Intelligent Design

[JoeMorgue]

The eye is an great example. Not only is the mammalian eye horribly designed (as the article Thor 2 linked too points out all the, for lack of a better term "wiring" for the eye is run along the actual surface of the eye which leads to a really large blindspot in both eyes where the hole where all the wiring leaves the eye goes through to the point that a lot of visual information is filled in in what amounts to post-processing.) but... other types of eyes evolved that don't have that. Squid eyes evolved differently not having that weird wiring problem and having a completely different (and arguably superior) mechanical method of focusing.

 

[Thor 2]

The eye is an great example. Not only is the mammalian eye horribly designed (as the article Thor 2 linked too points out all the, for lack of a better term "wiring" for the eye is run along the actual surface of the eye which leads to a really large blindspot in both eyes where the hole where all the wiring leaves the eye goes through to the point that a lot of visual information is filled in in what amounts to post-processing.) but... other types of eyes evolved that don't have that. Squid eyes evolved differently not having that weird wiring problem and having a completely different (and arguably superior) mechanical method of focusing.

As I read eyes have evolved many times in different forms (so much for the irreducible complexity argument).

I wonder if the blind spot in our eyes has moved, and is moving, further around the side to reduce the effect of this defect, or if the remarkable ability of our brains to make sense of the flawed image, negates the need for this evolution.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The eye is an great example. Not only is the mammalian eye horribly designed (as the article Thor 2 linked too points out all the, for lack of a better term "wiring" for the eye is run along the actual surface of the eye which leads to a really large blindspot in both eyes where the hole where all the wiring leaves the eye goes through to the point that a lot of visual information is filled in in what amounts to post-processing.) but... other types of eyes evolved that don't have that.

Who would design a land-dwelling animal have eyes that have to be kept moist? If evolved from a sea creature, it makes a lot more sense.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I wonder if God used a nice modern CAD system, pencil and paper, or just did it all in her head?

Whatever it used, this god entity is dumb as ****. Take, for instance, having invented lignin without inventing something to digest it. Trees started to go up and up to escape predators and when they fell down no-one could digest their trunks which piled up ceaselessly, depleting the atmosphere of free oxygen and monopolizing most carbon in the biosphere. Tens of millions years after, with life reduced to a minimum, this doofus of a designer deity remembered to add the missing piece, but gigantic coal and oil reservoirs have started to form.

I know that the moronic wanker is supposed to work in mysterious ways, but, what the ef!

[No real god has been harmed or disrespected during the writing of this post]

 

[Thor 2]

Whatever it used, this god entity is dumb as ****. Take, for instance, having invented lignin without inventing something to digest it. Trees started to go up and up to escape predators and when they fell down no-one could digest their trunks which piled up ceaselessly, depleting the atmosphere of free oxygen and monopolizing most carbon in the biosphere. Tens of millions years after, with life reduced to a minimum, this doofus of a designer deity remembered to add the missing piece, but gigantic coal and oil reservoirs have started to form.

I know that the moronic wanker is supposed to work in mysterious ways, but, what the ef!

[No real god has been harmed or disrespected during the writing of this post]

I have read creationists ideas that the coal deposits are as a result of the flood (you know the Noah thing), but given that the Chinese have been using coal for at least 6000 years the credibility is in question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course Intelligent Design exists...as a concept.

But that's only trivially true - all sorts of absurd and falsified claims exist as concepts.

I have Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" in my library. To a layman, it seemed to make a cogent case for irreducible complexity. But after reading it, I easily found point-by-point refutations to each example given in the book online. And even if no refutation to a particular case could be imagined, that's basically an Argument From Ignorance, and not proof of anything beyond a lack of imagination.

Any of Dawkins' books could help disabuse one of the whole "Intelligent Design" thing. "Climbing Mount Improbable" is probably the most targeted in this regard.

As an aside, I came across Behe's book in the "Evolution" section of a bookstore once. Seemed out of place, but an easy mistake for an employee to make.

Then again, it's where I have my copy sitting!
...

Your bookshelf is labeled?

Are you afraid you'll forget where you put stuff?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I have read creationists ideas that the coal deposits are as a result of the flood (you know the Noah thing), but given that the Chinese have been using coal for at least 6000 years the credibility is in question.

They are people who gather in tents, pray for healing and say lots of alleluias, so it's safe to say you wouldn't get enough to make a single ravioli by gathering all their god-given brains into a bowl

Their pet god, barely above the level of sea monkeys or chia pets, follows their whims and has the epistemological reach of a four year-old asking "why?" so this trained monkey of a deity plays whatever role these rotten morons want it to play, from Gozilla-like in the rapture or chilblain healer to designer of groups of life by using its magical etch-a-sketch. The earth have never seen falser people that these pious wrecks when matters of religion are considered. I hope whatever god might be can forgive them.

 

[MikeG]

.......I suppose you have pointed out to your cousin some of the flaws in our bodies?.......

The recurrent layngeal nerve is my favourite. It is a nerve connecting the brain to the larynx. As it evolved in fishes where it led directly to the gills, it has found itself on the wrong side of the hear, so to speak, and so does a circuitous journey under the aortic arch and back up to the larynx. That's silly enough in humans, where it is about, oh, say 2 foot long to connect things which are only 5 or 6 inches apart, but in giraffes, it is four and a half metres (15 feet) long yet its sole function is to connect two things only 6 or 9 inches apart. Whoever "designed" that needs flogging.

My other favourite is the prostate. Who in their right mind would wrap such a gland around the urethra?

 

[Aridas]

The fact is that I asked you to expand on what you said because I wasn't clear as to the point you were trying to make. That was entirely neutral. You came back with a clarification.

Now, if those two posts were the sum total of your argument, and yet misled me and other posters, then I contend that the problem isn't ours, but in your clarity of thought and writing. Before you lace into everyone who has mistaken whatever it is you are trying to say, perhaps your time would be better employed seeing if you can put together a clear and cohesive argument.

First, were you intending to quote post 53 or 55? You seem to be responding to 53, but quoted 55. Thus, I'll treat you as having intended to quote 53. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and explain how it's intended to address 55, though, if that actually was your intent.

To respond to your claim, though, I'll also point at Delvo in post 27, who kindly clarified the obvious about what I said, as well. That you ignored the context provided by both what I had quoted JoeBentley saying and by the contents within the post to seize upon a phrase that could only be taken that way if it was completely ripped out of the context is not, in fact, my failing, however much you might wish to avoid responsibility. Regardless, if things have been clarified by now, we may as well move on and consign the misunderstanding to the past, with the hope that such misunderstandings can be better avoided in the future.

 

[BadBoy]

much like the firing of neurons in our brains or the operation of logic gates in a computer. And like brains and computers, the biosphere contains large numbers of these elements interacting simultaneously.

Really liked the post except I'm not sure about the hilited bit. A brain or maybe a neural network is not mathematically functional in the same way a set of logic gates are I think. At least I remember reading that the state of and result that a neural network creates based on its inputs is not entirely predictable?

Just a small derail. But interesting point in your post.

 

[Aridas]

To believe in the Noah thing is nothing short of remarkable for many reasons, but the one that comes to mind in the light of this discussion, is the extraordinary and rapid evolution that had to take place post the flood, for our diverse array of life today to come to exist. Noah only had space for different "kinds" of critters.

Baraminology comes to mind as being relevant to this. It totally confirmed that "Biblical kinds" was a viable concept... by referring back to the infallibility of the Bible when even they admitted that the actual evidence refuted the viability of the idea quite firmly. It was actually somewhat hilarious in a really sad way.

Now one of the creationists favourite arguments is to point to the absence of so called "missing links" between different animals as mentioned by korenyx above. Now if the extraordinarily rapid evolution took place after the flood there should be an abundant number of remains of transitional animals for us to study.

Crocoducks, ftw! AKA, it was also funny how they demanded something that would actually serve far better as evidence for creationism to "prove" evolution.

As I read eyes have evolved many times in different forms (so much for the irreducible complexity argument).

I wonder if the blind spot in our eyes has moved, and is moving, further around the side to reduce the effect of this defect, or if the remarkable ability of our brains to make sense of the flawed image, negates the need for this evolution.

The latter, more likely. The "post-processing" being in place pretty much already counts as a fix that would likely almost eliminate any immediate evolutionary pressure. As long as it's functioning reasonably well, it's unlikely that better eyes would rank highly in characteristics that make it more likely to create offspring, especially given the way that breeding selections are made at present and that we have plenty of ways to effectively negate many of the problems with human vision that might otherwise be selected against.

 

[BadBoy]

The fact is that I asked you to expand on what you said because I wasn't clear as to the point you were trying to make. That was entirely neutral. You came back with a clarification.

Now, if those two posts were the sum total of your argument, and yet misled me and other posters, then I contend that the problem isn't ours, but in your clarity of thought and writing. Before you lace into everyone who has mistaken whatever it is you are trying to say, perhaps your time would be better employed seeing if you can put together a clear and cohesive argument.

I was confused by the point of the post too. Had to read other peoples replies to get the meaning, then got more confused. Just my 2 cents if it helps any

 

[Aridas]

I was confused by the point of the post too. Had to read other peoples replies to get the meaning, then got more confused. Just my 2 cents if it helps any

Has it been clarified enough, yet, to remove your confusion in the end?


ETA: It really is as simple as... 1) JoeBentley made a false claim, which I quoted and 2) refuted, (why cede the high ground both intellectually and rationally, after all, especially when dealing with that which can be easily dealt with without needing to do so?) then I moved on and 3) responded to the OP. Others later ignored the quoted claim and decided to rip a phrase out of context from the refutation that mirrored that from JoeBentley's claim to come up with something of a nonsensical position to question me about.

 

[BadBoy]

They are people who gather in tents, pray for healing and say lots of alleluias, so it's safe to say you wouldn't get enough to make a single ravioli by gathering all their god-given brains into a bowl

Their pet god, barely above the level of sea monkeys or chia pets, follows their whims and has the epistemological reach of a four year-old asking "why?" so this trained monkey of a deity plays whatever role these rotten morons want it to play, from Gozilla-like in the rapture or chilblain healer to designer of groups of life by using its magical etch-a-sketch. The earth have never seen falser people that these pious wrecks when matters of religion are considered. I hope whatever god might be can forgive them.

Just curious, and by no means wanting to start a flame (it is a honest question), do you think the guy in your Avatar (forget his name) was an idiot, or maybe a visionary who got unlucky. I watched the film and can't help feeling of all the places to go and be alone in the wilderness, the Arctic was not such a good idea.

 

[BadBoy]

Has it been clarified enough, yet, to remove your confusion in the end?


ETA: It really is as simple as... 1) false claim was made before, then quoted in the post, 2) false part of the quoted claim was refuted, 3) OP was responded to. Others later ignored the quoted claim and decided to rip a phrase out of context from the refutation that mirrored that from JoeBentley's claim to come up with something of a nonsensical position to question me about.

yes! lol. Lot of fuss and nonsense about nothing really.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Just curious, and by no means wanting to start a flame (it is a honest question), do you think the guy in your Avatar (forget his name) was an idiot, or maybe a visionary who got unlucky. I watched the film and can't help feeling of all the places to go and be alone in the wilderness, the Arctic was not such a good idea.

What!?

He reminds me of the perils of finding all the right answers to the most absolutely wrong questions. In that department, the kid's the patron saint.

About what he was and why he did it, he's just a latent homosexual looking for identifying with a suppose alpha male hidden in the primitive layers of his self. He looked for the adequate settings to provoke that ... but the real dampened he took control. A modern Greek tragedy depicted with a romantic aura and a legend inspired in who just was a narcissistic bululú in real life.

 

[MikeG]

yes! lol. Lot of fuss and nonsense about nothing really.

No, it was a seeking of clarity, nothing more. There was never an attempt at ripping a position apart, just a seeking of understanding of the poster's point. Not every questioning of someone's post is an attempt to pull the argument down, although some posters do behave as though it is. I still, even now, don't understand why the (trivial) point was made in the way it was.

 

[BadBoy]

What!?

He reminds me of the perils of finding all the right answers to the most absolutely wrong questions. In that department, the kid's the patron saint.

About what he was and why he did it, he's just a latent homosexual looking for identifying with a suppose alpha male hidden in the primitive layers of his self. He looked for the adequate settings to provoke that ... but the real dampened he took control. A modern Greek tragedy depicted with a romantic aura and a legend inspired in who just was a narcissistic bululú in real life.

I think I'm afraid I asked. I did think he was a bit of a spoiled dick from the film though.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I think I'm afraid I asked. I did think he was a bit of a spoiled dick from the film though.

The archetypical tragic figure of the latter part of the twentieth century. A sad story. Incidentally, that photograph with such an arrogant look was taken less than 15 days before his demise. A locomotive speeding towards the cliff.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The archetypical tragic figure of the latter part of the twentieth century. A sad story. Incidentally, that photograph with such an arrogant look was taken less than 15 days before his demise. A locomotive speeding towards the cliff.

For those of us who find this curiously fascinating but can't identify the photograph, whom are we talking about?

Dave