Question about intelligent design theory

[Mr. Pedantic]

Being that they're all a bunch of ignorant numbskulls, they almost universally fail to realize that as much as we infer the existence of the Big Bang from the converging world lines of astronomical objects, we also infer the status our immediate environments from the photons which form patterns on our retinas and the sound waves that impinge upon our eardrums.

Well, our conclusion comes from the assumption that the laws of physics are anywhere and anytime, the same as at this place and this time. I'm not quite sure why this is a good assumption and why it should be withheld, other than because of simplicity.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm not sure there is an inherent difference in the design of a house vs the design of the universe other than the complexity.

Yeah, do you see lots of carpenters assembling universes?

What would an "undesigned" universe look like? I've always asked that of you dumbshits and nobody has ever answered me.

I don't believe he we needed to "evolve" to perceive what is aesthetically pleasing; I think that's it's inherent in our makeup. When you see a sunset, or a mountain range, or hear the roar of the ocean, you have an intuitive sense of beauty and awe.

SEE? THE ARROW TOTALLY HIT THE BULLSEYE!! IT MUSTA BEEN GUIDED BY GAWD!! HALLY-LOOYA!! THANKY JEEBUS!!

 

[darkswordsman17]

Excellent non answer.

Well, yeah, which is why I posted it. You really don't have to go out of your way to underscore my point again, but suit yourself I guess since it seems to be your M.O.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, our conclusion comes from the assumption that the laws of physics are anywhere and anytime, the same as at this place and this time.

To be sure. Life becomes incredibly difficult without that assumption.

I'm not quite sure why this is a good assumption and why it should be withheld, other than because of simplicity.

It is a good assumption insofar as it appears to work. Science is nothing if not pragmatic.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Yeah, do you see lots of carpenters assembling universes?

What would an "undesigned" universe look like? I've always asked that of you dumbshits and nobody has ever answered me.

It's a silly question because it's an impossibility.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Well, our conclusion comes from the assumption that the laws of physics are anywhere and anytime, the same as at this place and this time. I'm not quite sure why this is a good assumption and why it should be withheld, other than because of simplicity.

This isn't entirely true. There are physicists exploring ideas based on physics that change, and it's entirely possible to make inferences about the world based on this idea. Yes, it's more difficult, but it's possible.

 

[02ranger]

I'm not sure there is an inherent difference in the design of a house vs the design of the universe other than the complexity. I don't believe he we needed to "evolve" to perceive what is aesthetically pleasing; I think that's it's inherent in our makeup. When you see a sunset, or a mountain range, or hear the roar of the ocean, you have an intuitive sense of beauty and awe.

What?! You don't see a difference between the universe and a house? The difference is that we know for a fact that there is a builder to the house because we have facts that a house won't appear without somebody building it. The universe is entirely different. There are facts, scientific observations, and plenty of evidence to support the idea that the universe arranged itself after the big bang and that life evolved on this planet as it is today over millions of years. My point is that the universe, more specifically this planet, is all the human race has ever known so it stands to reason that we could have evolved to see our surroundings as what things "should" look like. The universe was here first. We came before the house so the house conforms to our standards, whereas we conform to the universe.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.'

Douglas Adams was a swell guy.

 

[02ranger]

When you see a sunset, or a mountain range, or hear the roar of the ocean, you have an intuitive sense of beauty and awe.

I agree with this part. We do get an intuitive sense of beauty and awe from those things, but that doesn't prove or disprove either of our points of view. It supports my theory that we evolved surrounded by those things and they are awe-inspiring, but I believe the craters on the face of the moon or the red sand on mars could be equally awe-inspiring if we'd evolved there without huge mountain ranges or an ocean because that'd be all the human race knows. According to your view, those same things could be awe-inspiring because your creator put those feelings in you. I'm not saying my idea is proving there is no creator, just giving an alternate explanation for why some see design in the world.

Also, I keep calling it my idea but I recognize that it is in no way my idea. I see now that others have theorized this before. I even know what to call it. Thanks all who contributed to that.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

What?! You don't see a difference between the universe and a house? The difference is that we know for a fact that there is a builder to the house because we have facts that a house won't appear without somebody building it. The universe is entirely different. There are facts, scientific observations, and plenty of evidence to support the idea that the universe arranged itself after the big bang and that life evolved on this planet as it is today over millions of years. My point is that the universe, more specifically this planet, is all the human race has ever known so it stands to reason that we could have evolved to see our surroundings as what things "should" look like. The universe was here first. We came before the house so the house conforms to our standards, whereas we conform to the universe.

A house won't appear without someone building but the universe suddenly appeared from nothing????

What observations are there of the big bang? What observations are there for matter magically arrnaging itself into conscious life????

We have an inherent sense of design and beauty imbued by our Creator.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I agree with this part. We do get an intuitive sense of beauty and awe from those things, but that doesn't prove or disprove either of our points of view. It supports my theory that we evolved surrounded by those things and they are awe-inspiring, but I believe the craters on the face of the moon or the red sand on mars could be equally awe-inspiring if we'd evolved there without huge mountain ranges or an ocean because that'd be all the human race knows. According to your view, those same things could be awe-inspiring because your creator put those feelings in you. I'm not saying my idea is proving there is no creator, just giving an alternate explanation for why some see design in the world.

Also, I keep calling it my idea but I recognize that it is in no way my idea. I see now that others have theorized this before. I even know what to call it. Thanks all who contributed to that.

Maybe we see design in the world because there is design in the world. Maybe you're trying to make things more complicated than they are.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Man the maker looks at his world and says, “So who made this, then?” Who made this?—you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, “Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me, and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male.” And so we have the idea of a God. Then, because when we make things, we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself, “If he made it, what did he make it for?” Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, “This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely,” and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

Douglas Adams again.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Douglas Adams again.

Nice fairy tale, but how does it relate?

 

[dawp]

we see pattern where there aren't any because that's the way our brains work, and not neccessarily because of some unseen being. just look at the night sky and you will naturally find patterns in the way the stars are and see the constelations, whether it's the ones from the ancents or ones you see on your own. that does not require a creator.

 

[dawp]

Nice fairy tale, but how does it relate?

how can you prove man was made in the image of god and not the other way around?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

we see pattern where there aren't any because that's the way our brains work, and not neccessarily because of some unseen being. just look at the night sky and you will naturally find patterns in the way the stars are and see the constelations, whether it's the ones from the ancents or ones you see on your own. that does not require a creator.

What doesn't require a creator? Stars or our perception of the order of the stars? I agree with the latter statement.

 

[dawp]

What doesn't require a creator? Stars or our perception of the order of the stars? I agree with the latter statement.

both.

 

[02ranger]

Maybe we see design in the world because there is design in the world. Maybe you're trying to make things more complicated than they are.

OK, I'm not gonna argue this anymore. I'm not going to convince you, nor do I care to try. You're not going to convince me. I think I got what I was looking for. I had a question and got some good answers, so now I'm going to go do some reading on chaos theory, the sharpshooter fallacy, and I think there was one more. If you want to have an honest debate, I wouldn't mind that. But simply repeating the same thing over without honestly considering the replies of myself or anybody else is a waste of everybody's time.

 

[Born2bwire]

OK, I'm not gonna argue this anymore. I'm not going to convince you, nor do I care to try. You're not going to convince me. I think I got what I was looking for. I had a question and got some good answers, so now I'm going to go do some reading on chaos theory, the sharpshooter fallacy, and I think there was one more. If you want to have an honest debate, I wouldn't mind that. But simply repeating the same thing over without honestly considering the replies of myself or anybody else is a waste of everybody's time.

Phineas is just a troll. He spends every day staying up into the wee early morning to post drivel and inane platitudes. He's actually one of the best things to happen to atheism and evolutionary teaching because he's just so insane that it drives everybody to the opposite extreme.

It's rather adorable in a sad way.

 

[02ranger]

we see pattern where there aren't any because that's the way our brains work, and not neccessarily because of some unseen being. just look at the night sky and you will naturally find patterns in the way the stars are and see the constelations, whether it's the ones from the ancents or ones you see on your own. that does not require a creator.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Lol, look at the Creationist accusing something of being a fairy tale. Let's laugh at him now. BTW, I'm not surprised that he requires further explanation to relate the quote to the topic.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

OK, I'm not gonna argue this anymore. I'm not going to convince you, nor do I care to try. You're not going to convince me. I think I got what I was looking for. I had a question and got some good answers, so now I'm going to go do some reading on chaos theory, the sharpshooter fallacy, and I think there was one more. If you want to have an honest debate, I wouldn't mind that. But simply repeating the same thing over without honestly considering the replies of myself or anybody else is a waste of everybody's time.

I considered your replies and gave honest replies back. Apparently you just don't like my replies and you were looking for replies from another point of view. Sorry I couldn't oblige you.

 

[Born2bwire]

Sounds reasonable to me.

It's rather interesting on how insistent we are on recognizing patterns. For example, the way that we automatically associate humanistic facial features. Look at a smily face, , it is nothing more than two lines and two dots but arranged correctly it is instantly universally recognized as a face and one that expresses a specific emotion.

Carl Sagan had an interesting thing about some of the UFO stories in his television show. Supposedly a UFO abductee drew a star map which was later connected with the arrangement of actual stars. But he shows that the star map is contrived because of they way that they connected the stars in the pattern. If we were to change the pattern of how they connected the stars on the map, it loses all of the similarities with the true map. In essence, people took a bunch of dots, drew some lines and then found what they could fit to that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

When I was in my early twenties, I went into an auto parts store for something or other. There was this stunning woman fumbling with a quart of oil, trying not to get it all over herself. I went over and helped her out and we started to chat. To my surprise she said she was on her way home and said she was going to make lunch and would I like go come over.

So naturally I said "Yes". When I got there she said it was refreshing to meet someone with manners and a sense of humor. Anyway the afternoon wore on and yes, one thing led to another and she was great.

Now the punchline- As I left she handed me her business card, which described her as a "masseuse". She was a high powered hooker who thought she'd give me a freebie as a reward

And that is my thought for today on ID and evolution. Thanks for your attention.

 

[02ranger]

Phineas is just a troll. He spends every day staying up into the wee early morning to post drivel and inane platitudes. He's actually one of the best things to happen to atheism and evolutionary teaching because he's just so insane that it drives everybody to the opposite extreme.

It's rather adorable in a sad way.

What's funny is how right you are. I've always been a Christian and was a die-hard creationist. In my mind, people who believed in evolution were hopelessly ignorant and lost. How could they miss the truth that is creation?! Then I started reading some of the huge amounts of evolution vs. creation threads here and reading on my own and my views got a little less set in stone. Reading that thread I linked in my OP and especially the talkorigins.org link all through that thread are what finally convinced me of evolution, along with some thinking on my own. What's amazing is how many christians think you can't be a christian and believe in evolution.