You should be careful you don't undermine your own argument here.
Everything you are talking about leads back to intelligent people building computers for all this to take place on.
You concede that 'all this takes place' by not contesting it. That is, you are saying 'given a designed environment, complex forms can be produced through evolutionary processes'.
Taking this back to the real world - you are saying that evolution can produce the human body, if the universe was designed in the correct fashion.
This is massively undermining to your position. Since the programmer (or designer) creates the environment (universe), and digital (or biological) evolution follows. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume the universe is designed. Now: can humans have evolved their complex form?
The answer, based on your 'evidence' so far has to be "Yes!". To re-explain: You concede that complex things can result from evolutionary principles only if an intelligent being created the computer and the rules. If an intelligent being created the universe and its physics, then it is possible for complex life to evolve in such a universe, correct?
In my opinion Intelligent Design is a fact not a theory. True science follows the evidence wherever it leads so lets look at the evidence closest to home for each of us, the human body. When we examine the human body we find complex systems working together that enable us to do very amazing things such as walk, talk, hear, eat, think, heal, etc. Now each of these systems are extremely complex are they not? Complexity requires forethought.
I have some questions. Is the intelligence part of intelligent design, which you propose is responsible for complexity, more complex than that which has been designed?
If not, how did it come to be capable of design of processes more complex than itself? In other words what mechanism allows it to circumvent this?
If so, and the intelligent design is more complex than that which it designed, then what intelligent design designed this complexity?
Why don't we try to get some things cleared up here, as it seems there is more 'talking at' than 'talking with' going on.
First:
quote:OED design, n. 1. a. A plan or scheme conceived in the mind and intended for subsequent execution; the preliminary conception of an idea that is to be carried into effect by action; a project.
You cannot have design without a thinking designer, plain and simple. In fact, when IC says:"
DESIGN REQUIRES THOUGHT!!!
He/She is right on the money! So then, ultimately, where does the argument break down? We can all see there is something amiss, but if it is not in this part that has been argued so far, then where is it?
It's here:
ICDESIGN writes:
Complexity requires forethought.
quote:OED complexity 1. Composite nature or structure. ___________
composite adj. 1. a. Made up of various parts or elements; compound; not simple in structure.
Nowhere in there does it say that complexity requires forethought. Design does, but complexity does not. Nevertheless, something which is designed can certainly be complex. Now, IC's primary argument hinges on the eye being complex and thus designed, but it's been shown that even if it is complex, it need not necessarily be designed in order to be such.
If IC is to keep to his/her claim that the eye is designed because it is complex, then he/she must either:
1) Prove that design is required for complexity to exist, or 2) Show that complexity requires thought in all instances of its occurance.
If IC cannot do either of the above, then his/her claim cannot stand.
Well that is a shame since I will assume that you are not capable of answering my post #32 and will have to guess that it is because you cannot back up your arguements at all.
See YA'
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." - Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions
NAME ONE MAN-MADE INTELLIGENT DESIGN THAT EXCEEDS THE COMPLEX DESIGN FOUND IN THE HUMAN BODY!
(Turn down your caps, please.)
Lol, it's a knock-out punch, all right - in this sense:
Think it through, ICDESIGN. If the best - the absolute, tip-top best designs in the entire history of design - is unable to match the complexity and effectiveness of the human body, isn't that proof that it's too complex to have been designed?
If you can't name one then you have just proven my point for me that the human body is an intelligent design!
Er, it seems like you've just disproven your own point. If the best intelligent designers can do doesn't even come close to the complexity of the human body, then it hardly makes any sense to credit intelligent design with the human body, now does it?
Here is my beef with the theory of evolution in a simple nutshell. I don't see evolution (macro) taking place in the world in which I live right now today.
Unfortunately - for you - your opinion is worthless. Most of your post is an argument from ignorance and incredulity.
Please define "macro"evolution - so we can be sure we are (a) talking about evolution and (b) we are talking about the same thing.
Also define "micro"evolution just to be sure we are talking about something different.
It should be easy eh?.
I would welcome your definitions.
First of all how would a non-thinking source even know that we needed to see to begin with?
You need to realize that evolution is not driven towards any goal, there is no single feature that was developed because it was needed. Not one. As has been pointed out eyes are not needed by the majority of species - all the ones that do not have them do not need them to survive or reproduce. Survival and reproduction are the key to whether an existing feature is passed on to the next generation. All that is needed is small differences - variation caused by mutations - accumulating over time as they are succesful at meeting the filter of selection. That such things are developed by accumulation rather than by design is evidenced by problems and errors that cannot be reversed (by evolution) that would NOT be a result of design.
For a discussion of the design of the eye please see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy.... That is - ostensibly - the topic of your post although you don't really address it except to express your incredulity and your ignorance of all the variety of eyes that have evolved AND of all the problems with vision in different species.
In my opinion Intelligent Design is a fact not a theory.
Again, your opinion is useless. What you need is evidence. Your incredulity and ignorance of ways in which vision could evolve is not evidence of anything other than your incredulity and ignorance. You need evidence of some mechanism that blocks something from occurring. That is notoriously absent.
Now each of these systems are extremely complex are they not? Complexity requires forethought.
This is a bald assertion unsupported by any evidence. Not only that you have a problem of a total lack of definition of what you are talking about: what IS "complexity" as you are using it? Not that standard definitions are much help:
So we need to define "complex" to define "complexity" ...
So complexity is the state or quality of being composed of many interconnected parts.
By this definition a simple molecule is complex, and any single cell that evolves a new interconnection in a molecule - evidenced by DNA or a new ability has become more complex - it has added to the state or quality of being composed of many interconnected parts.
This has been observed, many times, thus your assertion is falsified. Complexity has evolved in species with no thoughts, no help, no "needs" - to say nothing of any forethought.
I see that in the time it took me to get my poor old badly designed computer to post the response I had that you have decided to run screaming FROM the debate.
You realize that this is standard creationist tactic:
Heck, RAZD, he didn't even take the time to explain intelligent design itself when I offered to explore the consequences of it. I think it would have been a perfect time to step up to the plate and take a swing. Shame that the amateurs never get past their egos long enough to make it into the big leagues eh?
quote:If you can't name one then you have just proven my point for me that the human body is an intelligent design! And THATS a fact!!
Our skulls have a very sharp ridge of bone on the inside.
Our lower backs and knees are not well-designed for upright locomotion, which is why both are so frequently injured.
Our heads are so large (due to our large brains) at the time of birth that before modern obstetrics, many, many women and infants died in childbirth.
We have crossover air and food pipes that allow complex speech but also make us incredibly vulterable to choking and aspirating food and drink into our lungs.
We have a blind spot in the center of our retinas becasue that's where the optic nerve attaches.
The male reproductive organs hang outside the body, where they are very vulnerable to damage.
Just how "intelligent" was this designer you say designed the human body?
The male reproductive organs hang outside the body, where they are very vulnerable to damage.
Some years back, I was the unwilling recipient of a racquetball, delivered at high speed directly to the male reproductive organs that you speak of. I can therefore say from experience that this is the single most valid and compelling argument against the concept of intelligent design. Certainly nothing could convince me otherwise.
The Argument Ad Testiculum perhaps?
{Close - The Argument 'nad Testiculum, I believe}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Abusing administrative editing privileges by attempting to add further humor.
™ Version 4.2
