A Simple Arguement Against INTELLIGENT Design

kleinman said:
Are their any evolutionists who aren’t thin skinned crybabies? You speak truthfully to them and they take it as rudeness.

There was a politician in this country 50 years ago by the name of Harry Truman. He said “I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”

Evolutionists are superficial with their own theory, so why should I think they are diligent with their reading of the Bible.

Dust off your Bible, get yourself a word concordance for the Bible and read what Jesus Christ said about the truth and how He responded to liars and hypocrites. Then you can compare what He said with the rest of what is written in the Bible. Since your single reading of the Bible has made you a Bible scholar, perhaps you would like to recite the 10 commandments from memory?
Click to expand...

Are you really replying to your own posts now?
 
kleinman said:
Are their any evolutionists who aren’t thin skinned crybabies? You speak truthfully to them and they take it as rudeness.
Click to expand...

Since there is no documented case where a creationist has actually spoken truthfully, you have no data to support this assertion.

OK - that is a bit hyperbolic, but you probably understand what I am getting at. The only underlying premise I have ever heard of for creationism and of intelligent design, boils down to the intellectually dishonest argument that 'we don't believe in evolution'. In support of this premise is the constant misrepresentation of real science - which is factually dishonest.
 
kleinman said:


Dust off your Bible, get yourself a word concordance for the Bible and read what Jesus Christ said about the truth and how He responded to liars and hypocrites. Then you can compare what He said with the rest of what is written in the Bible. Since your single reading of the Bible has made you a Bible scholar, perhaps you would like to recite the 10 commandments from memory?
Click to expand...

I am no Bible scholar hence I asked you for a cite. If I remember from my reading it had handy little numbers against the passages, very useful for quoting I would have thought. And I don't really care about the tribal rules of stone age goat herders, why would I?

Your'e obviously a bright guy and I find it sad you waste so much time and energy trying to shoe horn your beliefs into science. Even if you're right about the theory of evolution (you're not but let's run with it) this is not evidence for your God. It's only evidence that the theory isn't correct.
 
kleinman said:
Dust off your Bible, get yourself a word concordance for the Bible and read what Jesus Christ said about the truth and how He responded to liars and hypocrites. Then you can compare what He said with the rest of what is written in the Bible. Since your single reading of the Bible has made you a Bible scholar, perhaps you would like to recite the 10 commandments from memory?
Click to expand...

I was wondering when this exchange would degrade to the point of citing the Bible.
 
Foster Zygote said:
I was wondering when this exchange would degrade to the point of citing the Bible.
Click to expand...

To be fair I did ask for a cite where Jesus said for his followers to be rude. I have a feeling it was only a matter of time however.

I apologise for being the prompt.
 
Kleinman said:
Are their any evolutionists who aren’t thin skinned crybabies? You speak truthfully to them and they take it as rudeness.
Click to expand...
Oh, so this is truthful:
Kleinman said:
I have had evolutionists correct my grammar, but Professor joobz, your English instructors should have never let you get past 1st grade. Why don’t you rephrase that collection of words into something intelligible and I’ll try to respond to it.
Click to expand...
You honestly believe that Joobz should not have entered second grade?

It doesn't have anything to do with truthfulness. You're simply rude.

~~ Paul
 
kleinman said:
Are their any evolutionists who aren’t thin skinned crybabies?
Click to expand...
Do you even know what a logical fallacy is?

Evolutionists are superficial with their own theory, so why should I think they are diligent with their reading of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Do you even know what a logical fallacy is?

Dust off your Bible, get yourself a word concordance for the Bible and read what Jesus Christ said about the truth and how He responded to liars and hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Do you even know what a logical fallacy is?
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Oh, so this is truthful:

You honestly believe that Joobz should not have entered second grade?

It doesn't have anything to do with truthfulness. You're simply rude.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
I thank you for your defense. Although, I don't doubt that my English teachers wished I had tried harder at learning spelling and grammar. I was always to busy reading my science books, encyclopedias, playing math games...:)
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
I thank you for your defense. Although, I don't doubt that my English teachers wished I had tried harder at learning spelling and grammar. I was always to busy reading my science books, encyclopedias, playing math games...:)
Click to expand...

You're a smart guy. You just happen to type like a chimp.:D
 
articulett said:
It's a great example of bottom up design. The designers are the participants not some overlord...it's not pre-designed...it's designed as it goes--as is all life.
Click to expand...

One doesn't logically preclude the other.

If a design was intended or intelligent--why would there be waste and why would there be suffering and an arms race of predator against prayer--parasite against host etc.
Click to expand...

And why are some ice cream cones extra drippy? Think of any human design for a second. They are intelligent. They are not all perfect. So the same can apply to any designer (arguments of "perfect" designers are irrelevant to me, as I'm not arguing for what is written about designers, but the logical idea).

The things you cite as horrors might actually be a most efficient global recycling system for all we know (you know, the food chain and all), or it may be more efficient to have the same nervous system for pleasure and pain than two separate systems. Your displeasure with reality is not a good argument against the idea of a designer.

It's a cop out...a way of saying "humans aren't meant to understand" or "there's a purpose for my existence" or "I'm not really going to cease existing..."
Click to expand...

Another cop out is saying that we can talk about design for anything, except in biology.

Natural laws are enough to design even amazing things like humans.
Click to expand...

Physical laws do not logically preclude a designer. Why do you think they do?

You think humans will never understand abiogenesis--but we keep plodding on and getting more clues...what will you do when it is proven?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting hypothetical. Got anything even remotely approaching proof?

God is disappearing.
Click to expand...

According to whom exactly? Belief seems just as high as ever, and every-so-often studies come out hinting that belief might be hardwired, which hints that it will never disappear.

We have no evidence that anything just "poofs" into being
Click to expand...

The Big Bang is that. The Cambrian Explosion is kinda that. :)
 
Yeah, the Cambrian Explosion was kinda like that....over 500 million years... "poof"
 
There's no point in addressing this to Justin as he will not respond, so I'll simply address the readers of this thread.

T'ai Chi said:
Another cop out is saying that we can talk about design for anything, except in biology.
Click to expand...
Who's said that? Do we talk about the design of mountains, rivers, plains, clouds, snowflakes etcetera? I seems to me we've only mentioned 'design' in the context of conscious animals shaping elements of their environment to serve a purpose.

Physical laws do not logically preclude a designer. Why do you think they do?
Click to expand...
I think Articulett's point was that physical laws do not require that there be a designer to explain their function. To postulate one is completely unnecessary.

That's an interesting hypothetical. Got anything even remotely approaching proof?
Click to expand...
This strikes me as Justin simply being difficult. But what the hey...

When Darwin first proposed his theory he knew that the evidence pointed strongly to evolution by natural selection. But he was troubled by all the unanswered questions regarding its function. He didn't even know what the mechanism for heredity was (Mendel's work was technically available, but was virtually unnoticed at the time). The information that has accumulated since Darwin's time would boggle his mind. Many of the criticisms of evolutionary theory which were once considered serious threats are now viewed as quaint and naive. A huge number of fundamental questions have been answered. Justin's apparent assertion that science will never understand biochemistry enough to propose a theory of abiogenesis is groundless. There is no guarantee that we will discover a mechanism of abiogenesis, just as there was no guarantee that we would discover the mechanism behind heredity. But the likelihood that we will is great.

According to whom exactly? Belief seems just as high as ever, and every-so-often studies come out hinting that belief might be hardwired, which hints that it will never disappear.
Click to expand...
God is disappearing from science. The gaps continue to shrink. Belief in gods may be "hardwired", but obviously people can overcome this.

The Big Bang is that. The Cambrian Explosion is kinda that. :)
Click to expand...
*sigh* I don't know if Justin is being deliberately obtuse or if he simply has so many people on 'ignore' that he hasn't read any of the number of attempts to explain this to him. The universe didn't poof into existence at the Big Bang. There was no "before" the Big Bang. Time, as we perceive it, seems to start at that point, but asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking were the edge of the surface of a sphere is.

As for the Cambrian, as Skeptic Guy points out, it may have been fairly rapid on a geological time scale, but to describe it as a "poof" moment in time is just wrong. Why did life increase in diversity so much during that period? We don't know for sure. There is some fascinating geological evidence that suggests some good answers, but we'll have to wait and see. But the fact remains that life was around long before the Cambrian period and that it didn't "suddenly" pop into a great diversity of forms during that period.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
Yeah, the Cambrian Explosion was kinda like that....over 500 million years... "poof"
Click to expand...

Acutllay, you mean over 500 million years ago, not 500 million years duration. THe duration is estimated to be 5 to 10 million years, which yes is a poof for geological time.

Obviously not a literal poof, but in the sense of "The Cambrian explosion of species refers to the geologically sudden appearance in the fossil record of the ancestors of familiar animals"
(from wikipedia)
 
Sharks do get cancer. The myth that they don't was put forth by the people promoting the "benefits" of taking shark cartilage as a cancer-preventing supplement.

Our ears do have a method of protecting us from loud songs--the little bones (incus, malleus and stapes) pull slightly apart damping the more intense vibrations.

I don't think we need a simple argument against ID. The burden is on them to put forth a compelling argument. Thus far, they've failed. (Watch implies watchmaker does NOT lead to complex biology implies creator.)

So far the relatively simple ideas behind evolution and natural selection have proven to be incredibly powerful explanations of the diversity and complexity (and, in the case of parasites, simplicity) of life on Earth.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Acutllay, you mean over 500 million years ago, not 500 million years duration. THe duration is estimated to be 5 to 10 million years, which yes is a poof for geological time.

Obviously not a literal poof, but in the sense of "The Cambrian explosion of species refers to the geologically sudden appearance in the fossil record of the ancestors of familiar animals"
(from wikipedia)
Click to expand...

Yeah - a poof.

20 million years or maybe more. You knocked 50 to 87.5% off the number.

545 to 525 million years ago
Click to expand...
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html

However, the Cambrian was nonetheless a time of great evolutionary innovation, with many major groups of organisms appearing within a span of only forty million years.
Click to expand...
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html

Before you go spouting off about the 'Cambrian Explosion' again, you might want to look at the chart here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html

Note the Cenozoic Explosion of animal groups in the lower right. What could it mean??
 
question

Would Intelligent Design enthusiasts want to know if there was no designer? Or would they feel like they had been foolish, won't get salvation, won't behave morally? It always seems to me that those who posit an "intelligent designer" use the notion that science can't disprove it as reason for their belief.

Would any evidence ever suffice for such believers. If there was evidence for design that didn't smack of confirmation bias, I think most scientists would like exploring that. But the evidence just tends to be gaps in knowledge.

From a scientific perspective we'd say If natural selection is the designer, we'd expect to see _____________ (vestigal organs, vestigal genes, etc.)--And if we saw _________________ it would throw a real monkey wrench in the works. Intelligent Design doesn't do that.
 
Maybe the intelligent designer saw evolution at work in another universe and said to himself "Gee, that's pretty cool. I think I'll rig things up to look just like that."

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom