Intelligent Design Done Right

Originally posted by Proper Knob
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.

Why is it you have no problem believing that humans evolved by chance, who then in turn created dazzling inventions which couldn't arrive by chance? Why is it only a problem when it's in relation to ID?

Seems a little hypocritical.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
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.

By "harmonious", I mean the each individual component works together to form a system. For example, there's harmony in the solar system, with each of the moons and planets revolving and orbiting, like parts of a grandfather clock or Big Ben.

Originally posted by vivify
Why is it you have no problem believing that humans evolved by chance, who then in turn created dazzling inventions which couldn't arrive by chance? Why is it only a problem when it's in relation to ID?

Seems a little hypocritical.

Actually, many discoveries/inventions were by accident.

Originally posted by vivify
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.

Wow. I really had hopes that the penny would drop for you. That you'd finally have to see the incongruity in your position.

Upon further reflection, it seems likely that you're just messing with everyone or that your belief is so intrinsic to your world view that you're unable to be rational about it. Neither is a good thing.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Wow. I really had hopes that the penny would drop for you. That you'd finally have to see the incongruity in your position.

Upon further reflection, it seems likely that you're just messing with everyone or that your belief is so intrinsic to your world view that you're unable to be rational about it. Neither is a good thing.

You believe that beings (in this case, humans) evolving by chance and making structures that couldn't have arisen by chance is logical, unless it applies to ID.

I hope one day you'll see the hypocrisy in your thinking.

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

So how is marbles lying neatly on the floor, not more harmonious than marbles flying through the air after being thrown?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So how is marbles lying neatly on the floor, not more harmonious than marbles flying through the air after being thrown?

Because harmony doesn't mean "neat" or "tidy" or whatever you're trying to change the definition to in order to win an argument. There needs to be some sort of specific (not general) unity, in order to have harmony.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harmony

harmony

— n , pl -nies
1. agreement in action, opinion, feeling, etc; accord
2. order or congruity of parts to their whole or to one another


Please. Don't try to subtly change the definition of a word just so you can win argument.

Originally posted by vivify
intelligent design.

Thanks for the clarification.

so when you said:
“One place I feel is a pretty good start as evidence of design, is the earth”
you meant:
“One place I feel is a pretty good start as evidence of intelligent design, is the earth”

in which case my next question is:

HOW is the Earth “evidence" of intelligent design?

Originally posted by vivify
Because harmony doesn't mean "neat" or "tidy" or whatever you're trying to change the definition to in order to win an argument.

I wasn't trying to win an argument, I was trying to understand your argument, but I see I am wasting my time. You are just a troll and its really not worth continuing the discussion.

Originally posted by vivify
Why is it you have no problem believing that humans evolved by chance, who then in turn created dazzling inventions which couldn't arrive by chance? Why is it only a problem when it's in relation to ID?

Seems a little hypocritical.

I'm not being hypocritical, i'm pointing out the serious flaw in your argument.

You're claiming that for mankind to get where we are today has been too big a stroke of luck and a designer has to be involved. Yet this designer which has apparently evolved, has evolved to a far higher degree of intelligence than us, yet the designer needed no designer to get there?! Surely something which has evolved to the point that it can allegedly design planets is far more statistically improbable then us getting to where we are?

Why can the designer have evolved to have much more intelligence than us with no need for a designer itself, yet us with our lower intelligence need a designer?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not being hypocritical, i'm pointing out the serious flaw in your argument.

You're claiming that for mankind to get where we are today has been too big a stroke of luck and a designer has to be involved. Yet this designer which has apparently evolved, has evolved to a far higher degree of intelligence than us, yet the designer needed no designer t ...[text shortened]... an us with no need for a designer itself, yet us with our lower intelligence need a designer?

You're misquoting. I never said "for mankind to get where we are today has been too big a stroke of luck and designer has to be inovled".

I said the UNIVERSE would be too big a stroke of luck, and designer has to be inolved.

It seems that you guys here can only argue against what I say if you completely change what I'm saying. That's just shameful.

Originally posted by vivify
You're misquoting. I never said "for [b]mankind to get where we are today has been too big a stroke of luck and designer has to be inovled".

I said the UNIVERSE would be too big a stroke of luck, and designer has to be inolved.

It seems that you guys here can only argue against what I say if you completely change what I'm saying. That's just shameful.[/b]

Here's a thought for you to ponder on. You've tried communicating with a few people on this thread now and none of us can get a handle on what you're talking about. Have you though that maybe the problem lies with you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wasn't trying to win an argument, I was trying to understand your argument, but I see I am wasting my time. You are just a troll and its really not worth continuing the discussion.

Tsk, tsk. I point out that you're using a term incorrectly, hence why your point is wrong; rather than being an adult and appologizing for bungling a simple word, you point fingers and blame me as the problem?

Lol. Bye.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Here's a thought for you to ponder on. You've tried communicating with a few people on this thread now and none of us can get a handle on what you're talking about. Have you though that maybe the problem lies with you?

Not when YOU guys misquote me. If I say the universe is too ordered to be luck, then you guys say "oh, you said MAN is too complex to be luck..." Obviously, the problem lies with you guys. Right?

Originally posted by vivify
Tsk, tsk. I point out that you're using a term incorrectly, hence why your point is wrong; rather than being an adult and appologizing for bungling a simple word, you point fingers and blame me as the problem?

Lol. Bye.

I simply don't see any point arguing over definitions. Its stupid. I merely wished to understand your position and explain to you where you have got it wrong, but it seems you are only interested in argument and don't actually believe the position you are posing in the thread ie you are a troll.