17 Sep 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat the?
[b]amannion:
Worker bees - which have the barbed stingers - are sterile: that is, they don't pass on their genes to future bee generations. When one stings a mammal or bird (the barb only sticks into mammals and birds) the stinger sticks and pulls out, killing the worker bee. As it dies it releases a chemical into the air which alerts other bees to the dan ...[text shortened]... a.
It kills one bee, but saves many through the alert system.
your argument crumbles.[/b]
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI do not agree at all with the notion of intelligent design, but I do disagree that the human eye is somehow 'flawed'. You're only looking at blood vessels instead of the entire construction and the cause and effect of that construction.
...
Okay, if we take my first flawed posting when it was about the stinger of the bee, and apply it to the flawed construction of the human eye (you know, why are the blood vessels in front of the retina in the human eye, not a very intelligent design, is it?) then my posting is perfectly valid.
...
The human eye is designed quite ingeniously for what it can do. It is far more than a function of where blood vessels are placed!
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by BadwaterThe design of the human eye could be better with a little intelligent thought behind.
I do not agree at all with the notion of intelligent design, but I do disagree that the human eye is somehow 'flawed'. You're only looking at blood vessels instead of the entire construction and the cause and effect of that construction.
The human eye is designed quite ingeniously for what it can do. It is far more than a function of where blood vessels are placed!
No intelligent thought is behind it however. So it is what it is. It could be better, it could be worse.
18 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasso by your argument, there is no intelligent thought behind the building of a hummer because it could be better. because it is not perfect. because if you are intelligent you are required to only build perfect things.
The design of the human eye could be better with a little intelligent thought behind.
No intelligent thought is behind it however. So it is what it is. It could be better, it could be worse.
suppose someone wants an axe to chop wood. you make such an axe. then someone comes and calls you stupid for building an axe that dents if you try to chop an iron pipe. or in your case, calls you a figment of someone elses imagination and refuses to talk to you because you do not exist. also that someone calls anyone who buys that wood chopping axe a fundamentalist, a religious dood who fools himself into believing in the wood chopping axe maker.
and all this time, you created the item according to the spec, designed to do one thing and do it well enough. and furthermore nobody needed that axe to chop iron anyway because they could accomplish that with another tool.
do you still think that your argument is valid to disprove intelligent design?
(disclaimer: i am a religious person who believes in god and jesus-praise him!- and believes that intelligent design is crap science. don't get me started on creationism)
18 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziCreationism and Intelligent Design is the same thing. We are agreeing on this, aren't we?
so by your argument, there is no intelligent thought behind the building of a hummer because it could be better. because it is not perfect. because if you are intelligent you are required to only build perfect things.
suppose someone wants an axe to chop wood. you make such an axe. then someone comes and calls you stupid for building an axe that dents if ...[text shortened]... im!- and believes that intelligent design is crap science. don't get me started on creationism)
18 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasno we are not. just because god is a character in both stories doesn't make them the same. in fact they are very different.
Creationism and Intelligent Design is the same thing. We are agreeing on this, aren't we?
ultimately ids simply offer god as the first ingredient in everything. they offer god as the "who" but try and get the "how" through science.(mostly) creationists offer god as the "who" and use the bible for the "how" part
18 Sep 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziThen do you think that the biblical creator is not the same as the intelligent designer?
no we are not. just because god is a character in both stories doesn't make them the same. in fact they are very different.
ultimately ids simply offer god as the first ingredient in everything. they offer god as the "who" but try and get the "how" through science.(mostly) creationists offer god as the "who" and use the bible for the "how" part
18 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasthis has what to do with your argument? not to mentioned that i already said that god is a character in both the movements. and since i already said i disagree with both theories from a scientifical point of view what is the point in discussing if the biblical creator is the same with the "higher force" from the intelligent design.
Then do you think that the biblical creator is not the same as the intelligent designer?
you are moving away from the subject. might as well ask me if allah and the christian god are the same person.
try to stay and topic and answer my question: Do you agree that an object that gets the job done can be created by an intelligent being even if it isn't perfect?
18 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhy I want to know your opinion about creationism and intelligent design is I want to know your standpoint so I can explain in it the right kind of light.
this has what to do with your argument? not to mentioned that i already said that god is a character in both the movements. and since i already said i disagree with both theories from a scientifical point of view what is the point in discussing if the biblical creator is the same with the "higher force" from the intelligent design.
you are moving away f ...[text shortened]... bject that gets the job done can be created by an intelligent being even if it isn't perfect?
ID'ers think that a supernatural being is responsible for the universe. This being can be the biblical god, or he can be any supernatural being. So even non-christians can believe in such a supernatural being.
A creationist believes in the biblical god, and his creation according to the bible. A ID'er doesn't have to believe in the biblical creation, nor the biblical god.
However, the Intelligent Design theory is invented by Creationists in order to separate it from the somewhat infamous Creationsism. Perhaps of political reasons. Some creationists call themself ID'ers, because it sounds more scientific, or anyhow better. An ID'er can believe in evolution, a creationist cannot. If it quacks it usually is a duck.
So this is why I see it's important to know if you are a creationist, or a supporter of the Intelligent Design Theory without being christian.
18 Sep 09
There is no need for an Intelligent Designer to explain what's going on in the Universe. This is my standpoint.
But I don't mind that people have an idea of an ID, but I see it as religion and not science. If they turn it to science, then I object.
This is the spiritual Forum, so I gladly discuss the topic, I don't mind it at all.
18 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt's not possible to prove, nor disprove, religious matters.
... do you still think that your argument is valid to disprove intelligent design?
If it was science, then observations and experiment can make one of the two theories more probable, but I haven't seen any attempt to to treat the subject in a strict scientifical way.
19 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasyou claimed that since the object is not perfect, then it is proof that there is no supernatural being behind it. i objected to that claim and said it doesn't prove anything since the object is good enough for the purpose it was built.
It's not possible to prove, nor disprove, religious matters.
If it was science, then observations and experiment can make one of the two theories more probable, but I haven't seen any attempt to to treat the subject in a strict scientifical way.
now you came to the right conclusion that nobody can disprove intelligent design because it is an unfalsifiable theory. anything that can be discovered will always admit that a supernatural being might be behind it.
19 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe design of the human eye could be better with a little intelligent thought behind.
Why I want to know your opinion about creationism and intelligent design is I want to know your standpoint so I can explain in it the right kind of light.
ID'ers think that a supernatural being is responsible for the universe. This being can be the biblical god, or he can be any supernatural being. So even non-christians can believe in such a supernatu ...[text shortened]... re a creationist, or a supporter of the Intelligent Design Theory without being christian.
No intelligent thought is behind it however. So it is what it is. It could be better, it could be worse.
this is what you said. and this is what i wanted to counter argue.
you claim there is no intelligent thought behind the human eye but you base your claim on little or nothing. i already proved you that an object must not be perfect in order for some being to be its maker.
the human eye is not a proof of the existence or nonexistence of god.
Creationism and Intelligent Design is the same thing. We are agreeing on this, aren't we?
you also said this. then you went and defined for me the two concepts(i already knew the definitions but thank you anyway). now correct me if i am wrong but those definitions are nothing alike. so either you are confused or you switched your opinion.
19 Sep 09
Originally posted by amannionIt also cannot be said of evolution either, the most anyone can
If you can demonstrate that a particular organism or a particular feature of an organism did not evolve, that would disprove the theory.
This is essentially the notion behind the falsifiability concept.
Not that it is wrong, but that it can be proven wrong if the right evidence is found.
This can not be said of fairies, ghosts or gods - these phenomena are not falsifiable. I can not prove them wrong.
produce is likely stories it could have happened this way or that, and
if a flaw is discovered with that notion, another notion takes its place
and the belief in evolution goes on.
Kelly