Staredit Network

[center]Intelligently Designed Organisms[/center]

Intelligent design definitely complies with the law of parsimony and requires no ad hoc rationalizations to scientific ignorance. How can such grotesque organ systems evolve together to form basic functions, such as all the organs required for a Vandellia Cirrchosa to successfully swim up the urethra of a man and lodge its intelligently designed state-of-the-art sharp spines to anchor itself so securely, that the only resort is surgical removal?

Now how complex is that? Without the proper organs to swim and seek openings to a prey's body, and without the spines to anchor itself, the Vandellia Cirrhosa simply can not survive. Evolving only half of these body parts would be totally useless, because they all need to work together in unison for one basic function. Evolution cannot explain the complexity of the development of such organ systems. Sure, throughout time small mutations can occur so evolution says, but what are the chances that an entire organ system for the Sacculina Carcini to evolve the proper organs and instincts to drill an entrance into a prey crab, castrate its penis, and take over its nervous system so that the crab cares for the parasite as if it were its own? The chance of such grotesque organ systems assembling together by a single mutation has about the same chance as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a guillotine by chance. Evolution cannot explain such complexity, but intelligent design sure can. So no, intelligent design is definitely not an argument from ignorance.

In conclusion, if you were walking in a forest, and found an iron mace, do you suppose nature put it together by blind chance, or an intelligent designer? In addition, even if we have never seen this intelligent designer, you have never seen the maker to an MA41 Assault Rifle, does that mean that there was not a creator to that rifle? Of course there was, as there is a creator to this universe, as witnessed in such fine creations such as the Babyrousa Babyrussa, which grows its tusk until it pierces the area between its skull, and the male Panthero Leo, which has all the intelligently designed functions to eat its step children.

[center]Problems With Evolution[/center]

Why do the atheist, with their pride and arrogance deny the existence of their benevolent creator? One has nothing to lose by believing in his almighty creator, and everything to gain if he wins the sadistic game of religion lottery. That is, one has everything to gain if he chooses the one right religion from all the other religions in this world. As for which religion is the correct one, my religion has just as much evidence as any other, but mine is the one you should believe.

It is quite unthinkable to imagine that space, time, matter, and energy have always existed. However, it is perfectly plausible that some magical being had always existed and created these things. So why do atheist make such unparsiminous conclusions? Obviously, since evolution has been disproven many times (by religious groups, coincidently, and they still haven't claimed their Nobel Prize award for some odd reason), intelligent design wins by default. Likewise, if intelligent design is ever falsified, evolution would be vindicated as the last remaining possibility.

One thing that I find queer is if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? I wonder why something so easily percieved would never enter the conciousness of a phylogenetic scientist, a taxonomist, or a zoologist. Am I really that astute, or are scientist just idiots? It must be some silly ad hoc hypothesis such as, "We didn't decend from the monkeys of today, they simply share a common ancestor with us and they've branched off away from us. We actualy decended from old world monkeys from the order Primates." I've descended from Asian ancestory, and as you can see, there are no Asians anymore. Adam, the first man on the planet, created by the Christian God, was made from dirt, and do you still see any dirt? Of course not. (There is actually no evidence for a man being created from dirt and spawning a woman out of his rib cage, still, I suppose you can take someone's word for it.) So why if we evolved from monkeys, there are still monkeys?

The mere fact that scientist are paid to corroborate theories such as evolution not only makes me skeptical, but falsifies the theory itself. With this vista in mind, if the motivation of Pythagoras for developing the Pythagorean Theorm (which like evolution, is only a theory, not a fact) were the emoluments, It would refute the fact that (a^2)+(b^2)=(c^2). Evolution is simply one huge fairy tale propagated by the evil atheistic scientific community. It's more than just a biological process, it's a religion, a philosophy to life, an inconsistancy to morality. It is simply impossible to believe in a god, and to believe in evolution simultaneously. It's not like there's such thing as theistic evolution, the belief that a god used evolution to produce his creations. Though, that would be the more awesome course of action. It is more sublime for one to grow his own flowers than to buy an already matured one from a store, but that's beyond the realm of consideration, even for a powerful intellgient designer.

Evolution also violates the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system (the Earth is actually a closed system, we aren't getting any energy from the Sun, hence photosynthesis is another scientific lie) energy is always decreasing and entrophy is always going towards a state of disorder. So how is it that more complex organisms can arise from less complex ones? If a human produces offspring, the offspring will have less energy and be more disordered than its parent. The descendant will never have more energy than its parent and will lose more energy every day. A woman having a baby is simply impossible, because all the matter would have to go from a state of disorder to a state of order. Once again, evolution is losing, which promotes intelligent design as the answer by logical deduction. Man comming from dirt does not violate entrophy like evolution does.

Evolution doesn't even attempt to explain the orgin of life. Supposedly, I am conflating evolution with abiogenesis; how the first life came to be is not required to know the evolution phenomena. This is just a sad excuse scientist use to palliate gaps in their precious theory. Other theories, such as germ theory don't explain the orgin of germs, which greatly impedes our ability to explain phenomena such as sickness and antibiotics. Atomic theory doesn't explain the orgin of atoms which makes it impossible to explain chemistry. So how can evolution be explained without knowing how the first life originated? The answer is that it can't. Intelligent design on the other hand, does explain the orgin of our creator. That is, our intelligent designer had always just existed. It's simple circular logic - we know there is a creator because there is a creation, and since there is a creation, there is a creator. (Circular logic is still logic.)

Lastly, even Darwin himself recanted his theory hours before he died. The discoverer of the theory was then its confounder, effectivly disproving the theory of evolution. If Pythagoras had recanted his theory before his death, (a^2)+(b^2) would no longer equal (c^2). The physical constants of right triangles would change, prohibiting mathematicians from even considering the veracity of the theory. There are only two possible explainations for the life on Earth. If intelligent design is falsified, evolution wins because of a no contest situation. If evolution is falsifed, intelligent design wins. Likewise, either 1+1 is 3, or 1+1 is 7. I've ascertained it is not 3, so it must be 7. So refuting evolution in lieu of positive evidence for intelligent design will actually demonstrate the validity of intelligent design.

[center]Further Reading[/center]
Organisms That Look Designed
Why We Believe In A Designer!
Things Creationist Hate!

That was sooo long that I don't think I'm ever gonna finish that.... And all theories are just theories. Earth is a game created by God and we are the players and people are up there buying "power" cards to do stuff to us like zap us and end the game for us so when we go back up there we can zapp them

The introduction to your post is the only part that holds any credibility. It's the problem with evolution, the believability. It's hard to imagine that intelligently designed creatures could come from nothing. Then again, a lot of creatures aren't intelligently designed, and have tons of useless parts. Like the human appendix. Among other things. Life is more flawed then some people realize. Also, if the Universe is almost infinitely vast, then anything no matter how implausible could happen.



In other words, your religion is right and mine is automatically wrong. Your logic is flawed and you should be murdered. There is a lot to lose by wasting your time, and if there is a God, it is doubtful that any religion on Earth is correct at all. So you are wasting your time. The very definition of God is being contradicted here. You give him human emotions even though he is supposedly all powerful. God won't get bored and create the Universe, and he won't be happy when tons of pathetic mortals worship him in many different ways.



Space and time are nearly the same thing, and so are matter and energy. It is more plausible to believe that these things either always existed, or came into existence FROM nothing, which is strangely possible. It's hard to define nothing, since there really is no such thing as nothing. So if nothing doesn't exist, then something must exist? You instead claim it more likely to believe in magic, which has never been shown to exist. Ever. Stuff on the other hand, stuff exists.



This is one of the oldest arguments against Evolution and it's still the dumbest. If Halo 2 is out how come people still play Halo? If Brood War is out how come people still play StarCraft? If little Johnny is born, how come we don't kill his father? I could go on like this for hours. The reasoning here is idiotic.



Despite your obvious biases in these statements, you hit on some key points. Most people only believe in Evolution as a faith. They don't know the faintest thing about it but take it to be true just because they were raised on it. Same thing goes for the religious zealots. Evolution however, despite the fools who follow it, is still a theory of science meant to explain the reasons for our being here without resorting to creating some infinitely powerful being who did it. Instead of just coming up with some cheeze solution "God did it." science is invoked.



Um.. wow. Just... wow. The galaxy is *barely* a closed system, since there are some bodies that travel inter-galactically. We are getting energy from the sun.. photosynthesis is real. It's called the cycle of life. Plants get energy from the sun. Things eat plants. Things eat those things. The law of thermodynamics is also wrong, since the Heat Death of the Universe turns out to be false when you learn that behind the known universe is anti-matter. I won't get into that here. Everything you said is wrong though. Everything.



Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It's how life could have evolved from the original cells. It has nothing to do with explaining how those cells got there in the first place.



Darwin took the same advice you seem to be telling us to take, and at the last second decided to embrace God fully so as not to be smited. He didn't really want to believe it even as he was making it, he knew the full reprecussions of what he was doing, and I think his wife warned him of it too (if he even had one, I don't recall.)



The first site claims that evidence for evolution was planted by Satan. All credibility they might have had is now lost.

The second site offers dozens of proofs of evolution, but claims they all prove that there is a God. Wierdos.

The third site was anti-creationists so I didn't take the time to read it.

Bump.

Any creationist wanna tackle this/vouch for me?

Mr.Drunken, the discussion of isn't what should be "God" or what is "God", if any. We are not smart enough to figure these complex issues out and I for one will not try. You either have faith in science, or you have faith in "God", it's exciting thinking we actually go somewhere when we die, but is it exciting to think we go nowhere when we die? Is it all an illusion to keep us in line? Why does any of it matter anyway, we'll find out ultimately when we cannot tell anyone else.

Drunk, arent you the same person who posted saying that the watchmaker argument was total bull like a few months ago?

False dichotomy. Are you saying that there is no such thing as a Christian scientist? Or a theistic evolutionist?

ADDITION:
Well, I don't remember saying that specifically but you must be refering to this thread.

No, that wasn't by me. But thanks for the damaging quote .

Well, sir, what else is there besides beliefe in a god or not believing in a god?

Well, one can belive in god, not believe in god, or be an agnostic. But that wasn't your original premise. You originally presented a case where one must choose between god and science, as if choosing science would mean he must abandon his belief in god. Science has never confirmed or falsified god. Science has never used god as a part of any conclusion or hypothesis. Science does not equal atheism.

Even evolution and the big bang do not contradict the existence of a God (particularly, I'm speaking of the Christian God now). It is possible that God is not subject to the confines of time like we are, therefore a day unto God, can be eons for us, making evolution and the big bang compatible with the bible. This is the belief held by theistic evolutionist. They believe in both god and science.

After seeing this sort of topic in many forums, I'm getting a little sick of replying... but, I generally see the bible as somewhat true, somewhat exagerrated. Alot of the things in it COULD have happened, and there is evidence to support it. For example, althought Noah COULD NOT have fit all of the animals on his boat, done that little bit with an olive branch if the world had been submerged, etc. etc. etc., scientists have found evidence that there was a massive flood of the Black Sea way back when. That may have been what they thought of as a world-wide flood. I sort of view the bible as a story book, a collection of events passed down from generations. That is what seems most plausible to me.

BUT, back on the topic of intelligent design, I really didn't want to read the 2nd and 3rd sites (call me lazy if you want) but I see holes in what they are saying about different organisms. Although, yes, there could have been intelligent design, evolution is also possible in each of those.

For example, when they mentioned the rabies disease, all of the effects are things that could happen from damage to the brain, which could very possibly be caused by the virus. Very possibly, the virus could have had various strains, in this example there will be strain a and b. Strain a happens to target any old cell. Strain B has a mutation that makes it target certain cells. It happens to target brain cells... strain a is eventually destroyed from a lack of carriers and strain b continues.

But, oh no! What does mutation/survival of the fittest have to do with evolution? Mutation is just the randomnivity of things. If something messes up during the development of an organism, like missing a chromosome or having an extra one, this will of course make it have major/minor differences from the parent.
Survival of the fittest is when something is destroyed because it isn't strong enough to survive. Now, as I said in my example, a mutation could give a great advantage to an organism, allowing for more of them, and the spread of it.


Back onto intelligent design, survival of the fittest and mutations have alot to do with evolution. Something could very possibly have evolved with an organism, adapting to it. Some organisms could even have slowly evolved the complicated systems mentioned on that page over the millenia, adapting to fight their predators. The ones who couldn't get away/fight back would die, and the ones who could would survive. A complex system could start out as one little defect, gradually growing. But wait, what about bats, and birds? How did they evolve to be able to fly? Well, I don't really know, but one thing I can think of would be that the animal could have lived in a tree. A predator could very well have snuck up on them, leaving them on a branch. Some are light enough but strong enough to jump across, but others aren't. Gradually, they would get lighter, and probably eventually gliding, until they could fly.

Although, yes, I don't know much about this topic I don't know what to believe as each theory can prove the other wrong over and over again.

I actually took the time to read through the rest of Drunk's post, and I cannot belive people are taking this seriously.

Yep.

Evolution is not a faith, if by faith you mean belief without evidence.


Actually, from what I gather, Darwin never recanted on his deathbed. But that won't stop churches from making such irrelevant ad hominems and attacking the maker of the theory, rather than the theory itself.


Well, it isn't "destroyed," more like being out-competed so that it has a lower chance of reproducing and perpetuating itself.


Correct. Our eyes are the result of millions of years of benefical mutations. It could have started out as a mutation that gave us a light sensitive cell on the skin, allowing us to escape predators easier. That trait was selected, and soon an entire population had those light-sensitive eyes and the ones who didn't have those traits were not selected. After millions of years of random mutations, one lucky organism may have gotten the allele sequence that created a depression in the light-sensitive patch which makes vision a bit sharper. Then that trait was selected, an entire population has that trait, and the process repeats.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html


I surmise that they started off gliding like a tree squirrel before they could actually fly.

The Bible is something you should not take literally, but something to get an idea of what God has done.

Ah, but I was only implying not outright saying choose God or science. I am and was being nuetral on the ("that") topic of "does God exsist?" I believe we will only know when we die, so there is no actual way of telling -- it is all faith Now the real premise is if we should believe because we're told; or not believe because we know. Do we know? I dont. That is why I dont judge your or anyone's opinion on it, we ("I") could be believing a lie, IF I ("we") believed in God, or any religon for that matter.

But is it impossible to do both?


It's also possible that there is a god but no afterlife, so that even after we die we will not know if there is a god.


I only go where the evidence leads me. It is impossible to know if something does not exist (unless it is contradictory like a spherical cube), so we can't know if god exist or does not exist. However, this is another false dichotomy. If we are not believing because we are told, we aren't believing because we know he doesn't exist, but maybe because there there is a lack of evidence that indicates he exist.

It is not impossible to do both but it is perpetually diffacult. Name he who contridicts himself by believing in a God then saying there is no God due to scienctific evidence he also believes in? That is my only arguement here, we dont know. We simply dont know. We only believe, we only have faith, or none.

Uh, there is no scientific evidence that says god does not exist. I said that in post 12.

And, so what? My point still stands.

This is really drifting away from the first post.

What scientific evidence contradicts the existence of God?