Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
niceatheist said:
So I take it you’re not actually going to deal with the physical issues involved in making human child birth relatively more risky than in other primates.
Click to expand...
Setting aside the pelvic shape for one moment, perhaps it would not have been painful for several other reasons, one of which could be the pelvic nerves were less sensitive during childbirth.
 
rossum said:
That is theology, not science. To quote Borges:
Not only was it difficult for him to comprehend that the generic symbol dog embraces so many unlike individuals of diverse size and form; it bothered him that the dog at three fourteen (seen from the side) should have the same name as the dog at three fifteen (seen from the front).

Borges – Funes the Memorious.
Click to expand...
Being is properly a philosophical topic, as is the Causal Relatedness of Reality (material and immaterial). Soul and Form and “substance” (which substance is the composite of the dog soul and dog embryo) are also properly philosophy and never science, for physical science is the study of passive movement of matter - form is non material and is not accessible to science except via speculation about causation of the passive formation of matter in temporal succession.
The soul moves the passive material of the dog’s body past a scientist named Borges (whomever) and repeat calling the Name “Spot” finds notice and science can speculate it is the same dog being animated as a single substance.
Soul, substance, even essence, are easily reasonable and not matters of divine revelation (which also makes sense when known).

John Martin
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
40.png
Lion_IRC:
Mutations - random/spontaneous/unpredictable
Natural selection - luck
Click to expand...
Mutation: Random/spontaneous/unpredictable.
Natural selection: The differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype giving rise to the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations.

The fact that a creature has better eyesight than its neighbour is random. The fact that this gives it a better chance of survival is not.

This is evolution 101.

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who disparage the process whilst exhibiting next to no knowledge of it.
Click to expand...
You seem totally ignorant of the fact that evolution has resulted in species which are blind. If you were competing with those species for food, you would starve to death.

Where does that leave your claim about better eyesight conferring a survival advantage?

Educate yourself. Natural selection is a matter of luck.

Survival of the Luckiest

www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
 
Last edited:
(Atheistic) evolution doesn’t care, doesn’t ‘filter’, doesn’t ‘confer’, doesn’t do anything. It is random, spontaneous and unloving.
The law of the jungle is that there is no law.
That’s what you are left with if you take God out of the picture.

God’s creation and ongoing care of His creatures is not random or careless.

“Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them…"
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
Gee, I thought the argument was that bad design is still design.
Click to expand...
The goodness or badness of the design is not based on your evaluation but rather on the designer’s.

The design is perfect for its intended end: ~ 80 years or so and then gravity wins. But of course for one that has nothing but those 80 years in mind, I suppose any design that did not last forever would be a bad design.
 
niceatheist said:
So I take it you’re not actually going to deal with the physical issues involved in making human child birth relatively more risky than in other primates.
Click to expand...
Do a head count. 107 billion humans so far according to the BBC. I guess child birth is not all that risky. Couldn’t get a non-human primate count. Apparently, they don’t keep good records.

@Rossum Do your agree with niceatheist that ID is not self-refuting? Sorry, we seem to be wandering all over your thread while waiting.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Gee, I thought the argument was that bad design is still design. Hence a designer. I’m sure I remember a fundamentalist saying that somewhere.
Click to expand...
Bad design is still design…
Click to expand...
God is a bad designer? I remember a fundamentalist saying it was the fall that was the problem.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Gee, I thought the argument was that bad design is still design.
Click to expand...
The goodness or badness of the design is not based on your evaluation but rather on the designer’s.
Click to expand...
That wan’t my argument. It belongs to a fundamentalist who is arguing both sides of the debate.

He says, after someone pointed out flaws in the design, that bad design is still design in any case. Accepting, obviously (but I’d assume unintentionally) that bad design existed.

But then said it wasn’t bad design but some rearranging of the physical attributes of Man because of the fall.

I guess Awan’s pelvic configuration underwent significant changes from that of her mother’s.

The things you learn, eh?
 
Bradskii said:
He says, after someone pointed out flaws in the design, that bad design is still design in any case. Accepting, obviously (but I’d assume unintentionally) that bad design existed.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are many human examples of bad design. Some cars are designed better than others…
 
Lion_IRC said:
Where does that leave your claim about better eyesight conferring a survival advantage?
Click to expand...
It’s a little embarrasing that I have to point this out, but the advantage is only relevant to competing organisms who use sight as a means to survive.

An eagle has excellent eyesight. If its neighbour has better eyesight it will likely survive longer. A cave fish is blind. It doesn’t compete with anything sighted so whatever constitutes an advantage will not include eyesight.

This is junior high school level evolution.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
He says, after someone pointed out flaws in the design, that bad design is still design in any case. Accepting, obviously (but I’d assume unintentionally) that bad design existed.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are many human examples of bad design. Some cars are designed better than others…
Click to expand...
You must have forgotten that the design being debated was God’s design of Man.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
You must have forgotten that the design being debated was God’s design of Man.
Click to expand...
Why is everyone talking as if actual material beings were fully actualized, when in reality they are sequentially moving manifestations of a soul knowing its composite being.
Of course there is defect if comparison is to a being at its completion, and especially since human intelligent being participates our LORD’S agency in self-agency as it manifests self-knowing in the temporal sequential presentation of itself.
There is no actuality in completion, in Act, “at rest”, within time so that the perfection of the design would be confirmable.
That’s just the way material being is.

John Martin
 
Nope.
You said better eyesight = survival advantage.
Not only is that untrue, the exact opposite is the case in many species.

Evolution hasn’t extincted low/no sighted species.
 
John_Martin said:
40.png
Bradskii:
You must have forgotten that the design being debated was God’s design of Man.
Click to expand...
Why is everyone talking as if actual material beings were fully actualized, when in reality they are sequentially moving manifestations of a soul knowing its composite being.
Of course there is defect if comparison is to a being at its completion, and especially since human intelligent being participates our LORD’S agency in self-agency as it manifests self-knowing in the temporal sequential presentation of itself.
There is no actuality in completion, in Act, “at rest”, within time so that the perfection of the design would be confirmable.
That’s just the way material being is.

John Martin
Click to expand...
That’s impressive, John.
 
Lion_IRC said:
Nope.
You said better eyesight = survival advantage.
Not only is that untrue, the exact opposite is the case in many species.

Evolution hasn’t extincted low/no sighted species.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know extincted was a word. But anyway, one of these two statements (being the opposite of what you said) is correct. Let’s see if you know which one and why:

Better eyesight is a survival disadvantage.
No eyesight is a survival advantage.

Over to you.
 
So did any organ change? So did hand and ears change place? Immunity system could have many improvement and that is not evolution.

Is evolution is so wonderful and clever that every times it finds the correct way through billions options? Just think wonderful flowers! Evolution know to select the best relevant forms with miracle arts and beauty and give us the mind to understand all these sciences! Then we must worship evolution or natural random mutations.

How did evolution decide to make every thing male and female? Could that situation be explained by evolution?

How do evolution expound trees and plants forming? Why did evolution not give them legs and arms and eyes …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top