Post Reply
Page 8 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The case for non-intelligent design
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 2:05PM #71
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,891

May 6, 2012 -- 1:39PM, ni-cherise wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:44PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:56PM, McAtheist wrote:


Ni-cherise,


The natural world is full of examples of bad design:  the useless plantaris muscle in the human foot, the blind spot in our vision, having both our food and our air go down the same passage, ectopic pregnancies, our inability to synthesize our own vitamin C, having too many teeth in our small and somewhat flat face, testes descending through the abdomen wall to the scrotum during gestation leaving weaknesses for hernias, wings on flightless birds, leg remnants on pythons and whales, eye remnants on cave fish,  human ear muscles, etc. 





And then there's the brain, cobbled together with various parts that don't look like they should even go together. Wouldn't a designer make the whole brain one uniform structure? Certainly it would be more efficient that way. And the baser impulses in the lower brain would be more easily controlled by the higher functions of the cortex.


And then there's the location of the clitoris and the distribution of nerve cells in the vagina. Not a lot of women would hold those up as evidence of good design.


 



LOL, the brain of which you are using now? The case for non-design just gets more and more ridiculous. When someone says they see design in nature but you disagree, you can't use the flaws in nature to prove a point of non-design.


Of course I can. Why can't I? Design by its nature addresses flaws. It doesn't let them fester over time.


What your stating is a claim that needs actual evidence, not beliefs that a creator should have formed it differently. Good design or not, the universe still stands, our brains still work, and we are living.


Right. Your point is?


Now where is the actual evidence of how a creator would or would not create?


This question makes no sense. It's one of those "blah blah blah WTF is she talking about?" questions.





1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 2:05PM #72
ni-cherise
Posts: 94

Apr 30, 2012 -- 1:41PM, Ken wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:56PM, ni-cherise wrote:


The Beautiful design of a rose doesn't prove design,..right?.... right? So the awful design of a dead rose can't prove non-design, right?,... right? RIGHT!!!!  I've seen atheist tell believers of creation,...a bed of flowers don't prove creation, ..well if that's really the case, a bed of dead flowers can't prove non-design.



Durability is a criterion of good design.



If a sweet summers day doesn't prove design, a day of tornados can't prove non-design. Life has been durable enough for us to form on earth, even if for the moment, so I need actual evidence of how a creator would or would not form life.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 2:11PM #73
ni-cherise
Posts: 94

May 6, 2012 -- 2:05PM, MMarcoe wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 1:39PM, ni-cherise wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:44PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:56PM, McAtheist wrote:


Ni-cherise,


The natural world is full of examples of bad design:  the useless plantaris muscle in the human foot, the blind spot in our vision, having both our food and our air go down the same passage, ectopic pregnancies, our inability to synthesize our own vitamin C, having too many teeth in our small and somewhat flat face, testes descending through the abdomen wall to the scrotum during gestation leaving weaknesses for hernias, wings on flightless birds, leg remnants on pythons and whales, eye remnants on cave fish,  human ear muscles, etc. 





And then there's the brain, cobbled together with various parts that don't look like they should even go together. Wouldn't a designer make the whole brain one uniform structure? Certainly it would be more efficient that way. And the baser impulses in the lower brain would be more easily controlled by the higher functions of the cortex.


And then there's the location of the clitoris and the distribution of nerve cells in the vagina. Not a lot of women would hold those up as evidence of good design.


 



LOL, the brain of which you are using now? The case for non-design just gets more and more ridiculous. When someone says they see design in nature but you disagree, you can't use the flaws in nature to prove a point of non-design.


Of course I can. Why can't I? Design by its nature addresses flaws. It doesn't let them fester over time.


What your stating is a claim that needs actual evidence, not beliefs that a creator should have formed it differently. Good design or not, the universe still stands, our brains still work, and we are living.


Right. Your point is?


Now where is the actual evidence of how a creator would or would not create?


This question makes no sense. It's one of those "blah blah blah WTF is she talking about?" questions.



  My question makes perfect sense; the flaws in nature prove nothing. Your using your brain right now, regardless of how cobbled you claim it is. I need the evidence of how a creator would or would not form life. If you see it as blah blah blah, just ignore me and move to another thread.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 3:44PM #74
Ken
Posts: 33,859

May 6, 2012 -- 2:05PM, ni-cherise wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 1:41PM, Ken wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:56PM, ni-cherise wrote:


The Beautiful design of a rose doesn't prove design,..right?.... right? So the awful design of a dead rose can't prove non-design, right?,... right? RIGHT!!!!  I've seen atheist tell believers of creation,...a bed of flowers don't prove creation, ..well if that's really the case, a bed of dead flowers can't prove non-design.



Durability is a criterion of good design.



If a sweet summers day doesn't prove design, a day of tornados can't prove non-design.


Yes, it can. And so can your sinuses and your pelvis.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 5:45PM #75
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

I am curious.  Can anyone here, believer or nonbeliever, play the "I am God game" and start specifying the basic rules of the universe which would result in an improved "product"?  For instance, to control overpopulation everybody goes out at sunset and yells as loudly as possible, and the amount of noise generated affects adversely the testosterone production.   (I have actually heard this proposed as a hypothesis of why birds make the noises they do at sunset.  Of course this would clash with the idea of free will, but anyway.)  Or to reduce aggressiveness, everybody suffers from the Corsican-twin-brother-syndrom whereby if I slap somebody, I feel the pain.  And so on.     

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 7:05PM #76
McAtheist
Posts: 8,254

The basic question is why would a super-intelligent designer, one so sufficiently brilliant as to invent everything in the universe from quantum to cosmos, ever produce sub-optimal designs that look precisely as though they are the (current) end result of compromises?  Are we expected to believe that a deity who knows the exact location of every quantum particle in the universe for all time doesn't know that our wisdom teeth don't fit on our jaw?


I suppose ni-cherise or others could make a case for the notion of a "sorta OK makeshift" designer that does the best it can but doesn't understand everything and ends up making mistakes, but the case for the all-knowing and all-powerful intelligent designer has already failed.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 8:27PM #77
rsielin
Posts: 4,521

This has got way off from the OP which is all about a recent book by a distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology who "offers a panoramic yet penetrating exploration of the many gross deficiencies in human DNA--ranging from mutational defects to built-in design faults--while at the same time offering a comprehensive treatment of recent findings about the human genome.


"The author shows that the overwhelming scientific evidence for genomic imperfection provides a compelling counterargument to intelligent design. He also develops a case that theologians should welcome rather than disavow these discoveries.


"The evolutionary sciences can help mainstream religions escape the shackles of Intelligent Design, and thereby return religion to its rightful realm--not as the secular interpreter of the biological minutiae of our physical existence, but rather as a respectable philosophical counselor on grander matters of ultimate concern."


This author lays out a way to save religions who have gone way to far into the science weeds and need a direction back to their core compentancies, moral persuasion. It's a good read for any interested or affected by this topic... ni-cheris are you there?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 8:38PM #78
rsielin
Posts: 4,521

Apr 28, 2012 -- 3:03PM, 57 wrote:

Signature in the cell. Read it an weep my evobabbling friends.


If it truly is the “signature in the cell”, genome sequencing evidence shows it has atrociously illegible handwriting. LOL


No chance our creationist friend will ever come close to the OP linked book. It's his poison. www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/L...


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 10:06PM #79
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

May 6, 2012 -- 2:01PM, ni-cherise wrote:


Ok, then where is the evidence that 99.9% of life should still be here, inorder for design to have happened?


Because a designer would have designed life to be durable.


Some people see design in nature but you deny that there's evidence in that


No, I don't deny that. There is no evidence to deny.


so how can you get away with using the same claim in reverse?


Life appears to be unintelligently designed. There was no designer.


The indifference in nature only proves in indifference.


Indeed. No design at all, intelligent or otherwise.


It can't be a case for non-design unless you have proof of how a some creator would or would not form life. How can you see non-design in extinctions but a creationist can't see design in life?


Creationists don't see reality. Have a look at the "How come?" thread.


You can't take away their belief and replace it with one of your own.


No need to take anything as long as these beliefs are kept from children. They can believe that the moon is made of green cheese for all I care, as long as they don't try to ruin the education of children with this nonsense.


I need actual evidence that the mistakes in nature really prove non-design.


Why would a designer make life look as if it the result of natural selection in response to random changes in the environment? Why would a designer kill off most of the species on earth 65 million years ago?


So how is it known  how some creator would or would not form life?


You'd have to prove that a creator exist first and no one has ever done that.


The universe functions well enough for a huge amount of life to be here, so what your stating is a belief whether you admit it or not.


That 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% is hospitable to life or and even smaller percentage of the life of the universe suggests a creator or designer? Yeah! Right!


I need actual evidence that extinctions prove non-design.


It's all around you.


Regardless of how indifferent the universe is, life still fills the earth and it has for many many years. I need more than your FAITH, when it comes to how durable the universe should have been.


You haven't absorbed anything that has been repeatedly explained to you, have you?





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 12:25AM #80
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,891

May 6, 2012 -- 5:45PM, JimRigas wrote:


I am curious.  Can anyone here, believer or nonbeliever, play the "I am God game" and start specifying the basic rules of the universe which would result in an improved "product"?  For instance, to control overpopulation everybody goes out at sunset and yells as loudly as possible, and the amount of noise generated affects adversely the testosterone production.   (I have actually heard this proposed as a hypothesis of why birds make the noises they do at sunset.  Of course this would clash with the idea of free will, but anyway.)  Or to reduce aggressiveness, everybody suffers from the Corsican-twin-brother-syndrom whereby if I slap somebody, I feel the pain.  And so on.     




I don't think there are any basic rules of the universe that would result in an improved product. Ideally, the product would be perfectly and immediately adaptable to any environment and its lineage would not accrue changes in a sloppy manner.


If you think about it, the perfect product would be the kind of genetic Adam and Eve that YECs think exist. However, the Bible does not describe Adam and Eve as perfect (that's a YEC fantasy), nor is there any evidence that there were such perfect genetic organisms.


So we're left with a sloppy process, one that a designer like the YEC one would have to be thoroughly incompetent to be in charge of.


Me, I prefer to believe in a God who tolerates sloppiness and who is identical to design itself.


 



 

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook