An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[Neogaia777]

An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious that life's design, has a design and a designer behind it...? It should be obvious that Life or this reality was engineered and has an engineer behind it...

Why do you deny that there is a "mind" behind all we see and know...?

Is it because, you say, we may have proof of a thing that was intelligently designed, but because we don't have solid, irrefutable proof or evidence, specifically of the designer behind it, we refuse to believe... Although we will admit that things do overwhelmingly appear to have been intelligently designed, created, or orchestrated, or engineered, but, because we cannot literally see the designer behind the design, though we do think there is sufficient evidence to say it was all designed, created, orchestrated or engineered by a mind, because we can't literally see it, we don't believe in it, though there is plenty of evidence pointing at such a thing, we still do not believe...

Why is that...?

That is like discovering some other earth like planet, and discovering whole cities, complete with machines and machinery, buildings, houses, roads, but no inhabitants.... And then saying, and concluding, well, since we do not see any inhabitants, we deny that there ever were any, and all of this stuff, just came out of nothing and thin air, I guess, is our theory...

Romans 1:19-20 applies to you people...

God Bless!

 

[Nithavela]

Doesn't look that intelligent to me...

 

[Neogaia777]

Doesn't look that intelligent to me...

What about it (creation) (or anything) does not look that intelligent, creation is a symphony of intelligent design... You don't see that... Just look at some of the threads on here... (Don't understand the point of this picture either, or what you even mean, for that matter...)

 

[Nithavela]

What about it (creation) (or anything) does not look that intelligent, creation is a symphony of intelligent design... You don't see that... Just look at some of the threads on here... (Don't understand the point of this picture either, or what you even mean, for that matter...)

Look closer. You'll figure it out. Maybe.

 

[Neogaia777]

Look closer. You'll figure it out. Maybe.

Are you afraid to explain what you mean? Why the cryptic, disguised responses?

I have the same to say to you about creation then... "Look closer. You'll figure it out. Maybe... (But probably not...) Your the one who has something to "figure out" not me...

I'm not going to be able to look any closer at an ex-ray of teeth any closer and get what you mean, sorry...

Why don't you just come out and say it, why do you hesitate to do so...?

 

[Radrook]

Doesn't look that intelligent to me...

Really?

 

[Radrook]

What about it (creation) (or anything) does not look that intelligent, creation is a symphony of intelligent design... You don't see that... Just look at some of the threads on here... (Don't understand the point of this picture either, or what you even mean, for that matter...)

This is want he doesn't want to see:

Human tooth - Wikipedia

Human tooth - Wikipedia

 

[Larniavc]

An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious that life's design, has a design and a designer behind it...? It should be obvious that Life or this reality was engineered and has an engineer behind it...

Why do you deny that there is a "mind" behind all we see and know...?

Is it because, you say, we may have proof of a thing that was intelligently designed, but because we don't have solid, irrefutable proof or evidence, specifically of the designer behind it, we refuse to believe... Although we will admit that things do overwhelmingly appear to have been intelligently designed, created, or orchestrated, or engineered, but, because we cannot literally see the designer behind the design, though we do think there is sufficient evidence to say it was all designed, created, orchestrated or engineered by a mind, because we can't literally see it, we don't believe in it, though there is plenty of evidence pointing at such a thing, we still do not believe...

Why is that...?

That is like discovering some other earth like planet, and discovering whole cities, complete with machines and machinery, buildings, houses, roads, but no inhabitants.... And then saying, and concluding, well, since we do not see any inhabitants, we deny that there ever were any, and all of this stuff, just came out of nothing and thin air, I guess, is our theory...

Romans 1:19-20 applies to you people...

God Bless!

What is your criteria for categorising something as dedigned?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Although we will admit that things do overwhelmingly appear to have been intelligently designed, created, or orchestrated, or engineered[...]

Speak for yourself. I look at nature and I see plenty that makes sense if it was cobbled together on the basis of whatever was an improvement on what went before, rather than something that was designed intelligently.

Did you know you have a blind spot in the middle of your visual field? Did you know that what you think you see in the middle of your field of vision is what you brain makes up from the data around it? Because the human optic nerve enters the eye right in the middle of all the rods and cones where the light is focused so there's no data for the light that enters the eye in the centre. And the reason the optic nerve has to enter the eye at all, rather than connecting to the back of the rods and cones is because the rods and cones are backwards. They face outwards from the back of the eye. So the light that they detect has to first go through the nerves which connect to the optic nerve, then through the rods and cones themselves. So what you see is distorted and muted. Distorted, muted, and partially imagined. All because of the physical construction of the eye.

If that is a design, then it's a very bad design. The octopus has a much more sensible eye than humans do.

You also have to wonder at the lack of imagination. All mammals, reptiles and birds are essentially a tube with a mouth at one end, an anus at the other, 4 limbs (albeit that in some animals these are vestigial) and a head. That's what you'd expect if they all descended from a common ancestor, but less what you'd expect if an infinitely intelligent, infinitely imaginative creator had made them.

If I were designing a human being I'd put the brain in the middle of the body, as it's the organ which requires the most protection. I'd strengthen the lower back so that walking upright doesn't cause damage to the spine. I'd have separate orifices for eating and breathing, and not have the breathing tube so exposed that it can easily be slashed. In men I'd have the sexual organs separate from the urinary organ. I'd make the eyes harder, so that they're not as vulnerable, but make it possible to shed the hard cornea in case it got scratched. I'd not put vital arteries close to the surface of the skin to prevent even relatively shallow cuts from being potentially fatal. I'd make the male sexual organs retractable and either strengthen the backs of women or reduce the maximum size of breasts to prevent back problems in women who are larger. I'd make the soles of the feet hard (ridged bone, perhaps? Constantly growing, like a rat's teeth) so that we could walk around barefoot without hurting ourselves. I would make our bodies able to grow thick pelts, depending on the climate (sort of like a dog shedding in the summer) so that we could survive naked in the polar regions, yet not overheat at the equator.

I'm sure I could think of more improvements, were I to give it the time. The fact is - we're a terrible design, with everything smacking not of "good" but "good enough".

 

[Neogaia777]

What is your criteria for categorising something as dedigned?

That is runs like a program, and follows a program...

 

[Ana the Ist]

An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious that life's design, has a design and a designer behind it...? It should be obvious that Life or this reality was engineered and has an engineer behind it...

Life exists. I'm not sure what concept of design leads someone to think "life" is designed though. It doesn't appear designed at all in my opinion.

Why do you deny that there is a "mind" behind all we see and know...?

No evidence.

Is it because, you say, we may have proof of a thing that was intelligently designed, but because we don't have solid, irrefutable proof or evidence, specifically of the designer behind it, we refuse to believe... Although we will admit that things do overwhelmingly appear to have been intelligently designed, created, or orchestrated, or engineered, but, because we cannot literally see the designer behind the design, though we do think there is sufficient evidence to say it was all designed, created, orchestrated or engineered by a mind, because we can't literally see it, we don't believe in it, though there is plenty of evidence pointing at such a thing, we still do not believe...

Why is that...?

You're talking about degrees of proof...when I haven't seen any proof at all of design. Seems like you've jumped the gun from evidence straight to conclusion.

Start with the evidence.

 

[Neogaia777]

Speak for yourself. I look at nature and I see plenty that makes sense if it was cobbled together on the basis of whatever was an improvement on what went before, rather than something that was designed intelligently.

Did you know you have a blind spot in the middle of your visual field? Did you know that what you think you see in the middle of your field of vision is what you brain makes up from the data around it? Because the human optic nerve enters the eye right in the middle of all the rods and cones where the light is focused so there's no data for the light that enters the eye in the centre. And the reason the optic nerve has to enter the eye at all, rather than connecting to the back of the rods and cones is because the rods and cones are backwards. They face outwards from the back of the eye. So the light that they detect has to first go through the nerves which connect to the optic nerve, then through the rods and cones themselves. So what you see is distorted and muted. Distorted, muted, and partially imagined. All because of the physical construction of the eye.

If that is a design, then it's a very bad design. The octopus has a much more sensible eye than humans do.

You also have to wonder at the lack of imagination. All mammals, reptiles and birds are essentially a tube with a mouth at one end, an anus at the other, 4 limbs (albeit that in some animals these are vestigial) and a head. That's what you'd expect if they all descended from a common ancestor, but less what you'd expect if an infinitely intelligent, infinitely imaginative creator had made them.

If I were designing a human being I'd put the brain in the middle of the body, as it's the organ which requires the most protection. I'd strengthen the lower back so that walking upright doesn't cause damage to the spine. I'd have separate orifices for eating and breathing, and not have the breathing tube so exposed that it can easily be slashed. In men I'd have the sexual organs separate from the urinary organ. I'd make the eyes harder, so that they're not as vulnerable, but make it possible to shed the hard cornea in case it got scratched. I'd not put vital arteries close to the surface of the skin to prevent even relatively shallow cuts from being potentially fatal. I'd make the male sexual organs retractable and either strengthen the backs of women or reduce the maximum size of breasts to prevent back problems in women who are larger. I'd make the soles of the feet hard (ridged bone, perhaps? Constantly growing, like a rat's teeth) so that we could walk around barefoot without hurting ourselves. I would make our bodies able to grow thick pelts, depending on the climate (sort of like a dog shedding in the summer) so that we could survive naked in the polar regions, yet not overheat at the equator.

I'm sure I could think of more improvements, were I to give it the time. The fact is - we're a terrible design, with everything smacking not of "good" but "good enough".

It is designed, it runs and operates much like a computer program, and much like even the best computer programs there are some minor anomalies that creep up, not according to bad design at the onset, for the program could be perfect and yet anomalies will still creep or pop up in it...

You saying, "Well, it is a bad design, cause if "I", the way "I" would have done it is this or that", makes me, almost gives me a belly laugh at the pompous arrogance of such a statement... I guess you can tell God that and all about his terrible, flawed design when you meet him one day...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Life exists. I'm not sure what concept of design leads someone to think "life" is designed though. It doesn't appear designed at all in my opinion.

Why not...?

No evidence.

Again, the discovering another planet analogy in my OP, there is plenty, plenty of evidence of his handiwork and his hand in things, but you say there is no evidence cause you don't see any inhabitants... Radrook has posted many threads on here that are plenty of evidence, you just must have something personal against believing them/it...

You're talking about degrees of proof...when I haven't seen any proof at all of design. Seems like you've jumped the gun from evidence straight to conclusion.

Start with the evidence.

Just look at some of the threads and info on here, just for starters...

Why do you think it's not intelligently designed?, or there is no mind behind it all...?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It is designed, it runs and operates much like a computer program, and much like even the best computer programs there are some minor anomalies that creep up, not according to bad design at the onset, for the program could be perfect and yet anomalies will still creep or pop up in it...

This is just bald assertion. And it seems to be arguing for God having created the first single-cellular life and then left everything to its own devices. Is that accurate?

You saying, "Well, it is a bad design, cause if "I", the way "I" would have done it is this or that", makes me, almost gives me a belly laugh at the pompous arrogance of such a statement...

You say it's arrogant to point out improvements on the design, and yet you don't attempt to dispute any of these "anomalies". You're tacitly agreeing that they would be improvements.

 

[Neogaia777]

This is just bald assertion. And it seems to be arguing for God having created the first single-cellular life and then left everything to its own devices. Is that accurate?

No, he is intimately involved in it, guiding and directing it, in every moment and at every step... But, not forcing it, but guiding and directing/shaping it, like a lump of clay (that starts out as an unimpressive lump of clay, until it becomes the finished product) Anyways, like a lump of clay on a potter's wheel...

You say it's arrogant to point out improvements on the design, and yet you don't attempt to dispute any of these "anomalies". You're tacitly agreeing that they would be improvements.

No, I'm not saying that at all, but even the anomalies were there for a purpose, to think that you could improve upon it or could do it better, is what I'm saying is arrogant... I don't claim to fully understand every reason for everything behind it all, but, I know there is a reason why it is the way it is... I've seen enough that I cannot even look at it, without seeing the design in it and behind it...

It's a shame that you can't seem to see the beauty behind or in it all...

 

[Nithavela]

I've seen enough that I cannot even look at it, without seeing the design in it and behind it...

Some people can't watch television without seeing illuminati symbolism everywhere.

Ever wondered if it's just you?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, he is intimately involved in it, guiding and directing it, in every moment and at every step... But, not forcing it, but guiding and directing/shaping it, like a lump of clay (that starts out as an unimpressive lump of clay, until it becomes the finished product) Anyways, like a lump of clay on a potter's wheel...

If he could have prevented the "anomalies" but didn't, then he is responsible for them, no? They are part of his design, are they not?

Besides, almost every mammal, reptile and bird having their most important organ attached to their body by a relatively thin and fragile assemblage seems to be more than an "anomaly", doesn't it?

No, I'm not saying that at all, but even the anomalies were there for a purpose, to think that you could improve upon it or could do it better, is what I'm saying is arrogant...

Then you don't agree that it would be better for our backs to be able to support a lifetime of walking upright without damage?

I don't claim to fully understand every reason for everything behind it all, but, I know there is a reason why it is the way it is...

You believe there is a reason.

It's a shame that you can't seem to see the beauty behind or in it all...

I never said that I couldn't see the beauty of nature. Thinking something beautiful doesn't mean to think that it's perfect (as I'm sure anybody who has ever been in love with someone can attest). Thinking something beautiful doesn't imply that you think it was designed, and vice versa.

In fact, I think nature is beautiful all by itself, whereas it seems that you need to associate it with God in order to do so.

 

[Nithavela]

I never said that I couldn't see the beauty of nature. Thinking something beautiful doesn't mean to think that it's perfect (as I'm sure anybody who has ever been in love with someone can attest). Thinking something beautiful doesn't imply that you think it was designed, and vice versa.

In fact, I think nature is beautiful all by itself, whereas it seems that you need to associate it with God in order to do so.

The beauty of nature?

Yeah, feast your eyes on this beauty:

Meet the parasite that can burrow its way into the human eye

 

[Neogaia777]

If he could have prevented the "anomalies" but didn't, then he is responsible for them, no? They are part of his design, are they not?

Besides, almost every mammal, reptile and bird having their most important organ attached to their body by a relatively thin and fragile assemblage seems to be more than an "anomaly", doesn't it?



Then you don't agree that it would be better for our backs to be able to support a lifetime of walking upright without damage?



You believe there is a reason.



I never said that I couldn't see the beauty of nature. Thinking something beautiful doesn't mean to think that it's perfect (as I'm sure anybody who has ever been in love with someone can attest). Thinking something beautiful doesn't imply that you think it was designed, and vice versa.

In fact, I think nature is beautiful all by itself, whereas it seems that you need to associate it with God in order to do so.

OK, your going to make me go into the difference between God, the Father and God, the Son then... OK...

The Father knew about and created the anomaly called sin, he was not surprised by it, but the Son, our God was...

The Father designed it all even the flaws for the purpose of teaching the Son and us into our full maturity...

When we learn that our belief, our faith, can heal us, that we can think and will by faith into altering reality into what we want it to be... When we learn how we are like God, through and by and with God, then...

Well, I don't know why I even come to this forum, you guys are pretty much dead set on not believing no matter what I say, right...?

God Bless!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

OK, your going to make me go into the difference between God, the Father and God, the Son then... OK...

The Father knew about and created the anomaly called sin, he was not surprised by it, but the Son, our God was...

The Father designed it all even the flaws for the purpose of teaching the Son and us into our full maturity...

When we learn that our belief, our faith, can heal us, that we can think and will by faith into altering reality into what we want it to be... When we learn how we are like God, through and by and with God, then...

This conversation is not about sin. It's about the less-than-perfect elements of human design, such as the vulnerability of a naked human to the elements, meaning s/he cannot survive on the vast majority of the surface of the planet.

Well, I don't know why I even come to this forum, you guys are pretty much dead set on not believing no matter what I say, right...?

Incorrect. As I said in your other thread - I'm entirely open to persuasion. I've just yet to see a persuasive argument presented.

And now you seem to be throwing your hands up in the air and just giving up simply because I've not immediately accepted your belief as the truth. If your belief in an intelligent designer is truly based on sound reasoning, you should be able to make a cogent argument for it. So far all you've done is asserted that it is so and presented straw man arguments for what others believe.