intelligent design

[Benhamine]

i am honest in agreeing that a simple structure opens the possibility of a designer.

you, however are dishonest in disagreeing that a more complex structure greatly increases the chances of a designer.

given that anyone with half a brain understands this concept. it can only be intellectual dishonesty on your part to find it more likely that the more complex structure has NO designer.

now go run and hide.

I think he's having issues understanding your intent behind the metaphor. What Bushidogrendel (at least how I'm reading it) is saying is that if you have a shack (us humans) and you also have a mansion (a more complicated structure/being - eg. God) then it is more applicable to question who the creator of the mansion is than the shack, as it would be easier to comprehend that the shack happened by chance than the mansion appearing by chance. Now where he's applying this metaphor is that it is easier to comprehend humans happen to be without something/someone creating it than it is that a God just happened to be, thus the conversation doesn't end with God created man, because who created God?

-Benhamine

P.S. I apologize if I butchered your metaphor. That's just how I read into it and felt maybe having him hear it through different words may clear things up. Please speak up if this wasn't the intent of your metaphor as I don't want to impose my bastardized view of it and will wholeheartedly retract this post.

 

[bushidogrendel]

thanks for rephrasing, but i dont think there is a single person who does not understand this simple concept.

 

[Skwim]

As I said, the evidence for the Bible's divine authorship is available to those willing to examine the evidence.

True, it may very well be available; however, without a purposeful predisposition to read into it what one must it falls far short of being convincing.

The evidence for an invisible Creator is also abundant to those not blinded by their fidelity to the shifting sands of men's theories and self-seeking advocates of falsely called 'science'.

Really? Does this evidence require a leap of faith or blind acceptance like your above mentioned divine authorship of the Bible, or can it stand on its own like the type of evidence that under-girds the sciences?

 

[idav]

thanks for rephrasing, but i dont think there is a single person who does not understand this simple concept.

Right so how is it that an entity so complex as the creator requires no designer? Intelligent design shoots itself in the foot right out of the gate.

 

[Benhamine]

Right so how is it that an entity so complex as the creator requires no designer? Intelligent design shoots itself in the foot right out of the gate.

He's the one arguing just that

-Benhamine

 

[idav]

He's the one arguing just that

-Benhamine

Hey wait that's MY argument. JK

Haha gets a bit muddled with all the designer of the designer stuff.

 

[Nicholas]

A large, newish book by ID proponent Stephen Meyer:

Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer

Pokes many holes in conventional science's view of life's origin and gives evidence for a non-random explanation.

 

[outhouse]

A large, newish book by ID proponent Stephen Meyer:

Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer

Pokes many holes in conventional science's view of life's origin and gives evidence for a non-random explanation.

no it doesnt

it pokes holes inhis knowledge of biology, he purposely lies and uses the method of truth, truth, and then lie to steer people away from the known truth.


his book ir easily refuted by armchair biologist

 

[Nicholas]

no it doesnt

it pokes holes inhis knowledge of biology, he purposely lies and uses the method of truth, truth, and then lie to steer people away from the known truth.


his book ir easily refuted by armchair biologist

So you have read the whole book?

Give one page # of a quote that lies "to steer people away from the known truth".

 

[outhouse]

So you have read the whole book?

Give one page # of a quote that lies "to steer people away from the known truth".

there is not one thing scientific about ID

this is a fact.

it was beaten down in court, and now is illegal in public schools.


Now evolution on the other hand is taught in every major university in all of he world as higher learning.

ID is not taught in a single university, you ever wonder why????

 

[Nicholas]

there is not one thing scientific about ID

this is a fact.

it was beaten down in court, and now is illegal in public schools.


Now evolution on the other hand is taught in every major university in all of he world as higher learning.

ID is not taught in a single university, you ever wonder why????

Non-responsive - so have you read any of the book? You said Meyer "lies" in his book; give evidence from his book of a "lie".

Otherwise one could assume you are blowing smoke regarding your knowledge of Signature in the Cell.

 

[outhouse]

Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

meyer is a known quack

book to the rest of us using statements that are factually incorrect.

Meyer’s book and its flawed reasoning

scientific problems with Meyer's work

Point Loma Nazarene University, reviewed the book and used it as an example of why he does not support the intelligent design movement

If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded

it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion


not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed






there you have it. that crock of worthless paper has ZERO scientific merit, and YOU cannot show that it does.

 

[outhouse]

the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID

 

[outhouse]

Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses

 

[Nicholas]

Mr House is a good example of the so-called "critics" of Meyer's book. Many (maybe most) would not deign to read the book. They just addressed the glories of infallible science and the failings of ID in general.

Here is a sad but amusing book that was written giving many examples of the bellowing scientists who just "know" - without reading - Meyer's Signature work, that it must be "trash".

So much for scientists' (armchair included) love & respect for truth.

Signature of Controversy - Introduction

 

[idav]

Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses

I don't think an ant is intelligent but he isn't retarded either. Depends on where you wanna draw the line.

 

[outhouse]

Mr House is a good example of the so-called "critics" of Meyer's book.

that would be me and all of science.

So much for scientists'

this is a problem with your reply, you denounce all modern science in one hand, then cherry pick known false material and try and give it validity without knowledge of the subject at hand in the other.




It is not peer reviwed, it is not evidence of any kind and his work is rejected by all mainstream science. PERIOD

the link your provided is more known biased false material from a creationist website thast sole interest is to bilk large amounts of money from the religious while promoting a known myth.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think an ant is intelligent but he isn't retarded either. Depends on where you wanna draw the line.

that is a quote from the link I posted

your taking it out of context.


that is known valid scientist comments on the ID book

 

[connermt]

this is a question i have asked myself for a long time. does intelligent design answer the question of origin or does it simply delay the question no one has an answer to?

if we go down the road of believing that one or multiple beings created everything in existence. the question then becomes who created that/those being/s? if we were to say that that/those being/s have no creators of their own but rather always existed, then the question becomes, who or what allowed that/those highly complex beings to exist in their vast complexity?? no one? nothing? random chance? luck? nothingness? because if thats the answer, then we have come full circle right back to the unknown... we havent advanced one bit. but simply delayed the question of origin.

if we find it reasonable to believe that our complex creator/s were not designed/created themselves, then logically we should find it even more reasonable to believe that the far less complex "creation"(existence) was itself not created/designed.

isnt it easier to believe that something less complex has no creator, than to believe that something far more complex has no creator? or am i missing something?

#1 ID is proven to be religious dogma attempted to be passed off as science
#2 a quick study of the vocal evolution of the giraffe will see ID isn't any more real than magic card tricks
#3 there may have well been a creator in some sense of some aspects of nature but no deity as outlined in the christian bible

 

[Nicholas]

A source for articles on ID: Evolution News & Views: Intelligent Design Archives