Intelligent Design- What do the words mean?
-
It is sad, but true, that there are anti-IDists that are so angry at the world that they have difficulty with the simple aspects of understanding their opponents. Take the words "Intelligent Design" for example. They just can't figure out what it means nor what it claims even though it has been spelled out such that grade school kids get it.
William Dembski says it all in Intelligent Design is NOT Optimal Design:
It is the same with the word "information". When IDists use it all of a sudden our opponents start having tardgasms even though our use of the word is the ordinary everyday use.
If evoTARDs are that clueless that they can't use a dictionary to figure out word usage, there is no way they can understand science.
It is sad, but true, that there are anti-IDists that are so angry at the world that they have difficulty with the simple aspects of understanding their opponents. Take the words "Intelligent Design" for example. They just can't figure out what it means nor what it claims even though it has been spelled out such that grade school kids get it.
William Dembski says it all in Intelligent Design is NOT Optimal Design:
But why then place the adjective "intelligent" in front of the noun "design"? Doesn't design already include the idea of intelligent agency, so that juxtaposing the two becomes an exercise in redundancy? Not at all. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand and optimal design on the other. Apparent design looks designed but really isn't. Optimal design is perfect design and hence cannot exist except in an idealized realm (sometimes called a "Platonic heaven"). Apparent and optimal design empty design of all practical significance....
Within biology, intelligent design holds that a designing intelligence is indispensable for explaining the specified complexity of living systems. Nevertheless, taken strictly as a scientific theory, intelligent design refuses to speculate about the nature of this designing intelligence. Whereas optimal design demands a perfectionistic, anal-retentive designer who has to get everything just right, intelligent design fits our ordinary experience of design, which is always conditioned by the needs of a situation and therefore always falls short of some idealized global optimum.Obviously, in that context, design would mean: (scroll down to design noun- full definition of design)
5 a : an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding : pattern, motifdesign
6 : the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of artAnd taken together Intelligent Design would relate to all the definitions of design that are telic in nature.
It is the same with the word "information". When IDists use it all of a sudden our opponents start having tardgasms even though our use of the word is the ordinary everyday use.
If evoTARDs are that clueless that they can't use a dictionary to figure out word usage, there is no way they can understand science.
posted by Joe G @ 9:05 AM
134 Comments:
At 9:54 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Nevertheless, taken strictly as a scientific theory, intelligent design refuses to speculate about the nature of this designing intelligence.
That's about sums it up.
At 12:48 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Joe G didn't say it and your response sums up your scientific illiteracy.
Thank you.
At 12:51 PM,
Zachriel said…
So, in other words, you can't justify the abject refusal to speculate about the nature of the designer.
Apparently, it's capable of intelligent design, so we should at least be able to eliminate stupid design. Is that correct?
At 12:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel, We get it. You are just willfully ignorant.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN doesn't care about the designer. PEOPLE are free to speculate all they want. Heck I have been over this with you many times. I have speculated about the designer(s).
And perhaps you should read the essay I linked to. Had you done so you would not have asked your question.
So, in other words, you are just an ignorant little person. Just as advertised.
Thanks again.
At 1:02 PM,
Joe G said…
The designer and the processes are separate questions from whether or not something is designed.
Intelligent Design is about the determination and then study of design. And reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to determine anything about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
I don't know how many times Zachriel has to be told that but obviously it will never get through.
Sad but true...
At 1:02 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: INTELLIGENT DESIGN doesn't care about the designer.
But we can at least assume it's capable of intelligent design, so we can eliminate a stupid designer. Is that correct?
Joe G: PEOPLE are free to speculate all they want.
In science, speculation leads to testable hypotheses.
At 1:03 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: And reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to determine anything about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.
That's fine. What have you determined about the designer by studying the design?
At 1:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
But we can at least assume it's capable of intelligent design, so we can eliminate a stupid designer. Is that correct?
Read the essay.
Zachriel:
In science, speculation leads to testable hypotheses.
Yes it does. Yet unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution doesn't have any testable hypotheses. Perhaps it isn't science after all.
At 1:08 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Read the essay.
Dembski: This is a fallen world. The good that God initially intended is no longer fully in evidence.
Not sure that's a testable hypothesis.
At 1:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
What have you determined about the designer by studying the design?
That they are above our pay grade- meaning they can accomplish what we cannot. So I focus on more important questions.
At 1:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel- the "Read the essay" response was to your question asking about the designer.
Look if you are just going to be an asshole then go away. I don't need more evidence that you are an ignorant little child-like person.
The essay has:
The confusion centered on what the adjective "intelligent" is doing in the phrase "intelligent design." "Intelligent," after all, can mean nothing more than being the result of an intelligent agent, even one who acts stupidly.
Zachriel knows how to act stupidly- oops it isn't an act...
At 1:14 PM,
Joe G said…
Within biology, intelligent design holds that a designing intelligence is indispensable for explaining the specified complexity of living systems.
That is a testable hypothesis. Had Zachriel been scientifically literate it would have spotted that right away.
At 1:14 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: That they are above our pay grade- meaning they can accomplish what we cannot.
In other words, nothing.
Joe G: the "Read the essay" response was to your question asking about the designer.
We did. Dembski wrote, "This is a fallen world. The good that God initially intended is no longer fully in evidence." Is that a testable hypothesis?
At 1:15 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: That is a testable hypothesis.
You said we could learn about the designer by studying the design. We would like to know what you have learned about the designer by studying the design.
At 1:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
In other words, nothing.
Nothing to a scientifically illiterate asshole, such as yourself. To educated people it tells us quite a bit. For one it eliminates entire classes of possibilities.
As I said, Zachriel is just a scientifically illiterate child-like person.
At 1:21 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: For one it eliminates entire classes of possibilities.
Well, that's a start. What classes of designer have you eliminated?
At 1:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You said we could learn about the designer by studying the design.
That isn't what I said.
Zachriel:
We would like to know what you have learned about the designer by studying the design.
We don't care what you would like to know. I would like to know a testable hypothesis wrt unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution constructing bacterial flagella yet you are never going to produce one. And mine is relevant.
At 1:23 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: I would like to know a testable hypothesis wrt unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution constructing bacterial flagella yet you are never going to produce one.
But you said you could learn about the designer by studying the design. What have you learned?
At 1:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel, YOU mentioned testable hypotheses. Yet YOU cannot produce any for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.
That is an admission that yours is not a scientific position.
Thank you.
At 1:26 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Yet YOU cannot produce any for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.
We never brought up the subject. This thread is about intelligent design, and your claim that you can learn about the designer by studying the design. So what have you learned about the designer by studying the design?
At 1:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
But you said you could learn about the designer by studying the design.
I said it may be possible.
At 1:29 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
We never brought up the subject.
Yes, you did. YOU brought up testable hypotheses. Now you are choking on them.
This thread is about intelligent design
EXACTLY! It is NOT about the designer(s).
At 1:31 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: EXACTLY! It is NOT about the designer(s).
A designer is seemingly entailed in Intelligent Design, is it not?
At 1:33 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
A designer is seemingly entailed in Intelligent Design, is it not?
Yes. So what? The origin of life is seemingly entailed to its evolution yet evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life.
At 1:41 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: The origin of life is seemingly entailed to its evolution yet evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life.
Indeed! And scientists have worked very hard to unravel the mysteries of that origin. There is evidence that life was much simpler billions of years ago. While there is no working theory of abiogenesis, scientists continue to make new discoveries while researching that origin.
So by studying the design, what have you learned about the designer?
At 2:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
And scientists have worked very hard to unravel the mysteries of that origin.
And they have nothing to show for it. They would have a better chance of finding a non-telic origin for Stonehenge.
Zachriel:
There is evidence that life was much simpler billions of years ago.
No, there is only a requirement for life to be much simpler billions of years ago.
Zachriel:
While there is no working theory of abiogenesis, scientists continue to make new discoveries while researching that origin.
There isn't any working theory for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution, either. And the discoveries made have nothing to do with materialism.
Zachriel:
So by studying the design, what have you learned about the designer?
Just what I have told you. Others may have learned more. The question isn't important to me.
At 2:07 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: And they have nothing to show for it.
That's not correct. We have fossils of early life, and a pattern of change over time. We have discovered that some molecules can act as both information storage and enzyme, solving one essential puzzle. We have discovered membrane structures that grow an divide.
Joe G: No, there is only a requirement for life to be much simpler billions of years ago.
Evolution only concerns existing life, but we know that life on Earth must have had an origin because the Earth itself had a beginning, so there had to be a first life on Earth; and we know that the first life was much simpler than life today.
Joe G: Just what I have told you.
But you haven't told us anything. What have you learned about the designer by studying the design?
At 2:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
That's not correct. We have fossils of early life, and a pattern of change over time.
Nothing to do with the OoL- you lose.
Evolution only concerns existing life,
And Intelligent Design only concerns the DESIGN.
we know that the first life was much simpler than life today.
Liar. We don't know any such thing. Your position requires that but there isn't any evidence for it.
But you haven't told us anything.
You mean you are too stupid to understand what I told you. Big difference.
At 2:12 PM,
Zachriel said…
Do you see the difference? Biologists delve right into the problem of abiogenesis, proposing and testing hypotheses, extending evolution further and further back in time, slowly unraveling the mystery. IDers don't even leave their easy chairs.
At 2:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric. It's not just an example of sloppy thinking. It's a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?- Mike Gene
That sums up evoTARDs- sloppy thinking
At 2:15 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Nothing to do with the OoL
Of course they do, if only to constrain the time period in question.
Joe G: And Intelligent Design only concerns the DESIGN.
But it entails an intelligent designer.
Joe G: We don't know any such thing.
Sure we do. It's clear from the fossil record.
Mike Gene: Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the "identify the designer" rhetoric.
We don't necessarily need the identity, but some attributes. Apparently, it's an intelligent designer, and not a stupid designer. Is that correct?
At 2:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Of course they do, if only to constrain the time period in question.
Not even that.
Zachriel:
Sure we do. It's clear from the fossil record.
Liar. There isn't anything that shows the bacteria of then are more simple than the bacteria of today.
At 2:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel has been given attributes. I have nothing else to say. unless it is on-topic.
At 3:10 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Not even that.
Um, the origin of life on Earth can't be after the oldest known life on Earth.
Joe G: There isn't anything that shows the bacteria of then are more simple than the bacteria of today.
Turns out there are lions and tigers and bears nowadays, but not on the primordial Earth.
Joe G: has been given attributes.
What are those attributes?
At 4:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Um, the origin of life on Earth can't be after the oldest known life on Earth
That is true regardless of the scenario, ie how life originated on Earth.
Zachriel:
Turns out there are lions and tigers and bears nowadays, but not on the primordial Earth.
Your position can't even account for the prokaryotes. So you had better leave metazoans out of it.
Zachriel:
What are those attributes?
Define attributes.
At 6:25 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: That is true regardless of the scenario, ie how life originated on Earth.
So fossils of primordial life help constrain the time period for the origin of life.
Joe G: Your position can't even account for the prokaryotes. So you had better leave metazoans out of it.
We said "we know that the first life was much simpler than life today." The rest was your handwaving.
Joe G: Define attributes.
attribute, an inherent characteristic
What have you learned about the designer by studying the design?
At 6:36 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
So fossils of primordial life help constrain the time period for the origin of life.
In some sense.
We said "we know that the first life was much simpler than life today."
Not necessarily. It all depends on what living organisms you are talking about. The handwaving is all yours.
attribute, an inherent characteristic
Already answered.
1- Capable of doing what mother nature could not or would not
2- Capable of doing what today's known designers on Earth cannot
But then again your question is one of the least important. It appears that only anal-retentive evoTARDs care about such a thing. What is that?
At 3:13 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Too funny. Poor chubs, tied up in knots.
At 7:01 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: In some sense.
Yes, it constrains the time for the origin of life.
Joe G: It all depends on what living organisms you are talking about.
There are more complex organisms today than there were on the primordial Earth.
Joe G: 1- Capable of doing what mother nature could not or would not
Isn't that inherent in what is meant by a designer? In other words, have you actually provided any attribute beyond "designer"?
Joe G: 2- Capable of doing what today's known designers on Earth cannot
Does that mean they are intelligent, and not stupid designers? We asked that above.
At 8:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Too funny, Richie creme-puff doesn't know anything.
At 8:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Yes, it constrains the time for the origin of life.
Again tat has NOTHING to do with your position. Nothing at all. You may as well of said it is cloudy today.
here are more complex organisms today than there were on the primordial Earth.
So what? Your position can't explain any organisms.
Isn't that inherent in what is meant by a designer?
So what? Apparently you had no idea.
In other words, have you actually provided any attribute beyond "designer"?
It is still an attribute, duh.
Does that mean they are intelligent, and not stupid designers?
Why would it?
Why is it that only scientifically illiterate evoTARDs ask irrelevant questions about the designer(s) and think they actually mean something?
At 9:10 AM,
Joe G said…
This is the 42nd comment in this thread and not one comment has been on topic.
Why is it that cowardly evoTARDs cannot post on-topic?
At 12:44 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It is still an attribute, duh.
The designer is a designer.
Joe G: Again tat has NOTHING to do with your position.
Our 'position' is just to note that intelligent design refuses to speculate about the nature of the designing intelligence (except that the good that God initially intended is no longer fully in evidence).
At 1:16 PM,
Joe G said…
1- Capable of doing what mother nature could not or would not
Zachriel:
The designer is a designer.
So evolution isn't a designer then, thanks. Please let Kevin R. McCarthy know.
Zachriel:
Our 'position' is just to note that intelligent design refuses to speculate about the nature of the designing intelligence
You're noting what ID readily admits? Yup anal-retentive evoTARD it is.
The designing intelligence is a separate question. My 11 year old daughter understands that.
except that the good that God initially intended is no longer fully in evidence).
Wrong again. ID doesn't say anything about God nor what was intended. But thanks for continuing to prove that you are an asshole.
At 1:50 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: The designer is a designer.
Which is a tautology.
Joe G: So evolution isn't a designer then, thanks.
If evolution is the designer, it still has the attribute of being a designer.
Joe G: You're noting what ID readily admits?
Sure. It's one of the many things that distinguishes ID from science.
Joe G: Wrong again.
Just quoting Dembski from the essay you cited.
At 2:43 PM,
Joe G said…
1- Capable of doing what mother nature could not or would not
Is not a tautology. It eliminates evolution as being the designer.
It's one of the many things that distinguishes ID from science.
Except that- speculating on the designer's attributes- has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with ID. And you don't know anything about science anywho.
Why do you think your meaningless assertions mean something?
By your "logic" evolution not saying anything about the OoL is one of the many things distinguishes it from science.
And your quote-mine of Dembski is duly noted.
At 2:45 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
If evolution is the designer, it still has the attribute of being a designer.
The number one attribute of being a designer is:
1- Capable of doing what mother nature could not or would not
Zachriel, tied in a knot with a pretty little bow just for show.
At 3:32 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: speculating on the designer's attributes- has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with ID.
So archaeology isn't science?
Joe G: The number one attribute of being a designer is: 1- Capable of doing what mother nature could not or would not
Okay. So the designer has capability. Again, isn't that just another way of saying designer?
At 4:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
So archaeology isn't science?
It is if they go about it as I said and if they can support their speculations. If not it is just a scientist telling stories.
Okay. So the designer has capability.
Capability that mother nature doesn't. That is important to investigators.
Again, isn't that just another way of saying designer?
It says it is a specific class of designer, one that excludes unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.
It tells us intent and planning were involved and that there was a purpose.
As a matter of fact IDists have determined a purpose. It is outlined in "The Privileged Planet".
At 4:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Making untestable speculations does not make a theory scientific. That Zachriel thinks it does proves it is an ass.
At 4:25 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It is if they go about it as I said and if they can support their speculations.
But you said "speculating on the designer's attributes- has nothing to do with science". Certainly we can investigate the designer. Indeed, you yourself said we determine traits of the designer by studying the design. So far you haven't been able to point to anything other than that the designer is capable design.
Joe G: It says it is a specific class of designer, one that excludes unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution.
But you just said "speculating on the designer's attributes- has nothing to do with science". Can you tell us anything about the designer other than that it can design.
Joe G: It tells us intent and planning were involved and that there was a purpose.
What is the purpose of a mosquito?
At 4:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
But you said "speculating on the designer's attributes- has nothing to do with science".
Untestable speculations mean nothing to science. Context is important. You are insisting on untestable speculations and saying that ID is unscientific because it does have any untestatble speculations wrt the designer(s).
Certainly we can investigate the designer.
Nope, only the design.
Indeed, you yourself said we determine traits of the designer by studying the design.
That is incorrect.
So far you haven't been able to point to anything other than that the designer is capable design.
That is also incorrect. It's as if you are retarded.
What is the purpose of a mosquito?
To be a mosquito.
At 4:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Identification of design or artifactuality indicates that materialistic processes are inadequate, that counterflow introduction lay somewhere in the causal history of the object, and any complete story of the object would have to contain reference to intelligent agent causation
At 5:05 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
BWAHAHA.
"Identification of design or artifactuality indicates that materialistic processes are inadequate, that counterflow introduction lay somewhere in the causal history of the object, and any complete story of the object would have to contain reference to intelligent agent causation" = "Looks designed to me"
At 5:18 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Vintage Joe:
"What is the purpose of a mosquito?
To be a mosquito"
reduces to
"What is the purpose of X
to be an X"
Highlighting ID's utter vacuity.
At 6:12 PM,
Joe G said…
What a dipshit- the purpose of a mosquito has nothing to do with ID.
At 6:15 PM,
Joe G said…
"Identification of design or artifactuality indicates that materialistic processes are inadequate, that counterflow introduction lay somewhere in the causal history of the object, and any complete story of the object would have to contain reference to intelligent agent causation"
= "Looks designed to me"
Maybe to a moron like yourself. But to educated people it has NOTHING to do with "looks designed to me" as it has NOTHING to do with determining design. It has to do with what that determination tells us.
It's as if Richie is proud to be a totally ignorant ass wipe.
At 6:23 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
This is a wonderful thread, Joe, Congratulations. Opinion-as-fact, free of empiricism, its no wonder ID's corpse twitches rarely after the Dover decision. You guys are going backwards! UD is Jesus this and scripture that. ID has given up pretending not to be creationism.
At 7:48 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Nope, only the design.
You had said "the only possible way to determine anything about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence." So you have nothing, then.
Zachriel: What is the purpose of a mosquito?
Joe G: To be a mosquito.
You have nothing, in other words.
Joe G: Identification of design or artifactuality indicates that materialistic processes are inadequate ...
So if we don't know what makes planets orbit, it's reasonable to conclude they're being moved by angels on crystal spheres.
Joe G: the purpose of a mosquito has nothing to do with ID.
You said design indicates there was a purpose. Are you saying mosquitoes are not designed?
At 8:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie tardfuck strikes again-
This thread is entirely Zachriel's making. The topic was supposed to be what "Intelligent Design" means. But like its usual baby self Zachriel couldn't deal with the topic and had to prove it doesn't understand science.
Now here you are bitching about something that you don't have any ability to comprehend- empiricism. Not only that you throw out unsupported accusations after you have been exposed as a total fucknut.
Science isn't your field Richie. You should just stick to stroking those that think they know something.
At 8:56 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You had said "the only possible way to determine anything about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence."
That is not the same as studying the designer. Obviously you are just an asshole.
So you have nothing, then.
We have you being a childish ass wipe. And we still have the design. And we still have what I have told you. That is much more than nothing, you impish dork.
You have nothing, in other words.
Not wrt mosquitos. But your fishing is entertaining.
So if we don't know what makes planets orbit, it's reasonable to conclude they're being moved by angels on crystal spheres.
Only a demented imbecile would say such a thing. And here you are.
BTW according to materialism planets orbit due to innumerable improbable coincidences. That is why you are afraid to discuss testable hypotheses.
Are you saying mosquitoes are not designed?
Not the mosquitos of today.
How does unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution explain mosquitos? That's right, it can't.
It must suck to have a position that is so void of content that you are forced to pollute your opponents' blogs with your childish bullshit. The only way ID is going away if materialism and evolutionism can be supported.
Your misguided evoTARDgasms are only good for entertainment. But now you are just boring.
At 9:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: The topic was supposed to be what "Intelligent Design" means.
So we asked we should at least be able to eliminate stupid design. Is that correct?
Joe G: Not wrt mosquitos.
You said design implies purpose, so if mosquitoes are designed, they have a purpose.
Joe G: Not the mosquitos of today.
Seriously? Mosquitoes don't exhibit "CSI"?
http://core.ecu.edu/hhp/andersonal/Mosquito_Library/mosquito-labeled.jpg
At 9:36 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
So we asked we should at least be able to eliminate stupid design.
And we told you the answer to that is in the essay we linked to in the OP. We even provided the relevant quote.
So what is you problem?
Zachriel:
You said design implies purpose,
That is a tautology. Looks like you aren't so good at recognizing them after all.
so if mosquitoes are designed, they have a purpose.
And unless the designer tells us, guess how we might possibly figure that out, scientifically?
Not the mosquitos of today.
Seriously?
Seriously. The mosquitos of today are evolved versions of the designed mosquitos.
Mosquitoes don't exhibit "CSI"?
All living organisms have CSI. And all living organisms have descended with modification from the originally designed organisms.
Just because designed objects have a purpose doesn't mean that we have to know what that is. That is up to us to figure out- you know, science. Oops, you don't know science...
At 9:42 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: And unless the designer tells us, guess how we might possibly figure that out, scientifically?
That's what we're asking. What have you figured out about the mosquitoes purpose?
Joe G: All living organisms have CSI.
So mosquitoes are designed. You just said they weren't.
At 10:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
That's what we're asking.
And the reason you are asking is because you are an immature ass.
What have you figured out about the mosquitoes purpose?
Part of the food chain. And they give us something to study. They are not to be ignored.
All living organisms have CSI.
So mosquitoes are designed.
The original organisms were. CSI is just an indicator that agency involvement occurred somewhere along the history of the object. Just as I said earlier. Are you unable to follow along?
You just said they weren't.
I was referring to the mosquitoes of today. The mosquitoes of today were not necessarily designed for a purpose.
The purpose of the original design was to allow descent with modification within the designed parameters of the original archetypes.
At 10:50 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Quality meltdown, chubs. Right on cue.
At 11:33 PM,
Joe G said…
No, your meltdown was very typical, crème-cake. And as usual you are the delegated stroker.
Nice job.
At 8:40 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Part of the food chain. And they give us something to study.
Yes, they're part of the food chain: They feed on humans. Is that what you mean?
At 9:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Yes, they're part of the food chain: They feed on humans.
Mosquitoes feed on flowers. Female mosquitoes require the protein in blood for their eggs. And they don't care if the blood is from humans.
Wow, Zachriel is so child-like it is almost totally ignorant.
When mosquitoes feed on flowers they aid in the pollination process. They are also food for other animals who get what they need from mosquitoes who are loaded with nectar.
At 9:09 AM,
Joe G said…
It must suck to have a position that is so void of content that you are forced to pollute your opponents' blogs with your childish bullshit. The only way ID is going away if materialism and evolutionism can be supported.
At 9:10 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Female mosquitoes require the protein in blood for their eggs. And they don't care if the blood is from humans.
That's right. They feed on humans to nourish their young. They also transmit malarial parasites while they do so. Is that their purpose then?
At 9:13 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: The only way ID is going away if materialism and evolutionism can be supported.
ID hasn't gone away just because the scientific evidence supports the Theory of Evolution. It'll take laughter.
Odd those humans.
At 9:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Why does Zachriel continue to talk of the mosquitoes of today when I have already told it the mosquitoes of today were not the designed organisms and therefor do not have the purpose of the designed organisms?
But anyway malaria is an impetus for scientific research- unfortunately you wouldn't know anything about that.
They feed on humans
They don't need humans.
to nourish their young.
LoL! Eggs are not their young.
At 9:20 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
ID hasn't gone away just because the scientific evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.
What scientific evidence supports the alleged theory of evolution? YOU can't even provide a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution- that means it is void of science.
At 9:35 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Why does Zachriel continue to talk of the mosquitoes of today when I have already told it the mosquitoes of today were not the designed organisms and therefor do not have the purpose of the designed organisms?
Here's a 46 million year old blood-engorged mosquito.
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/blood-engorged-mosquito-fossil.jpg
Joe G: But anyway malaria is an impetus for scientific research
So the purpose of mosquitoes is transmit malarial parasites to feed on young children as a spur to scientific research. What about all the millions of children killed by malaria before the advent of modern medical science?
At 9:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Here's a 46 million year old blood-engorged mosquito.
Is it human blood? If not then you are an asshole.
Also is that mosquito the originally designed mosquito? If not you are an asshole.
So the purpose of mosquitoes is transmit malarial parasites to feed on young children as a spur to scientific research.
So malaria only feeds on young children? Or are you an asshole?
At 9:46 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Is it human blood?
Probably not. Evolutionary theory indicates that humans evolved from primitive apes during a much later period. If we tested the blood, what do you think it would show?
Joe G: IsAlso is that mosquito the originally designed mosquito?
It's not a "mosquitoe of today", but of yesteryear.
Joe G: So malaria only feeds on young children?
No. We're asking you the purpose of mosquitoes. You brought up mosquito transmitted disease being "an impetus for scientific research".
(You also seem to have a problem with Tourette Syndrome or perhaps a problem with your Internet pathway. You might want to run a virus scan.)
At 9:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Evolutionary theory indicates that humans evolved from primitive apes during a much later period.
Unfortunately there isn't any way to test that claim. That means it isn't science.
We're asking you the purpose of mosquitoes.
We don't care about your childish antics.
At 10:02 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Unfortunately there isn't any way to test that claim.
We proposed such a test. If we tested the blood of the 46 million year old mosquito, what do you think it would show?
You had suggested that mosquito transmitted disease being "an impetus for scientific research" was the purpose of mosquitoes.
At 10:13 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
We proposed such a test.
Liar
If we tested the blood of the 46 million year old mosquito, what do you think it would show?
It won't show that humans evolved from primitive apes. You lose, again, as usual.
At 10:15 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It won't show that humans evolved from primitive apes.
Let's take a wild guess. It won't be of any hominid species.
At 10:53 AM,
Joe G said…
So humans aren't hominids then. Strange.
Zachriel sed that mosquitoes feed on humans. Then Zachriel brings up a mosquito who did not feed on humans.
Zachriel, when your confusion is over please let us know.
At 10:54 AM,
Joe G said…
It won't show that humans evolved from primitive apes.
Zachriel:
Let's take a wild guess.
What for? What I said is a fact.
At 10:56 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Zachriel sed that mosquitoes feed on humans.
They do. People eat lettuce, but that's not all they eat.
Joe G: So humans aren't hominids then.
Humans share ancestry with other hominids.
http://tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299
At 11:03 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Humans share ancestry with other hominids.
More untestable and unscientific spewage.
At 11:09 AM,
Zachriel said…
Let's get back on track. You had suggested that mosquito transmitted disease being "an impetus for scientific research" was the purpose of mosquitoes. Is that correct?
At 11:28 AM,
Joe G said…
No, let's get to the topic of the thread. We had posted what the words "Intelligent Design" mean.
Do you have any issue with that?
At 11:29 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Intelligent Design- What do the words mean?
Sure. Does that mean we can eliminate stupid designers?
At 11:40 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Does that mean we can eliminate stupid designers?
Already answered.
Have a shitty day
At 11:45 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Already answered.
Joe G: PEOPLE are free to speculate all they want.
Joe G: Read the essay.
Joe G: Why would it?
Joe G: And we told you the answer to that is in the essay we linked to in the OP.
At 6:12 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe,banned from TSZ for posting pictures of genitalia and serial troll of skepticink is so self-unaware he writes:
" must suck to have a position that is so void of content that you are forced to pollute your opponents' blogs with your childish bullshit"
Priceless.
At 8:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Already answered
At 8:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie, still totally clueless-
Lizzie posted a picture of genitalia on TSZ. And had Lizzie upheld her policy of posting in good faith almost all you assholes would have been banned by now- Lizzie included.
Skeptic Ink is a cowards' haven. Only if a troll is one who exposes assholes for what they are could I be considered a serial troll.
That said, at least ID can be tested.
Richie Hughes, so self unaware he thinks his drivel means something.
At 8:48 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie, You, the TSZ ilk and skeptic ink all fit what I said:
It must suck to have a position that is so void of content that you are forced to pollute your opponents' blogs with your childish bullshit. The only way ID is going away if materialism and evolutionism can be supported.
At 10:35 PM,
Zachriel said…
Dembski: The confusion centered on what the adjective "intelligent" is doing in the phrase "intelligent design." "Intelligent," after all, can mean nothing more than being the result of an intelligent agent, even one who acts stupidly.
So, we can eliminate a stupid designer.
At 12:33 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Lizzie posted a picture of the statue of David. You posted a picture of a woman's genitalia, shot up her skirt.
If you think there's no difference that probably explains your inability to discriminate using ID.
You intellectual and emotional child.
Are you proud of your actions that day? What would your family think?
At 9:13 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
So, we can eliminate a stupid designer.
Why is that? Please be specific.
At 9:15 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Why is that?
Dembski: "Intelligent," after all, can mean nothing more than being the result of an intelligent agent, even one who acts stupidly ... The intelligent design community, on the other hand, means the former and thus separates intelligent design from questions of optimality.
At 9:19 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie:
Lizzie posted a picture of the statue of David.
Naked.
You posted a picture of a woman's genitalia, shot up her skirt.
Yet you don't know if it was a real woman. No one saw anything above the waist.
If you think there's no difference that probably explains your inability to discriminate using ID.
And yet you can't explain any difference.
You intellectual and emotional child.
LoL! Just looking at this thread it proves that I am intellectually more mature than you will ever be.
As for emotions the same goes. Just look at you- you come hear spewing childish shit, get your ass handed to you again and then start with you childish antics.
Are you proud of your actions that day?
Considering what and who I was responding to I am absolutely proud of what I did. Heck here it is more than a year later and you are still affected by it.
That is gold to me.
What would your family think?
Given the context they would ask what took me so long.
At 9:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel, Dembski doesn't help you. Obviously you are too stupid to have a discussion.
At 12:04 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Dembski doesn't help you.
He says it right there. It's "an intelligent agent, even one who acts stupidly". You kept pointing to that statement, but apparently never read it.
At 3:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Obviously Zachriel is too stupid to understand what Dembski wrote.
Perhaps Zachriel can tell us the difference between a stupid designer and an intelligent agency acting stupidly.
At 4:33 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
As you're so proud, show your family. Let them see what a great guy you are.
At 5:17 PM,
Joe G said…
My family knows how I deal with asshole losers. They know if I swore or posted something seemingly out of line that there had to be a very good reason.
Ya see assface, unlike you who just looks at what I did as if it exists in isolation, educated people look at things in context.
As I said, you are a totally self-unaware crème-puff.
At 5:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Two years later and Richie is still crying.
"Hey mommy look what Joey did two years ago!"
Could you be any more of a big baby Richie?
At 8:35 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Obviously Zachriel is too stupid to understand what Dembski wrote.
Yet you can't explain it.
Joe G: Zachriel can tell us the difference between a stupid designer and an intelligent agency acting stupidly.
That's the question, isn't it. Presumably, a stupid designer can't help but act stupidly, while an intelligent design may act intelligently at times, and stupidly at times.
At 9:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Obviously Zachriel is too stupid to understand what Dembski wrote.
Yet you can't explain it.
I shouldn't have to. Only an ignorant ass needs it to be explained. And here you are.
Perhaps Zachriel can tell us the difference between a stupid designer and an intelligent agency acting stupidly.
That's the question, isn't it.
Not really.
Presumably, a stupid designer can't help but act stupidly.
Why is that?
while an intelligent design may act intelligently at times, and stupidly at times.
How is that relevant? Please be specific.
At 9:27 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: I shouldn't have to.
We understand you can't explain it.
At 9:31 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel, asshole extraordinaire. Unable to think for itself and needs us to explain things to it.
An Intelligent Designer acting stupidly is a stupid designer at that point in time. So no ID does not say we can eliminate a stupid designer as ID does not say anything about the level of intelligence of the designers.
At 9:35 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: An Intelligent Designer acting stupidly is a stupid designer at that point in time.
If Einstein made a mistake, we still wouldn't call him stupid.
Joe G: An Intelligent Designer acting stupidly is a stupid designer at that point in time. So no ID does not say we can eliminate a stupid designer as ID does not say anything about the level of intelligence of the designers.
So why is it called *Intelligent* Design?
At 9:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
If Einstein made a mistake, we still wouldn't call him stupid.
Only a moron would think that making a mistake is acting stupidly. And here you are.
Zachriel:
So why is it called *Intelligent* Design?
It is in the essay that you didn't read or are too stupid to understand.
At 12:01 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It is in the essay that you didn't read
It seemed obvious Dembski was saying the designer was intelligent, but sometimes acted stupidly. If not, please explain what you think he meant.
At 1:14 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
It seemed obvious Dembski was saying the designer was intelligent,
And obviously you are too stupid to understand what that means in the given context. AND even stupid designers exhibit some intelligence. So you lose regardless.
but sometimes acted stupidly
Nope, Dembski didn't say that.
If Zachriel wasn't an asshole on an agenda this thread wouldn't even exist.
Very telling, that...
At 3:55 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Nope, Dembski didn't say that.
So why is it called *Intelligent* Design? We asked you to explain it before, but you've been unable to even attempt an answer.
At 5:33 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
So why is it called *Intelligent* Design?
To confuse imbeciles like you. Obviously it works.
We asked you to explain it before
Why ask when it is explained in the OP? You must be an imbecile.
At 8:30 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Why ask when it is explained in the OP?
"Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand and optimal design on the other."
Sure, we got that. But according to you, we can't even say the designer is intelligent.
Joe G: To confuse
Okay then.
At 9:14 PM,
Joe G said…
"Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand and optimal design on the other."
Zachriel:
Sure, we got that.
Obviously you didn't get it.
Zachriel:
But according to you, we can't even say the designer is intelligent.
It depends on how we are defining "intelligent". If "intelligent" is being able to do what nature, operating freely could not or would not do, then I can say the designer was intelligent.
So stop lying.
To confuse imbeciles like you. Obviously it works.
Zachriel:
Okay then
OK
At 7:46 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: OK
You've admitted that the term is meant to confuse at least some people.
Joe G: If "intelligent" is being able to do what nature, operating freely could not or would not do, then I can say the designer was intelligent.
Then you wouldn't need the modifier. You would just say designer.
At 7:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You've admitted that the term is meant to confuse at least some people.
The only people it can confuse are imbeciles like yourself. As I also said, obviously it worked.
Then you wouldn't need the modifier.
The modifier is required for the reasons presented.
You would just say designer.
Well some people call nature a designer. Some people call natural selection a designer. IOW the qualifier is required.
And if you had any sense at all you would have realized that.
At 8:14 AM,
Joe G said…
And your butt-buddy, Kevin R. McCarthy, sez that evolution is the designer...
At 8:18 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: sez that evolution is the designer
It can be seen that way. For clarity, you could say a "designing agent", implying something external to the process. However, if you are going to say it's Intelligent Design, then it's clear you are saying the designing agent is intelligent.
At 8:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes, Zachriel, we get it. You are obviously ignorant of the English language. Nature could be a designing agent. The word "Intelligent" means it has to be something other than nature.
And by saying the designing agency is intelligent we are saying that nature was not the designer.
At 8:30 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Nature could be a designing agent.
An agent is usually considered external. The term would at least avoid the misconception that Intelligent Design means intelligent design.
You're more than welcome to suggest other terminology.
At 8:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
An agent is usually considered external.
A chemical agent is external and it is still an agent.
As I said obviously you are ignorant of the English language.
At 8:47 AM,
Joe G said…
agent:
2 a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause
b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle
At 8:52 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The term would at least avoid the misconception that Intelligent Design means intelligent design.
What a dick you are. The term Intelligent Design means intelligent design.
Again just because Zachriel is ignorant and doesn't know how to use a dictionary does not reflect on ID.
intelligent means "processing intelligence" and intelligence means "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment"
At 8:55 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: A chemical agent is external and it is still an agent.
Sure, but it does eliminate an internal process. Feel free to propose an alternate term.
Joe G: The term Intelligent Design means intelligent design.
So, we can eliminate stupid design?
At 8:59 AM,
Joe G said…
A chemical agent is external and it is still an agent.
Zachriel:
Sure, but it does eliminate an internal process.
It does?
Feel free to propose an alternate term.
For what?
So, we can eliminate stupid design?
Only if you are an imbecile who can't understand anything. In that case you shouldn't even be around science, which you shouldn't.
At 9:01 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: The term Intelligent Design means intelligent design.
Zachriel: So, we can eliminate stupid design?
Joe G (paraphrase): No.
Can something be stupid design and intelligent design at the same time? Aren't the conditions antithetical?
At 9:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Can something be stupid design and intelligent design at the same time?
Absolutely
Aren't the conditions antithetical?
Only to ignorant people.
At 11:47 AM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: Can something be stupid design and intelligent design at the same time?
Joe G: Absolutely
At 11:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Even stupid designers have an INTELLIGENCE Quotient. And even a stupid design exhibits signs of intelligence.
Did you have a point Zachriel? That is besides to continue to prove that you are an ignorant ass.
At 12:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Even stupid designers have an INTELLIGENCE Quotient.
What's the IQ of the designer in ID?
At 12:38 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
What's the IQ of the designer in ID?
It is safe to say that it is higher than yours.
Post a Comment
<< Home