ID taken to the end

First of all, I see that years ago when you started this thread you had a really good ID counterpart who seemed more informed than the usual creationist/IDist. Are you implying that if tomorrow we stumble onto huge ancient structures that are obviously artificial on the planet Mars but we couldn't find anything else, we must, therefore, conclude that these obviously artificial structures were naturally made? What if there are little machineries still operating inside these structures?I'm not criticizing what you're saying. I'm just trying to understand how what you're saying could encompass certain situations. It is conceivable for me that there could have been a group of now extinct aliens who evolved naturally via evolution and decided to intelligently design all life on Earth. Why couldn't this be the case? Why couldn't the intelligent designer had evolved naturally and then created us artificially? Haha, this is why when I talk to "IDists" I like to keep pushing their buttons until they admit that they believe the designer is the judeo-christian god. Of course after they admit that they'd try to weasle their way out by saying that's the personal belief but it's not ID's official stance.

As Nuggin's OP never mentions the identity of the designer, it is both comical and hypocritical that you should have prefaced this nonsense by whining about "one large, intricately woven straw-man argument".

I'm saying that if we can't determine a mechanism through which they were constructed we wouldn't be able to identify them as being "structures" at all in the first place.You and I look at a pyramid - it's a triangle. We look at Mt. Fuji - it's a triangle.However, since we know the mechanism of "stacking blocks of sandstone" and we know the mechanism of "volcanoes" we can tell that one was made and the other wasn't.But, if we literally couldn't distinguish between either of those two mechanisms, we couldn't make a determination at all.IDers are claiming that they can distinguish design WITHOUT being able to distinguish a mechanism. It's simply NOT possible. Because the argument for ID is that life is too complex to have arisen unaided over the amount of time we've had.So, posing the argument that OTHER evolution happened FIRST and created life which is MORE complex and MORE intelligent than us 5 BILLION years ago and that THAT "natural evolution" allowed them to get here and "Intelligently Design" us is contradictory.It violates all the presuppositions of why people on Earth need to evoke a designer in the first place.If NON-design can result in things more complicated than us faster than we came about, why invoke design at all?

Why couldn't the other evolution create life that were a lot less complex than our form of life? There's absolutely nothing that requires the designer to be more complex than us.

The argument is that the simplest life on Earth is too complex to have arisen naturally.So, this "designer" which did "arise naturally" would have been LESS complex than the SIMPLEST life on Earth -AND- be able to get here -AND- create, design and control the natural processes which have been going on here for several hundred million years.How does something which is less complex than the simplest life form invent and use a technology which is FAR beyond what we can conceive of even today?

There you go again with the strawman.You've made up your mind that a thing can only invent and use technology that is less complex than it. I see no reason why it has to be this way. Perhaps designer(s) started out a lot less complex than the simplest life on earth and eventually evolved to more complex forms. I don't know. You'd have to ask the designer. Just take a few cyanide pills and ask your questions then.Added by edit.By the way, congrats on resorting to the most common creationist argument: argument from incredulity.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Remember, the _SIMPLEST LIFE FORM_ on earth is _TOO COMPLEX_ to have evolved naturally according to ID.Therefore, the MOST COMPLEX of the "naturally evolved" alien super race has to be LESS COMPLEX than the simplest life form on Earth.So, if you can demonstrate a life form which is LESS complex than anything on Earth that's capable of doing ANYTHING close to that, I'll happily consider it. Nope.the argument from incredulity is based on "I don't believe but can't explain why".I CAN explain why. The rules in play make it simply impossible for this to occur.

How in the world did you arrive at this faulty logic?There is nothing that prevents the designer to have started out less complex than the simplest life on earth but then eventually evolved into something more complex. And that's exactly what you've done. You haven't explained why a thing necessarily must start out and be more complex than what it creates. You don't believe any other possibility, therefore you dismiss ID.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

That fails ID primary claim.The "designer" could not have _EVOLVED_ into something more complex because ID states that a "designer" is required in order for something to reach complexity.If a "designer" in not needed, then this entire line of reasoning collapses because there's no reason to invoke a special "designer" to explain life on Earth if the evocation includes the admission that the "designer" isn't necessary in the first place. I didn't make that claim, you attributed it to me IN A POST TITLED "re:strawman" no less.I pointed out that ID is REQUIRED for something to REACH complexity. Therefore the natural occurring "designer" can not be as complex as the least complex thing on Earth.The least complex thing on Earth is not complex enough to produce ANY technology. Therefore an organism which is necessary _LESS_ complex than that will also be not complex enough to produce ANY technology.Any change in those rules and the logic of the argument collapses rendering it moot. No, I don't accept claims which don't have any evidence and which, by their own logic, make themselves unnecessary.The problem is here is not that I don't believe what you want me to. The problem is you haven't bothered to actually think about what you believe.

I'm puzzled as to which evolutionist who posted in this thread is to be considered "a really good ID counterpart ". Was that a reference to coffee_addict?

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I meant the IDist Lam that was a really good counter part to Nuggin. Why?

To be fair I seem to recall Lam did have aliases pretending to be IDists on more than one occasion.TTFN,WK

Lam was only pretending to be an IDist.(abe) If I recall correctly, Lam was a physics student.This goes to show that evolutionists who fake being IDists come across as making a better case for ID than the IDists do. That's probably because they at least understand something about science.Edited by nwr, : add comment

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

MuahahahahahahahahahaAnd I really thought I'd found a creo/IDist that knew what he was talking about.

No. I may not agree with ID, but I know it just well enough that this isn't what is said, at least not by people like Ben Stein anyway.ID states that everything looks very complex and designed. It doesn't require the designer to be more complex or unevolvable. This is absolutely the worst counter-argument to the ID claim. It's been bothering me for a while, but I've been keeping my mouth shut. Let me explain.I recently sectioned off a part of my home office to house my tortoise that will become this 100 lb monster in a couple years. Seriously, this guy eats constantly. So, after I sectioned off his space, I began to put in plants for him to munch on. After I did everything, I realized that I should have put plastic sheets on the floor before I added these plants and his dog house. So, I had to take everything out, put the plastic sheets down, and then put everything back in.This took longer than it sounds. And I felt like an idiot afterward for having done the job twice.The equivalent of your argument there is because there was no need for plastic sheets I didn't need to redo the job to put in the plastic sheets. And you're right, there's no need for the plastic. I just thought it was better to have the plastic there.Confused? Me, too, actually.The point is just because there didn't need to be a designer for the result that we see doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a designer. Just like just because there doesn't need to be plastic sheets on the floor doesn't mean I can't put plastic sheets there.This is a simple concept that's hard to explain, so let me try again with another example.One time we drove to Indianapolis to visit a relative. We got lost for 2 hours before we found the damn place. Afterwards, I went on google map and saw that I had been driving in a really big circle, and that a much shorter way was to take this one street straight from the interstate to his house.Your argument is that because there was a much shorter route than the one I took, I must not have taken that long route that I took. See how nonsensical your argument is? I don't know if you make that claim or not, but you are certainly sticking with it.I ask again. Why does it necessarily have to be the case that the designer has to have started out and still is more complex than whatever it designed? And here you imply another strawman about ID.Remember that ID deals more with the origin of life than evolution itself. I know that most self-proclaimed IDists don't know this. This is why I was impressed with Lam's posts earlier in this thread. Too bad he wasn't a real IDist. There are a few things I'd like to point out... but that's another theme.But more to the point. Behe even admits that evolution takes place regardless if ID was true or not. As I understand it, ID comes in at 2 places: (1) the origin of life and (2) the mechanism that drives evolution. IDists don't accept random mutation and natural selection as adequate enough for the diversity of life, a diversity that, according to conservatives, we should aim to destroy. The world is, after all, ours to rape and plunder...Anyway, the real IDists seem to claim that the biodiversity we see today seems to fit too perfect together to have come about through random mutation and natural selection. The ignorant IDists then come in and began to insert a lot of other bullshit. Nuggin, as much as I appreciate your contribution, I'm beginning to get irritated at how you criticize just for the sake of criticism. This doesn't contribute well to the debate. Let me explain.Suppose an alien lands in the middle of the amazon forest and meets some natives who are still living in huts and drink water straight out of the amazon river. The alien being only has an hour before he has to get back in his vehicle and launches back into deep space. Is it a reasonable assessment that, based on his observation of the natives in the amazon forest, the intelligent species on this planet is incapable of higher technology than bows and arrows made out of wood?We have one data point for our assessment of what's possible and what's not possible as accomplishment of different lifeforms. That's right, the one data point is life on Earth. You want to use this one single data point as your logical conclusion that it is impossible for less complex life than human life to produce any technology? What's next, based on our single data point alien life must speak English? This is the only part of all your arguments that make sense. Haha. And What do I believe?