfectly from our perspective. The naturalistic paradigm prevents us from seeing the idea that this could be an example of design.
That's because it's not designed, and it doesn't cover the Sun perfectly for me if we were in different geographical locations but still close enough to each other to both see the same eclipsing moment.
It can cover the whole sun for you but only partially for me if we were in different locations on Earth. So it doesn't cover the sun perfectly relative to where one is standing on th planet.
Face it, you are looking up at the sky and thinking the God Ra brings the Sun up every morning with his winged chariot, you are just doing it in 2009, so your arguments have gotten more sophisticated.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by traderdrew, posted 05-16-2009 12:12 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 12:53 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 310 of 352 (508978)
05-17-2009 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by traderdrew
05-17-2009 12:53 PM


Re: General Reply
I don't see how you can prove me wrong.
But I did. You said:
traderdrew writes:
The moon covers the sun just perfectly from our perspective.
Well it doesn't always do that since it moves relative to us.
From your link:
quote:
When the Moon is at apogee, it is 11% farther from Earth than it is at perigee. This is far enough that it cannot entirely block the bright light, so eclipses which occur near apogee are not total.
This is what Bluecat made reference to.
The sun is 400 times the Moon's diameter, and 400 times as far away. It is up to you if you want to view this as a coincidence or as a part of a design.
Why are you ignoring the fact that the Sun and moon both move and at times is about 400 times the distance, but at other times it's not?
Are you now going to say it's designed to move?
Does the arrangement of the solar system suggest design?
Let's say the moon being at that distance, (let's also pretend it doesn't move), is indicative of design, why would that make a case for the entire solar system?
Do you know how many moons surround the other planets? None of them fit any little coincidental anomalies, doesn't that mean they aren't designed?
Anyways, no, it does not looked designed. Nor could you point to anything that isn't confirmed to occur through natural causes.
You see the reason many feel the designer is inept is, not because they are trying to insult said designer, but because nature is not perfect and what we see from nature is a struggle for survival in brutal conditions. The simple fact that things constantly adapt to changing environments, both on earth and stellar, indicates that life is progressively trying to perfect the situation it finds itself in for self preservation - and in the case of inorganic material the laws of physics maintain certain results that can be measured and predict further changes.
If everything is designed then everything is not prefectly designed and constantly battles to survive because of that. So, either everything is a natural process of adaptation, or the designer is inept and can't seem to get it right.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by traderdrew, posted 05-17-2009 12:53 PM traderdrew has 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