Obvious Designer?

[POI]

Otseng's statement: "This is the variation of the omnipotent God argument by imagining a hypothetical perfect design. There is no need for God to be a "perfect" designer.

In human designs as well, things are not perfect and have flaws, but they are still designed. Nobody claims since iPhones have flaws in them that Apple engineers are either crappy designers or they don't exist at all."

*****************************

There is just so much to flesh out in this cluster of statements, I do not know where to begin. I guess we can start here and see where this goes.

For Debate: Is it obvious humans were designed, or not? Please explain why or why not. If you believe so, does this design lead more-so towards...

a) an intelligent designer?
b) an unintelligent designer?
c) a deceptive designer?

Like all other topics, let's see where this one goes.... And for funsies, here is a 10-minute video -- optional, but begins to put forth a case for options b) or c), if "designed" at all:

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. 'Strawman' in apologist language means 'I don't like it', or I don't want to hear it'. It is dismissive, and apologists seem to misuse and misunderstand fallacies as much as they misunderstand the Bible, science and in fact everything.

After all, aside from Williams' own Deistic take, mainstream apologists often do just what the video implied - God had a fine, perfect, plan and Satan came and messed it up. I know it has a metaphor of a tree, snake and apple but if apologists can just see it as an analogy of the devil coming and running earth introducing evil abominations like war, crime and electric cars, while God did nothing but saving a crucifix when his cathedral burned down, because that would abrogate free will and prevent anyone being saved, then skeptics can see a hand of poker as an analogy of the mess it all ended up as. With not just bad design but bad mentality.

Lucifer might not have got a free hand to thoroughly mess up Yahweh's perfect design in a game of poker, but it makes as much sense as that Eden scenario where God actually seems to be setting up the fall himself.

[1213]

Incorrect. While organisms have gotten more complex and in many cases more functional, that's not what drives evolution.

Ok, I don't claim it drives evolution. I say that the complexity and functionality is said to be because of the evolution. And I think it is not reasonable idea, because everything in nature goes to the opposite direction, to less complex/complete. All alleged evidence for evolution show that things are eroding, not getting more complex. And yes, I understand that it fits to the theory also. But, it doesn't support the idea that everything comes from single organism. The degeneration supports the idea that everything was once created good and then started to degenerate.

If we see only species losing, it doesn't point to that there is any development, or gaining. the direction is to less complex, which implicates that everything was once created completely and now things have been corrupted and become less complete.

This makes no sense. You will have to give an example.[/quote]

One example is the whales that have "lost their legs". Allegedly once upon a time, whales were gallant land animals, who then thought, it is easier to just swim around and then, because of they laziness and inadequate training program, their legs just atrophied. Soon they probably learn that it is even easier to just lay on the ocean floor and then they will probably become coral reefs, which are obviously more advanced in laziness.

Evolution has nothing to do with an end goal of "development or gaining". It is purely driven by a species ability to survive long enough to reproduce. Organisms that don't survive long enough to reproduce don't contribute to the next generation. Statistically, the least 'fit' tend to die out before they have a chance to pass on their genes....

And, if ability to survive is the key principle, everything will regress to single cell life forms, because it is the easiest and durable state.

[Clownboat]

Jesus said that he hides from the wise and intelligent.

Do you claim to have found Jesus? Asking for the class.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #152]


So you want to make a joke out of it and laugh it off. You may mock the whale but it has adapted to be the biggest mammal ever and does very well thank you. You may mock the Alligator who is more able in water than out of it. You may mock the bat who couldn't get into a mousehole if it tried, but has to hang upside down. perhaps it will devolve into an stalactite. Have your fun. It doesn't alter the evidence that evolution was a thing and still is as the seal for sure looks like a living transitional form.

As for the clumsily misdirected canard about things today going to the bad so evolution takes the blame (if Christianity was true God would never get the blame - ooh noo...that's man's fault, interfering), again, it is merely ignorance and wilful ignorance of how much things have improved. Take away all the stuff the wilfully ignorant who thing God has dumped all these creature comfort into their laps away and hear them howl. .

No, this was a bit of fun and mocking of the kind that would be portrayed as so hurtful and discrediting if atheists did it, and it means nothing whatsoever in terms of any serious discussion at all, about the subject.

[benchwarmer]

Incorrect. While organisms have gotten more complex and in many cases more functional, that's not what drives evolution.

Ok, I don't claim it drives evolution. I say that the complexity and functionality is said to be because of the evolution.

Taking this one step at a time. Yes, as living things evolved, some of them became more complex and some of them gained new functionality. Some also lost functionality (poor birds that can't fly).

And I think it is not reasonable idea, because everything in nature goes to the opposite direction, to less complex/complete.

Now you've lost me. What idea are you talking about? That some complexity and some functionality has changed during the evolution of living things?

You are claiming everything is losing complexity and functionality. That's odd and you'll have to give some evidence here. Preferably scientific evidence as we are discussing a scientific theory.

Even if that were true, what has that got to do with the theory of evolution? The theory doesn't state things will become more complex or will gain more functions. The theory revolves around living things adapting to their environment for survival. There's no guarantee or expectation to become more complex or gain more features. If you think so, please point to the science based article/paper/anything that claims that.

Again, you seem to be attacking a strawman caricature of the actual science. This doesn't help your case at all.

All alleged evidence for evolution show that things are eroding, not getting more complex.

Cool, please link to some of this (preferably peer reviewed) scientific evidence. Since you claim all of it shows this you should have an easy time supporting that.

And yes, I understand that it fits to the theory also.

I'm really not sure you do understand what does or doesn't fit the theory. As already pointed out, the theory has no expectations that all things will always gain complexity and/or functionality.

But, it doesn't support the idea that everything comes from single organism.

Actually, it does. I suggest research on DNA and how scientists can confirm which organisms are related to which other ones. The early evidence for the ToE was noticing things about fossils and how current living things adapt. The real slam dunk was when DNA analysis came along and confirmed the theory from a separate angle. Now we can trace organisms at the molecular level and this leaves little doubt about the ToE. There is still much to learn and discover, but at this point it's down to refinements, not completely overturning the theory. Any new theories or refinements that come along have to explain all the previous data and observations as well.

The degeneration supports the idea that everything was once created good and then started to degenerate.

First you have to show this 'degeneration' you speak of. After that, you might be able to use it to support something. Overturning the ToE is not likely in the cards. If it is, you will have a Nobel in biology with your name on it.

If we see only species losing, it doesn't point to that there is any development, or gaining. the direction is to less complex, which implicates that everything was once created completely and now things have been corrupted and become less complete.

This makes no sense. You will have to give an example.

One example is the whales that have "lost their legs". Allegedly once upon a time, whales were gallant land animals, who then thought, it is easier to just swim around and then, because of they laziness and inadequate training program, their legs just atrophied.

Oh my. You think scientists think that whales developed the way they are because the whales thought about things and got lazy? LOL!!!

If you can please point me to that peer reviewed research I and our readers would greatly appreciate it.

Soon they probably learn that it is even easier to just lay on the ocean floor and then they will probably become coral reefs, which are obviously more advanced in laziness.

Dear readers, I'm not even sure it's worth responding at this point.

It's like me walking into the Theology subforum and constantly claiming Catholics drink whisky and eat pancakes during every Mass to honor Jesus's time on the cross, so clearly these Christians are deluded.

If one is going to attack something, it behooves one to understand what one is attacking.

Evolution has nothing to do with an end goal of "development or gaining". It is purely driven by a species ability to survive long enough to reproduce. Organisms that don't survive long enough to reproduce don't contribute to the next generation. Statistically, the least 'fit' tend to die out before they have a chance to pass on their genes....

And, if ability to survive is the key principle, everything will regress to single cell life forms, because it is the easiest and durable state.

Huh? I suggest a basic biology course. This is getting too ridiculous.

How hard is it really to understand the simple concept that things that survive long enough to reproduce, get to reproduce and produce another generation? I think it's simple and at this point some purposeful ignoring is going on so as to retain a belief despite what's presented.

Thankfully I'm not trying to convince you 1213. I'm merely presenting a case to the readers. I'm quite happy if you want to keep presenting strawmen, readers can pick those apart pretty easily once they are proven to be just that.

[Purple Knight]

We have a comparison between an iphone and a rock. That's why it's obvious an iphone was designed.

But if the entire universe was designed, then we have never seen anything undesigned and the idea that our intuition would guide us in this regard is ludicrous.

I think this cuts both ways and hurts the atheist argument from evil too, since we think this universe is bad, but we can't know without seeing another universe.

[1213]

And I think it is not reasonable idea, because everything in nature goes to the opposite direction, to less complex/complete.

Now you've lost me. What idea are you talking about? That some complexity and some functionality has changed during the evolution of living things?

Can you give one example of evolution that is not losing something?

All alleged evidence for evolution show that things are eroding, not getting more complex.

Cool, please link to some of this (preferably peer reviewed) scientific evidence.

Do you agree that all changes in DNA happen because of errors in the copy process?

As already pointed out, the theory has no expectations that all things will always gain complexity and/or functionality.

I think you also accepted that the according to the theory all things have evolved from single organism to this variety of organisms. If that is true, then the claim is that the theory gives the expectation that things must have gone also to more complex.

The degeneration supports the idea that everything was once created good and then started to degenerate.

First you have to show this 'degeneration' you speak of. After that, you might be able to use it to support something.

Here are few examples, that I think are commonly accepted, please tell if you don't accept them:
1. Errors in copying DNA is the reason for changes most, if not all changes.
2. Whales lost their legs.
3. Some birds have lost the ability to fly.

Oh my. You think scientists think that whales developed the way they are because the whales thought about things and got lazy? LOL!!!

Essentially that is what they suggest.

And, if ability to survive is the key principle, everything will regress to single cell life forms, because it is the easiest and durable state.

Huh? I suggest a basic biology course. This is getting too ridiculous.

Please explain why do you think it is not true?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #150]

I'm going to try and push this topic along. The "strawman video", in which William labels, suggests that a designer exists, but this designer lost a bet to "Lucifer". "Lucifer" is allowed to mess with God's design. While ignoring the applied (satire/disrespect/mockery/other), the provided video demonstrates a fundamental point:

The fundamental point it demonstrates is that the atheist who created the video is relying on stories which are not even biblical and certainly not something that all christians believe in.


Even in the early part of the video, the characters are portrayed with whinging Jesus and a sensible Satan, swapping the roles from the traditional story of the temptation in the desert.

Thus, the video exhibits the very definition of straw-manning.

This fallacy occurs when, in attempting to refute another person's argument, you address only a weak or distorted version of it. Straw person is the misrepresentation of an opponent's position or a competitor's product to tout one's own argument or product as superior. This fallacy occurs when the weakest version of an argument is attacked while stronger ones are ignored.

(SOURCE)

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #156]

We have a comparison between an iphone and a rock. That's why it's obvious an iphone was designed.

Specific to that, are you arguing that the third rock from the sun is not obviously designed?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #156]

We have a comparison between an iphone and a rock. That's why it's obvious an iphone was designed.

Specific to that, are you arguing that the third rock from the sun is not obviously designed?

I think that is a reasonable argument, given that pretty much all the processes needed to make it are naturally - explainable ones; the burden of proof falls on anyone arguing for intelligent design.

Anyone who doesn't get this is invalidating themselves as
(a) they are arguing illogically n(assuming a designer before it has been validated
(b) ignoring the materiallst default - pretty much a tattoo on the head of the one making the argument "Theist apologist".
(3) theist apologists means fiddling the argument, logic and science in favor of the faithclaim - oh and accusing the Other side of doing the same even though materialist rationalists simply point to logic and the evidence, not Faith for their case.

72 guests good to see.