₦airaland Forum

Everyday247:
The dude's lowkey trying to gently force intelligent design into science through the back door.

What do you even know about intelligent design other the misconstrue version used by religious people to miseducate people like you who don't bother to investigate things themselves?

Unlike others ,I don't accept there's a separate designer existing somewhere in an invisible plane.

For me, the designer is in the designed object. It's inseparable from it. Science calls it the force of nature, certain religion have personified it as God. They are both saying the same thing but expressing it differently.

Everyday247:
There's your problem right there, you claim that you understand how evolution works, but you can't use natural selection to explain this?

If you understood natural selection this would be a no brainer for you.

I ask again do you know how natural selection works?
If Yes, please explain how it works.

If you know it very well, what's stopping you from explaining it yourself. I think you also have the problem you have accused him of having, but want to lie to yourself that you know it better.

plaetton:
We are 100% in agreement here.
Questions and more questions and more questions is what has gotten us this far in scientific achievements.

But if someone comes here and says if I cannot explain to him or her why Uranus has a retrograde orbit, then all the theories of Gravitational are half truths.
I would gently ask the person to go and study the subject itself.
As you can see, the person asking the question is not sincere about wanting to know the answer.

please on focus on the main thing, TOE so you stop arguing deceptively to win an argument.

Your comparison is inappropriate. The op is highlitimg real issues , the limitations, within TOE and seeking for answers. Instead of focusing on that to provide relevant answers, you're all over the place deflecting to an imaginary and not relevant object, Uranus ,together with gravitational theories.

Sincerity of him not wanting to know the answer shouldn't stop you. For the sake of others like myself following the thread, please provide the answers

Thanks in advance

DeepSight:
Intelligent Design is not the stupid retarded idea that many atheists or scientists try to make it out as. There is much in nature that strongly suggests design. I don't like the attitude of many that Intelligent Design is somehow the preserve of idiots or illiterates and is somehow taboo.

Personally, I believe in both evolution and some level of design and programming inherent in the world around us, I don't however believe that that design or programming is all encompassing or perfect or even necessarily made for good. Much of it in my sight is downright flawed, morbid, sadistic and barbaric.

I also don't believe that GOD, which I see as the source of all existence, directly created this world and I think it is far more likely that it is the work of vastly lesser beings. I also believe that our existence could be many possible things including a scientific experiment or even a source of cosmic entertainment.

All of the atheist who think intelligent design is for idiots have been miseducate about it by religious people who often use it as proof for their gods. Those are the people they have been listening to, and so don't know it themselves.

Once you mention intelligent design, the immediate and unthinking response is , "who created the designer? LOL

triplechoice:
What do you even know about intelligent design other the misconstrue version used by religious people to miseducate people like you who don't bother to investigate things themselves?

Unlike others ,I don't accept there's a separate designer existing somewhere in an invisible plane.

For me, the designer is in the designed object. It's inseparable from it. Science calls it the force of nature, certain religion have personified it as God. They are both saying the same thing but expressing it differently.

It looks like you don't understand how language works. What does "intelligent" mean?
What does "designer" mean?

What does the term "intelligent designer" mean?

Are the laws of nature "intelligent" or "sentient"?

If you can call the laws of nature an "intelligent designer", does this mean we can also call the earth a God?

triplechoice:
If you know it very well, what's stopping you from explaining it yourself. I think you also have the problem you have accused him of having, but want to lie to yourself that you know it better.

I already did, check.

triplechoice:
All of the atheist who think intelligent design is for idiots have been miseducate about it by religious people who often use it as proof for their gods. Those are the people they have been listening to, and so don't know it themselves.

Once you mention intelligent design, the immediate and unthinking response is , "who created the designer? LOL

check this 👇

Everyday247:
The concept of intelligent design contradicts itself.
It's States that the world is too complex to exist naturally, and then invokes intelligent designers who themselves are also too complex to exist naturally.

What's the difference between your intelligent designer and religious intelligent designer?

triplechoice:
please on focus on the main thing, TOE so you stop arguing deceptively to win an argument.

Your comparison is inappropriate. The op is highlitimg real issues , the limitations, within TOE and seeking for answers. Instead of focusing on that to provide relevant answers, you're all over the place deflecting to an imaginary and not relevant object, Uranus ,together with gravitational theories.

Sincerity of him not wanting to know the answer shouldn't stop you. For the sake of others like myself following the thread, please provide the answers

Thanks in advance

I agree that the OP is pointing out limitations to TOE. So are we all.
No one disagrees that there are unknown or yet to be discovered mechanisms in TOE. That's why it continues to be a scientific enquiry: A never ending enquiry.

Is the OP here to merely discuss the limitations to TOE or simply wants Nairalanders to answer nagging questions for him ?

Nairaland is not a science academy.

You still never get my point .
You keep insisting that I answer his question.

Answer his question or what?

If the OP is sincere about getting his answers, I assure you that he is resourceful enough to find it.

triplechoice:
You still don't get it . As at the time the Wright brothers we're perfecting their craft it was regarded as not science, not scientific , by those within the scientific community. Go back to read history and come back and tell what I just said isn't true.

You don't take your time to read before replying.

I don't know where you get your own facts.
Who said that their flight project was not grounded of science?
You seem to making up your own stuff as you go.
I think you're making these erroneous arguments from from a false premise.
I never stated that one had to be grounded in science to challenge a scientific idea. No.
What I continue to state is you must argue or refute a scientific idea with science( whether you're a scientist or not).

Saying that something shows evidence of design is an opinion, but it not a scientific argument.

The Wright brothers were not the first to attempt controlled flight, neither did they succeed at first try.
It was a trial and error, with adjustments in the wings ,the flaps, etc.
Indeed, there were plenty of skeptics who didn't think they would achieve controlled flight.

The idea of controlled flight did not originate from the Wright brothers. That idea ,that dream had been for thousands of years.

plaetton:
Saying that something shows evidence of design is an opinion, but it not a scientific argument.

How is it not a scientific argument. Are things not designed in science and can scientific methods not distinguish between designed things and undesigned things?

plaetton:
I don't know where you get your own facts.
Who said that their flight project was not grounded of science?
You seem to making up your own stuff as you go.
I think you're making these erroneous arguments from from a false premise.
I never stated that one had to be grounded in science to challenge a scientific idea. No.
What I continue to state is you must argue or refute a scientific idea with science( whether you're a scientist or not).

Saying that something shows evidence of design is an opinion, but it not a scientific argument.

The Wright brothers were not the first to attempt controlled flight, neither did they succeed at first try.
It was a trial and error, with adjustments in the wings ,the flaps, etc.
Indeed, there were plenty of skeptics who didn't think they would achieve controlled flight.

The idea of controlled flight did not originate from the Wright brothers. That idea ,that dream had been for thousands of years.

Oh my God. I didn't say their invention wasn't grounded in science, I said mainstream scientist prior to the time they succeeded in flying regarded their project as scientifically impossible.

It was only after they succeeded we now then knew the science behind it

I will say this again, you don't take time to read before replying. I won't accuse you of lacking in comprehension but say you are more focused in looking for fault where there's none and so keep misrepresenting me.

Talking of refuting science with science, the op hasn't refuted or rejected TOE like religious fanatics . He already demonstrated a fair understanding of the theory and highlighted the gaps in it and sought for answers from those of you who claim to understand it better. That's all

So why using argument used against religious fanatics who completely reject TOE for someone who hasn't?

triplechoice:
I disagree with this. Intelligent design isn't wishful thinking as you think. The way I see it, it's an explanation put forward by those who can't provide rational explanation for how nearly everything in the universe seem to be working in perfect order. They know it by intuition but can't explain it rationally.

What intelligent designer's are saying is that random chance couldn't have been the cause. Maybe something, another form of energy yet unseen working at the background to set the blueprint for how everything should evolve in perfect order. This unknown something, energy, shouldn't be mistaken for an invisible deity in an invisible plane needing our worship.

The ancients ,who founded some of the world's major religion , made use of stories to encode or hide certain truth about our world These truths were perceived intuitively during their time.

Some of the truth they discovered still find relevance till this day. But when you focus on my stories or whether religious god's exist , you also miss it just like nowadays religious people.

For instance, modern science says everything contains energy while the ancients personified it by saying God is in all things. Energy is not created nor destroyed. God is also not created nor destroyed.

So, the same truth as before but expressed differently by both religion and science.

Lucid and very well said.

plaetton:
I agree that the OP is pointing out limitations to TOE. So are we all.
No one disagrees that there are unknown or yet to be discovered mechanisms in TOE. That's why it continues to be a scientific enquiry: A never ending enquiry.

Is the OP here to merely discuss the limitations to TOE or simply wants Nairalanders to answer nagging questions for him ?

Nairaland is not a science academy.

You still never get my point .
You keep insisting that I answer his question.

Answer his question or what?

If the OP is sincere about getting his answers, I assure you that he is resourceful enough to find it.

It's your responsibility what you want to do on this thread. Nobody is forcing you. You might as well abandon it if you no longer want to participate.

plaetton:
You keep insisting that I answer his question.

Let us flip the script for a moment.

How would you see it if you pointed out some flaws and gaps in logic of some religious doctrines and the adherents of that doctrine came back to you saying the following -

- Nairaland is not a theological academy if you want serious answers you know where to research

- We dont have to answer your questions

- You are ignorant of theology

- You are resourceful enough to research and find the proper answers

- You are not sincere in your inquiry

I hope you realize that this is exactly all you have done on this thread.

Whereas, flipping the script again, the proper thing for the adherent of the religious doctrine you queried to do, would simply be to provide a proper explanation for why it is sound.

Of course, if he is not so inclined, he should simply walk past and keep silent.

DeepSight:
Let us flip the script for a moment.

How would you see it if you pointed out some flaws and gaps in logic of some religious doctrines and the adherents of that doctrine came back to you saying the following -

- Nairaland is not a theological academy if you want serious answers you know where to research

- We dont have to answer your questions

- You are ignorant of theology

- You are resourceful enough to research and find the proper answers

- You are not sincere in your inquiry

I hope you realize that this is exactly all you have done on this thread.

Whereas, flipping the script again, the proper thing for the adherent of the religious doctrine you queried to do, would simply be to provide a proper explanation for why it is sound.

Of course, if he is not so inclined, he should simply walk past and keep silent.

First of all, you started the thread ,not me.

Secondly, I would not come to Nairaland to seek clarification on a deep theological subject when I can do the research myself. I can only do so when I already have the answer, and ready to bamboozle my opponents with the answer at the right moment.

I can, and would certainly use the results of my research to refute their arguments if the need arises.

You ,oh wise one, surely you know the difference between a discussion and a debate.
In a discussion everyone is free to offer educated opinions. In a debate ,you come with facts to buttress your position.

What is your position in this debate and what are facts that you come with ?

Your position here has been ; answer my nagging question or else .
Else what ?

Everyday247:
It looks like you don't understand how language works. What does "intelligent" mean?
What does "designer" mean?

What does the term "intelligent designer" mean?

Are the laws of nature "intelligent" or "sentient"?

If you can call the laws of nature an "intelligent designer", does this mean we can also call the earth a God?

You have misinterpreted me.
Intelligent design is not the same as intelligent designer. Re-read me again. Thank you

plaetton:
First of all, you started the thread ,not me.

Secondly, I would not come to Nairaland to seek clarification on a deep theological subject when I can do the research myself. I can only do so when I already have the answer, and ready to bamboozle my opponents with the answer at the right moment.

I can, and would certainly use the results of my research to refute their arguments if the need arises.

You ,oh wise one, surely you know the difference between a discussion and a debate.
In a discussion everyone is free to offer educated opinions. In a debate ,you come with facts to buttress your position.

What is your position in this debate and what are facts that you come with ?

Your position here has been ; answer my nagging question or else .
Else what ?

How did you conclude that this is a discussion or a debate and why?

I trust you see from my flip of the script how ridiculous your responses have been.

triplechoice:
You have misinterpreted me.
Intelligent design is not the same as intelligent designer. Re-read me again. Thank you

I will advise you to be careful of engaging anyone who can seriously ask you what intelligent means.

triplechoice:
You have misinterpreted me.
Intelligent design is not the same as intelligent designer. Re-read me again. Thank you

Really?
Because i thought intelligent designs were designed by intelligent designers.

So can you kindly tell me the how intelligent design comes about?

DeepSight:
How did you conclude that this is a discussion or a debate and why?

I trust you see from my flip of the script how ridiculous your responses have been.

If this is not a discussion or debate ,then what is it, a query ?

But why pose a scientific query here on Nairaland?

Even Reddit is sufficient to answer your questions.


https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14got6r/how_do_learned_traits_evolve_to_become_instinct/

plaetton:
If this is not a discussion or debate ,then what is it, a query ?

But why pose a scientific query here on Nairaland?

Even Reddit is sufficient to answer your questions.


https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14got6r/how_do_learned_traits_evolve_to_become_instinct/

I am warning you to disembark now. I said climb down now. Come down now from that horse. Jump down now.

Yes it was a query.
No, you link does not answer.

Discuss Salmon.

plaetton:
If this is not a discussion or debate ,then what is it, a query ?

But why pose a scientific query here on Nairaland?

Even Reddit is sufficient to answer your questions.


https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14got6r/how_do_learned_traits_evolve_to_become_instinct/

This is from your link -

.
Loosely, we consider instincts to be genetically specified and not require learning (but in practice many behaviours are both). In that sense, learned traits don't evolve to become instinct.

However, there is one way in which this could happen, called the Baldwin effect. Say, for example, that an animal learned to rinse its food in water before eating. By so doing, it removed some bacteria and decreased its chance of infection. This clever animal would have an advantage, but it would not be passed on via evolution because its offspring would not inherit the behaviour.

But suppose that other animals begin to copy this behaviour and learn it for themselves. The behaviour now spreads, perhaps to the whole group and through the generations. There has been a behavioural change, but no evolution yet. If this washing lasts long enough, a random mutation might crop up that causes washing behaviour, and this might be advantageous as you don't have to spend time learning like everyone else. This behaviour now spreads via genetic inheritance, and we get an evolutionary change.

The Baldwin effect is quite mysterious and controversial and hard to demonstrate, but in theory at least, it could work.

Is this what you want anyone to take as a serious answer?

At all events, note the last paragraph.

DeepSight:
This is from your link -



Is this what you want anyone to take as a serious answer?

At all events, note the last paragraph.

Honestly, I don't understand you anymore.

I could have posted the answers I got from ChatGPT, but I decided to give you more simplistic explanations from individuals on Reddit.
And still complain.

I am completely lost as to what you are seeking on this thread.
Is this an exam for those of us who accept TEO?

If over the years ,you have become an expert on TOE, and have discovered answers to the gaping holes, then I beseech you , Sire, to share that knowledge with us here.

DeepSight:
I am warning you to disembark now. I said climb down now. Come down now from that horse. Jump down now.

Yes it was a query.
No, you link does not answer.

Discuss Salmon.

Lol

Everyday247:
Really?
Because i thought intelligent designs were designed by intelligent designers.

Who tells you that everything described as intelligent design is designed by a separate or external intelligent designer?

Design sometimes refers to the inherent nature of something, and If , for instance, that something can operate independently on its own, we say it has intelligence., like your bodily systems which operate independently and intelligently on their own.


For instance, if your body requires food, it starts to flash images of it on the screen of your mind so you're forced to go looking for it. If it's sex, oh! you will struggle to resist its command as it will continually flash the images of that big breasted girl in your neighborhood you fancy across the screen of mind to excite you sexually so you're forced to go looking for a her or any one who could give it to you or na soapie go end ham o, if not no peace for you o

If it's ill, you know what it does now, it sends you signal so you act before it becomes too late.

So can you kindly tell me the how intelligent design comes about?

For a start, read your biology textbooks, but mind you, science says it doesn't know everything yet. So who am I to tell you how intelligent design in nature came about?

triplechoice:
Who tells you that everything described as intelligent design is designed by a separate or external intelligent designer?

That's the definition of intelligent design. You need an intelligent designer to get intelligent design.

Design sometimes refers to the inherent nature of something, and If , for instance, that something can operate independently on its own, we say it has intelligence., like your bodily systems which operate independently and intelligently on their own.

That's not how the definition of "intelligent" in intelligent design works.
You're essentially redefining the definition of intelligent design.

For instance, if your body requires food, it starts to flash images of it on the screen of your mind so you're forced to go looking for it. If it's sex, oh! you will struggle to resist its command as it will continually flash the images of that big breasted girl in your neighborhood you fancy across the screen of mind to excite you sexually so you're forced to go looking for a her or any one who could give it to you or na soapie go end ham o, if not no peace for you o

If it's ill, you know what it does now, it sends you signal so you act before it becomes too late.

These biological functions came about through natural processes.
The fundamentals assertion of intelligent design is that these biological functions can not occur naturally and requires an intelligent designer.

For a start, read your biology textbooks, but mind you, science says it doesn't know everything yet. So who am I to tell you how intelligent design in nature came about?

First of all, biology textbooks talks about naturally occuring biological things in nature.

Secondly, it's not textbook knowledge I was asking for. These are things that anybody can just say on a whim. Examples of intelligent design are : Vehicles, Electronic, buildings etc.
They are called "intelligent designs" because they can't occur naturally.

Something that occurs naturally is called natural (or naturally designed if you fancy). while something that can't occur naturally can be called Artificial, Man made, Intelligent design etc

Everyday247:
That's the definition of intelligent design. You need an intelligent designer to get intelligent design.

NO. Provide the source of where you got it from that everything that's labeled intelligent design must have an intelligent designer separate from it

That's not how the definition of "intelligent" in intelligent design works.
You're essentially redefining the definition of intelligent design.

It's not a working but a descriptive term which refers to something which I have explained. So I haven't redefined it. You probably think so because of the people you have listening to.

These biological functions came about through natural processes.

I didn't say they didn't come about through natural process. I said they operate intelligently

The fundamentals assertion of intelligent design is that these biological functions can not occur naturally and requires an intelligent designer.

You didn't complete it. "requires an intelligent designer (GOD) outside of it" That's what the people you have been listening to have educated you with.

But I said it's possible the intelligent designer is something that's an inseparable part of the natural process which resulted in those intelligent systems seen in nature.

First of all, biology textbooks talks about naturally occuring biological things in nature.

Bodily systems which I described are exactly that. I didn't mention anything manmade.

Secondly, it's not textbook knowledge I was asking for. These are things that anybody can just say on a whim. Examples of intelligent design are : Vehicles, Electronic, buildings etc.
They are called "intelligent designs" because they can't occur naturally.

Are you even aware that some of the systems which operates in manmade objects were copied from naturally occurring phenomenon?

If the copies are intelligent design to you, why not the original?

Something that occurs naturally is called natural (or naturally designed if you fancy). while something that can't occur naturally can be called Artificial, Man made, Intelligent design etc

wrong. The natural processes which I earlier described operate intelligently, and I have explained how. If you're blind to the intelligence in those systems, sorry I can no longer continue the discussion with you.

Thank you

triplechoice:
NO. Provide the source of where you got it from that everything that's labeled intelligent design must have an intelligent designer separate from it
It's not a working but a descriptive term which refers to something which I have explained. So I haven't redefined it. You probably think so because of the people you have listening to.
I didn't say they didn't come about through natural process. I said they operate intelligently
You didn't complete it. "requires an intelligent designer (GOD) outside of it" That's what the people you have been listening to have educated you with.

But I said it's possible the intelligent designer is something that's an inseparable part of the natural process which resulted in those systems seen in nature.
Bodily systems which I described are exactly that. I didn't mention anything manmade.
Are you even aware that some of the systems which operates in manmade objects were copied from naturally occurring phenomenon?

If the copies are intelligent design to you, why not the original?
wrong. The natural processes which I earlier described operate intelligently, and I have explained how. If you're blind to the intelligence in those systems, sorry I can no longer continue the discussion with you.

Thank you

I got all these from wikipedia 👇
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And here's britainnica 👇
Intelligent design (ID), argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.” Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design

Check if your definition of intelligent design is the same as what's found online.

Everyday247:
I got all these from wikipedia 👇
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And here's britainnica 👇
Intelligent design (ID), argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an “intelligent designer.” Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the theory of biological evolution advanced by Charles Darwin (1809–82).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design

Check if your definition of intelligent design is the same as what's found online.

You are struggling to understand me. Google for examples of intelligent design in nature and show your results here please.

You have searched for intelligent design argument, what it's, instead of intelligent design

triplechoice:
You are struggling to understand me. Google for examples of intelligent design in nature and show your results here please.

You have searched for intelligent design argument, what it's, instead of intelligent design

I looked it up, and it's showing me creationists sites that rejects evolution and the big bang and then aserts an intelligent designer.

Everyday247:
I looked it up, and it's showing me creationists sites that rejects evolution and the big bang and then aserts an intelligent designer.

Oga, I'm not arguing for an intelligent designer like creationist, and that's why you have been searching for what doesn't concern me.

If it's difficult for you to get what I specify: examples of naturally occurring phenomenon that operate intelligently or have intelligent design not designer, use Chatbot to help you get them.

The meaning of a word is determined by the context it's used. If creationist are using the phrase, intelligent design ,to argue for an intelligent designer for all things and you disagree, please face them not me.

Thank you