View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:28 pm




This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Not so intelligent design by Creator 
Author Message

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:02 pm
Posts: 280
Post Not so intelligent design by Creator
Living in Anus

Do you know that sea urchin crab, Echinoecus pentagonus, lives in the anal pore of sea urchins in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

What would be a rational for the creator to creation this kind of an animal? Of course, the urchin also needs to be designed. What kind of thinking an intelligent designer would have to come up with a design like this?


Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:26 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 1568
Location: Sebring, Florida
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
DagnyWener wrote:
Living in Anus

Do you know that sea urchin crab, Echinoecus pentagonus, lives in the anal pore of sea urchins in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

What would be a rational for the creator to creation this kind of an animal? Of course, the urchin also needs to be designed. What kind of thinking an intelligent designer would have to come up with a design like this?
Thinking far far above yours.


Quote:
Not so intelligent design by Creator'.
The phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was popularized by Carl Sagan So far you have none.


Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:34 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:02 pm
Posts: 280
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
ABO,

Do you have actually anything concrete to say about what would the intelligent designer think and what would be the reasons to put the crab into anus of another animal as a habitat?

Can you give me at least 5 possible reasons and by what mechanism was the anus habitat populated by the crab? How did the creator coax the crab to live an an anus of an urchin?

Also, see this.

Stupid Design - Neil DeGrasse Tyson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc


Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:32 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:16 pm
Posts: 1547
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
This is a weak argument, Dagny. If there were an omnipotent God who had decided to specially and consciously create all living things, there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't do it with a flourish, and what might seem bizarre to us might not to him. One of the flaws in the whole "omnipotent God as a reason" argument is that, as ABO has pointed out, an omnipotent God can explain anything - even things which defy the laws of physics.

So I don't think bringing up oddities in nature as a challenge to an omnipotent God is an effective argument at all.

_________________
"I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true." (paraphrased from Feynman)


Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:31 pm
Posts: 1015
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
Of course the claim that everything can be explained by natural mindless forces can also explain anything...even things which seem to defy the "laws of Physics".

In that sense, the claim is Unfalsifiable and hence Unscientific.


Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:30 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 1568
Location: Sebring, Florida
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
Dangy

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Genesis 3:22

You will die by design, it's no accident.


Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:10 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:02 pm
Posts: 280
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
Jack Krebs wrote:
This is a weak argument, Dagny. If there were an omnipotent God who had decided to specially and consciously create all living things, there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't do it with a flourish, and what might seem bizarre to us might not to him. One of the flaws in the whole "omnipotent God as a reason" argument is that, as ABO has pointed out, an omnipotent God can explain anything - even things which defy the laws of physics.

So I don't think bringing up oddities in nature as a challenge to an omnipotent God is an effective argument at all.



Jack,

Unintelligent design and wastefulness of natural resources by the creator (if there is one) as well as her engineering inability to design efficient biological systems (e.g. extended laringenial nerve) testify to his failing basic design 101 class at college. Biological wastefulness and inadequacies of design in organisms is well documented. No engineer would build a structure like let's say hernias or one pipe to breath through and eat.

A crab living in an anus of another animal of course maybe incomprehensible to us as to why the creator would like this to happen, but a rather simple thing can be asked of a believer of this arrangment intelligently - would it make sense to you as a human if you lived in an anus of another animal and you were placed in it by the intelligent designer. What would you think of it?

The Lord is not averse to picking up feces and spreading them on faces of those who displease him (in his own words in OT), so putting someone to live in an anus of a whale (also, apparently is possible and feasible in the Bible as illustrated by a parable) is not that big of a deal.

If a ridiculous thing like this was mentioned in the Bible, we'd be hearing about this every week on Sundays during sermon - the world as anus of Satan or something like this. Now, this would be weird, but religionists would love it and of course, would find some justification and will invoke hermaneutics or something.

Since this world is really bad and evil, it is akin to living in an anus of Satan anyway to them and we need to exorcise those thetan spirits with negative engrams within us as Scientologists, so I don't see a reason why religionists would not find a justification for it living in an anus of god for that matter. After all, if there is a missing chapter of the Bible somewhere with this and later found, can you imagine what profound effect it may have on Christianity? - just like the Red Sea scrolls?

It just makes sense and worshipping of your own anus by extension should be promoted every week from pulpits at churches as nothing is wasted and even the waste pathways bring new life to other life.


Last edited by DagnyWener on Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:47 am, edited 2 times in total.



Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:23 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:02 pm
Posts: 280
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
ABO wrote:
Dangy

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Genesis 3:22

You will die by design, it's no accident.



Biology, genetics, Old Testament.

ABO, your scientific ignorance is baffling.


Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:24 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:16 pm
Posts: 1547
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
Dagny, if there were an omnipotent God, there is no reason he would act like an engineer - ho could very well act like a flamboyant artist. If you want to be an effective advocate for your positions, you need to develop effective arguments, and "unintelligent design" is not one of them, in my opinion.

_________________
"I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true." (paraphrased from Feynman)


Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:54 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:02 pm
Posts: 280
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
Jack Krebs wrote:
Dagny, if there were an omnipotent God, there is no reason he would act like an engineer - ho could very well act like a flamboyant artist. If you want to be an effective advocate for your positions, you need to develop effective arguments, and "unintelligent design" is not one of them, in my opinion.



Actually, it is "one" of them, Jack. And it appears that the many leading biologists and critics of ID agree on the arguments "flaws of intelligent design in biological systems" (Coyne, Ken Miller, Dawkins, Collins, Keith Miller, Prothero, Carroll, both Wilsons, Watson, etc...)

For all we care, we can live in an anus of the deity, or in one of his anuses (ani) and don't realize it.

It is quite artistic though to live in the LORD's anus, I agree. The supernovae are his flatulance and stars and galaxies are just little "bacteria like" unconscious beings in his digestive tract. This would explain Big Bang too artistically - a huge constipation by the LORD and viola! - here we are.

Artistically, it's flawless - and the LORD saw his constipation was good!


Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:33 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:31 pm
Posts: 1015
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
Its ironic that Dagny makes pronouncements on "design" when he can't even explain abiogensis in the first place.


Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:17 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:16 pm
Posts: 1547
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
I don't see what you hope to accomplish by being crude, Dagny.

_________________
"I would rather live with uncertainty than believe things that are not true." (paraphrased from Feynman)


Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:38 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:02 pm
Posts: 280
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
Jack Krebs wrote:
I don't see what you hope to accomplish by being crude, Dagny.


Jack,

Thought experiments are crude? Since when? I think they are a marvellous tool akin to asking questions in a Socratic method.

Doesn't search for facts transgress personal feelings, sense of being hurt and offended? After all, it can be one of the most profound discoveries of Objective Reality if we are living in the anus of a deity other than Yahwheh and this deity gulps up and digests other universes and dimensions, seems like dark matter and energy may (in this line of thinking) support this tenant of faith?

Ideas like this should be welcomed by the religionists and when the "artistic" argument is invoked it begs another argument and discussion like this an quickly get "anal" so to speak. I can see how crude it can be.

But if the LORD of the Bible doesn't have a problem to use feces to cover faces of those who displease him and it is in the divinely inspired and by some accounts the true word of god, how come just "thinking" about living in an anus of a deity can be remotely considered crude?

Can you or religionists disprove that we are not living in an anus of a deity? I sure can't. Therefore, it's not only possible but plausible? How can thought extrapolations be crude? Sounds like the sheer thought of it is a "sin", Jack? And there are plenty of "through sins" in the Bible that we need to be staying away from.

You are not going to lose sleep over this. Neither will I. Neither will ABO or any other religionist. At some point Objective Reality of common sense steps in even in the most religious and far fetched from objective reality from us. We just move on. Not too much changes.

If you and I had this conversation one on one, you and I would have hashed out our positions in 30 seconds, Jack. I am sure you see the reasons behind this "crude" approach? - to demonstrate that Objective Reality can only be determined by constant observations, questioning and refining the methodology, coming up with new theories, hypotheses and, yes, thought experiments like this.


Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:20 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:02 pm
Posts: 280
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
Jack,

The argument from "artistic expression of deity" in the "unintelligent design" proposition begs the question "If this deity has artistic inclinations to put a crab in the anus of another animal to live in" by what mechanism did this deity aquire such artistic expression?

Where does the creator get the sense of "artistic"? After all, if there is "artistic" he has to somehow develop, nourish, learn it and be able to tell it himself from "non artistic?" and in what context?

Based on what criteria is it for him/her/it "artistic" to do so and why not put the urchin in the anus of the crab? He could have created the spiky urchin to be very very small and it could have fit in its anus and not discomfort the crab too much.

The infinite regress of this is rather easy to spot. I fail to see how you fail to see that this can be an argument? Of course, it can be perceived as crude, mocking, offending, not sensitive - but only in the realm of the religion.

When you see politicians battling it out, sports commentators, car salesmen or pundits on TV - does any of this comes across as crude? They may not use anus as an argument, but it's all the same bull feces, so to speak.

We have to sift through it to get to the diamonds in the rough. And there is a lot of "it". "It Happens"


Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:43 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:31 pm
Posts: 1015
Post Re: Not so intelligent design by Creator
Dragny confuses Thought Experiments with a common Logical Fallacy...and it commonly consists of talking nonsense while presenting it as an actual argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule


Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:59 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.