lepasharon:
Lol..my dissetation in Uni is destroying the fallacy called Intelligent design. Even when was religious I never uesd to beleive in Intelligent design

johnydon22:


the greatest flaw in the intelligent design argument is that is presents complexity as a basis for design.

It asserts nature is complex therefore must have been designed, forgetting that something intelligent enough to design such complex system would even be more complex than that which it designed.

So how come the super complex designer could exist without being designed by another designer but nature that should be less complex must require a designer.

If one says the complex intelligent designer don't need another designer, that person has shown complexity doesn't really require a designer and so nullifies all his/her argument.

There is no way for it to work..

menesheh:



Logic has always been a god killer

KingEbukasBlog:


The dullard strikes again . You idiots use the word logic when you know very little or nothing . God is uncreated and exists in another realm . The universe is said to be caused but the atheists claim its cause is unknown or they don't know - implying there is a factual certainty that it is caused by another realm or higher power - also considering the fact man caused the artificial realm (realm of the machines ) in which his algorithms govern the approaches in getting solutions to problems .

When you claim that the logic of an uncreated God is fallacious then you have to prove that the universe is uncaused or needs no designer . Johnydon22 has always claimed natural and artificial complexities differ . Has he considered the supernatural complexity and what stands in truth of it needing no designer ? The same way he claims that we shouldn't compare natural and artificial complexities , then it ought to be the same way we shouldn't compare natural and supernatural complexities .

Until he understands the God/supernatural realm , then he has no audacity to question the complexity of the SUPERNATURAL .

Its that simple . No need for obfuscation

vooks:
Good evening Amateur Septic(sic)

it's so obvious that I really hate saying it.
It's also so obvious that Hawking, Dawkin and EVERYBODY talks about it.
Sadly, most downplay this for reasons known best to themselves.

Specifically, I want to pick your brains on Multiverse Theory
1. What are your views on this relatively new attempt at explaining away fine-tuning?
2. Do you have alternative spins?

You can start here if multiverse is a vocabulary
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

thehomer:


Who says "everything" is fine-tuned for life on earth?

johnydon22:


the greatest flaw in the intelligent design argument is that is presents complexity as a basis for design.

It asserts nature is complex therefore must have been designed, forgetting that something intelligent enough to design such complex system would even be more complex than that which it designed.

So how come the super complex designer could exist without being designed by another designer but nature that should be less complex must require a designer.

If one says the complex intelligent designer don't need another designer, that person has shown complexity doesn't really require a designer and so nullifies all his/her argument.

There is no way for it to work..

lepasharon:
Lol..my dissetation in Uni is destroying the fallacy called Intelligent design. Even when was religious I never uesd to beleive in Intelligent design

vooks:


It's sad you have cheerleaders for such nonsense.
You don't need to dissect the intelligence of the Subaru manufacturer to conclude the Subaru is a product of intelligence.

The design in and of itself is sufficient to point to a super intelligent designer regardless of whether the designer was designed or not.

The intelligence of the designer is no prerequisite for identifying design.

ID is first an eloquent argument against CHANCE and secondly argument for the super intelligence of the designer

AlfaSeltzer:


If the Subaru has an intelligent designer, then that designer must have been designed. Don't you agree?

vooks:

Not necessarily.
Let's be clear, ID is simply saying 'no chance in hell of chance of doin it'. It is deflecting he strength of the argument by focusing on the designer's origins if at all

johnydon22:


the greatest flaw in the intelligent design argument is that is presents complexity as a basis for design.

It asserts nature is complex therefore must have been designed, forgetting that something intelligent enough to design such complex system would even be more complex than that which it designed.

So how come the super complex designer could exist without being designed by another designer but nature that should be less complex must require a designer.

If one says the complex intelligent designer don't need another designer, that person has shown complexity doesn't really require a designer and so nullifies all his/her argument.

There is no way for it to work..

malvisguy212:
ask yourself, what would happen
if we required that a successful
explanation must itself be explained.? This would lead to an
infinite regress of explanations. We
would need to have an explanation of
the explanation, and an explanation of
the explanation of the explanation, and
an explanation of the explanation of the
explanation of the explanation...thus the we will certainly reach a point were we wouldn't explained anything. Now Johnnydon 22 is this how science work or explained things ?

You atheists are not worth replying because you debate with bias attitude , sometimes I wonder ,Are you guys really interlingent as you always claims in your post ? When christians say God is God is the interlingent designer , your questions should not be who design the designer , but Why is God the best explanation for that?

Gayjesus:
Since Christians/creationist are claiming everything has a designer,then their god also have a designer we do not know of. It is either god doesn't know it's designer or god doesn't exist at all.

AlfaSeltzer:


I believe god is a malfunctioning robot that killed its designer.

AlfaSeltzer:


Can you articulate please?

I see you said "not necessarily". Does it mean that a designer like Enzo Ferrari may not have been designed himself? Please be clear.

Gayjesus:
Since Christians/creationist are claiming everything has a designer,then their god also have a designer we do not know of. It is either god doesn't know it's designer or god doesn't exist at all.

vooks:


Those options are a figment of your seminized rectum

vooks:

I mean let us FIRST deal with the fact that design points to a designer and the nature of the designer or origin is irrelevant to this

johnydon22:


the greatest flaw in the intelligent design argument is that is presents complexity as a basis for design.

It asserts nature is complex therefore must have been designed, forgetting that something intelligent enough to design such complex system would even be more complex than that which it designed.

So how come the super complex designer could exist without being designed by another designer but nature that should be less complex must require a designer.

If one says the complex intelligent designer don't need another designer, that person has shown complexity doesn't really require a designer and so nullifies all his/her argument.

There is no way for it to work..

Gayjesus:


As far as a higher level of understanding which is not clouded by religion is concerned. The universe is reshaping itself every seconds. Science have made us realize that African continent is moving 2cm away from the American continent and it will take them 250 million years to join back and become one. Thus changes are being made every second and this is obviously due to nature.

Where is the designer today?

vooks:

Reshaping is an eternal process, right?
You would be lynched in scientific circles for entertaining an eternal universe position

Gayjesus:


Perhaps you do not understand your claim. That a designer created the universe and the creation of the designer cannot be questioned? You will need to explain what/who created the designer to make your point valid

Gayjesus:


You always have rude words coming off you. I'm done here!

vooks:

I mean let us FIRST deal with the fact that design points to a designer and the nature of the designer or origin is irrelevant to this

vooks:

You are deflecting.
Disprove this simple proposition; DESIGN rules out CHANCE

AlfaSeltzer:


No, it doesn't.

See the image below. One might argue that it was "designed" to be exactly like it is but this is not true. Even though the person that made that image was intelligent, the pattern of the splash of paint was completely by chance. The probability of making another exact copy just by splashing paint on paper like the designer did is nearest to zero.

AlfaSeltzer:


Yes, a design points to a designer. So?

vooks:


You are not far from the truth.
Chance can create complexity but ID is more than complexity; it is complexity and ORDER.

Read up my posts on why life is not only complex but highly ordered in no way random chance can


PS
What's so complex about this pattern?