546 réponses à ce sujet

[Ravensword]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Loljesusfreak.

lolintelligentdesign=Jesusfreak

Pretty much.

[Ravensword]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Pretty much.

Actually not at all. Unless to you "Jesus freak" is anyone who's religious. But by the same token, you could say nonintelligentdesign=bitter, lonely, sour old man who is atheist because he thinks it's "cool"

That maybe true, but consdering the fact that intelligent design is really a reskinned version of creation science (which isn't science by any means) and tend to be Christians, specifically those that believe in the creation of the earth the way it was stated in Genesis. Being a lonely, bitter sour old man is a seperate issue all togewther, but being an atheist b/c one thinks it's cool is something else altogether. You, either believe in some sort of deity, you don't or you're not sure altogether.

[AxisEvolve]

[MACharlie1]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Believing in a god does not in any way make someone a Jesus freak.

I mean, I'm a Jesus freak and I know most aren't like me.

Unfortunately, these days, saying you believe in [a] God or of the Christian doctrines in anyway gets you painted as a bible-carrying psycho who still believes the world is flat and was created in 7 days. Catholics don't want the gays and the gays don't want a Catholic. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. 

[Carfax]

Kawamura wrote...

How is that them being "designed to be heterosexual from a physical standpoint"? They have sexual organs that are capable of reproduction. But how is that a design for heterosexuality?

You're really making a song and dance over this, when it's not that difficult to understand.

Bonobos, have external (and internal) sexual organs conducive to the act of procreation.  However, they can only procreate when they come in to sexual contact with a member of the opposite sex. Therefore, their sexual organs are a function of their heterosexual design.

Should I see design? Does complexity demand design? Remember: coastal lines are infinitely complex.

Complexity does not demand design......but purpose and intent does.  In case you're foggy on the definition of what design means, I took the liberty of finding it out for you:

to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind]an[/color] intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.

Would you say an eye is designed?  It has a clear function and purpose after all.

And I don't know. What is the purpose of sex?

The biological imperative of sex is reproduction...... 

Modifié par Carfax, 21 mars 2012 - 08:22 .

[Carfax]

mauro2222 wrote...

Carfax, designed means it was made with a fuction and it only works in one way.

Thats not what design means.  I'll post the definition again, taken from dictionary.com:


to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.

Evolution and adaptation are not designs, organic life is a mere accident, we are not designed. We change with the enviroment, we adapt to the enviroment, we weren't "made" to work with the enviroment.

So life has no purpose?  We're all here just taking up space apparently..   

[Carfax]

Ravensword wrote...

That maybe true, but consdering the fact that intelligent design is really a reskinned version of creation science (which isn't science by any means) and tend to be Christians, specifically those that believe in the creation of the earth the way it was stated in Genesis. Being a lonely, bitter sour old man is a seperate issue all togewther, but being an atheist b/c one thinks it's cool is something else altogether. You, either believe in some sort of deity, you don't or you're not sure altogether.

Based on this wall of text, you have no idea what intelligent design is.  Intelligent design has nothing to do with creationism, or any religion.

Intelligent design is as it's name infers, a theory which postulates that life and the Universe arose through an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected unintelligent process.

As such, you can be an atheist and still believe in intelligent design, because ID does not specify that the source or nature of the Intelligence be divine, demonic or anything else. 

[dukiduki]

Oh, please. Intelligent Design is nothing more than religious pseudo-science that tries to find the gaps still unexplained by evolution (which are mainly details centering about the concrete evolution of a single species) and replace it by "GOD DID IT". It is laughable and no scientist worth their salt takes it seriously by any means.

You keep talking about a design but miss the fact that evolution does not have a goal as an intelligent designer would have. Evolution means wildly tinkering to find a way that works (i.e. a species that can survive and reproduce) everything else is optional and won't be fixed by the porcess. This explains the many dirty hacks and non-optimal "design" choices that can be found in the human body. If any intelligent being would have designed this, he would be an incompetent hack who missed a lot of fault in his "grand" design.

How homosexuality has survived the evolutionary process is not yet fully explained. One theory is that its genetic component results in both homosexuality in males and in higher fertility in females. This could be an explanation since the higher number of children by the straight females would compensate for the lack of reproduction by the gay males (which could also help raising the nephews and nieces and increase their chances of reprodcucing later).

Regardless, evolution should not tell us what is moral and what is not, since it is a rather bad example. All cooperation with people not related to me (unless survival depends on it or it offers me a chance of reporduction) are pointless by evolutionary logic and I highly doubt a tribalistic society modelled by the princible would be a great one ot live in.

@ topic

That would be rather unrealistic. I think it was handled quite well and you should not get nervous if a guy tries to jump you. He can't know you are straight after all and is basically telling you that you are hot. Last I checked, that's a nice thing to tell someone.

[Carfax]

dukiduki wrote...

Oh, please. Intelligent Design is nothing more than religious pseudo-science that tries to find the gaps still unexplained by evolution (which are mainly details centering about the concrete evolution of a single species) and replace it by "GOD DID IT". It is laughable and no scientist worth their salt takes it seriously by any means.

You are incredibly ignorant.  Stop talking about ID, because you don't know a damn thing.  And the theory of evolution has plenty of gaps, the biggest one currently being the existence of codified information in cells.

You keep talking about a design but miss the fact that evolution does not have a goal as an intelligent designer would have. Evolution means wildly tinkering to find a way that works (i.e. a species that can survive and reproduce) everything else is optional and won't be fixed by the porcess

Mmm, evolution does not have a goal, but yet life has become unquestionably more complex over time.. 

This explains the many dirty hacks and non-optimal "design" choices that can be found in the human body. If any intelligent being would have designed this, he would be an incompetent hack who missed a lot of fault in his "grand" design.

I'd be careful about making statements about dirty hacks and non-optimal design choices if I were you.  We all know how the "junk DNA" thing turned out.

I also find it laughable that you think you're intelligent enough to criticize the design of the human body, one of the most complex things imaginable. 

OK lets hear it.  How would YOU have designed the human body you super genius man you?

Just make sure you don't utilize any "dirty hacks" now...

How homosexuality has survived the evolutionary process is not yet fully explained. One theory is that its genetic component results in both homosexuality in males and in higher fertility in females. This could be an explanation since the higher number of children by the straight females would compensate for the lack of reproduction by the gay males (which could also help raising the nephews and nieces and increase their chances of reprodcucing later).

Um, homosexuality has never been shown to be purely genetic, so evolution would not have full sway over it..  If homosexuality is indeed caused by imbalanced hormone exposure in the womb, lots of things, including environmental factors, could cause such a thing.

[dukiduki]

Carfax wrote...

You are incredibly ignorant.  Stop talking about ID, because you don't know a damn thing.  And the theory of evolution has plenty of gaps, the biggest one currently being the existence of codified information in cells.

I will if you stop talking nonsense about evolution and using it as a reason to bash gays.  Yes, the evolution of DNA is not completely clear since it is not possible to recover DNA from fossiles. Unless we find a DNA or RNA sample from this time, it is possible that we might never know. However, it does not contradict the rest of the theory of evolution and does not offer irreducible complexity, so evolution still stands as the only working theory. ID  would not explain this any better (since you would first have to explain the  origin of the designer and no, you can't say he was just there) and even if evolution would be disproved at some time, the new theory probably won't be ID. It should give you pause that the vast majority of scientist don't regard ID a valid hypothesis since it is unprovable.

Carfax wrote...

Mmm, evolution does not have a goal, but yet life has become unquestionably more complex over time.. 

Yes it did in our case but there is no garantee that so this happens in every eco-system. Life only gets more complex if the modifications allow it to survive and reproduce better otherwise the more complex lifeforms die and are replaced by their simpler cousins. If the evolution started anew today, it is quite possible that it would not result in humans (or even any complex life), it all depends on the circumstances.

Carfax wrote...

I'd be careful about making statements about dirty hacks and non-optimal design choices if I were you.  We all know how the "junk DNA" thing turned out.

I also find it laughable that you think you're intelligent enough to criticize the design of the human body, one of the most complex things imaginable. 

OK lets hear it.  How would YOU have designed the human body you super genius man you?

Just make sure you don't utilize any "dirty hacks" now...

I don't design anything since life is not designed. But there are tons of rather obvious flaws in the human body that are hard to justifiy when you postulate an intelligent designer. The examples range from strange but not dangerous (nipples on a male, the coat of fur human fetuses grow and then shed in the womb, the remains of the tailbone), over working but inefficient (the eye creates pictures that are upside-down and are only corrected by our brain) to possible fatal (food can block airways since the systems are too close to each other, child birth is difficult and dangerous since the child's head is too large for the female hips). No intelligent being would make so obvious mistakes.

Carfax wrote...

Um, homosexuality has never been shown to be purely genetic, so evolution would not have full sway over it..  If homosexuality is indeed caused by imbalanced hormone exposure in the womb, lots of things, including environmental factors, could cause such a thing.

I said genetic component i.e. the genes play some role not all (afiak the current theory). But you are wrong if you think that evolution does not take enviromental factors into account. When they influence reproducution to a significant degree (either by death or by interfering with the reproduction process itself), evolution will weed them out (or more precisely the individuals not adapted to it will die out). An example for this would be our adaptation to the cosmic radiation that would kill us otherwise. Since homosexuality does affect reproduction negatively, there must be some trade-off or it would have vanished. But as I said, the evolution of homosexuality should not affect our judgment of it.

[Carfax]

dukiduki wrote...

I will if you stop talking nonsense about evolution and using it as a reason to bash gays.  Yes, the evolution of DNA is not completely clear since it is not possible to recover DNA from fossiles. Unless we find a DNA or RNA sample from this time, it is possible that we might never know. However, it does not contradict the rest of the theory of evolution and does not offer irreducible complexity, so evolution still stands as the only working theory.

It does contradict the current working model of evolution, because the current model of evolution calls for a random, undirected and unintelligent process (random mutation combined with natural selection) as the engine by which life forms evolve and adapt.  Now if you observe that living cells have codified specific information in them, and know that only intelligence can produce and apprehend such a thing, then it's makes sense that Life must have had an intelligent cause.

After all, what natural, undirected and untelligent process that you know of can create such complex, specific, and purposeful information by itself?  Particularly something as complex and wonderful as DNA, which has the highest information density of anything known to man.
 

ID  would not explain this any better (since you would first have to explain the  origin of the designer and no, you can't say he was just there) and even if evolution would be disproved at some time, the new theory probably won't be ID. It should give you pause that the vast majority of scientist don't regard ID a valid hypothesis since it is unprovable.

Again, ID does not concern itself with the identity or origin of the designer.  The only thing it concerns itself with, is proving that Life and the Universe had an intelligent cause.

I don't design anything since life is not designed. But there are tons of rather obvious flaws in the human body that are hard to justifiy when you postulate an intelligent designer. The examples range from strange but not dangerous (nipples on a male, the coat of fur human fetuses grow and then shed in the womb, the remains of the tailbone), over working but inefficient (the eye creates pictures that are upside-down and are only corrected by our brain) to possible fatal (food can block airways since the systems are too close to each other, child birth is difficult and dangerous since the child's head is too large for the female hips). No intelligent being would make so obvious mistakes.

Again, I will say that you are not intelligent enough (nor am I or anyone else) to criticize the "design" or even the function of the human body.  The fact that you think you can, makes it plainly obvious that you have no idea just how complex the human body is.

Thats why I brought up junk DNA.  Just because something may seem useless or inefficient, it doesn't mean that it is.

Also, no intelligent being would make so many obvious mistakes?  We have no inkling as to the purpose of the designer, so it's useless to speculate as to why these "seeming" discrepancies exist.  For all you know, the designer may have INTENDED for life to be imperfect.

I said genetic component i.e. the genes play some role not all (afiak the current theory). But you are wrong if you think that evolution does not take enviromental factors into account. When they influence reproducution to a significant degree (either by death or by interfering with the reproduction process itself), evolution will weed them out (or more precisely the individuals not adapted to it will die out). An example for this would be our adaptation to the cosmic radiation that would kill us otherwise. Since homosexuality does affect reproduction negatively, there must be some trade-off or it would have vanished. But as I said, the evolution of homosexuality should not affect our judgment of it.

Homosexuality in and of itself isn't a genetically caused condition.  Gay men and women don't have a lesser or greater chance of having gay offspring as far as I know.  The condition that causes homosexuality, ie imbalanced hormone exposure in the womb, thats probably genetic to an extent.

Some women are more likely to give birth to gay offspring than others for instance, which makes it seem as though it runs in families.

Modifié par Carfax, 21 mars 2012 - 07:59 .

[yoshibb]

Skipping where this thread has gone I'd like to give an opinion on the OP. I think he has a point. It's one thing for someone you don't know to come up to you and say they are interested. It's another for someone who is your friend for three years who has seen you are completely heterosexual to start hitting on you like Kaidan did. It's like if my Femshep started hitting on Cortez. He's obviously gay so why would I when I know he doesn't swing that way? It would just create an uncomfortable situation.

[dukiduki]

[quote]Carfax wrote...

It does contradict the current working model of evolution, because the current model of evolution calls for a random, undirected and unintelligent process (random mutation combined with natural selection) as the engine by which life forms evolve and adapt.  Now if you observe that living cells have codified specific information in them, and know that only intelligence can produce and apprehend such a thing, then it's makes sense that Life must have had an intelligent cause.[/QUOTE]

I am not quite sure what you mean here. It is true that Evolution needs a starting point but this how we got there is covered by Abiogenesis. Yes, Evolution does need mutation but don't you think it is strange to critizise it for this requirement (a process that has been witnessed and exists today) and purpose a theory that needs a supernatural designer (who is not proven in any way) to work at the same time?

If I misunderstood you and you wonder instead about how DNA got it current state, there are a couple of models to be found here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_DNA.

[quote]Carfax wrote...

After all, what natural, undirected and untelligent process that you know of can create such complex, specific, and purposeful information by itself?  Particularly something as complex and wonderful as DNA, which has the highest information density of anything known to man. [/QUOTE]

Evolution and Abigensis obviously. The complexity is not irreducible and can be reached by small steps. We can see this when looking at the eye or the DNA of the different species, both common examples for irreducible complexity.  It is an illusion that everything needs a creator and evolution has proven this.  

[quote]Carfax wrote...

Again, ID does not concern itself with the identity or origin of the designer.  The only thing it concerns itself with, is proving that Life and the Universe had an intelligent cause. [/QUOTE]

Okay but evolution has far more reasonable requirements and explains everything ID does without the problems imposed by the assumption of a intelligent designer.

[quote]Carfax wrote...

Again, I will say that you are not intelligent enough (nor am I or anyone else) to criticize the "design" or even the function of the human body.  The fact that you think you can, makes it plainly obvious that you have no idea just how complex the human body is.

Thats why I brought up junk DNA.  Just because something may seem useless or inefficient, it doesn't mean that it is.

Also, no intelligent being would make so many obvious mistakes?  We have no inkling as to the purpose of the designer, so it's useless to speculate as to why these "seeming" discrepancies exist.  For all you know, the designer may have INTENDED for life to be imperfect. [/QOUTE]

Oh, please, some of the flaws I mentioned are so obvious that 'It might be good though' is no defense at all. How could it be good of women die during child birth or we might choke on our food? And while it is possible that a designer planted this flaws on purpose (since he can't be disproved everything is possible by default), this would not explain more than evolution does (which explains the flaws I mentioned quite nicely) and requires a much larger assumption, making it an inferior theory.

[Carfax]

dukiduki wrote...

I am not quite sure what you mean here. It is true that Evolution needs a starting point but this how we got there is covered by Abiogenesis. Yes, Evolution does need mutation but don't you think it is strange to critizise it for this requirement (a process that has been witnessed and exists today) and purpose a theory that needs a supernatural designer (who is not proven in any way) to work at the same time?

I think you should actually try reading those links, rather than just posting them my friend.  It says this in the link:

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life.

Basically, Abiogenesis has never been proven, even after decades of research.  Biologists don't even take it seriously anymore.  The only thing they've ever been able to do with abiogenesis is make a few amino acids, and that was under extremely controlled conditions......nothing even remotely resembling a protein, let alone a life form.

If I misunderstood you and you wonder instead about how DNA got it current state, there are a couple of models to be found here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_DNA.

I take it you never read the link yourself.  One of the opening statements is:

These Markov models do not explicitly depict the mechanism of mutation nor the action of natural selection

So you see, the current model of evolution does not have a solution for determining how random mutation and natural selection can account for DNA.

Evolution and Abigensis obviously. The complexity is not irreducible and can be reached by small steps. We can see this when looking at the eye or the DNA of the different species, both common examples for irreducible complexity.  It is an illusion that everything needs a creator and evolution has proven this. 

It's not only the complexity thats a barrier, but the fact that DNA has SPECIFIC information, just like a language...  When I say specific, I mean it has an established purpose and intent.  DNA literally has instructions on how to make a heart, an eye, a fully functional living creature composed of trillions of cells....all with tremendous precision and accuracy.....and you can't even see it with the naked eye, yet it can store unbelievable amounts of information.

There is no natural process known to man that even comes close to what DNA can do, nor is there anything made by man.

Okay but evolution has far more reasonable requirements and explains everything ID does without the problems imposed by the assumption of a intelligent designer.

What problems are imposed by the assumption of an intelligent designer?  To me, it seems evolution is far more problematic when you try to take intelligence out of the equation.

Oh, please, some of the flaws I mentioned are so obvious that 'It might be good though' is no defense at all. How could it be good of women die during child birth or we might choke on our food? And while it is possible that a designer planted this flaws on purpose (since he can't be disproved everything is possible by default), this would not explain more than evolution does (which explains the flaws I mentioned quite nicely) and requires a much larger assumption, making it an inferior theory.

If I were you, I'd read up on microbiology a bit more.  It's one thing to say the human body (or any life form) is extremely complicated, but when you have it enumerated in explicit detail, it's a real eye opener.

That said, I personally don't believe life was ever intended to be perfect.  Life is full of pain, misery and suffering.  The presence of those alone tell me that whatever it is that created life, never intended for it to be a walk in the park or a picnic.

Modifié par Carfax, 22 mars 2012 - 07:59 .

[dukiduki]

Carfax wrote...


I think you should actually try reading those links, rather than just posting them my friend.  It says this in the link:

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life.

Basically, Abiogenesis has never been proven, even after decades of research.  Biologists don't even take it seriously anymore.  The only thing they've ever been able to do with abiogenesis is make a few amino acids, and that was under extremely controlled conditions......nothing even remotely resembling a protein, let alone a life form.


I take it you never read the link yourself.  One of the opening statements is:

These Markov models do not explicitly depict the mechanism of mutation nor the action of natural selection

So you see, the current model of evolution does not have a solution for determining how random mutation and natural selection can account for DNA.

While it is true that there is not one definite theory, Abiogenesis is not descredited by any means but rather work-in-progress (why do you think there are so many different suggestions in the article?). As for the other article, you should read the passage more carefully, it says that the markov chains describe the relative rates of different changes rather than the mutation and natural selection that caused it. This does not mean that it is not an explanation for the current form of DNA.

Anyways, you are missing the point I was trying to make. You say that evolution has no explanation for the creation of genetic information. This is correct since evolution needs it as a starting point and can't explain its own requirements. Basically you need three things to start evolving:

1. A common ancestor
2. Genetic information that can mutate ( this is the condition you are so keen on)
3. An enviroment with natural selection

So you are not talking about evolution but rather about some form of Abiogenesis where a designer made sure evolution can happen.

Carfax wrote...


It's not only the complexity thats a barrier, but the fact that DNA has SPECIFIC information, just like a language...  When I say specific, I mean it has an established purpose and intent.  DNA literally has instructions on how to make a heart, an eye, a fully functional living creature composed of trillions of cells....all with tremendous precision and accuracy.....and you can't even see it with the naked eye, yet it can store unbelievable amounts of information.

There is no natural process known to man that even comes close to what DNA can do, nor is there anything made by man.

Again, not evolution but one question: why? Why should such information not be created by natural means? Any evidence for this? Funny, that you should bring up languages, do you think they were designed as well?

Carfax wrote...

What problems are imposed by the assumption of an intelligent designer?  To me, it seems evolution is far more problematic when you try to take intelligence out of the equation.


If I were you, I'd read up on microbiology a bit more.  It's one thing to say the human body (or any life form) is extremely complicated, but when you have it enumerated in explicit detail, it's a real eye opener.

That said, I personally don't believe life was ever intended to be perfect.  Life is full of pain, misery and suffering.  The presence of those alone tell me that whatever it is that created life, never intended for it to be a walk in the park or a picnic.

This is closely related so I will adress it in one turn. Remember the requirements for evolution? Well, let's do this for ID, shall we?

1. The conditions for evolution as posted above
2. An intelligent designer able to create the conditions mentioned above

While the designer may seem like an elegant solution, it begs the question how such a powerful and complex designer came into being at the first place. I know you said ID does not concern itself with this question but if ID can do this, than evolution does not have to explain its prerequisites either, making your point moot. In any case, a designer is a lot more complex than the simple life forms needed for evolution, so it is actually more of a stretch than a natural process.

Coming back to the flaws, yes, the human body is very complex but this is not an answer to the flaws I mentioned. While you might assume that life is not intended to be perfect, I think that a supernatural designer would take the same care with his creations as a natural designer does i.e. he would try to make it perfect. Since we don't know anything about the designer this gets closer to question of philosophy than of hard science. Besides, one might wonder why a designer would choose to use a process that lead to extinction of 99,9% of all life created this way. Why not just make the life you want and be done with it? It is a question of plausibility that does not occur with evolution.

Modifié par dukiduki, 22 mars 2012 - 10:20 .

[Carfax]

dukiduki wrote...

While it is true that there is not one definite theory, Abiogenesis is not descredited by any means but rather work-in-progress (why do you think there are so many different suggestions in the article?)

When you don't have a single theory to your credit, it's difficult to be discredited.

As for the other article, you should read the passage more carefully, it says that the markov chains describe the relative rates of different changes rather than the mutation and natural selection that caused it. This does not mean that it is not an explanation for the current form of DNA.

What they need to come up with, is a model that demonstrates that mutation and natural selection can actually account for the current diversity of life on planet Earth.

Insofar, no such thing has been done yet to my knowledge....and probably for good reason. The stochastic nature of mutation coupled with the fact that it is far more likely to harm an organism than help it, as well as the less than optimal time scales involved would make it a very daunting task.

Scientists have spent decades doing experiments on fruit flies, trying to get them to "mutate" into something, anything, with high doses of radiation.

Of course, they've never succeeded....except to create sick, lame and weak fruit flies. In fact, the mutated fruit flies often reverted back to normal after a few generations when allowed to breed, which I suppose is due to a genetic repair process that CORRECTS MUTATIONS.

Funny how the one thing thats supposedly responsible for creating new forms of life, is being prevented by the natural repair processes inherent to DNA.

Anyways, you are missing the point I was trying to make. You say that evolution has no explanation for the creation of genetic information. This is correct since evolution needs it as a starting point and can't explain its own requirements. Basically you need three things to start evolving:

1. A common ancestor
2. Genetic information that can mutate ( this is the condition you are so keen on)
3. An enviroment with natural selection

So you are not talking about evolution but rather about some form of Abiogenesis where a designer made sure evolution can happen.

Well, to be fair you were the one that brought up abiogenesis, not I. I was asking you to show me how codified specific information could have become associated with life forms via natural processes, not how life itself originated.

In any case, you cannot separate evolution from abiogenesis imo. The theory of evolution calls for a totally naturalistic explanation for the current diversity of life that completely rejects a designer. When you opt to become so narrow minded that you can only accept one explanation, then you should deal with the consequences of that decision.

Again, not evolution but one question: why? Why should such information not be created by natural means? Any evidence for this? Funny, that you should bring up languages, do you think they were designed as well?

Because that kind of information is only associated with life forms, and intelligence....not natural processes.

I mean specific information that has a purpose and an intent. Like I said above, DNA contains the instructions necessary to build a heart, an eye, lungs.....a complete, unique organism with trillions of cells.

These instructions are codified, like a computer program, and have real meaning/semantics, like a language.  Thats why we can understand it to a great extent.

Were languages designed? I don't know, I'm no language expert to be sure. Perhaps some were, ie leet, or some computer programming languages like C++.

What I do know, is that all languages, and all codes arise from sentient beings....or a mind if you will.  DNA being no exception.

Carfax wrote...

While the designer may seem like an elegant solution, it begs the question how such a powerful and complex designer came into being at the first place. I know you said ID does not concern itself with this question but if ID can do this, than evolution does not have to explain its prerequisites either, making your point moot. In any case, a designer is a lot more complex than the simple life forms needed for evolution, so it is actually more of a stretch than a natural process.

It's only a stretch if you believe the Designer would be part of the natural order like the rest of the Universe, which is pretty silly when you think of it..  

I'm sure you're familiar with the Big Bang theory right?  It's a pretty solid theory as far as I'm concerned, with lots of evidence supporting it.

According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe actually had a beginning.  Everything in the Universe, INCLUDING TIME, had it's origin with the Big Bang.

Now while Scientists have been able to come up with a good explanation for the existence of the Universe, they have no theories whatsoever about where the energy and matter (singularity) for the Big Bang came from in the first place, nor what may have caused it to expand.

But it had to have come from somewhere right?  Because you can't get something out of nothing.

I, and many others believe that a Supreme, or Divine Being started the Big Bang.  It's the most plausible explanation as far as I'm concerned, because whatever it was that caused the Big Bang, has to exist beyond our current conceptions of Time and Space.

If there is a Divine Designer, It would NOT be constrained by the natural laws because It created those natural laws in the first place.

Coming back to the flaws, yes, the human body is very complex but this is not an answer to the flaws I mentioned. While you might assume that life is not intended to be perfect, I think that a supernatural designer would take the same care with his creations as a natural designer does i.e. he would try to make it perfect. Since we don't know anything about the designer this gets closer to question of philosophy than of hard science. Besides, one might wonder why a designer would choose to use a process that lead to extinction of 99,9% of all life created this way. Why not just make the life you want and be done with it? It is a question of plausibility that does not occur with evolution.

Like I said earlier, debating this is useless.  Neither of us have the intelligence or education necessary to do a proper critique of the human body's design.  I don't think anyone can.. 

It's also useless to speculate as to the intention of the Designer, because if a Supreme Being did design Life as we know it, it's motivation is for all intents and purposes, would be thorougly inscrutable.  Who could fathom the Mind of such a Being after all?

The only thing thats a certainty, is that Life is difficult.  It's not easy, not for us, or the other multitudes of Life on planet Earth.  That alone says something to me, that Life was never meant to be a walk in the park.

As I write this post, some elephant seal somewhere is getting devoured by a Great White shark, and a young child in East Africa is starving and disease ridden..  A soldier in Afghanistan got his leg blown off by an IED, and I myself awoke this morning to a great pain in my lower back because of a weight lifting injury that I sustained a few days ago.

So to live is to suffer, or to be subject to suffering.  Thats just the nature of Life.

Modifié par Carfax, 23 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[dukiduki]

Nice double-standard you got there. So evolution has to explain its own requirements while ID is perfectly fine to just assume the designer? And the many implausibilities of ID are no problem since nobody can know the mind of the designer? But the same is of course not true for evolution since this does not use magic. I am sorry, but this is not science, you are only searching for a way to re-conciliate your theistic belief with modern science and corrupt the science in the process. The ID you are proposing can be neither falsified nor confirmed since the designer is unproofable and does not explain anything. Such a theory is considered useless in science and for good reason since all ID does ist looking at all the gaps in can find and saying "The designer did this". If we used this reasoning for everything we would still be living in caves.

I don't think there is any room for debate here.

[Carfax]

dukiduki wrote...

Nice double-standard you got there. So evolution has to explain its own requirements while ID is perfectly fine to just assume the designer?

Evolution according to you and yours has a completely naturalistic explanation, therefore it's supposedly explainable via the natural laws..  If there is a Designer on the other hand, it is almost assured that It is beyond naturalistic explanations, since it is the very ground of all phenomena, including Time, Space etc..
 

And the many implausibilities of ID are no problem since nobody can know the mind of the designer? But the same is of course not true for evolution since this does not use magic.

You speak of magic, when you're the one that believes the entire Universe and all Life spawned from nothingness by itself!

You don't even have a single plausible theory for the origin of the Universe and Life, yet you want to criticize those people that believe in a Higher Power.

So I guess it's better to believe in nothing at all, than something eh? 

I am sorry, but this is not science, you are only searching for a way to re-conciliate your theistic belief with modern science and corrupt the science in the process.

Dude, get off the high horse....seriously.  Do you honestly think that Science knows, or can find all the answers?  

Sorry to disappoint you, but Science has it's limits.  There are some things which are simply beyond Science, because Science is limited to material phenomena..

The fact that you have no Scientific explanation for the origin of the Universe (pre-singularity) or the origin of Life says it all.

The ID you are proposing can be neither falsified nor confirmed since the designer is unproofable and does not explain anything.

Does it matter?  As I mentioned earlier in the debate, ID concerns itself only with proving that the Universe and Life has an intelligent cause.  It does not concern itself with the identity of the Designer, because to be frank, that is beyond the realm of Science.....any Science!
 

Such a theory is considered useless in science and for good reason since all ID does ist looking at all the gaps in can find and saying "The designer did this". If we used this reasoning for everything we would still be living in caves.

Some of the greatest Scientific minds believed in a God, and found inspiration for their work in their religion or their spirituality. 

You are being far too myopic for your own good. 

I don't think there is any room for debate here.

There's always room for debate, but only if you open your mind a bit.

Modifié par Carfax, 24 mars 2012 - 08:00 .

[darthclide]

wow... I was just talking to my friend the other day about gay relationships being in video games. He had the brilliant suggestion of "How about they have a setting in your options, that says "Hetero/Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual" and from that point on, in the game, the characters will know if they should hit on you or not. It would have been interesting to have dialogue with Cortez, if you had Hetero enabled. He might say something like "I know you aren't gay, but I thought maybe we could just be friends?". This would go a long ways in bringing all parties together, and not alienating straight people by having a random guy "hitting on you" only because game logic dictates that he says these things, regardless of your sexual preference.

[sammysoso]

I actually think choosing your sexuality, along with background, gender and race and so forth at the character creation would be a really cool thing.

[Sen4lifE]

koyetai wrote...

 I find it really frustrating to speak with male characters in Bioware games lately ( specifically Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3).  I am speaking with a guy having a normal conversation and suddenly he is hitting on me or confessing a romantic interest and I have no clue what the hell just happened because my guy has clearly been going after the ladies?  How about an option to choose be gay up front, that way the people who are in to that can have their option and I don't have to find myself uncomfortable everytime I talk with a male character. 

If you can answer the question of how everyone in the galaxy knows you are straight without even meeting you, then yes.

[Sen4lifE]

Carfax wrote...

dukiduki wrote...

Nice double-standard you got there. So evolution has to explain its own requirements while ID is perfectly fine to just assume the designer?

Evolution according to you and yours has a completely naturalistic explanation, therefore it's supposedly explainable via the natural laws..  If there is a Designer on the other hand, it is almost assured that It is beyond naturalistic explanations, since it is the very ground of all phenomena, including Time, Space etc..
 

And the many implausibilities of ID are no problem since nobody can know the mind of the designer? But the same is of course not true for evolution since this does not use magic.

You speak of magic, when you're the one that believes the entire Universe and all Life spawned from nothingness by itself!

You don't even have a single plausible theory for the origin of the Universe and Life, yet you want to criticize those people that believe in a Higher Power.

So I guess it's better to believe in nothing at all, than something eh? 

I am sorry, but this is not science, you are only searching for a way to re-conciliate your theistic belief with modern science and corrupt the science in the process.

Dude, get off the high horse....seriously.  Do you honestly think that Science knows, or can find all the answers?  

Sorry to disappoint you, but Science has it's limits.  There are some things which are simply beyond Science, because Science is limited to material phenomena..

The fact that you have no Scientific explanation for the origin of the Universe (pre-singularity) or the origin of Life says it all.

The ID you are proposing can be neither falsified nor confirmed since the designer is unproofable and does not explain anything.

Does it matter?  As I mentioned earlier in the debate, ID concerns itself only with proving that the Universe and Life has an intelligent cause.  It does not concern itself with the identity of the Designer, because to be frank, that is beyond the realm of Science.....any Science!
 

Such a theory is considered useless in science and for good reason since all ID does ist looking at all the gaps in can find and saying "The designer did this". If we used this reasoning for everything we would still be living in caves.

Some of the greatest Scientific minds believed in a God, and found inspiration for their work in their religion or their spirituality. 

You are being far too myopic for your own good. 

I don't think there is any room for debate here.

There's always room for debate, but only if you open your mind a bit.

There is nothing before the universe, because nothing is nothing.  Your argument is invalid. ::trollface::

[spirosz]

This thread went places.