Evilution VS Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

No, it wasn't.

It was a typo that antagonists won't let go.

And while I do think it was dishonest of them, antagonists blow it out of proportion and run it into the ground.

Not just a "typo". It was a copy paste error.

It was the result of taking a creationist book/article and using the "find and replace" feature to change "creationist" into "design proponent" and not proof reading the test afterwards. And the only reason this "find and replace" thing took place, is because ID's case is trying to hide their true intentions. They couldn't get their creationist nonense into science classes because it was just religious stuff. So they took all their creationist material, removed every reference to "creationism" and replaced it with "intelligent design", so that they could pretend that its not just a rehash of their creationist nonsense from the decades before that.

This is why "cdesign proponentsists" has become such a viral meme.
Because it proves how dishonest the entire ID movement really is.

It's just the same old stuff from before, only this time they try to disguise it in a lab coat.

 

[Hieronymus]

Not just a "typo". It was a copy paste error.

O nooo... We're doomed...

 

[AV1611VET]

... and not proof reading the test afterwards.

You mean the "text"?

And please don't tell me about proofreading.

While calling us idjits and hoamskooled, some of you guys don't even check your quote tags.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What are the unintelligent parts and what are your alternatives?

- our spine is not fit for bipedalism, which causes lower backpains in 70% of humans
- our mouth is too small for all our teeth, which is why wisdom teeth hurt like hell and need to be removed for a lot of people
- eyes of vertebrates are backwards, causing a blind spot, causing energy inefficient processes in the brain to "rectify" the image
- 1 tube for breathing and feeding, causing many deaths by choking on food
- nerves that need to be only 1 to 2 inches long, but which go from the brain all the way down into the chest, looping around the aorta, to then go up again to end up at 1 inch from where it left at the brain. This requires extra energy and resources, which is inefficient. Especially in a Giraffe.
- .....

Also, just because something is not designed the way you personally would prefer it to be designed does not mean the design lacks intelligence.

It has nothing to do with "personal preference" and everything with objectively better design.

A design which is more energy efficient is objectively better then a design that is less energy efficient. If you are going to disagree with this, then I can only wonder how you think you can evaluate a design as being "good".

If you have 2 identical cars, with identical comfort, identical acceleration, identical top speeds, etc... but one can do 1000km with 60 liters of gasoline, while the other can only do 600, then the one that can go on for 1000km is an objectively better design.

It seems to be a rather arrogant point of view; if it's not designed the way I think it should be then it's not intelligent.

Building a mouth with not enough space for all teeth, is not a good design.
Building a bipedal creature with a spine that isn't fit for bipedalism, is not a good design.
Building an eye where all the wires are in front of the light sensitive cells causing a blind spot, is not a good design.
Having a nerve that is 50 times longer then the distance it actually needs to traverse, is not a good design.

These are objective statements, not personal preference.

There are probably ways that this forum could be better designed, but would you suggest what it is now is not based on intelligence as a result of that conclusion?

That's kind of a bad analogy, because forums aren't imperfect replicators in competition with one another...

But anyway, if we can come up with design changes that would in fact IMPROVE the design of the forum, then at the very least we would have disproved that the forum in its current form is an example of "perfect design". A "perfect" design is as good as it can possibly be. Finding a single example of something that could be improved, would refute the idea of it being "perfect".

If you disagree with that, then I'm afraid that I don't know what you mean by the word "perfect".

Believing that something comes from nothing is also convenient.

Who believes this? (ps: if you are going to say "some physicists", then be adviced that what they mean by "nothing" is probably not the same as what you mean by that term).

But as for Christianity, I don't think it is convenient at all. A close examination of Jesus' teachings will reveal a good deal of discipline and self sacrifice as part of learning to become both emotionally and spiritually mature. Jesus talked about forsaking all; materialism, friends, family, respectability and even our own lives. It all gets stripped away and then we start all over again, like little children learning how to live by a completely new set of values. Instead of being served, we serve. Instead of taking we give. Instead of hitting back we turn the other cheek. Instead of saving our lives we choose to lay them down.

Is that why churches tend to be filthy rich?

 

[DogmaHunter]

O nooo... We're doomed...

I understand that you have no problem with the dishonesty of these people.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mean the "text"?

And please don't tell me about proofreading.

While calling us idjits and hoamskooled, some of you guys don't even check your quote tags.

Yes, I mean "text". That was an actual typo.

I was just explaining what went down there. That it was not "just some typo".
It's a find/replace error that shows black on white what the true nature and motives of the ID people are.

It is not blown out of proportion at all. In fact, I'ld say we can't repeat that term enough. Because it a symbol of the dishonesty at play. It is a symbol of the truth behind the entire movement. It proves that it's just religion. A new species of creationism. Same old, same old.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

No. It suggests faith-based beliefs , aka religion, instead of evidence-based conclusions.

Aww, you're so hard on me. This doesn't feel like much of a discussion.

Again, no. It's quite easy to spot extremists in any ideology. All it takes is an attempt at reasoning with them or trying to have a sensible discussion about their ideology.

I'm feeling a little overcome by the irony, so I think I'll leave it there for now. Thanks for the chat, DH, but I'm just not seeing anything positive come from it at the moment.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

O nooo... We're doomed...

It's the little things that make life worth living, right?

 

[joshua 1 9]

When board members or working educators put together a curriculum "belief" should not be a part of the considerations.

The problem was with class trips. There were people on the board that felt that everyone should go or no one should go. It did not matter that some people worked very hard to earn the money and the people that were not going, did not do anything at all. Even they had car washes to raise money and those people did not show up to take part in that. So the voters voted against the all or none system and wanted a merit system instead.

 

[Papias]

What are the unintelligent parts and what are your alternatives?

DH listed a bunch (with alternatives), and there area bunch more if you want. The animal kingdom and especially the human body are filled with completely brain dead "designs".

Also, just because something is not designed the way you personally would prefer it to be designed does not mean the design lacks intelligence. It seems to be a rather arrogant point of view; if it's not designed the way I think it should be then it's not intelligent.

I'm an engineer, and hire engineers. Designs that don't work aren't a "personal preference" - if they work much worse than another design, they are a bad design. Can you imagine an engineer defending a stupid design (say, designing a submarine with a gasoline engine, needing air, instead of a nuclear engine, which doesn't need air), and saying his asinine design was just his "personal preference", and that it was "arrogant" to want a better design? I'd fire him in a heartbeat to save the company.

Saying that God designed every detail we see in animals is saying that God is all-powerful but can't come up with better designs than these idiotic designs. That billions of people worship someone so stupid that they would quickly be fired by any competent engineering manager. Endtime Survivors, you are saying that God flunked out of godschool. I hire engineers, and if an engineer came up with some of the idiotic designs already discussed - or many of the others seen in animals, he'd be shown the door. ID more accurately stands for "incompetent design".


Or instead do you think that God isn't incompetent, but chooses the stupid design anyway? Is that done to trick innocent people so he can eternally torture them in Hell (2Thes 2:11)? Or is it done to cruelly force animals (including us) to suffer with sadistically designed bodies? If these bad designs are evidence of intelligent design, then what kind of sadistic intelligence is that? How does anyone know then that the devil didn't create everything, and has God tied up in the back yard, or buried there? Does any upright person really want to worship the creator devil? Let's avoid that by recognizing that God used the process of evolution, which can give the moronic designs we see.

If I've offended anyone, I'm sorry. I'm just pointing out that anyone who supports intelligent design is saying some awful things about God (Mk3:29).

In fact, this has been recognized for years. Here's one of many articles on it. http://lclane2.net/id2.html

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Jimmy D]

Not just a "typo". It was a copy paste error.

It was the result of taking a creationist book/article and using the "find and replace" feature to change "creationist" into "design proponent" and not proof reading the test afterwards. And the only reason this "find and replace" thing took place, is because ID's case is trying to hide their true intentions. They couldn't get their creationist nonense into science classes because it was just religious stuff. So they took all their creationist material, removed every reference to "creationism" and replaced it with "intelligent design", so that they could pretend that its not just a rehash of their creationist nonsense from the decades before that.

This is why "cdesign proponentsists" has become such a viral meme.
Because it proves how dishonest the entire ID movement really is.

It's just the same old stuff from before, only this time they try to disguise it in a lab coat.

I wondered what that meant, that's too funny, so thanks for explaining. Did they actually publish anything with the mistake in it?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not blown out of proportion at all. In fact, I'ld say we can't repeat that term enough. Because it a symbol of the dishonesty at play. It is a symbol of the truth behind the entire movement. It proves that it's just religion. A new species of creationism. Same old, same old.

I'll admit.

They deserved what they got with that one.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

DH listed a bunch (with alternatives), and there area bunch more if you want. The animal kingdom and especially the human body are filled with completely brain dead "designs".

Mhmm, and he conveniently stayed quiet on his improved alternatives.

I'm an engineer, and hire engineers. Designs that don't work aren't a "personal preference"

Mhmm, except the issue was never bout designs which work verses those which don't work. The issue was about intelligence in the design. How convenient that the issue was subtly changed like that...

Can you imagine an engineer defending a stupid design (say, designing a submarine with a gasoline engine, needing air, instead of a nuclear engine, which doesn't need air), and saying his asinine design was just his "personal preference", and that it was "arrogant" to want a better design? I'd fire him in a heartbeat to save the company.

Have you ever worked with people who always like to complain, but never seem to offer any solutions? I think we've heard the message loud and clear that you're disappointed with your body (as per DH's criticisms) but what we've not seen are working alternatives which are an improvement.

Endtime Survivors, you are saying that God flunked out of godschool.

This is the kind of thing that makes me believe this isn't a discussion. I didn't say anything like that and I don't understand what possible satisfaction you could gain from pretending I did.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wondered what that meant, that's too funny, so thanks for explaining. Did they actually publish anything with the mistake in it?

Better actually, then just publishing it.

There was this court case, "the Dover trial", over the legitimacy of teaching ID as science in schools.

The book in question was presented as "evidence", a crucial piece of evidence even, by the ID movement to show that it was a proper "science" textbook for high school kids.

Earlier prints of the book were reviewed, where it became clear that all references to "creationism" were simply replaced by "intelligent design" and "creationist" was changed into "design proponents".


The original text read:
The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

Then, after the dishonest practice, it read:
The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wondered what that meant, that's too funny, so thanks for explaining. Did they actually publish anything with the mistake in it?

You can get the 411 here.

 

[Loudmouth]

My point was what is in the text books and what they call evolution is not the same thing.

How are they different?

There is a lot of controversy in general over what goes in the text books and what books they put in the school libraries.

The only controversy is among those who reject science because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The voters here just threw two people off of our board of education because the voters did not feel that represented their beliefs.

That is a reason to reject those beliefs, not science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mhmm, and he conveniently stayed quiet on his improved alternatives.

You can't deduce the alternatives for yourself?
Does it really need spelling out??

- our spine is not fit for bipedalism, which causes lower backpains in 70% of humans
==> Create humans with a spine that is fit for bipedalism...

- our mouth is too small for all our teeth, which is why wisdom teeth hurt like hell and need to be removed for a lot of people
==> either give them a bigger mouth, or less teeth

- eyes of vertebrates are backwards, causing a blind spot, causing energy inefficient processes in the brain to "rectify" the image
==> don't put the wires in front of the light sensitive cells

- 1 tube for breathing and feeding, causing many deaths by choking on food
==> add a second tube for breathing

- nerves that need to be only 1 to 2 inches long, but which go from the brain all the way down into the chest, looping around the aorta, to then go up again to end up at 1 inch from where it left at the brain. This requires extra energy and resources, which is inefficient. Especially in a Giraffe.
==> don't make it loop around the aorta, but just take the shortest route instead


Now, that wasn't that hard now, was it?

Mhmm, except the issue was never bout designs which work verses those which don't work. The issue was about intelligence in the design. How convenient that the issue was subtly changed like that...

Here's the elephant in the room you keep ignoring:
rather obvious design flaws, like the examples given, is something that is expected from a blind process like evolution. It is not something that is expected from an engineer who creates a blue-print and then fashions a working model.

So, the "design" of life fits a natural blind process better then a "super intelligence".

And then we still haven't pointed to the nested hierarchy of all living things, which is pretty much the last thing one would expect if it was actually designed by an "intelligent designer".

Under an evolutionary framework though, a nested hierarchy is not only expected, it is required, predicted.

Have you ever worked with people who always like to complain, but never seem to offer any solutions? I think we've heard the message loud and clear that you're disappointed with your body (as per DH's criticisms) but what we've not seen are working alternatives which are an improvement.

This is not about being "disappointed". This is about claims concerning the body plan of the human body and evidence that there are design "flaws" that are expected from a process like evolution, but not from a design coming from an engineer.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Now, that wasn't that hard now, was it?

The issue was about you backing up your criticisms with alternatives and how those alternatives are supposed to work.

All you've done is to rephrase the original criticism and put it back onto Go. You don't have any solutions or alternatives which are better than what God has already made. In the end you're "that guy" who complains but doesn't contribute.

This is about claims concerning the body plan of the human body and evidence that there are design "flaws" that are expected from a process like evolution, but not from a design coming from an engineer.

So your beef with God is that he created situations in which humans would face adversity? He created bodies which grow old. Bodies that can be hurt and experience pain; bodies that can die. It seems you see those things as flaws but they aren't. These bodies are only temporary and God is watching to see what we do with them; what we do with the life we're given.

 

[Loudmouth]

The issue was about you backing up your criticisms with alternatives and how those alternatives are supposed to work.

Those alternatives are already found in other species. For example, the octopus eye doesn't have the nerves running in front of the retina.

So your beef with God is that he created situations in which humans would face adversity? He created bodies which grow old. Bodies that can be hurt and experience pain; bodies that can die. It seems you see those things as flaws but they aren't.

It seems that you didn't read what any of those flaws are.

 

[joshua 1 9]

DH listed a bunch (with alternatives), and there area bunch more if you want. The animal kingdom and especially the human body are filled with completely brain dead "designs".



I'm an engineer, and hire engineers. Designs that don't work aren't a "personal preference" - if they work much worse than another design, they are a bad design. Can you imagine an engineer defending a stupid design (say, designing a submarine with a gasoline engine, needing air, instead of a nuclear engine, which doesn't need air), and saying his asinine design was just his "personal preference", and that it was "arrogant" to want a better design? I'd fire him in a heartbeat to save the company.

Saying that God designed every detail we see in animals is saying that God is all-powerful but can't come up with better designs than these idiotic designs. That billions of people worship someone so stupid that they would quickly be fired by any competent engineering manager. Endtime Survivors, you are saying that God flunked out of godschool. I hire engineers, and if an engineer came up with some of the idiotic designs already discussed - or many of the others seen in animals, he'd be shown the door. ID more accurately stands for "incompetent design".


Or instead do you think that God isn't incompetent, but chooses the stupid design anyway? Is that done to trick innocent people so he can eternally torture them in Hell (2Thes 2:11)? Or is it done to cruelly force animals (including us) to suffer with sadistically designed bodies? If these bad designs are evidence of intelligent design, then what kind of sadistic intelligence is that? How does anyone know then that the devil didn't create everything, and has God tied up in the back yard, or buried there? Does any upright person really want to worship the creator devil? Let's avoid that by recognizing that God used the process of evolution, which can give the moronic designs we see.

If I've offended anyone, I'm sorry. I'm just pointing out that anyone who supports intelligent design is saying some awful things about God (Mk3:29).

In fact, this has been recognized for years. Here's one of many articles on it. http://lclane2.net/id2.html

In Christ-

Papias

Your wasting your breath. These people do not know how to function in the real world.
They just want to lay back in their lazy boy chair in their ivory tower.