Help refuting an Intelligent design argument

[madog]

1) A blowjob is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity.

2) The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich in specified complexity.

3) Therefore, a blowjob is a possible cause for the universe and life.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The best refutation of intelligent design is to point out that the universe is not designed intelligently.

Boru

[Jrouche]

1) A blowjob is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity.

2) The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich in specified complexity.

3) Therefore, a blowjob is a possible cause for the universe and life.

Love this response and it's what got me placed on a "timeout" in the forum I'm debating this guy. I refuted all his arguments before the last post but then started off with--"okay dummy, this is where.....and one of the moderators is a Theists and instructed me to "edit" my response to be less disrespectful. I told him no--I'm able to post today after 4:30 so I'm gathering as many opinions and I'll respond later. I may actually use your hilarious analogy--and be banished again. But your example has me cracking up--Thanks for the post Madog....

[brewer]

I think I would go with madog’s approach. Even agreeing that it’s one of the many possible explanations but applying occam’s razor Isn’t the simplest necessary likely solution and reiterate that evidentiary ball is in their court

Are you saying that "god of the gaps" is supported by occam’s razor?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The whole ID argument is based on a flawed premise - that the universe was purpose built for us.  The whole approach is backwards - we evolved to fit the conditions that happen to exist in this universe.  Given the very real possibility that there are an infinitude of universes, we exist in this one because this is the one in which we can exist.  Not only can we exist in this one, we can only exist in a very small sliver of it - most of the conditions in the universe are inimical to human life.

A very good analogy (I can't remember by whom) likens the whole thing to an infinitely large clothes shop.  If you go in and find that only one of the  coats fits you and only you perfectly, it would be absurd to think that the shop was built with you in mind.

Boru

[madog]

If the universe was intelligently designed, why do we have the religious?  

[tackattack]

I think I would go with madog’s approach. Even agreeing that it’s one of the many possible explanations but applying occam’s razor Isn’t the simplest necessary likely solution and reiterate that evidentiary ball is in their court

Are you saying that "god of the gaps" is supported by occam’s razor?

I'm saying that the simplest solution, of a kind, is a parsimonious place to start any arguement.

[Jrouche]

If the universe was intelligently designed, why do we have the religious?  

Iv'e made such quips many times--but at this moment I want to assemble all the arguments I can a refute what he's saying or at least point out all the BS...but I'm using your blowjob analogy--I can't let the good ones get away---Best, John

[Rev. Rye]

Well, without you explaining just what the argument is you want to refute, we can't really help you refute it.

That said, there is a pretty exhaustive list of arguments creationists use and their responses right here. Odds are, you'll find something. If you use CTRL+F, you should find the argument you're presented with, and a decent counterargument to it. Odds are, you might not deconvert whoever you're arguing with, but you will demonstrate to an unbiased audience just what the facts are.

Hi Rev, Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Here is his argument for an intelligent agent.
1) Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity.

2) The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich in specified complexity.

3) Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.

Thanks, John

Here's a good place to start for this argument:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html

[brewer]

Are you saying that "god of the gaps" is supported by occam’s razor?

I'm saying that the simplest solution, of a kind, is a parsimonious place to start any arguement.

Certainly simple, not a solution.