Intelligent Design

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

lol, atoms don't get affected the same way a rock gets affected..
Also, bed time for Poolie. Good night.

[The Grand Nudger]

The effect on the atoms is -interchangeable- with the effects on the rocks composed of them.  It is precisely how that change is defined and affected. It's not as though the things happening to the rocks aren't happening to the atoms the rocks are made of. That's fucking nonsense Pool, lol......but why would it matter..it's not as if that has anything to do with design or offers us a means of distinction.

If you could determine whether or not an object was intelligently designed by how well it stood up to external forces (or reacted to them)...you'd have to determine that a rusted bike was not designed as well as a granite boulder......mystifying, since you don't think the boulder was designed at all.

[LostLocke]

In what way are the constraints of a rock fluctuating, lol?  

As fixed as the constraints of an atom, yeah.  You know...the things that both the obstruction, the water, and the affecting environment (like....rocks...) around them are all made of.........

Put the rock in extreme weather conditions and it's shape, size and those kinds of shiz fluctuate.
Whereas, put an atom in extreme weather conditions and lol, it stays the same.
The former is not fixed constraints. The latter is fixed constraints.

Nope.
Put your hydrogen atoms into an area with 'extreme weather' and they will cease being hydrogen atoms.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I'm sorry... how did you determine that an atom is designed, again?

Okay, I get it now.
The problem with my usage of design is that it can be interpreted as however I like. Right?
Because I can look at an apple and say that it is designed because of the obvious constraints imposed on it.
But I already said before that there is an obvious difference between a design and a design achieved from random events or natural causes.

Nature is not intelligent, it's a construct created by humans by which an absence of intelligence can be referred to. Natural causes are therefore no force of design, because that word requires intelligence - so why do you insist on using "design" where only "nature" or "natural" is appropriate?

How about this:
Fixed constraints intelligently imposed on a system implies a design.

So consider a rock.
What makes a rock you find on the ground that is the identical to a rock molded by a human in a lab any different?
After all the rock you find on the ground will have the exact same constraints as that of the rock you molded in the lab right?
The main difference is that the rock made in the lab had it's constraints imposed onto itself by an intelligent being whereas the rock in the road had it's constraints imposed onto it by natural causes or random events.
Another difference is that the rock made in the lab will have it's constraints fixed whereas the rock in the ground got it's constraints(like shape, size etc) the way it is through lots of natural causes and is ever changing.

Main points:

* Design implies intelligent action.
* Resemblance of a design due to natural causes is not a design because of its fluctuating constraints.

Like take hydrogen for example, it's atomic number, protons and other constraints are fixed.
Exactly like the constraints on the rock made in a lab are fixed. If the constraints on the rock are altered by another intelligent being then it becomes another design, but if the constraints are altered by natural causes or random events then it is no longer a design.

So ask yourself this,
Has the constraints of something like an element like Hydrogen changed in the history of earth or even our universe? No?
Well then we know it's constraints are fixed.
If it is fixed then it is imposed. (Like assigning an integer variable in a program the value 5. It is imposed.)
If it is imposed there was an intelligent being responsible.
If there was an intelligent being responsible, then it is a design.

Do I win something already? Or am I still not making sense? :Bounce Ball:

Not really sure what you are trying to say with this, but if you really think that complex organisms imply "intelligently fixed constraints" and "design", no that doesn't sell. There is no evidence that anyone designed any biological species at any level lower down than breeding. There is no evidence that our biological functions are the result of any intelligent planning, and there are certainly no fixed constraints on our reproducing genes, and ever-changing genes.

As for changes to the structure of the hydrogen atom, this has happened quite often, leaving at least 106 new elements to build planets with from dead, exploded stars. The elements don't happen to be life forms of short-term existence and the mandatory call to reproduce, therefore some of the universe became carbon and other elements while the hydrogen which did not change could go on being hydrogen. Now this dialogue is getting a bit strange...

[GUBU]

I would say my position is the atheistic one. I have no beliefs about the origin of the universe, if there was one. Positing a particular origin, design, I would say is more akin to theism.

Why do you think it is more akin to theism?
I think we can all agree that Atheism is literally a rebellious attitude as that to question a traditional approach. And Theism is more like following a traditional approach without question.

Don't you think this whole concept of design is a new take on an outlook challenging the traditional approach? (I think I'm probably the only guy that thinks this design and shit is real.)

Your approach is pure theism because you are supposing that there is a creator which made the universe and continues to interfere in its creation. You are positing a god figure. That is the essence of theism.

And despite your misconception theism is not necessarily traditional in nature. Some theisms are quite innovative.

[Esquilax]

Put the rock in extreme weather conditions and it's shape, size and those kinds of shiz fluctuate.
Whereas, put an atom in extreme weather conditions and lol, it stays the same.
The former is not fixed constraints. The latter is fixed constraints.

Yep. Because nothing designed ever changes in extreme weather conditions. That doesn't happen, has never happened, and never will happen.



All designed things stay perfectly stable in extreme weather, all of the time.  

[stop_pushing_me]

To clarify, what we don't know is how our world was designed. Whether by intelligent beings, random unknown events is what is unknown. It is known, well at least to me, that our universe is designed by what events or what beings or whatever is what is not known.

This question is malformed as you have crafted it in such as way that you are implying the presupposition that the "world was designed." This misconception of how the world came to be is something I come across often with theists. 

What is happening is that a theist will think first of what they want to be true...."that a god exists".....then they form a question with the assumption that a god exists when crafting questions in their minds...ie "what we don't know is how our world was designed".... which demonstrations their error in critical thinking. One should first think about the order of things....for example what came first...planet formation or the evolution of man? If you don't know... the answer is planet formation....and then mankind eventually ....over a time spread that is very very very difficult to wrap our human brains around.....Richard Dawkins often refers to the principles of evolution as climbing mount improbable. The truth is that the animals, bacteria, and whatever else you want to point to came about only due to the conditions of the environment that existed around them for them to come into being in the first place (it could be no other way). In other words Evolution is the opposite of design, and we know that evolution is fact.

Also, how can anyone use the ID argument when you look and see how many human beings suffer from aliments that vary in nature. Notice how many people deteriorate at different rates suffering from an array of suddle to extreme diagnoses. The US healthcare expenditures show at roughly $971 1 billlion dollars in 2014. If a designer was ever in place, he/she did a shitty job. 2. Breaking down in different ways in different variations aligns with the idea of evolutionary principles which directly refutes the designer claim.

[AAA]

To clarify, what we don't know is how our world was designed. Whether by intelligent beings, random unknown events is what is unknown. It is known, well at least to me, that our universe is designed by what events or what beings or whatever is what is not known.

This question is malformed as you have crafted it in such as way that you are implying the presupposition that the "world was designed." This misconception of how the world came to be is something I come across often with theists. 

What is happening is that a theist will think first of what they want to be true...."that a god exists".....then they form a question with the assumption that a god exists when crafting questions in their minds...ie "what we don't know is how our world was designed".... which demonstrations their error in critical thinking. One should first think about the order of things....for example what came first...planet formation or the evolution of man? If you don't know... the answer is planet formation....and then mankind eventually ....over a time spread that is very very very difficult to wrap our human brains around.....Richard Dawkins often refers to the principles of evolution as climbing mount improbable. The truth is that the animals, bacteria, and whatever else you want to point to came about only due to the conditions of the environment that existed around them for them to come into being in the first place (it could be no other way). In other words Evolution is the opposite of design, and we know that evolution is fact.

Also, how can anyone use the ID argument when you look and see how many human beings suffer from aliments that vary in nature. Notice how many people deteriorate at different rates suffering from an array of suddle to extreme diagnoses. The US healthcare expenditures show at roughly $971 1 billlion dollars in 2014. If a designer was ever in place, he/she did a shitty job. 2. Breaking down in different ways in different variations aligns with the idea of evolutionary principles which directly refutes the designer claim.

Molecules to man evolution is not fact. It isn't that hard to wrap your brain around, and the ID argument is not the argument that results from people not understanding the theory. If you want to believe in evolution, you have to have a natural way to increase the complexity of a living system over time. Studies show mutations to be harmful and degrade the genetic information. These mutations in our originally good genome are what cause these diseases that you are complaining about. There are cellular mechanisms (indicating design) that prevent mutations, but there is only so much it can do when the people in our society fill ourselves with mutagenic chemicals instead of the nutritious fruits and vegetables we were intended to eat. This suffering from diseases is almost entirely due to poor lifestyle or inherited mutations from ancestors with poor lifestyles. It is not the fault of the design or the designer.

[The Inquisition]

To clarify, what we don't know is how our world was designed. Whether by intelligent beings, random unknown events is what is unknown. It is known, well at least to me, that our universe is designed by what events or what beings or whatever is what is not known.

This question is malformed as you have crafted it in such as way that you are implying the presupposition that the "world was designed." This misconception of how the world came to be is something I come across often with theists. 

What is happening is that a theist will think first of what they want to be true...."that a god exists".....then they form a question with the assumption that a god exists when crafting questions in their minds...ie "what we don't know is how our world was designed".... which demonstrations their error in critical thinking. One should first think about the order of things....for example what came first...planet formation or the evolution of man? If you don't know... the answer is planet formation....and then mankind eventually ....over a time spread that is very very very difficult to wrap our human brains around.....Richard Dawkins often refers to the principles of evolution as climbing mount improbable. The truth is that the animals, bacteria, and whatever else you want to point to came about only due to the conditions of the environment that existed around them for them to come into being in the first place (it could be no other way). In other words Evolution is the opposite of design, and we know that evolution is fact.

Also, how can anyone use the ID argument when you look and see how many human beings suffer from aliments that vary in nature. Notice how many people deteriorate at different rates suffering from an array of suddle to extreme diagnoses. The US healthcare expenditures show at roughly $971 1 billlion dollars in 2014. If a designer was ever in place, he/she did a shitty job. 2. Breaking down in different ways in different variations aligns with the idea of evolutionary principles which directly refutes the designer claim.

You bring up a good point, if someone wants to assert that a deity is intelligently designing things, then they must come to grips with the incredible evil this deity is doing.

Michael Behe, the primary proponent of intelligent design, wrote a book, the Edge of Evolution which attempts to answer the fundamental question that an ID proponent must answer- Where is the exact demarcation line between natural micro-evolutionary processes and the alleged god-produced macro-evolution?

Behe; in his book The Edge of Evolution drew the line at chloroquine resistance in malaria. We found chloroquine resistant malaria widespread within 15 years after the drug was introduced.

Behe has constructed a god concept that is actively designing biological diseases to destroy humanity and then modifying them after we create drugs to control them.

Praise Jeebus, I guess?

Creationists desperately want to assert evidence for their god, but they painted god into the corner of malicious bio-terrorist in the process.

Behe’s (malevolent) intelligent designer is still at work

[Esquilax]

Molecules to man evolution is not fact.

Ohh, gosh, do I even want to do this? Okay, I hope I'm not wasting my time: "molecules to man evolution," is a simplistic, dishonest creationist ploy to strawman a complex interdependent set of topics that constitute real evolution, but I will say that common ancestry is the best possible conclusion we can reach based on the available evidence, and no amount of desperate twisting will change that.

If you want to believe in evolution, you have to have a natural way to increase the complexity of a living system over time.

That's called mutation, though apparently you knew this and have a terrible understanding of what mutation is, judging from what you've written here.

Studies show mutations to be harmful and degrade the genetic information.

Firstly: what is "genetic information," and why is it relevant to biological evolution?

Secondly, not all mutations are harmful. Many are completely benign, or actively positive, and they'd have to be: humans have at least sixty mutations from the moment they're born. If you want some examples of positive mutations, assuming you're entering this discussion in good faith and actually want to learn, I would suggest looking up Nylonase, the new digestive structures that arose in Italian Wall Lizards, and tetrachromia in humans. All of them are directly beneficial mutations with no downside at all.

These mutations in our originally good genome are what cause these diseases that you are complaining about. There are cellular mechanisms (indicating design) that prevent mutations, but there is only so much it can do when the people in our society fill ourselves with mutagenic chemicals instead of the nutritious fruits and vegetables we were intended to eat. This suffering from diseases is almost entirely due to poor lifestyle or inherited mutations from ancestors with poor lifestyles. It is not the fault of the design or the designer.

So, do you have, like, any education at all in biology, or are you just cribbing everything from creationist resources?