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:

[1213]

...You keep talking about degeneration as if that somehow contradicts the scientific theory of evolution. That only makes sense if you think things always have to become more complex/functional.

I say, if evolution theory means all species have evolved from simple organism to this variety of species that we can see, it means there must have been much development to more complex and functional. For example, the original organism didn't have eyes, at some point those must have evolved. And that leads to question, how it would have happened.

In any case, the changes would come because of errors in DNA replication, it can be said all the changes are errors, which shows the original DNA is degenerating, if there happens changes.

Perhaps you need to state exactly which part of the ToE you don't agree with. It would be helpful if you supplied a link to some science and bolded the bits you think are wrong.

Problems are for example:
1. No real evidence for things evolving. All visible evidence shows degeneration, which supports the creation theory, not evolution theory.
2. It can't be tested. For example, the credibility of the theory would get lot stronger, if we could breed a rat to bat, or if we could breed a mouse into a mini whale.

They had that ability before losing the ability to walk, otherwise they obviously would still live on land.

I don't even know how to respond to that one.... In fact, often it's better to just let your interlocuter rest their case with something like that

If the water life abilities developed in water, as it is logical to assume, it would mean they could swim before they had "evolved". Do you think they became water animals before they could swim?

[1213]

...
Burden of proof fallson the claimant. Where is your evidence that bacteria had the ability to consume plastic ...

Burden of the proof falls on the one who claim they didn't have that ability.

There is plenty Bats were obviously rodents before they evolved flight.

Why do you expect anyone to believe that? If that would be true, we could breed a rat into bat?

Pengins (in the fossil record, too) were less adapted for swimming than they are now. Snakes (in the fossil record) once had legs but their method of locomotion made them redundant. And finally,the cetan sequence. Demonstrable Speciation from a land critter to a sea critter.

And you expect people to believe that fairy tale without any substantial evidence?

They had that ability before losing the ability to walk, otherwise they obviously would still live on land.

Rubbish.The land animal could not cross an ocean...

They must have had the ability to swim. It is irrelevant can they swim cross on ocean at once. Probably they can't still do it, without resting.

[benchwarmer]

...You keep talking about degeneration as if that somehow contradicts the scientific theory of evolution. That only makes sense if you think things always have to become more complex/functional.

I say, if evolution theory means all species have evolved from simple organism to this variety of species that we can see, it means there must have been much development to more complex and functional. For example, the original organism didn't have eyes, at some point those must have evolved. And that leads to question, how it would have happened.

In any case, the changes would come because of errors in DNA replication, it can be said all the changes are errors, which shows the original DNA is degenerating, if there happens changes.

Technically it's about DNA mutation which can be due to replication errors and/or external causes (i.e. radiation).

Yes, DNA mutation is what is at the heart of evolution. That's what the theory says and that's what we see happening in the lab via DNA analysis.

Sometimes this mutation does nothing, sometimes it causes a change in function, sometimes it creates a new function, sometimes it removes a function, sometimes complexity is increased (insertion), sometimes complexity is decreased (deletion).

Perhaps you need to state exactly which part of the ToE you don't agree with. It would be helpful if you supplied a link to some science and bolded the bits you think are wrong.

Problems are for example:
1. No real evidence for things evolving. All visible evidence shows degeneration, which supports the creation theory, not evolution theory.

All evidence shows DNA mutation can and does happen. Sometimes that effects organisms in a 'good', 'bad', or neutral way. When organisms change to better survive in their environment, they have evolved. You can play word games all you want, but they have evolved in the sense that comports with the ToE.

2. It can't be tested.

Woops:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680118/

For example, the credibility of the theory would get lot stronger, if we could breed a rat to bat, or if we could breed a mouse into a mini whale.

That's not what the ToE states or expects. So, you continue your strawman of the actual science. What may be possible is to breed rats that fly or mice that swim underwater. Either of those will take a very long time, thus to watch evolution more easily they use bacteria which reproduces very quickly. No, you won't see a whale like creature pop out of the petri dish in a lab starting with bacteria. That would take millions/billions of years. Yet I'm sure you will use that type of excuse to ignore the actual science. I've seen it before from others.

To recap: You have yet to provide one single link to actual science. You have also failed to produce any evidence for the creator that you think made what we see around us happening. I think readers are noticing your lack of any convincing support.

[POI]

Hello POI

William said to You - "Essentially, it is our train of thought which leads us to ask questions and then provide answers which can only serve to suit our preferred train of thought."

---------
What part of this advice did you not get, POI?

The irony of his statement is that he discerns ID. I'm then merely asking him to elaborate on his discernment of why he thinks it is intelligent, and this is when he back peddles.

You self-declared yourself an anatomy expert with a few copy and paste Google anecdotes, and then, you are indignant when your prognosis is not met with universal approval.

I have done no such thing. My (4) questions require no expertise, but instead only basic logic. Do you have an answer to these questions? If not, then you and William can have fun stepping all over yourselves, in making a conclusion that we are designed intelligently, but then back peddling when demonstrating why. My (4) basic questions alone create a large hole in the ID hypothesis. (i.e.):

1) Why would a designer opt to have a sterile airway share an unsterile foodway, inclined to aspiration/infection/death?
2) Why would a designer opt to have female sewage and reproductive organs so close together, and/or on top of one-another, inclined to infection/death?
3) Why would a designer opt to have the male urethra pass through the middle of his prostate, inclined to urinary retention?
4) ID-ers will also argue for irreducible complexity. Yet, seems this topic has been debunked?

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Burden of proof fallson the claimant. Where is your evidence that bacteria had the ability to consume plastic ...

Burden of the proof falls on the one who claim they didn't have that ability.

Burden of proof lies on the one that knows there was never talk of a bug that ate plastic and that it was known 'plastic does not degrade'. Now a bug can eat it. Where is your evidence that any such thing could happen before recently.

There is plenty Bats were obviously rodents before they evolved flight.

Why do you expect anyone to believe that? If that would be true, we could breed a rat into bat?

For the same reason we know whales evolved from land animals. Even though we cannot turn a moth into a mammoth. The same way we know birds evolved from land animals - wings were once arms. The bonse structure is evidence. Where is your evidence they did not? It doesn'tmatter whether you accept or deny it, anyone without a closed mind can make it up themselves.

Pengins (in the fossil record, too) were less adapted for swimming than they are now. Snakes (in the fossil record) once had legs but their method of locomotion made them redundant. And finally,the cetan sequence. Demonstrable Speciation from a land critter to a sea critter.

And you expect people to believe that fairy tale without any substantial evidence?

No. but I have shown evidence you couldn't refute, not even though you tried to pull excuses like the one I debunked with shasrks'fins. You did not respond I recall and yet here you are again proclaiming no 'substantial' evidence. Which we never really get for anything, and especially Bibleclaims. Why should anyone believe Genesis?

They had that ability before losing the ability to walk, otherwise they obviously would still live on land.

Rubbish.The land animal could not cross an ocean...

They must have had the ability to swim. It is irrelevant can they swim cross on ocean at once. Probably they can't still do it, without resting.

There are many animals that can swim better than those amphibian cetans could and yet they do not cross oceans. And the fossil evidence supports that. We are talking about something like a crocodile,and even a seal.While it is possible one could make a sea journey by trying not to drown while 'resting' why would they so so? They prefer to stay near the land.

All the evidence supports speciation and your excuses are the very familiar excuses denial and demanding yet more proof with the inevitable 'butterflies into mammoths' nonsense and final desmissal. I know you don't accept even positive proof, (do we go through the resurrections again?) but it is others who count, not your denial.

The funny thing is that even Creationists admit evolution is real. They simply deny that it can lead to speciation. The cetan sequence is proof it can, even if Ambulocetus was able to cross oceans, which the fossil evidence shows it didn't.

a ps. in fact I do consider arguments. I said Ambulocertus or like sub species could not cross the ocean and indeed the fossil evidence indicates that it didn't.

In fact using the crocodile analogy one could make a case for 'resting' mid ocean. But crocodiles sleep with very slow breathing in relatively shallow waters and hardly at the bottom of oceans. One might argue that they sleep while floating and there is fish to eat, so theoretically Ambulocetus might be able to make the trip, but perhaps I should have said 'it was not useful for Ambulocetus to swim to other continents' and fossil evidence indicates it didn't. Of course, even if it had, that would not alter a thing about the fossil evidence for the speciation of cetans, only how much each sub -species could do.

[benchwarmer]

Burden of proof lies on the one that knows there was never talk of a bug that ate plastic and that it was known 'plastic does not degrade'. Now a bug can eat it. Where is your evidence that any such thing could happen before recently.

Perhaps creationists think that the toilet seats on the ark were plastic (magically created by God of course) and thus plastic eating bacteria were warm, cozy, and fed floating around on the ark.

[TRANSPONDER]

Burden of proof lies on the one that knows there was never talk of a bug that ate plastic and that it was known 'plastic does not degrade'. Now a bug can eat it. Where is your evidence that any such thing could happen before recently.

Perhaps creationists think that the toilet seats on the ark were plastic (magically created by God of course) and thus plastic eating bacteria were warm, cozy, and fed floating around on the ark.

When creationists can make up ("Table top model") excuses like floating vegetation mats to save Noah from having to save all the insect species, God could probably have magicked plastic bags in the bronze age for the plastic - eating bugs to live on, just (it has been claimed) he magicked food in the bellies of the sleeping animals on the Ark so as to get over the food problem..

And yet it's just kneejerk denial. When biology proves that a bug (or a fly)m develops a new evolutionary feature 'It's still a bug'. There is no reason in creationism to deny evolution within a species, and yet they still do because the method is to deny everything even without really getting the argument.

Interesting that the Bible has a passage about it being good to beleive without seeing, but of course that only applies to One belief.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #204]

The irony of his statement is that he discerns ID. I'm then merely asking him to elaborate on his discernment of why he thinks it is intelligent, and this is when he back peddles.

(Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.)

I answered the OP questions which you chose to ignore (Post #27) where I linked another post to a message titled "Intelligent Design. Navigating Human Limitations and Universal Constraints" which elaborated on my answers given in Post #27

I even reposted Post #27 in Post #36 with the footnote "Hopefully the creator of this thread will address the points made, if indeed there is anything therein which the poster takes issue with.
Otherwise, the OP question is suitably answered."

This time you gave a one word question to that post.

That word was "why".

And I replied "It is the intelligence which is the most obvious (giveaway). Some recognise it and some do not. "Why?" that is the case may vary. Why do you think it is not obvious?" (Post #41)

You chose not to answer my question put to you. So how is it that your choice not to engage with my answers indicative of me "back-peddling"?

It isn't.

You are misinforming the reader about my supposed "back-peddling" simply because you failed to keep informed as to what was being posted in your own thread.

What your accusation is, comes from within your own sense of self and has been externalised in an effort to project your own personal behaviour onto my personality which then "allows" you to accuse me of doing what in fact you have been doing. (Straw-manning)

You also *back-peddled with you insistence that I tell you what position(s) I hold as if it were important for you to know that information. When I said I would answer you in the appropriate thread, you *backed off, accusing me trying to make you "jump through hoops."

Really POI? Where is this coming from? Is it simply a matter of excess baggage you retained from when you once referred to yourself as a "Christian"? Or does it come from an even deeper dungeon in your psyche?

Only you can provide the correct answer to that question, but I feel I owe the reader the opportunity to view the facts rather than some be tempted to take you word on what it is I have/have not done, here in this silly straw-manning thread.

I hope that you find the opportunity to heal from that affliction, as you continue on with your human experience.

I have nothing more to say about the matter and nothing more I presently feel to contribute to the thread topic as what I have already contributed is answer enough and blows atheistic straw-mannie out of the water and into observable space.

[benchwarmer]

When creationists can make up ("Table top model") excuses like floating vegetation mats to save Noah from having to save all the insect species, God could probably have magicked plastic bags in the bronze age for the plastic - eating bugs to live on, just (it has been claimed) he magicked food in the bellies of the sleeping animals on the Ark so as to get over the food problem.

As soon as someone says "Well God could have just ..." my reply is "Well why didn't God just instantly, painlessly vaporize all the sinners and dispense with the whole flood/ark nonsense?"

When magic is brought to bear in one case to make a problem go away, it really just shines the light on the ludicrousness of many of the other stories that could have also been as easily solved. Let's face it, the character portrayed in the Bible would be embarrassing to an actual god that had the power to instantly, logically, cleanly solve problems. But no, Noah had to build a wooden boat to house animals to avoid a flood that God was creating out of thin air to kill everything. It basically paints this character as inept. It can supposedly instantly kill when it wants to (2 Samuel 6:7), but somehow decided that pointlessly flooding the planet was more fun.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #208]

Post 27 - Where's Waldo
Post 36 - More Where's Waldo
Post 116 - Addressed claim to 'becoming.'
Post 123 - Addressed 'cognitive dissonance'.
Post 125 - Addressed assertion about 'eternal mindfulness', addressed 'baggage'
Post 128 - Asked about 'change'.
Post 133 - More exploring...
Post 138 - ??
post 142 - Asked what position (atheist to theist) and all in between to fine-tune discussion.
Post 145 - Accused of back peddling... Informed that some of your responses require a decoder pen.
Post 150 - Refocus the thread for all...
Post 161 - Get accused of a strawman, so I have to explain why it isn't.
Post 167 - Ask a), b), or c)?
post 174 - Still trying to hone in on whether you are an (atheist - theist) and all in between.
post 176 - Ditto
Post 180 - Don't plant your flag anywhere?
Post 184 - I continue to explain why it is important to get an answer.
Post 187 - Instead of just answering, in one or two sentences, redirect to another thread to ask the same Q, as if I'm violating some formal rule?
Post 191 - Realize it ain't happening, try to push forward based upon the found position of ID.
Post 193 - Receive pushback.
Post 195 - Refocus, based upon your given answer(s), and re-ask the unanswered Q's.
Post 197 - You mysteriously have no opinion on the matter? You claim ID, which requires an opinion, but mysteriously then have no opinion about simple questions which challenge the notion of ID.?.?.? Thanks for playing.

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

Now to address a part you wrote about.... The only baggage I carry here is the continued frustration I increasingly possess in viewing/reading some of your "mystical" answers. Further, when I engage theists, I remain respectful until I smell B.S.