Intelligent Design Isn't So Intelligent

[SinSaber]

He built a trap that mimicked nature, and it showed your claim to be false.

Also it appears that you are quite unaware of the purpose of the experiment. It was quite successful though we have moved miles past that now.

You clearly don’t know the importance of left handed vs right handed amino acids

There is no trap in nature. Do you think amino acids go into bubbles of air after their formed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You clearly don’t know the importance of left handed vs right handed amino acids

There is no trap in nature. Do you think amino acids go into bubbles of air after their formed?

Wrong on both counts. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You clearly don’t know the importance of left handed vs right handed amino acids

There is no trap in nature. Do you think amino acids go into bubbles of air after their formed?

One more point we were discussing evolution versus intelligent design. You have moved the goal posts to abiogenesis. By doing so you essentially admit that you lost the evolution argument. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[Thief]

Whoa! Back up there a minute. You mean he had incompetent or devious cohorts doing behind-the-scenes dirty work?

.

and God said to the angelic......Let us make Man in our image

no response is reported.....but......I can hear it......
'He wants to form spirit contained in substance?????!!!!!
THAT won't work!!!!!'

'Substance does not beget spirit!'

 

[Thief]

Hey, never feel obligated to respond to any of my posts. It's neither worth your time to write it out nor my time to read it.

.

so...you're just posting for cause other than discussion?

 

[BilliardsBall]

To escape the onus that has accrued to plain old creationism (it's been banned as a legitimate subject in public school science classes) some Biblical creationists have tried to disencumber themselves from this millstone by claiming life was created pretty much as is by an intelligent designer. To arrive at such a conclusion they had to disavow any reliance on religion; however, in their efforts through "scientific" investigation they found their evidence happens to point to just such a religious figure, *Surprise!*Surprise!*Surprise!* And guess who best fits the description. Yup, god. And, of course, the god best fitting all the scientific evidence is almost always the god of Abraham. WOW! Who would have thought. Life was created by an intelligent designer who happens to be the god of Abraham.

This being the background of ID, the question I pose is, If this designer is so intelligent, why did he make so many goofs?
Goofs such as:

"In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby's head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby, or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.

In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, such as intestinal blockage and gangrene, usually resulted in death.

The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.

The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate.

Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot,[8] that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case"
source​

_______________________________________________

"The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches

Whales and dolphins breathe air, but live in the water, meaning they must swim to the surface frequently to breathe.

Sturdy but heavy bones, suited for non-flight, occurring in animals like bats. Or, on the converse: unstable, light, hollow bones, suited for flight, occurring in birds like penguins and ostriches, which cannot fly.

Various vestigial body parts, like the femur and pelvis in whales (evolution says the ancestor of whales lived on land)."
source​

_____________________________________________

In addition, this intelligent designer thought it smart that we have

Weather events such as tornadoes and hurricanes/typhoons that devastate land and property, and kill thousands.

Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that do the same.

Tsunamis, whatever their origin, that also do the same.

​

CONCLUSION
Mean, cruel, evil, or just plain dumb? I'm voting for #1

1) Not intelligent at all

.
​

Why then, did the unintelligent designer make so many wonders and so many beautiful things? Do you cherish and enjoy life--your own life--or despise it?!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why then, did the unintelligent designer make so many wonders and so many beautiful things? Do you cherish and enjoy life--your own life--or despise it?!

We are the ones that put the "wonder" into nature through our interpretation of it. A snowflake is clearly "wonderful" if one looks at it through a microscope. Yet we can see that it does not require and intelligent designer. Life is wonderful, but again when observed no designer is needed.

 

[Misunderstood]

I think he was making the point that the current argument for intelligent design ISN'T intelligent to begin with. This isn't about choice. This is about people advocating ID being given yet again another chance to argue their position rationally.

But seems like my prediction is turning true.

With this statement, at least for this conversation, it seems as if it is being assumed that some higher power created something. However, with the way it is stated it is not believed there is a higher power, or Intelligent Designer.

Continuing on with the assumed Intelligent Designer creating man, if that is the premise of this discussion, I would assume the Designer has a fair amount of intelligence. By being able to create life, I feel would require a far amount of intelligence, at least more than is here in our scientific community. So far we have not been able to start life from a lifeless object, and cannot even copy it after being able to examine it.

However, to make an objective argument we would need to know what the definition of intelligence is, and how that definition is being used. Also, we would need to know what the purpose of the life form that was created is. So we can see whether or not it is it is operating as required.

 

[columbus]

Why then, did the unintelligent designer make so many wonders and so many beautiful things? Do you cherish and enjoy life--your own life--or despise it?!

Randomly created a whole bunch of things, some of which we humans find wonderful and beautiful. Much of Creation, not so good. We don't even agree on what's beautiful. Your attitude towards a snowfall will vary hugely depending on whether you are snugly at home or outside homeless.

The real question here is why Creation is the way it is If it is the creation of a benevolent Omnimax God. I have never seen a rational answer to that question. Just the opposite, much of Abrahamic apologetics is contorted arguments attempting to plaster over the logical issues with that.
Take Rabbi Kushner's book, 'When bad things happen to good people" . I remember when it was extremely popular with Christians. I was a little stunned to find that he simply dumped the Almighty part from God, without quite saying so. God wants to help us more than He does, but His Hands are tied. He just can't work Miracles any more.
It seemed more rational than what Christianity teaches, generally. But quite irreverent to me, having been raised by conservative Christians.

Tom

 

[columbus]

So far we have not been able to start life from a lifeless object, and cannot even copy it after being able to examine it.

The operative phrase being "so far". Heck, I am so old I remember dumb phones without a single button. My mom grew up poor, she didn't even know anyone with a phone.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

Why then, did the unintelligent designer make so many wonders and so many beautiful things?

Don't know the "why." I just know the "what": Along with some pretty neat stuff he also made a lot of imperfect things. The problem is, god, if that's who one is claiming to be the designer, is said to be perfect,

Deuteronomy 32:4
"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.​

the implication being that everything he does would be intelligent. Of course if one doesn't care to claim that god is the intelligent designer in question, then it's a whole other kettle of fish.

.

 

[columbus]

Personally this is what I believe about the "God of Abraham" as expressed in a Jewish tradition:

“Aren’t all religions equally true? No, all religions are equally false. The relationship of religion to truth is like that of a menu to a meal. The menu describes the meal as best it can. It points to something beyond itself. As long as we use the menu as a guide we do it honor. When we mistake the menu for the meal, we do it and ourselves a grave injustice.” Rabbi Rami Shapiro

The Creator - Come and See

Various religions depict the Creator as something outside of us. But Kabbalah explains that it is forbidden to imagine the Creator as an image of any kind, that the Creator is a quality that exists within each of us.

The Creator is the quality of love and bestowal. The meaning of the word “Creator” (Borre in Hebrew) is “Come and See” (Bo u Re’e), meaning come and discover this quality within you.

There is no external, foreign element for whom we work! We work on correcting ourselves, on attaining the qualities of love and giving, the Creator.

Around two thousand years ago, we lost the feeling of the Creator—we were exiled and lost the true picture of the world. We began to think that the Creator was someone who existed separately from us, rather than a quality that appeared within us.

Instead of depicting the Creator as the primary and foremost quality of Creation, which clothes within us, we began to think of Him as a separate and foreign entity. Rav Michael Laitman

Once again, these Jewish thinkers illustrate why I find Judaism so much better than the later, heretical offshoot, religions. Like Christianity and Islam
Tom

 

[osgart]

We are the ones that put the "wonder" into nature through our interpretation of it. A snowflake is clearly "wonderful" if one looks at it through a microscope. Yet we can see that it does not require and intelligent designer. Life is wonderful, but again when observed no designer is needed.

What is your criteria for an intelligent designer?

What is your criteria for things as you say they are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is your criteria for an intelligent designer?

What is your criteria for things as you say they are?

An intelligent designer is not my claim. I do not have to have a criteria for one.. I merely need to point out that there is no evidence of one. Everything that we can see in nature shows no need of such a being. But I can point out certain features that indicate that depending upon the designer specified he may have been a rather incompetent one.

For "my criteria". We can observe the real world, form hypotheses, test them and correct them until a working theory is formed.

 

[columbus]

How do you see this sharing DNA amongst mothers taking place?

You are asking me to redesign the human organism from scratch in a RF post? Without genders?
It's not logically impossible to design a human with a fully functional reproduction system as well as "testes" that produce haploid gametes as well. But very different from what did evolve, for whatever reason. I am not sure where I'd begin.
But suppose we all generated "gamete pods", that functioned like sperm do. Delivering haploid cells to someone else's reproductive tract, to merge with a haploid cell that's already there.

And, seeing how the female psyche works, wouldn't having half the population effectively barren create enormous jealousy issues?

That's what we have now. Two dramatically different genders and a huge batch of disparities that cause lots of tension between them.

Nope, I think it's far better that such barren/DNA sharing creatures be so utterly different from the female spawners that neither would be jealous of the other, but, in fact, find pleasure in their unique couplings.

Well, that is what you're accustomed to, so of course that sounds comfortable. But suppose two humans could reproduce sexually by just having someone who wants a baby ask someone else for a gamete pod. Everyone produces gamete pods as reliably and regularly as guys now produce sperm, as well as being able to gestate a child if they decide to do so.
Don't you see some advantages to that system?
Tom

 

[Baroodi]

To escape the onus that has accrued to plain old creationism (it's been banned as a legitimate subject in public school science classes) some Biblical creationists have tried to disencumber themselves from this millstone by claiming life was created pretty much as is by an intelligent designer. To arrive at such a conclusion they had to disavow any reliance on religion; however, in their efforts through "scientific" investigation they found their evidence happens to point to just such a religious figure, *Surprise!*Surprise!*Surprise!* And guess who best fits the description. Yup, god. And, of course, the god best fitting all the scientific evidence is almost always the god of Abraham. WOW! Who would have thought. Life was created by an intelligent designer who happens to be the god of Abraham.

This being the background of ID, the question I pose is, If this designer is so intelligent, why did he make so many goofs?
Goofs such as:

"In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.

In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby's head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby, or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.

In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, such as intestinal blockage and gangrene, usually resulted in death.

The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.

The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate.

Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot,[8] that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case"
source​

_______________________________________________

"The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches

Whales and dolphins breathe air, but live in the water, meaning they must swim to the surface frequently to breathe.

Sturdy but heavy bones, suited for non-flight, occurring in animals like bats. Or, on the converse: unstable, light, hollow bones, suited for flight, occurring in birds like penguins and ostriches, which cannot fly.

Various vestigial body parts, like the femur and pelvis in whales (evolution says the ancestor of whales lived on land)."
source​

_____________________________________________

In addition, this intelligent designer thought it smart that we have

Weather events such as tornadoes and hurricanes/typhoons that devastate land and property, and kill thousands.

Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that do the same.

Tsunamis, whatever their origin, that also do the same.

​

CONCLUSION
Mean, cruel, evil, or just plain dumb? I'm voting for #1

1) Not intelligent at all

.
​

(Do the people want to Say we believed and they will not be tested? God has to Know those who are true and those who are liars ) Noble Quran

As Muslim we so believe this mundane life is a short journey we have to take to the destination which is the eternal domicile either in Hell or Hapititude. This Journey my dear crosses deserts, hills, oceans of tremulous waters, jungles with lurking beasts as well as through gardens, valleys and scenery views.
this testing started with Adams and all prestigious prophets Noah, Ibraham, Moses, Eisa and Mohammed(peace be uppon them all). You get different types of Exams oral and practical. It is a disclosed Exam, but yet many flunk it. you are tested with a disease, poverty, opulence, loss of a loved one, power, weakness, good and bad neighbors , unloyal family member, etc.... Then God will see what you will do.
If you keep patient with deep belive in God and his fate for you, salvage will come to you.
( if the people of the villages believed in me and feared me, We will open uppon them blessings from the skies and the Earth. And they will eat from above them and from underneath their feet) Noble Quran.

one blind man with a paralysis can be far better than thousands of healthy individual regarding his input to humanity.

(take the lessons O you iwho have minds)

Besides many of these things you talk about are byproduct for some awry behavior. If some one did frequent sins from which he was warned by God and he then got into troubles, He should only blame himself.

there is no smoke without a fire and the trace indicates a trotter.
Thanks

 

[Skwim]

You are asking me to redesign the human organism from scratch in a RF post? Without genders?

Nope, just wondering how you propose it might be done among two females. After all, you did say: "By sharing DNA amongst mothers,"

Well, that is what you're accustomed to, so of course that sounds comfortable. But suppose two humans could reproduce sexually by just having someone who wants a baby ask someone else for a gamete pod. Everyone produces gamete pods as reliably and regularly as guys now produce sperm, as well as being able to gestate a child if they decide to do so.
Don't you see some advantages to that system?
Tom

None that outweigh our present system: The beast with two backs.

.

 

[columbus]

Nope, just wondering how you propose it might be done among two females. After all, you did say: "By sharing DNA amongst mothers,"

Well, I was kinda up against the limits of the language. What word would you use for a nongendered human who has the equipment for a gestation period?


I'm not sure that this is all as speculative as it might seem. Techniques for genetic modifications are exploding with new possibilities.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

Well, I was kinda up against the limits of the language. What word would you use for a nongendered human who has the equipment for a gestation period?

Parthenofems.

.

 

[Edna Davidsen]

Hey, never feel obligated to respond to any of my posts. It's neither worth your time to write it out nor my time to read it.

.

There could always be a surprise along the way!