The flaws in Intelligent design

[Bear Wild]

I always liked (in a humorous sense) the notion of "multiple designers", where the intent of one design (e.g., speed in gazelles) is to defeat a different design (e.g., hunting ability of lions).

Otherwise, one has to ask....why is the "designer" constantly counteracting its own designs?

Exactly! The coming and going of the different species in the fossil record makes no sense if there was and "intelligent" designer. It makes the designer look the automotive industry in lets change the model this century for something newer and fancier. I guess that why they later used the car as an example in their premise - "Intelligent agents re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and airplanes):"

 

[Jose Fly]

It is a fine line to believe in your position so strongly to hold it and support it against attack, but at the same time be capable of objectively reviewing it or placing it at risk of a rational review by others.

There are many paradigms, but this one seems to work well for me.

I hear a lot of information and opinion from others, but I am under no obligation to accept it without question, just as others are under no obligation to do the same for what I say, but even in that, there is the possibility of learning something and exchanging ideas.

Creationists want learning without question and they get pretty prickly when the questions come out.

Couldn't agree more.

Having grown up in a fundamentalist environment, I think it stems in part from what they're used to when it comes to "teaching". In their churches, where many spend much of their time, they learn from pastors giving sermons where there is no Q&A session afterward. They also learn during Bible study, where questions are allowed, as long as they're not from a place of doubt. IOW, it's acceptable to ask "What does that passage mean" but not "Is that passage true".

Spend enough time in an environment like that and it begins to seep into other areas of one's life.

 

[Jose Fly]

Exactly! The coming and going of the different species in the fossil record makes no sense if there was and "intelligent" designer. It makes the designer look the automotive industry in lets change the model this century for something newer and fancier. I guess that why they later used the car as an example in their premise - "Intelligent agents re-use functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and airplanes):"

Apparently God the Designer works through billions of years of trial and error.

 

[Bear Wild]

Even if there were an intelligent designer of life, that wouldn't necessarily mean this creator is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient nor highly benevolent. Maybe we're just merely simulated beings whose Creator is a post human futuristic distant relatives of people whom we duplicate in our ancestral simulation. Or perhaps, our Creator could be an advanced extraterrestrial civilization who has programmed us simulated conscious beings along with our simulated surroundings for our Creator's amusement.

We still run into the problem of where did they come from.

 

[Cooky]

You can believe in god all you want the issue with intelligent design is that it is saying that evolution did not occur. An intelligent designer had to actually create each of the genetic sequences that code for complex proteins.

What if someone believes that God has an all knowing spirit that can spark changes and cause series of events to occur beyond our comprehension? And without any real effort on "His" part?

...But at the same time, all the work is being done in relation to an environment that was predestined to cause the effect of what was thought up by God in the beginning?

I mean, I can hold that view and be completely in line with what science discovers and teaches.

 

[Bear Wild]

Wow this looks rather biased

I can offer a criticism. We have a good but broken world. Intelligent design doesn't grapple with the brokenness sin and suffering in the world.

Creationism does offer explanation for brokenness sin and suffering

Suffering can be all explained by the natural world and no rant on sin will give a better explanation. Unless of course if the intelligent designer enjoys suffering.

 

[Jollybear]

Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):"

(1) " Intelligent agents think with an "end goal" in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information):"

This concept is an anthropomorphic statement that assumes there is an "end goal" so what is the end goal - to create a species that can destroy the world for all other life and cause its own extinction. What kind of "end goal" is that?

How do you know we will extinct ourselves?

 

[Bear Wild]

What if someone believes that God has an all knowing spirit that can spark changes and cause series of events to occur beyond our comprehension? And without any real effort on "His" part?

...But at the same time, all the work is being done in relation to an environment that was predestined to cause the effect of what was thought up by God in the beginning?

I mean, I can hold that view and be completely in line with what science discovers and teaches.

His part? You mean her part. Yes that idea has now way to prove except for the fact that all knowing spirit would still have to do it through the changes in the genetic code for it to be sustained and does not explain all of the previous species unless they were considered mistakes. The most obvious response however is we do not need an all knowing spirit to explain our universe, the forces of nature have been shown to be creative even in our time. I will say if there is an all knowing spirit it time for that spirit to step in and correct what is going wrong in our world today before it is too late assuming the all knowing spirit even cares.

 

[Jollybear]

NDE'S are subjective.
ESP is subjective.
Aliens and UFO'S possible.
Ghost are subjective.
Bigfoot is possible.

NDEs, aspeasally the ESP ones that go with them, are not subjective. Why do you say this?

 

[Jollybear]

Give some examples.

DNA

 

[Bear Wild]

How do you know we will extinct ourselves?

Lets see, we are rapidly changing the climate to the point were species we depend on will not survive, we are poisoning the oceans and leaving the greatest circulating garbage pile on the ocean floor destroying life, we are increasing our population to the point the earth cannot sustain it and we are rapidly covering the land with building materials eliminating the plant life we depend on. In short we are destroying the planet that we need to sustain our species.

 

[Jollybear]

Your assumption of atheists is a form of prejudice since the theory of evolution is accepted by many non atheist believers of all kinds. Actually understanding evolution helps you to see both the forest and the trees. Name me the best evidence you have.

Depends what you mean by evolution. If you mean change by adaptation over time and survival of the fittest, then yea, i agree with that. One dont even need to study to see that go on, lol.

But, heres the thing, adaptation of an organism and the survival of the organism does not account for the ARRIVAL of the organism.

 

[Bear Wild]

Apparently God the Designer works through billions of years of trial and error.

Evidently god the designer is still making mistakes. I wonder what is next.

 

[Jollybear]

Lets see, we are rapidly changing the climate to the point were species we depend on will not survive, we are poisoning the oceans and leaving the greatest circulating garbage pile on the ocean floor destroying life, we are increasing our population to the point the earth cannot sustain it and we are rapidly covering the land with building materials eliminating the plant life we depend on. In short we are destroying the planet that we need to sustain our species.

Yea, we MAY extinct ourselves. Mayby. But, God lets us have free will.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I am sorry, but this is merely a bad conspiracy theory. You also place the burden of proof upon yourself when you make such a claim

You've never heard of a scientist being slammed by colleagues or blackballed for publishing material contrary to the accepted beliefs?

No, there are a lot of bad books on the problems of the theory of evolution. They tend to be loaded with bad science, strawman arguments, and quite often outright lies, though you could try using a few of their claims and see if they have any legs.

I thought they were good books with good science.

How so? You do realize that no creationist has ever come to be even close in refuting the theory, I hope.

No, I don't realize that at all. The theory is easy to refute, being that it is illogical, full of holes, impossibilities, and dead ends, and has no supporting evidence at all.

And the evidence for that is . . . ?

Evidence of Satan's influence is everywhere, much of it not even hidden anymore. Now we have a statue of Baphomet unveiled in U.S. cities, public desecrations of sacred images and a public black mass in Oklahoma City, Satanic lyrics in popular music, and on and on. Of course Satan's influence is a driving force in so-called science perpetuated for the purpose of disputing God's existence. He is the Father of Lies, as we well know.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yea, we MAY extinct ourselves. Mayby. But, God lets us have free will.

So was that an intelligent design or not? If there is a god who has any powers and who has evidently visited earth before, it time that god shows up and teaches us how to live in harmony with the rest of the natural world rather than destroying it. The other option is that this god just wants to see the resulting suffering that has already started.

 

[Jollybear]

Humongous repetitive inaccurate evidence often misusing statistics to sway opinion rather than provide evidence. Give us the best evidence that could only be explained by intelligent design.

DNAs code of instructions.

Also, something we can all identify with, we all have noses on our face, just one, below the two eyes. We all have two eyes. We all have one mouth below the nose. We all have two ears on either side of our head.

Such order and precision. Each of these parts serve a DESIGN function.

Evidence my fine fox fellow.

 

[Jollybear]

So was that an intelligent design or not? If there is a god who has any powers and who has evidently visited earth before, it time that god shows up and teaches us how to live in harmony with the rest of the natural world rather than destroying it. The other option is that this god just wants to see the resulting suffering that has already started.

Well, not only DID God create the world, he also gave us a code of laws. But, gave freedom too.

So, yea.

 

[Bear Wild]

You've never heard of a scientist being slammed by colleagues or blackballed for publishing material contrary to the accepted beliefs?


I thought they were good books with good science.


No, I don't realize that at all. The theory is easy to refute, being that it is illogical, full of holes, impossibilities, and dead ends, and has no supporting evidence at all.


Evidence of Satan's influence is everywhere, much of it not even hidden anymore. Now we have a statue of Baphomet unveiled in U.S. cities, public desecrations of sacred images and a public black mass in Oklahoma City, Satanic lyrics in popular music, and on and on. Of course Satan's influence is a driving force in so-called science perpetuated for the purpose of disputing God's existence. He is the Father of Lies, as we well know.

Yes the evidence of satan is clearly in teachings of intelligent design advocators to deceive people from the truth. Yes it is so easy to use a mythical entity such as satan whenever the need arises. There is lots more mythical identities we can use to when we become desperate.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, not only DID God create the world, he also gave us a code of laws. But, gave freedom too.

So, yea.

No humans gave us a code of laws. Humans created morals and all laws to control human behavior.