Intelligent Design Done Right

Originally posted by lausey
Many people do not feel comfortable with the idea that death is the end and that we were designed for a purpose. Therefore we have ID, and will say ANYTHING to defend it, including making stuff up.

It is after years and years of being brought up with certain beliefs, and even presented with truth via logic, it can take many years to change.

I suppose you're saying that I have a fear of death, and that thinking there's an afterlife is some sort of comfort, which is why I believe in ID.

a) I'm not a Christian or any other religion.
b) I made it clear that ID need not be tied to any religion or set of beliefs.
c) If there's nothing after you die, that's GREAT in my book. Life is hard, and it'll be nice if you don't have to worry about another one after you die.

Originally posted by vivify
Why wouldn't I expect you to follow precisely what I say? Had you done that, I wouldn't have to needlessly repeat myself. From now on, if I've already said something here, and you ask the same question I've adressed, I'll skip your post.

In the meantime, do you have any other questions on this topic?

You expect people to precisely follow what you're saying but your weren't sure what it is what your trying to say. That was my point.

To clarify -

These designers weren't responsible for the creation of the universe and evolved within the universe at some point. So what did the designers design in the universe?

Originally posted by vivify
You're now being dense. I told you that was a mistake. They'd most likely be made of atoms, like everything else.

I'm more than a bit confused by your position.

You've recently said the following:

This actually lends even more credibility to ID, since we know have materials that the designer would've evolved from...The designers were most likely evolved from elements in the universe...[Designers would] most likely be made of atoms, like everything else.

Do you believe that the "evolution" of the "designers" was the result of "random creation"? If not, what designed the "designers"?

Originally posted by vivify
You described an event with an expected outcome. That's not order. Your example is no different than saying marbles thrown up in the air that land on the floor is "order".

There was no "order" in your example.

I already said you might mean something different than me by the word 'order'. By the standard meaning, marbles lying neatly on the floor is more ordered than marbles flying through the air.
So, since you claim it is not order, you must mean something different from me, so please give us your definition.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You expect people to precisely follow what you're saying but your weren't sure what it is what your trying to say. That was my point.

To clarify -

These designers weren't responsible for the creation of the universe and evolved within the universe at some point. So what did the designers design in the universe?

Thank you for clarifying your question.

One place I feel is a pretty good start as evidence of design, is the earth.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm more than a bit confused by your position.

You've recently said the following:
[quote]This actually lends even more credibility to ID, since we know have materials that the designer would've evolved from...The designers were most likely evolved from elements in the universe...[Designers would] most likely be made of atoms, like everything else. [/ ...[text shortened]... esigners" was the result of "random creation"? If not, what designed the "designers"?

This another question I've answered repeatedly here. In my view, the designers most likely evolved randomly at some point.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I already said you might mean something different than me by the word 'order'. By the standard meaning, marbles lying neatly on the floor is more ordered than marbles flying through the air.
So, since you claim it is not order, you must mean something different from me, so please give us your definition.

I define "order" as harmonious arrangement.

Originally posted by vivify
Thank you for clarifying your question.

One place I feel is a pretty good start as evidence of design, is the earth.

When you use the word “design” here, do you exclusively mean the standard narrower meaning of the word “design” that necessarily implies “intelligent design” or can the meaning of the word “design” here be allowed to have a more generic flexible meaning that does not necessarily exclude a slightly non-standard meaning of “unintelligent design” such as the “unintelligent design” of a snowflake (“unintelligent” because natural forces as opposed to a conscious agent made it) ?
-I like you to clarify exactly which mean by “design”.

Originally posted by vivify
This another question I've answered repeatedly here. In my view, the designers most likely evolved randomly at some point.

So you look at the universe and can't fathom how "elements 'just so happened' to eventually form planets, stars and solar systems which just so happen to orbit in predictable, cyclical and measurable patterns; and in this universe, life 'just so happened' to be able to arise. This life 'just so happened' to be able to evolve. And they 'just so happened' to survive, multiple, and grow more complex over time" without a designer, but have no problem fathoming that entities complex and sophisticated enough to design the above could have "evolved randomly"? That you have no problem fathoming that designers "just so happened" to be able to arise and evolve? Do I understand you correctly?

Originally posted by vivify
So what? I never brought up "complexity" even once.

You just said:

“...Because order of such a high magnitude (like the universe) is completely random if there's no ID, ...”

if you didn't imply “of high complexity” from “of such a high magnitude” in the above then what do you mean by “of such a high magnitude” in the above and how does its meaning of the words “of such a high magnitude” in this context differ from the words “of high complexity”?
If the answer is that the two meanings don't differ, then my claim in that post still stands unchallenged -remember I responded with:

“...I have just shown proof that this is false.
Reminder:

“...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

…..Many fractal patterns have INFINITE complexity and structure …..
….
…..
Note that no random element needs to be applied to t ...[text shortened]... an iteration that is not itself consciously doing anything but automatically does what it does. ...”

Originally posted by vivify
I take back what I said about "intentionallly" dense. Seems you're just dense.

I didn't, in any way shape or form, say this is what you said. That statement was to clarify what YOU thought I was saying, which is that because Mt. Rushmore is special, this somehow proves ID.

Wow. I didn't think I'd meet someone who follows a message board conversation this badly.

“...I didn't, in any way shape or form, say this is what you said. ...”

Reminder:

“....I think you're being intentionally dense. That such order in as the faces on mount Rushmore would ever randomly appear in any Mountain is beyond reasonable logic. ...”


“...That statement was to clarify what YOU thought I was saying, which is that because Mt. Rushmore is special, this somehow proves ID. ...”

Don't know what you are talking about: when did I even mention/imply the word “special”? I don't even know what you mean by “ Mt. Rushmore is special”.

Originally posted by vivify
I define "order" as harmonious arrangement.

What do you mean by “harmonious” in “harmonious arrangement” in the context of “order” as you are using it here?

The word has several standard albeit, unfortunately, at least moderately vague meanings ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harmonious ) plus, of course, many possible non-standard meanings depending on context and the meaning you intend to convey here.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So you look at the universe and can't fathom how "elements 'just so happened' to eventually form planets, stars and solar systems which just so happen to orbit in predictable, cyclical and measurable patterns; and in this universe, life 'just so happened' to be able to arise. This life 'just so happened' to be able to evolve. And they 'just so happ ...[text shortened]... ned "just so happened" to be able to arise and evolve? Do I understand you correctly?

That's exactly the point i was going to bring up.

The conditions that were needed for us to be where we are today are too 'complex', for want of a better word, and so a designer has to be brought in to explain how it happened. Yet this designer(s) evolved to the point where they could design a planet ie. Earth, yet somehow this dazzling more complex being evolved by chance.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So you look at the universe and can't fathom how [i]"elements 'just so happened' to eventually form planets, stars and solar systems which just so happen to orbit in predictable, cyclical and measurable patterns; and in this universe, life 'just so happened' to be able to arise. This life 'just so happened' to be able to evolve. And they 'just so happened "just so happened" to be able to arise and evolve? Do I understand you correctly?

In the same way you wouldn't believe that a city just so happened to arise on it's own, yet have no problem believing that beings lucky enough to evolve into humans to just so happen to do so, yes.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
When you use the word “design” here, do you exclusively mean the standard narrower meaning of the word “design” that necessarily implies “intelligent design” or can the meaning of the word “design” here be allowed to have a more generic flexible meaning that does not necessarily exclude a slightly non-standard meaning of “[b]unintelligent design” ...[text shortened]... opposed to a conscious agent made it) ?
-I like you to clarify exactly which mean by “design”.[/b]

intelligent design.