The flaws in Intelligent design

[dfnj]

I think ID is a pretty good argument. We know when we walk along the beach we know the difference between man-made things and natural things. Seeing intelligent design in the way our bodies work is a little like seeing animal shapes in clouds. You can't prove a subjective judgment is right or wrong. When you look at the way the human body works it's pretty complicated and amazing to think all this came into being without some type of cosmic ordering principle given the way nature tends to explode into chaos. God is just a label.

My problem with ID is with the word "Intelligent". Our existence may have been designed by God but all the pain I experience from my own body makes me think our bodies are not the most intelligent design. Of course, as most religions teach us, we should never judge God. The true path to spiritual enlightenment is to accept all of God's creations without judgment. And happiness comes from wanting what we have already.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Please provide a single legitimate example of the some of all the scientific progress that "disputes it."

Interestingly in lists of the top 100 most beneficial inventions to mankind,
none inherently rest on evolution.

Often both views share the same data, but differ not in the scientific observations
but on the assumptions

 

[Audie]

my my my

"We've yet to encounter a creationist who knows much of
anything other than how to google a creationist site."

You sent us all to the Googlelog Archepelago

It would be nice if one of you guys ever made
an honest effort to learn something before you
start criticize what you only dimly comprehend.

But we do not expect it. As noted elsewhere,
it is impossible to be a well informed creationist,
while maintaining intellectual integrity.

You guys go off on clouds of fantasy and pratts,
but never ever once have presented one actual
fact that contradicts ToE.

Nobody has produced a fact that disproves god,
either, but, in contrast to the creationists, the
atheists will readily agree that they have no data
to offer to disprove god.

You have a fact? One nice little datum point that
is contrary to ToE? Google to your hearts content,
it is not there. If you ever discover one yourself, stand by
for a Nobel.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I think ID is a pretty good argument. We know when we walk along the beach we know the difference between man-made things and natural things. Seeing intelligent design in the way our bodies work is a little like seeing animal shapes in clouds. You can't prove a subjective judgment is right or wrong. When you look at the way the human body works it's pretty complicated and amazing to think all this came into being without some type of cosmic ordering principle given the way nature tends to explode into chaos. God is just a label.

My problem with ID is with the word "Intelligent". Our existence may have been designed by God but all the pain I experience from my own body makes me think our bodies are not the most intelligent design. Of course, as most religions teach us, we should never judge God. The true path to spiritual enlightenment is to accept all of God's creations without judgment. And happiness comes from wanting what we have already.

The pain and brokenness of creation is because an originally good creation but broken and crying out for a redeemer

 

[Forever_Catholic]

So... no evidence, then.

Evidence? That's the biggest problem you have in selling the evolution theory -- no evidence to back it up.

 

[tas8831]

Did I say I was? I'm saying I don't buy it and explaining why not. Try putting forth a real argument.

So, this is an "explanation":

"There is no empirical evidence that such a thing has ever happened and the fossil record offers no evidence either."

Looks more like an unsupported assertion. Given my 20+ years at this, I'm betting that your confidence derives from the fact that you do not understand genetics, development, taphonomy, geology, etc. Just a hunch.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Evidence? That's the biggest problem you have in selling the evolution theory -- no evidence to back it up.

I see lots of compelling evidence for a creator
Don't you love how in human conception the egg is carried by clean doing a football wave!!!

I also think it's cool when after the first sperm goes through the Zona Pellucida, that gelatin like covering of the egg, granolas activate and enzyme that harden it to prevent other sperm from ending the process

It's rather awe filled

 

[tas8831]

He has interacted with me

Yup.... Sure.

 

[Audie]

" it is
actually impossible to be an informed, and
intellectually honest, creationist."

Well I have 4 degrees in engineering
and 25 patents and
would like to think I know a thing or two

Terrif! You can compartmentalize.

Those are nice, but totally irrelevant.

I think you know enough to know I was referring
to creationist beliefs, not machine tools.

You can patent away, and maybe cook a good steak,
but you cannot be intellectually honest and well
informed about the relevant science, and claim
still that ToE is false.

Do not take it hard; nobody else can either.

 

[Audie]

Please provide a single legitimate example of the some of all the scientific progress that "disputes it."

Now be fair, you know that is impossible

 

[Audie]

Yup.... Sure.

I think Jim Jones said that too, that he had "interacted" with god.

 

[tas8831]

I don't need objective evidence. That's your problem, atheist.

Oooooh - he called you "atheist"! BURN!

 

[whirlingmerc]

Ad Hominum detector going off

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Please provide a single legitimate example of the some of all the scientific progress that "disputes it."

We have learned that a mutation in DNA does not result in new information, but a corruption or loss of information. So that might result in deformity, disease, or death, but does not bring about about a new, improved species.

 

[whirlingmerc]

We have learned that a mutation in DNA does not result in new information, but a corruption or loss of information. So that might result in deformity, disease, or death, but does not bring about about a new, improved species.

In fact there is a large area of science investigating this
The most extensive simulation of mutations "Mendleson's Accountant" suggests rather than increasing, genetic information slowly rusts and goes downward
There are do many mutations that small non beneficial ones cannot be selected out

We do see changes in nature where a fish becomes a blind cave fish... but that is loss of information not an increase

Here's a question for ToE When a mother gives birth there are 20 pencil sized arteries going to the placenta and there is also an anti coagulent that makes the mother a bit like a hemopheliac and when the baby born and placenta disengages 20 arteries gush out with blood which would kill the mother EXCEPT there are muscles on the mother side that pinch the arteries closed

no real credible ToE explanation

 

[tas8831]

I have no idea why anyone wastes their time talking to you.

Your projection is entertaining.

 

[tas8831]

I've studied it at length. Documented cases have been presented, but they've all been proven to be false claims.

Wow.

Surely you can present, say, 2 examples? And EXPLAIN why you think they were proven false (links to creationist web essays won't do).

 

[whirlingmerc]

We have learned that a mutation in DNA does not result in new information, but a corruption or loss of information. So that might result in deformity, disease, or death, but does not bring about about a new, improved species.

see Wiki on Alan Sanford inventor of the Gene Gun and past professor of Cornell University John Sanford - Wikipedia

quote
The minimal rate of human mutation is estimated to be 100 new mutations per generation.[8] According to Sanford, Kimura'scurve shows that most mutations have a near-neutral effect, and are furthermore slightly deleterious.[9]:31 As such, they cause a genetic rust unstoppable by natural selection. Therefore, the main claim is that the rise of random genetic mutations is too unnoticeable to be affected by natural selection, yet harmful enough to cause the gradual extinction of any species through time.

An important corollary is that "beneficial mutations are so rare as to be outside of consideration."[9]:23 Therefore, natural selection is considered too slow to allow evolution.[9]:128Additionally, the selective cost is considered too high to override genetic drift and noise.[9]:57
quote

see also the words of Motoo Kimara on why over time information degrades with generation after generation
Motoo Kimura - Wikipedia

 

[tas8831]

Its funny how you atheists miss the forest for the trees when we give evidence to you.

I have read every post in this thread so far and seen nothing remotely resembling evidence.

Can you point it out to me?

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, God designed it all.

Why? Theres different reasons why. But before i tell you them. Let me state this: there seams to be a consistent ploy on the part of atheists to try and divert attention AWAY from the evidence for design and then put it on the nature of the designer himself. Well, you can do that all you want, but, that does not make the evidence for design itself go away.

You may not like the designer, but design itself does not go away based on your dislike of how the designer is.

Now, ill answer your questions.

Design deals with the physical evidence.

The nature of the designer goes into philosophy. As in defining the designer.

Why the designer does certain things goes into theology.

Ok, NOW ill answer your questions.

Death and disease are a result of the designer seperating himself from man, atleast in part, due to his corruption.

There, simple, wasnt it?

Are you saying all of life is corrupt? Bees, trees, bears, tigers, fish, dogs, elephants, etc. They die and have disease as well.

You see a fish as designed to live in the water when in reality it evolved to live in the water.

Do you believe in Zeus? Why or why not.