Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...

You don't seem to be understanding the point of the thread. What does fumbling in the dark have to do with Silly Design versus Intelligent Design? It seems to be you're trying to argue against Evolution, but considering this thread has nothing to do with evolution, you're the one flailing in the dark.Now that that's cleared up, can you get back to the point? Explaining why the obvious design in the world (as we're assuming in this thread) points to an "Intelligent" designer despite the unintelligent, and indeed, quite silly designs we see.

I know. However, for this thread, design is assumed. Once we make that assumption, we're left with, at least, two options: Silly Design and Intelligent Design. RAZD is doing a hell of a job explaining why it looks more like Silly Design. ICDESIGN has appeared to take up the mantle of defending the Intelligent Design side of the argument, however, he seems to be able to defend it only by arguing against evolution, which doesn't even come close to refuting Silly Design, let a lone providing a reason to believe in Intelligent Design. I was attempting to let ICDESIGN know that he was arguing against the wrong thing.AbE: Welcome to the forum, btw. It may take a while to figure out which side everyone is on, but I'm definitely not a proponent of ID or Creationism.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

For the purpose of this thread, we're granting design. Arguing that design exists is redundant and a waste of space in this thread, because for the sake of argument, we've already granted that. It is now up to you to show WHAT TYPE of design you see. RAZD sees Silly Design because even less than perfectly intelligent beings (us) can design better and more efficient products than the one "the Designer" apparently did. This seems silly.It is now on you to counter with things that are not silly, but rather intelligent, and even better, to counter why the silly designs RAZD is pointing out are not, in fact, silly. You would do this by citing evidence and using the scientific method. Merely stating it, or bringing religion into it are the wrong way to go in a science forum and will not be convicing in the least.

This one could be filed under either, I suppose. The soft spot allows the baby's head to deform enough to fit out the birth canal. The only other options are a smaller head (and thus smaller brain), accelerated head growth during infancy, or a larger birth canal. I suppose there could be arguments for and against each solution...

LOL. Take every opportunity you can to sneak in limericks, they're one of my guilty pleasures. If intelligence truly equates to surface area of the brain, there may be some room yet if we wrinkle up even more, though I'm not sure where the limit would be... A need for C-sections would be silly...unless it were designed to be so easy to do that one wouldn't need a team fo doctors and an anesthesiologist on hand...perhaps like on the new Oreo packs where you can lift the flap and seal it down again?The "pleasure dome" is certainly in a funny spot, and if you go further and consider modesty regarding sexual organs funny as well, it would make much for sense for them to be near the hands or feet...extendable for many opportunites for creativity...As for the pelvic bone...I actually think it's silly the other way. SHouldn't our bodies (or female bodies at least) be designed in such a way that the fetus is protected better? The possibility of killing the fetus, or causing complications merely from tripping and falling on your stomach seems a bit silly. Perhaps there should be a shell of bone around the womb with a trap door right under the Oreo flap? Joints are essentially hinges, so it shouldn't have been too hard to extrapolate from one to the other.

Very strange. One wonders why it is the way it is. Does the folding give it some balance benefit, or is it simply one of those things that fell through the cracks of "good enough?"