Intelligent Design

[brewer]

This is good:

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integri...nssJFnC7s0

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Just as a question for someone educated thoroughly on evolution... What's the explanation for the difference in gender?

I'm not thoroughly educated on evolution. There are others here far more educated than I. Hopefully they will chime in. My field is medicine. Try this for a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...production

[brewer]

Just as a question for someone educated thoroughly on evolution... What's the explanation for the difference in gender?

Just as a question for someone who clearly has internet access...You do realize you can look up these things yourself, correct?

Boru

Yep, but it does not appear that they are.

[Goosebump]

I think the neil degrasse tyson argument is about the eye. If that's the one your referring to then that should suffice. If the designer is Omnipotent then why would he fuck up the eye? Anything else is just more fuck ups.

[Minimalist]

What's the best way to refute the argument that we were intelligently designed?

Chronic backache from walking upright.  If there was a "designer" he sucks balls.

[Cyberman]

If life was intelligent designed, how was it designed? By what mechanism? ID is one big argument from ignorance. It offers no alternative to real scientific explanation, preferring instead pathetic "tide goes in tide goes out" non-arguments.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

That's actually one of the best arguments a theist can put forward in a debate. I don't think there is a way to counter this argument in such a way as to win the debate as the concept of intelligent design versus string theory(which states that the properties of the universe were assigned randomly,which also implies that if there are other universes then those universes wouldn't necessarily have the same properties(physical laws)as that of ours.) yield us with a 50-50 chance of being right.

Testing those concepts of string theory let alone proving them is not possible considering our current technological advancements the same way the concept that the physical laws were intelligently designed cannot be proved or dismissed.

My point is, there is no explanation for why our world is the way it is, at the moment, there is no telling there won't be tomorrow, so there are many assumptions for why it could be like this. Intelligent design is one of those assumptions so is those concepts which I mentioned above in string theory. So one can either be content with the fact that there is no explanation or can be open minded enough to consider the possibilities.

Edit: If I made a mistake, K can correct

[ignoramus]

oops.

Boru

Did you just double post on purpose to show that we are not intelligently designed?
I'm sure you did!  Nice strategy!

[Foxaèr]

Theists came up with the term intelligent design, and last I checked the majority of them were not all that smart.

[IATIA]

ID says it is not possible for the universe to form and develop, yet ID insists that it is possible for a creator to just magically appear.

Yep, that's smart. They gots good brains. Must be that there cipherin' they learnt.

[robvalue]

That's actually one of the best arguments a theist can put forward in a debate. I don't think there is a way to counter this argument in such a way as to win the debate as the concept of intelligent design versus string theory(which states that the properties of the universe were assigned randomly,which also implies that if there are other universes then those universes wouldn't necessarily have the same properties(physical laws)as that of ours.) yield us with a 50-50 chance of being right.

Testing those concepts of string theory let alone proving them is not possible considering our current technological advancements the same way the concept that the physical laws were intelligently designed cannot be proved or dismissed.

My point is, there is no explanation for why our world is the way it is, at the moment, there is no telling there won't be tomorrow, so there are many assumptions for why it could be like this. Intelligent design is one of those assumptions so is those concepts which I mentioned above in string theory. So one can either be content with the fact that there is no explanation or can be open minded enough to consider the possibilities.

Edit: If I made a mistake, K can correct

My position is that I don't know. Maybe things were designed, maybe not. But there is no evidence that they were designed. ID claims that there is evidence that things were designed, and when asked for that evidence, produces fallacious arguments and no evidence.