Thank God for skunks

[wanstronian]

ID does distinguish a difference between a watch and a chameleon.
While both have a designer, the watchmaker is clearly man.
The designer bbehind the chameleon is God.

The designer is different.

That is not a property of the object, but a property of its creation. Not to mention that your “distinction” is nothing but a bare assertion that “God did it” - hardly a scientific approach, I’m sure you’ll agree. You’re not doing the “ID” movement many favours here, but you are reinforcing the unavoidable fact that ID is creationism by the back door.

Is it your contention that the whole of creation is not near infinite complexity?

Or for that matter, just the human brain…or the platypus…or the motabolism of a cell…

Just the idea of “near” infinity is stupid. How big is “near” infinity?

The evidence of design is all around us.

The systems in place, the species and the diversity all speak to a grand design.

You can claim there is no design if you wish, but the volume of evidence for a design as well as what exactly the definition of design is say otherwise.

God is indeed in the drivers seat.

You’re just arguing in circles. You have yet to show any evidence of design. Your contention amounts to, “Well it sure looks complicated to me.”

Post 75.

Clearly you are not thinking your position through completely.
Else you would have picked up the error before compounding it.

What error would that be? I answered post 75 above. You can’t make a bare assertion that doesn’t even apply to the point in contention, then refer back to that bare assertion as if simply by having made it, it becomes true!

I’m quite clear on my position, thank you. It is you who needs to do some research and not just rely on what happens to feel right to you.

Don’t bother.
He is trying to move the subject.

God has been in control of creation from the beginning, he cannot prove otherwise and must ignore an ever growing mountain of evidence with each post to continue to support the view that God is not there.

I do not envy the position.
I would want to talk about something else as well.

Nice set of ad hominems there, pretty bereft of substance though. I don’t care whether we continue to talk about IDC, or about evolution. Unfortunately the mods do care about the latter. I’m happy to go on pointing out why IDC isn’t science, although I feel you stopped taking any notice as soon as your pet hypothesis was shown to be nothing but wishful thinking.

I laughed out loud at, “an ever growing mountain of evidence with each post!” Really, the only evidence that’s growing with each post is the evidence that your whole case is based on what you wish were the case. It’s been pointed out to you in simple terms what is wrong with ID “theory” - but your only reaction has been to bluntly deny it, without offering any support for your denial other than to wave vaguely at Paley’s watch (which has been debunked a thousand times) and declare that things are so complex they must have been designed.

Sheer nonsense.

 

[wanstronian]

Why me?

I was being flippant. I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your notice that there’s a ban on discussing Evolution. Hence the reference to clearing it with the Mods, who clearly wouldn’t allow such a discussion to occur.

All I can say is that if you genuinely want to learn, don’t listen to the nonsense that Vz71 is spouting. He really doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about on either IDC or Evolution. But, don’t feel compelled to listen to me either. Go and find out for yourself, if you care enough and value truth over dogma. But find out from a reliable source. Don’t ask a Creationist if Evolution is true. Don’t ask a IDiot if IDC is scientific.

 

[You]

I was being flippant. I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your notice that there’s a ban on discussing Evolution. Hence the reference to clearing it with the Mods, who clearly wouldn’t allow such a discussion to occur.

All I can say is that if you genuinely want to learn, don’t listen to the nonsense that Vz71 is spouting. He really doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about on either IDC or Evolution. But, don’t feel compelled to listen to me either. Go and find out for yourself, if you care enough and value truth over dogma. But find out from a reliable source. Don’t ask a Creationist if Evolution is true. Don’t ask a IDiot if IDC is scientific.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macroxiphus_sp_cricket.jpg
You see, these are the things I cannot explain. A cricket does not know its a cricket, nor does it know what ants are. And even if it did know both it cannot genetically modify itself deliberately to become something elses reflection.
I cannot see a gradual change happening either because any halfway house is not an ant to a predator and is of no use to the cricket and so it would not survive. How on earth do you accidentally look like an inedible ant anyway?

 

[rossum]

ID does distinguish a difference between a watch and a chameleon.
While both have a designer, the watchmaker is clearly man.
The designer bbehind the chameleon is God.

Bzzzzt! You fail. ID is at great pains to point out that it has nothing at all to do with religious creationism and that the designer is not God but could easily be Raelian-style space aliens.

Remember that ID was created in order to do an end run round the US Constitution’s prohibition on teaching religious doctrine in public school science classes. It was introduced to replace the earlier Creation Science which had been ruled unconstitutional.

By admitting that the designer is God you are falsifying the whole political basis on which ID is built, and it is primarily a political movement.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Bzzzzt! You fail. ID is at great pains to point out that it has nothing at all to do with religious creationism and that the designer is not God but could easily be Raelian-style space aliens.

If you wish to claim space aliens did it then you beg the question…who designed them?

But you are correct. I made an assumption concerning who designed the chameleon.
After all, it is a very complicated animal.
There are many things going on with that creature that our knowledge of science does not even begin to fathom. Certainly whoever came up with it knew a great deal more then we do.
I propose that God did it. Perhaps in a very roundabout way, but nevertheless his handiwork. If you wish to claim ‘Raelian-style space aliens’ you are free to do so.

 

[vz71]

You’re not doing the “ID” movement many favours here, but you are reinforcing the unavoidable fact that ID is creationism by the back door.

If by creationism you mean handing over the controls to God, then yes. I suppose it is creationism.

At some point, life began. Our science cannot explain how.
I see the hand of God at work.

At some point this life began to change into the various forms.
Our science cannot explain this.
I see the hand of God at work.

There is a design. And the evidence is all around us.
It is those that claim there is no design that simply cannot come up with the evidence.

One can easily look through the definition of design and find that the whole of creation fits well.

 

[vz71]

By admitting that the designer is God you are falsifying the whole political basis on which ID is built, and it is primarily a political movement.

rossum

Actually…no.

You see, I am free to decide who I believe the intelligence to be.
I choose to believe it God.
You are free to choose otherwise.

ID does not require a belief in any deity, I simply subscribe to it.
ID simply addresses the design apparent around us.

 

[Tonitz]

You wish to lay claim that God did not design it all…

And then when questioned about this you lay claim that there is more then just a plan in place.

Sorry, but it was either designed or it was not.
You cannot argue both directions at the same time.

Either/or arguments such as you submit are on the level of tic-tac-toe thinking. Next level up might be “both/and” and then we can go beyond that. Your contentions will never be solved n the level of debate you propose.

 

[vz71]

Either/or arguments such as you submit are on the level of tic-tac-toe thinking. Next level up might be “both/and” and then we can go beyond that. Your contentions will never be solved n the level of debate you propose.

Apologies if I have understood you wrong.
But in the quote contained,
“But because something, as I said, is dependent on God, that does not mean it was either created directly of directly designed. Or even indirectly. Such claims are insulting to Deity.”
it appears that you are ascribing no design.

Further it appears claiming a design is an insult to God.

So when you went onward to respond to my question concerning if you believed there was a plan with “Nope” I suspected you were trying to straddle the fence.

So which is it?

 

[Tonitz]

A fence is something artificial placed on uninterrupted ground. You have put up a fence in your mind which purports to divide things that are in fact not. And your "which is it?"is a continued evidence of operation in an either/or logic. That logic is of the lowest and least inclusive order of perceptions. I’m only suggesting that despite that handicap you have the innate ability to see a bigger picture and am encouraging you to use it.

 

[vz71]

A fence is something artificial placed on uninterrupted ground. You have put up a fence in your mind which purports to divide things that are in fact not. And your "which is it?"is a continued evidence of operation in an either/or logic. That logic is of the lowest and least inclusive order of perceptions. I’m only suggesting that despite that handicap you have the innate ability to see a bigger picture and am encouraging you to use it.

By accepting mutually exclusive statements as both true?
Also, ‘which is it’ does not necessarily refer to either/or scenarios.

It also could simply be a question concerning what exaclty you are saying.
Of course, were I to spend an overly large amount of my time trying to denigrate other people rather then take the statements for what they are and work towards an understanding; I would probably fall into that same misunderstanding.

 

[Tonitz]

I assure you that they appear mutually exclusive only from your dualistic standpoint.

Thanks for your two cents. Or should I say “scents?”

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I was being flippant. I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your notice that there’s a ban on discussing Evolution. Hence the reference to clearing it with the Mods, who clearly wouldn’t allow such a discussion to occur.

All I can say is that if you genuinely want to learn, don’t listen to the nonsense that Vz71 is spouting. He really doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about on either IDC or Evolution. But, don’t feel compelled to listen to me either. Go and find out for yourself, if you care enough and value truth over dogma. But find out from a reliable source. Don’t ask a Creationist if Evolution is true. Don’t ask a IDiot if IDC is scientific.

I really wish you stop those subtle jabs at those who have shown evidence for Intelligent Design. There seems to be a correlation with those who take the atheist side and those who do not. That is, that those who agree with atheists are not idiots and those who do not agree are idiots. I would agree with the Creationist/Evolution side. However, that last part is an absurd statement considering the overwhelming evidence for design. I am sure you will say the contrary to that though. We should leave that for the people that actually do the studies though. In the meantime, it would be wise to cease those remarks with no reason to think so, other than Richard Dawkins and his fellow Darwinians saying that Intelligent Design just aint so based on the subjective idea of how we would put it. “What is it like to be a bat?” by Thomas Nagel. One of the few atheist philosophers I trust on objectivity.

 

[rossum]

If you wish to claim space aliens did it then you beg the question…who designed them?

It is not I who claim it might have been space aliens but ID who claim such. You are correct in identifying one of the problems with ID as a scientific enterprise, if there is a designer then who designed the designer. For a humorous look at using ID’s own proposed methodology, Dembski’s explanatory filter, to examine God see: God and the Explanatory Filter.

But you are correct. I made an assumption concerning who designed the chameleon.
After all, it is a very complicated animal.

Complication does not mean design. It is trivially easy to show that a rock is complicated. How many atoms are there in a rock? What are the odds of that many atoms assembling together in one place by chance? A reasonably large rock is easily more complex than a chameleon.

There are many things going on with that creature that our knowledge of science does not even begin to fathom. Certainly whoever came up with it knew a great deal more then we do.

This is a logical error. You cannot just assume the existence of “whoever came up with it”, you must show evidence that such an entity exists. Unless you are referring to the chameleon’s parents of course.

If you wish to claim ‘Raelian-style space aliens’ you are free to do so.

Not my claim, that is one of the ID claims when they are in their “ID is not disguised creationism” mode.

rossum

 

[vz71]

It is not I who claim it might have been space aliens but ID who claim such.

I am uncertain how you can logically come to such a claim.
ID simply asserts a designer. You are free to determine who, how, what, etc.

This is a logical error. You cannot just assume the existence of “whoever came up with it”, you must show evidence that such an entity exists. Unless you are referring to the chameleon’s parents of course.

It would be a logical error to assume it came from nowhere.

 

[rossum]

I am uncertain how you can logically come to such a claim.
ID simply asserts a designer. You are free to determine who, how, what, etc.

The idea comes from Dr Dembski’s book “The Design Inference”. There he talks about the possibility of aliens as the designers of life on Earth.

It would be a logical error to assume it came from nowhere.

It would be a scientific error to assume that such an entity existed without having any evidence for its existence. Again, I repeat, ID has so far failed to provide any rigorous objective method of detecting design. It has proposed some methods but they have either failed, like Behe’s IC, or are too subjective to be worthwhile, Dembski’s CSI for example. Dr Dembski has been unable to provide an objective way of providing the ‘specification’ that is required for CSI.

rossum

 

[vz71]

The idea comes from Dr Dembski’s book “The Design Inference”. There he talks about the possibility of aliens as the designers of life on Earth.

The point is still in error.
It is introducing more then ID says.
Classic straw man.

It would be a scientific error to assume that such an entity existed without having any evidence for its existence. Again, I repeat, ID has so far failed to provide any rigorous objective method of detecting design. It has proposed some methods but they have either failed, like Behe’s IC, or are too subjective to be worthwhile, Dembski’s CSI for example. Dr Dembski has been unable to provide an objective way of providing the ‘specification’ that is required for CSI.

rossum

If I see footprints in the sand at the beach, would you have me assume no one made them unless I actually had seen them made?

 

[rossum]

The point is still in error.
It is introducing more then ID says.
Classic straw man.

Then you have an issue with Dr Dembski. I was merely repeating what Dr Dembski said in his book on ID.

If I see footprints in the sand at the beach, would you have me assume no one made them unless I actually had seen them made?

We both see some marks in the sand. You think they are human footprints and assume that someone made them. I think that they are gorilla footprints and assume that no human made them. You have yet to show me that they are human footprints and not gorilla footprints.

ID does not yet have an objective way of identifying design. Until it has a way of identifying design then it cannot make the logical leap to “there must be a designer”. There is only a designer if there is actually design in the first place. Unfortunately for ID, merely saying “It sure looks designed to me” is not an objective scientific test for design. ID is still unable to distinguish between design and designoid.

rossum

 

[You]

… ID is still unable to distinguish between design and designoid.

rossum

If they are indistinguishable to mainstream science also, the question then becomes ‘design without a designer or design with a designer’; either way supports design.

 

[You]

So, two blondes walk into a fashion store and see handbags upon handbags all over the place - ‘design by Gucci’ one says, ‘Design by Prada’ says the other, ‘Design by Geko’… whats that, says one. Helloooo… like…its design, says the other.