Is there any better argument against intelligent design that the human mouth/teeth?

Originally posted by vasaga
You're still misrepresenting my point. What you're doing is focusing on the culture's abilities, not on the mistakes. Both cultures will highly likely make more mistakes on the modern bomber than the 1940s plane, even if the advanced culture makes less on the modern one, that the 19th century one makes on the WW2 one, it still does not remove the fact that more mistakes will be made when an object is more advanced.

I'm focusing on the culture's abilities, because the abilities and their INTELLIGENCE is precisely what matters more than anything else in respect to the complexity of building something mistake free, not the complexity of the object itself. Complexity is relative to the beholder. The amount of mistakes is relative to the intelligence and knowledge of the culture. Do you REALLY deny this?

Going back to the example of airplanes, just because the 19th century culture is able to tell that a modern day bomber is more advanced than a WW2 bomber, it doesn't mean that the WW2 place was not created by intelligence. And that's the equivalent of the arguments presented in this thread.

No it's not. That has nothing to do with my arguments. We know a plane is designed because we've seen it done and it has blueprints that can be duplicated by anybody with the knowledge and know-how. This is not the case with the earth, universe, or human life. The cell seems complex to us, but to the potential designer it would probably seem simple.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by addygrace

 

First, I challenge your idea of a mathematical fatal flaw in the heart.

It was published in the early 1980s. I'll look for the article.

As to what I was refering to about the fall of man; it explains decay, and why this existence is governed by entropy.

Let's pretend however, there is this mathematical fatal flaw in the human heart. How does this damage the idea of a designer? The fact that we are on a computer talking about our "designer", and bringing up concepts of mathematics and how this pertains to the human heart, allows me to fully embrace intelligent design. In my mind it's easy to look around and see what a grand design our existence is.

Entropy deals with closed systems, not open systems such as living organisms.

For arguments sake let me suppose that a "designer" exists. The "designer" has designed a heart with a flaw so simple that even humans recognize the design flaw. Is it too far fetched to claim that humans are smarter than this "designer"? I don't think so.

If there's such a flaw in the human heart, then why does 99% of humanity live their entire lives without problems with their heart?

As far as entropy goes, open or closed has nothing to do with it. This existence is governed by entropy. That's going to cause decay.

Stupid design makes no sense, when you consider we are having a conversation on the computer. If I made a system, or machine that could fix itself when it breaks, would you say that system or machine was more intelligent than I? No.

Stupid design is just another way for man to deny God.

Originally posted by addygrace
If there's such a flaw in the human heart, then why does 99% of humanity live their entire lives without problems with their heart?

99%? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. More people die from heart problems than anything else. We're talking 550 thousand deaths per year. This is more than driving accidents, cancer, respiratory issues, and other diseases.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
You're still misrepresenting my point. What you're doing is focusing on the culture's abilities, not on the mistakes. Both cultures will highly likely make more mistakes on the modern bomber than the 1940s plane, even if the advanced culture makes less on the modern one, that the 19th century one makes on the WW2 one, it still does not remove the fact that more mistakes will be made when an object is more advanced.

I'm focusing on the culture's abilities, because the abilities and their INTELLIGENCE is precisely what matters more than anything else in respect to the complexity of building something mistake free, not the complexity of the object itself. Complexity is relative to the beholder. The amount of mistakes is relative to the intelligence and knowledge of the culture. Do you REALLY deny this?

Putting words in my mouth and then pretending that I'm denying things is not helping. I'm not responding to this.

Originally posted by Barcs

Going back to the example of airplanes, just because the 19th century culture is able to tell that a modern day bomber is more advanced than a WW2 bomber, it doesn't mean that the WW2 place was not created by intelligence. And that's the equivalent of the arguments presented in this thread.

No it's not. That has nothing to do with my arguments. We know a plane is designed because we've seen it done and it has blueprints that can be duplicated by anybody with the knowledge and know-how. This is not the case with the earth, universe, or human life. The cell seems complex to us, but to the potential designer it would probably seem simple.

So.. You're basically saying that because we did not see a designer of the earth, universe or human life, it means there is no designer? Wow.. Ok.

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
You're still misrepresenting my point. What you're doing is focusing on the culture's abilities, not on the mistakes. Both cultures will highly likely make more mistakes on the modern bomber than the 1940s plane, even if the advanced culture makes less on the modern one, that the 19th century one makes on the WW2 one, it still does not remove the fact that more mistakes will be made when an object is more advanced.

I'm focusing on the culture's abilities, because the abilities and their INTELLIGENCE is precisely what matters more than anything else in respect to the complexity of building something mistake free, not the complexity of the object itself. Complexity is relative to the beholder. The amount of mistakes is relative to the intelligence and knowledge of the culture. Do you REALLY deny this?

Putting words in my mouth and then pretending that I'm denying things is not helping. I'm not responding to this.

Originally posted by Barcs

Going back to the example of airplanes, just because the 19th century culture is able to tell that a modern day bomber is more advanced than a WW2 bomber, it doesn't mean that the WW2 place was not created by intelligence. And that's the equivalent of the arguments presented in this thread.

No it's not. That has nothing to do with my arguments. We know a plane is designed because we've seen it done and it has blueprints that can be duplicated by anybody with the knowledge and know-how. This is not the case with the earth, universe, or human life. The cell seems complex to us, but to the potential designer it would probably seem simple.

So.. You're basically saying that because we did not see a designer of the earth, universe or human life, it means there is no designer? Wow.. Ok.

You should know as well I as I do, that I've never said anything like that. I'm not opposed to the idea of intelligent design, my statement was in reference to YOUR arguments. Complexity is not a good argument, and neither is crediting the obvious design flaws to complex design. Comparing human designed objects to the natural world is flawed because you already know the human objects were designed. There are no blueprints for earth or human life. You can't disassemble and reassemble it and expect it to work again. When you assume that the earth, human life, or the universe was designed you instantly take a huge leap of logic.

And could you please give me the exact quote where I put words in your mouth rather than responded to what you actually typed? If you're going to accuse me of unfairly debating then you better back it up. I take pride in my debating methods, their accuracy, and absence of logic fallacies. It's funny that you would accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then say:

"So.. You're basically saying that because we did not see a designer of the earth, universe or human life, it means there is no designer? Wow.. Ok. "

Is that not putting words in my mouth, doing the exact thing you are accusing me of?

That is pure bullsh1t. This is the exact reason why I often just shut up and let you people ramble on. Just because religious people are pushing ID, doesn't mean that ID only goes into the direction of an Abrahamic God. There are multiple possibilities and I've said them a thousand times. It implies intelligence while leaving the nature of the intelligence untouched. Want a few non-God examples?

reply to post by vasaga


You are just ranting now, each time you post, you further reveal your irrational, illogical approaches to these issues.
If we are to have a proper debate of the question of design, you have to first accept that things were designed by this preconceived notion of an intelligent agent. What god it is, is irrelevant...take your pick.
If ID stood up to standards in science, it lives or fails by how well it can be testable and repeatable, no matter what other theories are around, no matter what other concepts are around. Until ID provides some real science in theories, predictions, or tests, it will remain a pseudoscience.
If you don't understand this, then you do not understand what science is, and what ID needs to be if it wants to be science.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by addygrace
If there's such a flaw in the human heart, then why does 99% of humanity live their entire lives without problems with their heart?

99%? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. More people die from heart problems than anything else. We're talking 550 thousand deaths per year. This is more than driving accidents, cancer, respiratory issues, and other diseases.

I have no problem with decay. I have a problem with this "stupid" design notion. Looking at the world around us and claiming you see "stupid" design, is extreme egotism. Nobody on this planet knows the intricacies of our whole existence. Saying certain designs are "stupid", means you would have to know how the whole thing fits together. We don't know this. The point I was trying to make with the heart was, people live with healthy hearts most of their life. Trying to point out heart disease causes death, misses the whole point. The Christian viewpoint takes into account death. But if there is a mathematical flaw in the human heart, why do we see any population at all? That's not a design flaw. It's either not happening or maybe this scientist found the mechanism in science that allows for decay in humans. Entropy is a fact of our existence. We will die. Design's that break down over time are a given in a world dominated by entropy. Pointing to these break downs and calling it "stupid" design, ignores our existence being governed by entropy.

Originally posted by flyingfish

That is pure bullsh1t. This is the exact reason why I often just shut up and let you people ramble on. Just because religious people are pushing ID, doesn't mean that ID only goes into the direction of an Abrahamic God. There are multiple possibilities and I've said them a thousand times. It implies intelligence while leaving the nature of the intelligence untouched. Want a few non-God examples?

reply to post by vasaga

 

You are just ranting now, each time you post, you further reveal your irrational, illogical approaches to these issues.
If we are to have a proper debate of the question of design, you have to first accept that things were designed by this preconceived notion of an intelligent agent. What god it is, is irrelevant...take your pick.
If ID stood up to standards in science, it lives or fails by how well it can be testable and repeatable, no matter what other theories are around, no matter what other concepts are around. Until ID provides some real science in theories, predictions, or tests, it will remain a pseudoscience.
If you don't understand this, then you do not understand what science is, and what ID needs to be if it wants to be science.

Interesting how you just ignored the rest of my post, so you can justify putting things in the corner of pseudoscience like you always do. And then you have the balls to call me irrational and illogical. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga

So.. You're basically saying that because we did not see a designer of the earth, universe or human life, it means there is no designer? Wow.. Ok.

You should know as well I as I do, that I've never said anything like that.

Really? Tell me what other conclusion can be drawn from this statement?

"We know a plane is designed because we've seen it done and it has blueprints that can be duplicated by anybody with the knowledge and know-how. This is not the case with the earth, universe, or human life."

But fine.. That's not what you meant...

Originally posted by Barcs
I'm not opposed to the idea of intelligent design, my statement was in reference to YOUR arguments. Complexity is not a good argument, and neither is crediting the obvious design flaws to complex design. Comparing human designed objects to the natural world is flawed because you already know the human objects were designed. There are no blueprints for earth or human life.

Really? DNA is no blueprint then? And what's this idea that you need a blueprint? To build a simple table, you don't need a blueprint, but you do need intelligence. To build anything that has function you need intelligence.

Originally posted by Barcs
You can't disassemble and reassemble it and expect it to work again.

Yeah, when something's build by intelligence that's usually the case....

Originally posted by Barcs
When you assume that the earth, human life, or the universe was designed you instantly take a huge leap of logic.

Which leap is that? Why is it so hard to assume that maybe nature has designing capabilities?

Originally posted by Barcs
And could you please give me the exact quote where I put words in your mouth rather than responded to what you actually typed? If you're going to accuse me of unfairly debating then you better back it up. I take pride in my debating methods, their accuracy, and absence of logic fallacies. It's funny that you would accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then say:

"So.. You're basically saying that because we did not see a designer of the earth, universe or human life, it means there is no designer? Wow.. Ok. "

Is that not putting words in my mouth, doing the exact thing you are accusing me of?

Yes. I did that on purpose, so you know how it feels.

Originally posted by Raxoxane
I have although thought that it would be excellent if our milk teeth could be replaced by stainless steel teeth-no cavities,no breakages,no dentistry needed-perfect!

There is a possibility that stainless steel can rust and/or stain. I'd have to go with Titanium here ;0 Also, I think it's safer to be inside an MRI machine with Titanium as opposed to stainless steel.

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by flyingfish

That is pure bullsh1t. This is the exact reason why I often just shut up and let you people ramble on. Just because religious people are pushing ID, doesn't mean that ID only goes into the direction of an Abrahamic God. There are multiple possibilities and I've said them a thousand times. It implies intelligence while leaving the nature of the intelligence untouched. Want a few non-God examples?

reply to post by vasaga

 

You are just ranting now, each time you post, you further reveal your irrational, illogical approaches to these issues.
If we are to have a proper debate of the question of design, you have to first accept that things were designed by this preconceived notion of an intelligent agent. What god it is, is irrelevant...take your pick.
If ID stood up to standards in science, it lives or fails by how well it can be testable and repeatable, no matter what other theories are around, no matter what other concepts are around. Until ID provides some real science in theories, predictions, or tests, it will remain a pseudoscience.
If you don't understand this, then you do not understand what science is, and what ID needs to be if it wants to be science.

Interesting how you just ignored the rest of my post, so you can justify putting things in the corner of pseudoscience like you always do. And then you have the balls to call me irrational and illogical. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I did not outline the rest of your argument because you tried mixing ideas of teleology with ID.
LOOK it's a bird!
ID relies on misinformation and can be refuted by pointing those things out, on the other hand teleology covers all arguments from design.
The strong version of teleology was crushed by evolution. The weak version of teleology is essentially indistinguishable from saying (or something else).

If you want to reasonably discuss whether a hypothesis is true it surely needs to be verifiable and falsifiable even if only in principle. That means details and specifics are required. The more vague your idea, the less it can be talked about.

In any event I find it a stupid argument to refute evolution.

Originally posted by freedomlover79
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

But it CAN be refuted until you can provide SOLID proof. Think for yourself my friend. Don't believe what everyone wants you to believe. The lack of critical thinking will be the decline of our civilization.

That's a hilarious statement.
More like... it appears that human's having opposing ideologies and blind faith in the same God will be the decline of our civilisation.

Anyway check out Atavisms if these extending vertebrae at the end of your Coccyx were not absorbed at the 4 week mark, while you were in utero, you could have come equipped with a little more balance... so to speak.

Originally posted by vasaga

Really? Tell me what other conclusion can be drawn from this statement?

"We know a plane is designed because we've seen it done and it has blueprints that can be duplicated by anybody with the knowledge and know-how. This is not the case with the earth, universe, or human life."
You said that I insinuated these things meant there is no designer. Remember, my point has always been that ID lacks objective evidence, not that it's definitely false. I'm saying that what you consider to be evidence, is not actually evidence, and that if it was designed, it likely wasn't done by a higher intelligence because of the flaws.

Originally posted by Barcs
Really? DNA is no blueprint then? And what's this idea that you need a blueprint? To build a simple table, you don't need a blueprint, but you do need intelligence. To build anything that has function you need intelligence.

By blueprint, I'm talking about a design plan. It doesn't have to be a physical piece of paper. DNA is not a design plan. If it was, people could read it and build it. But alas, the "code" of DNA is just repeating pairs of atoms. It's not a blueprint, nor does it automatically imply intelligence.

Originally posted by Barcs
You can't disassemble and reassemble it and expect it to work again.

Yeah, when something's build by intelligence that's usually the case....

Sarcasm? Because, yes, most intelligently designed pieces of human technology can be taken apart, reassembled, have parts swapped in and out, require maintenance, etc etc etc.

Originally posted by Barcs
When you assume that the earth, human life, or the universe was designed you instantly take a huge leap of logic.

Which leap is that? Why is it so hard to assume that maybe nature has designing capabilities?

That wouldn't be intelligent design, that would be life arising naturally or design via evolution. I see no reason to assume either way. I don't know if it was designed, but evolution is fact and definitely happens whether created or not.

Perhaps malnutrition masquerades as evolution.

How are we different then a motor designed for a specific fuel and oil? They are abused by using the wrong fuel and oil, causing abnormal wear and tear.

Is this the designers fault that people use the wrong oil and fuel and eventually damage the engine prematurely? Do we say it was a stupid design because it should be able to use anything as fuel or lubrication?

How does malnutrition not apply to wisdom teeth and teeth in general?

Your teeth don't fit because your diet is too good.
Poor diets grow smaller teeth.

We were created for a world before the flood existed, who knows what foods were out there in those days. It is a creative argument, but truly moot if you take into consideration the whole of the creation of the human body.

reply to post by DarknStormy


Same way your heart or brain is intelligent but wnt grow back if removed or damaged

reply to post by Barcs


If dogs were to have small talk would they say that this house or dog collar or chew toy was not created by a higher intelligence because of the flaws

reply to post by noissucnoc16

If dogs were to have small talk would they say that this house or dog collar or chew toy was not created by a higher intelligence because of the flaws

But the discussion is not about collars or chew toys, is it?
Or is your point that even God can screw things up?

reply to post by Phage


Who is the ultimate authority on whether something is "screwed up" or "just right"?

A2D