Intelligent Design

[AAA]

Please give me the evidence that makes you think that the neo-Darwinian evolution account for life's diversity is correct? Don't tell me that I'm ignoring the evidence when you robvalue in particular have not responded to me directly. I responded to one of your "poor design" statements with quite a few examples of what can be interpreted as inexplicable design. You never responded, yet you keep going on implying that you know more about science than me. You have me on ignore because you don't want to argue the evidence. I think you know that I am more knowledgeable about biology than you, so you just slap and run.

You keep insisting that your examples are of "inexplicable design". How the hell do you know that? How can anyone decide what is inexplicable just because they cannot explain it? Moroever, if you cannot explain something, then you have no business declaring it "designed"!

Where's the blueprints?

WERE YOU THERE?

The blueprints are in the genetic code, and when we can't explain the origin of things that have characteristics found in design, then I think we can rationally assume design.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Reasoning in science? What a concept!

I hate it when people (usually atheists) prance about as though they are masters of reasoning, logic, and science when they have probably not taken half the science classes that I have, let alone had the top grade in almost all of them.

Fuck off, Fraud! You are no student of biological science. You are at best an asshole at an asshole bible college where they teach assholes to pollute actual science with UNintelligent Design.

[Rhondazvous]

1. Every living thing lives at the expenses of some other living thing, either in a predator-prey relationship or a parasite-host relationship. It they reply with this is a result of sin, ask them why god would fuck up his entire creation for the sake of one man.
2. Celestial bodies (planets, moons, stars, etc.) do not move in synch. Their movements are governed by gravity and inertia but unlike a watch, they don’t move in precise relationship to one another. That’s why we have to add a leap year every four years because at the end of the year there are 6 hours left in the day. 6 times 4 equals 24 (an extra day).
3. If humans are supposed to be god’s grand finale to rule over other animals, why do other animals have keener senses so that they become aware of things long before we do?

[AAA]

Fair enough. You can't demonstrate the type of evolution that I disagree with. You guys may be having trouble seeing that natural selection and mutation are not what I am arguing against. I am arguing against their ability to lead to the life we see (from some ancient ancestor). If you can't show it you don't know it may be true, but you can decide the most likely alternative based on the evidence. We will never be able to show the way that life was formed, therefore we will never know.

Therefore skydaddy... A concept infinitely more absurd which you're comfortable with without question.
We like to question.

It's not "I don't understand how it works, therefore some deity must have done it" its" We know how it works, and it works like a designed system, therefore designer". Based on the quality of the design, we can assume that if it was designed, then the designer was pretty smart.

[Mr.wizard]

With what are you comparing it to, an engine, a building, what qualities are you using to determine design.

More like Digital code where instructions are present in the form of a specific sequence of characters that lead to a desired function.

Well you do not have a blueprint, plan, designer, or a desired result for life, so how can you possibly compare it to a digital code that we have all of those things for?

[GrandizerII]

What's the next number in the following sequence?

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ?

12, right? How did you know? Because you saw a pattern there and kept going with it. There was no reason for you to think "no, the pattern needs to change now, so the answer is 13 (for example)"

Now think about this regarding evolution on the macro scale. You didn't see ancestral apes evolving into homo sapiens or some other "macro" species evolving into another species, but we do see clear patterns in this world shown that clearly suggest that macro species do over time evolve into new species through various generations.

Whatever pattern you see in "micro evolution" shouldn't all of a sudden without reason be stopped so that macro evolution never happens. That's just forcing an obstacle here it has not been shown to the case that there is one.

That could easily be used for the intelligence design argument. We see qualities typically associated with things we know to be designed present in life. Should we then dismiss the logical causal link because we cannot prove it?

Those things we know to be designed by mankind, you mean, not by some god whose existence hasn't been established. But we know, most organisms on this planet weren't designed by mankind. So think about my post again please, and tell me what is the obstacle stopping macro evolution from being the extension of micro evolution.

[Mr.wizard]

Therefore skydaddy... A concept infinitely more absurd which you're comfortable with without question.
We like to question.

It's not "I don't understand how it works, therefore some deity must have done it" its" We know how it works, and it works like a designed system, therefore designer". Based on the quality of the design, we can assume that if it was designed, then the designer was pretty smart.

No life works like life.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Therefore skydaddy... A concept infinitely more absurd which you're comfortable with without question.
We like to question.

It's not "I don't understand how it works, therefore some deity must have done it" its" We know how it works, and it works like a designed system, therefore designer". Based on the quality of the design, we can assume that if it was designed, then the designer was pretty smart.

Knowing how something works does not make you qualified to know how it was made, or came to be. I do know more than enough about science to know that no true scientist would be making your arrogant claims.

You don't know jack!

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You keep insisting that your examples are of "inexplicable design". How the hell do you know that? How can anyone decide what is inexplicable just because they cannot explain it? Moroever, if you cannot explain something, then you have no business declaring it "designed"!

Where's the blueprints?

WERE YOU THERE?

The blueprints are in the genetic code, and when we can't explain the origin of things that have characteristics found in design, then I think we can rationally assume design.

The genetic code assembled itself, beginning with small chain reactions which either stopped or changed in a way that happened to be more adaptive as conditions changed. As you said, there's no such thing as "improved information", there's only what happens to make the plan a better one for existing conditions. Such adaptations help some species and not others in the same location, and condtions differ elsewhere. The blueprints for an existing eye work as well as it does because it's been reworked billions of times through random change until all the non-working plans perished away, never to be reproduced. If your mama was blind, deaf, unintelligent, with boils all over her face and foul-smelling, chances are you wouldn't be here for our scientific observation, and that would be the end of her genetic line. Even one of these, and many, many more bad blueprints handicap one's likelihood of reproducing, which is why your gabble over how well it works is so damned meaningless - of course the eye works, it would be a dead artifact of history if it were useless!

You said it was designed, but you still haven't said how it was done. You insist on an answer which asserts purpose and planning, none of which you can tell us about. Modern engineering blueprints are evidence of the top-down approach of the anthropomorphic  "design" which you insist happened, but life clearly did not happen that way according to observable coded plans and their deduced history.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Therefore skydaddy... A concept infinitely more absurd which you're comfortable with without question.
We like to question.

It's not "I don't understand how it works, therefore some deity must have done it" its" We know how it works, and it works like a designed system, therefore designer". Based on the quality of the design, we can assume that if it was designed, then the designer was pretty smart.

Where you are wrong is to call it "intelligently" designed. You don't know that, you cannot prove that, while the liklihood that life, if it can be said to have been "designed" at all, is overwhelming that it was done by nature through attrition. The code kept changing and then there was RNA, which outperformed what is no more. Then came DNA, and greater complexity spiraled. Numerous events on the life history tree are consistent with what would be expected when new innovations which come about this way open up pathways for greater diversity, leading to a diversity of adaptability traits, and more life of different forms abounding everywhere. What works in life just happens to be of genes which did not stop reproducing on account of failure to work well enough to lead to reproduction.