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

Hi ICDesign, Except that (1) you did not show how Neo-Paleyism provided an explanation for the lack of zoom-focus vision, and (b) you have not answered my rebuttal of your failure to provide an answer. The proper word is "Since" - since you think you can presume to take an adult view, when you don't have the SENSE to deal with the issue honestly, or admit that Silly Design Theory provides a better explanation and have avoided the issue above and instead resort to petty insults. And again, I give you the same answer I did before (Message 103):

quote:

---

LOL. Thanks for another example of what would be a silly approach to design. What could be more fun than watching someone fumble around in the dark.

​

Curiously, you do not show that your designer would do any better in the same situation, so this fails to be a test of Neo-Paleyism versus the Theory Of Silly Design.

---

Now: why do you think Neo-Paleyism is a better explanation for the human eye than Silly Design, when intelligent human design produces zoom telescopes, binoculars, microscopes and cameras, but not one organism has zoom vision, and people's vision is the stuff of comedy?So far you are 0 for 5 on this thread in demonstrating any ability to explain evidence with Neo-Paleyism, unlike Silly Design Theory. When push came to shove you abandoned 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) • • •

I creamed your entire thread with one post, and that is post #110
my friend.

Why are you afraid to give us a technical definition of an intelligent? You are an expert in design. C'mon lets have it.

That's not an answer. That's a tap dancing exhibition.
Your a coward

Hi, thanks for the welcome. I hope the off topic flavour didn't offend.I was responding to incredibly uninformed statements made in this thread by ICDESIGN. Anyone who can type "ID science" with a straight face clearly knows very little (probably nothing at all) about genes, proteins, and of course evolution. In fact they almost certainly know little or nothing about any kind of "science". Post 110 was just mindless Bible-bashing.In many ways, "thread drift" off topic is analogous to evolution, if you think about it.

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.

The "obvious" design you refer to is not design at all. The problem is that you are viewing the biosphere through 3000-year old spectacles. The ancients had no explanation for life on earth, so they just said "god did it", and made up some stories to back up that hypothesis.Nowadays, however, we know that all life on earth had a common ancestor, and evolved from it, and everything alive is related to everything else. DNA sequencing proves this.

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.

Ah. Please accept my unreserved apology, sir (or madam). Thanks for the welcome. It's an odd place - looks like a discussion between 21st century scientists, and a primitive, isolated tribe, at times.

Hi ICDesign, it seems we still have a communication problem ... This is a Science Forum thread (look at the menu breakdown above) and that means that arguments are made with evidence and not assertion based on opinion. Opinion is curiously unable to alter reality in any way.Curiously, I find that those who claim victory usually don't know what needs to be accomplished for victory.For instance your Message 110 does not support Neo-Paleyism at all, but abandons it for the god-did-it argument ......except in this case it's a case of he didn't do it: You still are confused about where god/s come in to the argument: it's not the premise, it's reserved for the conclusion once you have built a logical argument supported by evidence.All this amounts to is a pile of excuses, and not an argument for the failure of Neo-Paleyism to explain the evidence. When it comes to homologies found in many varieties and types of organisms, Neo-Paleyists are happy to claim that this is just an example of repeated use of an existing design, so why don't we see instances of repeated design, as I suggested with zoom vision, as an example of how intelligent design should work rather than silly design. Silly Design explains backwards retinas, holes in prime vision areas of retinas, and lens systems that are prone to various failures to focus properly.So your post (1) FAILS to defend Neo-Paleyism in any way, shape or form, and (B) FAILS to show why Silly Design Theory does not explain the evidence.Now I count this a total failure on your part to (A) address the issue, and (2) put together a coherent argument based on evidence.You have now made Message 137, Message 138 and Message 139, all with one-liner comments. One-liners are reserved for comedy, so if you want to exhibit intelligent posting, please form your arguments into one post that has a thesis, supporting evidence and a conclusion, so you don't waste bandwidth. Except that I am not the "proponentist" for Neo-Paleyism - you are. Thus it is on your hands to define your position and defend it. Again, you still don't understand what you need to do in order to show that Neo-Paleyism can be considered in place of Silly Design Theory for explaining the evidence, and that is to show how Neo=Paleyism explains things better than Silly Design Theory.Posing a problem that is rather silly does not do that.Fluffing off the fact that the way eyes are made shows many examples of Silly Design does not do that.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) • • •

If you look at message #77 and message #110 I talk extensivly about design proving with the facts in vivid description that design in the human body is extremely intelligent. You on the other hand have failed to show or prove anything scientific or otherwise.Only a fool can look at design and say "It looks like design, and appears to be design in every way shape and form. You have multiple systems working together to achieve a meaningful purpose, but nope, no design here."

You sir have failed to prove your ignorant Silly Design theory is
anything more than your foollish opinion. To use the idea of silly to try to prove scientific evidence would get you laughed out of any science class in the world.You and I both know that you are scared to take my design test or answer what the definition of intelligent design is because your position is so weak that I would be able to crush you no matter what answer you come up with.
AND THAT SIR IS WHAT WE CALL A CHECK-MATE!!!!!!!
no further comments needed. thank you very much and austa-la-byebye

Intelligent design proponents (or is it "cdesign proponentsists"?) have the burden of proof to show that their claims are science, and that they follow the scientific method.So far they have failed.Instead, the evidence--including a decision from a Federal District Court--shows that ID is religion lite, and it is not hard to see that it arose after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, in an effort to sneak religion back into the classrooms.No legitimate universities teach ID. The only ones that have a serious ID program are (surprise!) fundamentalist Christian universities.There are no serious scientific research programs studying ID. A few fundamentalists who also happen to be scientists (e.g., Behe) try to push their religious beliefs as science, but so far they have been epic failures! The evidence just doesn't support their claims! And they can't twist and misrepresent it enough to convince anyone other than fundamentalists who share their beliefs.The truth is they can't follow the scientific method. It leads to answers that are inconvenient for their beliefs.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Bye ICDesign (again).It's the old "declare victory and run away" tactic so prevalent from creationists. There we go with the ad hominem, the emblem of a failed argument.Curiously, the ability to explain evidence from the world around us is extensively documented on this thread, and the fact that you have not refuted a single argument for Silly Design Theory shows that it explains more than you do. And still you fail to see that your "test" fails to show how such an approach to design can be intelligent instead of silly. Fumbling around in the dark is good for high comedy. And you are now 0 for 7.That's what I call an absolute failure of Neo-Paleyism to explain things better than Silly Design Theory. And you can't even get that right.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) • • •

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.