Jump to content

Unintelligent Design


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Er...what?Um...huh? Ah...que?Maybe think about this one for a while and try again?
My same thoughts when I read about..Male mammal nipplesMale mammals have nipples. They do so because, in the embryo, the tissues involved start to develop before the two sorts of bodies (male and female) diverge. But given that most other sex differences are confined, naturally, to the separate sexes, it is a remarkably odd bit of design. Males, after all, do not and cannot feed their infants with these nipples. Why are they then not pointless and a waste of materials?Almost as interesting is the fact that male nipples are fully capable of feeding an infant. If a man is given the right hormones, and he will grow breasts that will lactate. So males potentially could feed infants. Surely that would be an obviously beneficial trick? But no. The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away, it seems.I suppose he created nipples to test our faith as well?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I can present my opinion, but I would be presenting slanted positions with an intent to offer an explanation that fits what I already believe to be true.Since the Bible is silent on the fossil things, then I will assume that I didn't make the 'need to know' list.But your question assumes that all these fossils are older than the 6,000 year age of the earth.You are basing this on the notion that the science we use to determine the age is an absolute authority.AND that the finding of these fossils has only one intention, to 'test you'.1. What if the science we use to test age is faulty because of conditions that we cannot know about. e g What exactly is the reaction to carbon decay rates when an entire planet is created with a thought? How much red shift would a ray of light have if it was created 1 million light years long?2. If God had left a receipt for parts from Plant Creation Warehouse and we found it under a rock, would you be free to doubt the existence of God? Maybe God is only giving you the freedom to come to your own conclusions about His existence, so instead of testing you, He is actually allowing you the greatest freedom in the universe, the freedom to reject your Creator.3. What if like the original proponents of evolution, you are completely wrong about 90% of what you use as the basis for your truth? I mean if someone came to you and presented a hypothesis with most it's facts wrong, you would hardly give their other facts much weight on the subject would you? In the 1900s they were just as convinced evolution was true...and their entire collection of proof was a scientific abomination
fwiw, i'd have to say that BG is doing a much better job of presenting the religious POV than most.it's hard to argue/debate with the position of "i don't know, don't need to know, and wouldn't expect to know"do you accept the validity of scientific dating methods within a relative scale (as opposed to absolute)? if you cannot accept that this fossil A is 2 million years old and this other fossil B is 1 million years old, can you accept that science is able to determine that A is older than B? is twice as old?i don't pretend to be so conceited as to refuse to believe that if i don't understand the reasoning behind something, there must not be any. but that doesn't stop me from trying to understand the reasoning. its certainly possible that god is testing me, or allowing me a great freedom to doubt him, but that does not make sense to me, and it is (i think) natural to doubt in that which does not make sense.if the basis of my truth was shown to be incorrect then i would simply reform my truth based on the new truth. making decisions based on the best current information makes sense to me. i don't have an issue with this because i'm not personally invested in my truth, and i'm free to adjust it as needed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
God* that sounds like a long time.*figure of speech
It's not really a long time.Unless you count the effects on the amount of time you will not be able to have a meaningful relationship...That makes it a little longer feeling I'm sure.
Link to post
Share on other sites
it's hard to argue/debate with the position of "i don't know, don't need to know, and wouldn't expect to know"
It's hard to argue against it in terms of specifics, but it's easy to argue against it as a general world view. Not that BG necessarily feels that way in general, but some people do, and it's not a good thing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was posting these things not so much as some kind of evidence there isn't a creator because as Speedz kindly pointed out it does no such thing. Only that it would be kind of silly to actually think of it as design from some omni-potent creater. All these features can be explained as a consequence of the gradual, cumulative nature of the evolutionary process. I applaude BG's effort at attempting to dispute evolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not really a long time.Unless you count the effects on the amount of time you will not be able to have a meaningful relationship...That makes it a little longer feeling I'm sure.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's hard to argue against it in terms of specifics, but it's easy to argue against it as a general world view. Not that BG necessarily feels that way in general, but some people do, and it's not a good thing.
i agree with you but it's a pretty subjective argument and those are hard to win. and what's the point of arguing if you don't win?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I can present my opinion, but I would be presenting slanted positions with an intent to offer an explanation that fits what I already believe to be true.Since the Bible is silent on the fossil things, then I will assume that I didn't make the 'need to know' list.But your question assumes that all these fossils are older than the 6,000 year age of the earth.You are basing this on the notion that the science we use to determine the age is an absolute authority.AND that the finding of these fossils has only one intention, to 'test you'.1. What if the science we use to test age is faulty because of conditions that we cannot know about. e g What exactly is the reaction to carbon decay rates when an entire planet is created with a thought? How much red shift would a ray of light have if it was created 1 million light years long?2. If God had left a receipt for parts from Plant Creation Warehouse and we found it under a rock, would you be free to doubt the existence of God? Maybe God is only giving you the freedom to come to your own conclusions about His existence, so instead of testing you, He is actually allowing you the greatest freedom in the universe, the freedom to reject your Creator.3. What if like the original proponents of evolution, you are completely wrong about 90% of what you use as the basis for your truth? I mean if someone came to you and presented a hypothesis with most it's facts wrong, you would hardly give their other facts much weight on the subject would you? In the 1900s they were just as convinced evolution was true...and their entire collection of proof was a scientific abomination
I love how you do this. The original proponents of evolution? Would that be Darwin? And he was wrong how? His theory was Natural Selection and almost universaly accepted as fact accept from some fringe religous nuts. Nothing about the theory was 90% wrong, it is 100 % accurate. You say the entire collection of evidence was a scientific abomination, would that be the Galapigos Islands and the animals on it?
Link to post
Share on other sites
fwiw, i'd have to say that BG is doing a much better job of presenting the religious POV than most.it's hard to argue/debate with the position of "i don't know, don't need to know, and wouldn't expect to know"
I am trying to be honest when asked a question that it would be foolish to pretend I know God's Mind on.That is different than your interpretation.
do you accept the validity of scientific dating methods within a relative scale (as opposed to absolute)? if you cannot accept that this fossil A is 2 million years old and this other fossil B is 1 million years old, can you accept that science is able to determine that A is older than B? is twice as old?
Again, I am not saying that your interpretation of the data is flawed, I am only saying that your interpretation of the data may not be the only possible interpretation.
i don't pretend to be so conceited as to refuse to believe that if i don't understand the reasoning behind something, there must not be any. but that doesn't stop me from trying to understand the reasoning. its certainly possible that god is testing me, or allowing me a great freedom to doubt him, but that does not make sense to me, and it is (i think) natural to doubt in that which does not make sense.
Is it because it doesn't make sense as it stands, or because it doesn't make sense to what you have decided is the way God should be?
if the basis of my truth was shown to be incorrect then i would simply reform my truth based on the new truth. making decisions based on the best current information makes sense to me. i don't have an issue with this because i'm not personally invested in my truth, and i'm free to adjust it as needed.
Again, we all like to think that this is how we view the world. But anyone who says they are not biased when they look at data is lying to themselves.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing about the theory was 90% wrong, it is 100 % accurate.
The skeptic in me (and I'm a little skeptical about being a skeptic) thinks this statement is probably wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The skeptic in me (and I'm a little skeptical about being a skeptic) thinks this statement is probably wrong.
Natural Selection is verifiable, has been verified and no one seriously argues that it isn't fact. It was just BG's little way of "impling" that everything about evolution is somehow based on false assumptions and innuendo.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No they aren't.
that was never five minutes just now!
I am trying to be honest when asked a question that it would be foolish to pretend I know God's Mind on.That is different than your interpretation.
i think my interpretation of what you said is correct? i may have misrepresented it but i understand you don't claim to know god's mind. the basic crux of my post revolved around it - basically that i don't claim to know god's mind either but there is no apparent reason for doing things the way he did as per the bible and that doesn't make sense to me, and that i have trouble believing in things that don't make sense to me (i have issues with the Monty Hall Problem too, see). you don't, and you do a better job of arguing that than most.
Again, I am not saying that your interpretation of the data is flawed, I am only saying that your interpretation of the data may not be the only possible interpretation.
i accept that but i don't think it's likely. 2+2 might equal 5 but all evidence indicates otherwise. it's a really big stretch to think that 2+2 appears to be 4 but is really 5, only we can't see that because god granted us the freedom to be wrong about math. this is obviously a huge oversimplification but you can't really argue the results of an equation, just the construct of the equation itself. perhaps the methodology of dating is flawed and can be improved, but this is determined through testing and observation, not by proclamation.
Is it because it doesn't make sense as it stands, or because it doesn't make sense to what you have decided is the way God should be?
i'm not sure i understand you are saying here (both options seem the same to me?), so i'm going to just address the second half: yes, exactly.
Again, we all like to think that this is how we view the world. But anyone who says they are not biased when they look at data is lying to themselves.
maybe. i'd like to think i'd change my mind about how i think about these things if you could show me some evidence that i haven't. i'm not personally invested in not being personally invested in my opinion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I love how you do this. The original proponents of evolution? Would that be Darwin? And he was wrong how? His theory was Natural Selection and almost universaly accepted as fact accept from some fringe religous nuts. Nothing about the theory was 90% wrong, it is 100 % accurate. You say the entire collection of evidence was a scientific abomination, would that be the Galapigos Islands and the animals on it?
The original proponents of evolution based their theory on their understanding of the building blocks of life; Human CellsThey were 90% wrong about this at a minimum. Maybe you can argue they were 99% wrong.Since then we have discovered that cells are not the building blocks of life. Proteins, amino acids, RNA etc are building blocks. DNA is a building block, atoms are a building block, cells are the stage 14 or 15 part of the process.So they founded a religion of evolution on really bad science.BTW they also used to claim that our body was filled with proof of evolution because of the over 100 organs that we have no use for , also known as vestigialThey included:the Thymusthe AdrenalsThe Reproductive glandsthe Appendixthe semi-lunar fold of the eyethe tonsilsthe wisdom teeththe little toe etc.As one nutcase of that day said:There remains, however, this difficulty. After an organ has ceased being used, and has become in consequence much reduced, how can it be still further reduced in size until the merest vestige is left; and how can it be finally quite obliterated? It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered functionless. Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot giveThe reason he couldn't explain it was because all those 'vestigial organs' were vital to the survival of the species.You guys are buying into evolution 16.4Evolution 1.0 was a complete and undeniable joke
Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection is verifiable, has been verified and no one seriously argues that it isn't fact. It was just BG's little way of "impling" that everything about evolution is somehow based on false assumptions and innuendo.
I was just picking nits at your 100% correct statement.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I am not saying that your interpretation of the data is flawed, I am only saying that your interpretation of the data may not be the only possible interpretation.
See, BG doesn't argue about actual Carbon dating, the process or how it has been repeatedly verified as being a consistent form of measure just that in his alternate reality things are somehow different, like he is from a Balloon planet with different laws of nature or something where facts can be interpreted to mean something different. I can't argue that Balloons aren't square on his planet because i've never been there, but on earth they are round. On earth Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The skeptic in me (and I'm a little skeptical about being a skeptic) thinks this statement is probably wrong.
Here is what Nature and Discover say.
...Since then, even the most unanticipated discoveries in the life sciences have supported or extended Darwin's central ideas—all life is related, species change over time in response to natural selection, and new forms replace those that came before. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," the pioneering geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky titled a famous essay in 1973. He could not have been more right—evolution is quite simply the way biology works, the central organizing principle of life on earth.
and
...Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was the first of three intellectual revolutions that ushered in the modern view of humanity. Sigmund Freud’s 1899 The Interpretation of Dreams recast our understanding of the hidden workings of the mind. Albert Einstein’s 1905 special theory of relativity showed that space and time are far different from what we thought. But a century and a half of hindsight makes it apparent that Darwin’s revolution was the most lasting and transformative. Freud’s work has been not just superseded but also partly discredited. Einstein’s relativity remains as durable as ever, but his method—his solitary, heuristic style—is light-years apart from the way most physics is done today. Darwin, in contrast, created a paradigm, powerfully shaping how psychologists look at the mind and even how physicists look at the universe; the flow of insights has been notably one-way.
I think RR is mostly correct, and I think BG is giving more weight to things that Darwin didn't quite understand. I have a feeling that BG can't find much to refute the basic claims of his writings, but we're much, much past that point. He'll go to town with the last paragraph of the Discover editor-in-chief's message. That's a bit of a stretch to critics I would bet.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The original proponents of evolution based their theory on their understanding of the building blocks of life; Human Cells
What? Why do you think this? Darwin's theory came out of the observation of the variation of traits among isolated and different environments.
They were 90% wrong about this at a minimum. Maybe you can argue they were 99% wrong.Since then we have discovered that cells are not the building blocks of life. Proteins, amino acids, RNA etc are building blocks. DNA is a building block, atoms are a building block, cells are the stage 14 or 15 part of the process.
This is... absurd. Which level you call the "building block" has no consequence for biology nor for evolutionary theory.
Evolution 1.0 was a complete and undeniable joke
Have you ever read On the Origin of Species? Its far from a complete joke.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i think my interpretation of what you said is correct? i may have misrepresented it but i understand you don't claim to know god's mind. the basic crux of my post revolved around it - basically that i don't claim to know god's mind either but there is no apparent reason for doing things the way he did as per the bible and that doesn't make sense to me, and that i have trouble believing in things that don't make sense to me (i have issues with the Monty Hall Problem too, see). you don't, and you do a better job of arguing that than most.
You are misinterpreting my desire to remain humble and not try to speak for God as a dodge. I don't blame you, but I think it would be highly arrogant for me to say this is why God did X. I am merely trying to get you to see that having a criteria for how God must act for you to accept His actions as reasonable places the ball in your court to prove your criteria are better than Gods.
i accept that but i don't think it's likely. 2+2 might equal 5 but all evidence indicates otherwise. it's a really big stretch to think that 2+2 appears to be 4 but is really 5, only we can't see that because god granted us the freedom to be wrong about math. this is obviously a huge oversimplification but you can't really argue the results of an equation, just the construct of the equation itself. perhaps the methodology of dating is flawed and can be improved, but this is determined through testing and observation, not by proclamation.
Observation of what? A minute length of time that you then extrapolate to a factor of 200? Without any allowance for unknown occurrences of unknown conditions to occur? I understnad why you want to argue that Argon decays into lead at X rate. But to make the assumption that all argon has always decayed at these rates, and that all existing lead was previously argon makes assumptions quite unlike supposing that 2+2 might have equaled 5 at one point.
i'm not sure i understand you are saying here (both options seem the same to me?), so i'm going to just address the second half: yes, exactly.
Then since you have arrived at the foundational belief that you have a better grasp of how things should be than God, you are now required to prove this in order to continue your assertions. What is the purpose for all life, and what things would you do to arrive at these results more efficiently? Oh, and explain why efficiency is the ideal outcome.Now you see why I am not allowing for the notion that 'errors' in life prove/disprove a Creator.
maybe. i'd like to think i'd change my mind about how i think about these things if you could show me some evidence that i haven't. i'm not personally invested in not being personally invested in my opinion.
Me thinketh though doth protesteth too much
Link to post
Share on other sites
The original proponents of evolution based their theory on their understanding of the building blocks of life; Human Cells
No, they based their theory on natural selection. You're talking about the mechanisms, the understanding of which of course have been built upon by further research.
So they founded a religion of evolution on really bad science.
If it was a religion we'd still believe cells to be the smallest building blocks of human life. Edit: And like vb said, it really doesn't matter to the theory itself. All you should concern yourself with when it comes to Darwin is his theory of natural selection...the molecular mechanics by which it happens is a separate issue. He wasn't wrong, stop insinuating he was.
BTW they also used to claim that our body was filled with proof of evolution because of the over 100 organs that we have no use for , also known as vestigialThey included:the Thymusthe AdrenalsThe Reproductive glandsthe Appendixthe semi-lunar fold of the eyethe tonsilsthe wisdom teeththe little toe etc.
Wait...you're saying that we continue to learn more about the human body? I don't believe you.
You guys are buying into evolution 16.4Evolution 1.0 was a complete and undeniable joke
You...can't still be showing this little of an understanding about how scientific theories are formulated, adjusted, etc. You just can't. And, like Rando said, the basics of Darwin's original theory are still applicable. Sure, he didn't have the technology to dig deeply into the mechanisms, but that's not his fault. Your whole "BUT HE BASED IT ON THE CELL!!!" thing is kind of ridiculous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The original proponents of evolution based their theory on their understanding of the building blocks of life; Human CellsThey were 90% wrong about this at a minimum. Maybe you can argue they were 99% wrong.Since then we have discovered that cells are not the building blocks of life. Proteins, amino acids, RNA etc are building blocks. DNA is a building block, atoms are a building block, cells are the stage 14 or 15 part of the process.So they founded a religion of evolution on really bad science.
Is math a religon? Social Studies? But I am glad to see that you aree that over the last 100 years everything we have come to learn about Proteins, amino acids, RNA etc are building blocks. DNA is a building block, atoms are a building block etc...has verified the original theory of Natural Selection. It's amazing that all those years ago, Darwin was lambasted as a heretic and all these years later we have consistently proven he was right. He would crap his pants if he knew we found the fossils of our human ancestors like "Lucy", but I digress. We do have a better understanding of how life evolved and we are learning more all the time as with most things. It wouldn't be natural to know it all and then unlearn everything for the last 100 years now would it?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...