I just found out about this species of moth that lives in Australia which is born without a mouth so it's life cycle goes as follows:

1.) Born

2.) Grows up

3.) Mates

4.) Dies within 2 to 5 days

This is not intelligent design!!! Creating a creature that is unable to feed itself is not intelligent! Where the fuck was god on this one? Did he just forget? Of course that would make fallible and therefore not really "god"...

As you can see here there is a FLAW IN DESIGN!!!! ...Had God correctly designed this moth he would have given it a way to feed like animals are obviously supposed to be able to do. If not, than this undermines the entire basis of life that the only meaning is to reproduce and survival doesn't mean anything.

Here is info on the Moth:

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25234

That proves nothing.

-NS

That proves nothing.

-NS

ex nihilo nihil...but semantics whatever


It proves an animal was created with the inability to survive, only reproduce. An obvious flaw in existence...And certainly not intelligent design.

You can't possibly argue that not having a mouth is intelligent...

Never mind the fact that this critter, much like the locusts in North America, provide vast amounts of food material for an incredibly wide base of organisms that make up the roots of the tree of life.

Never mind the fact that this critter, much like the locusts in North America, provide vast amounts of food material for an incredibly wide base of organisms that make up the roots of the tree of life.

This undermines the whole "sanctity of life" argument considering these moths aren't anything near a major food source for any animal and IF god created them, he forced them to suffer the agony of starvation.

Not to mention he basically just murders every single one of these moths seeing he doesn't he give them a chance to live. The Cicada (I think that's what you meant by locusts) simply have a short life span (much like any other insect) however, they are still given a chance to live, these moths on the other hand are all born with a flaw that causes unecessary pain and suffering towards them.

"Not to mention he basically just murders every single one of these moths seeing he doesn't he give them a chance to live."

"Mates...Dies within 2 to 5 days" From the article: "Longevity is estimated to be about two years..." Oh my...most of its life isn't as an adult? So what? It still gets to live from 1-2 years, become an adult, have sex, then die.

Wish to try again?

Hell, I'll add a bit more: "1,700 males per hectare" "8.8 km^2" ...yeah, I suppose population densities like that don't provide much food material for the localized ecosystems...

You definitely need to produce a better argument here.

Never mind the fact that this critter, much like the locusts in North America, provide vast amounts of food material for an incredibly wide base of organisms that make up the roots of the tree of life.

Never mind the fact that providing ad-hoc rationalizations for sub-par "design", renders the whole concept of Intelligent Design unfalsifiable - on top of already being unsubstantiated - which is a great argument against holding such a ridiculous belief in the first place.

P.S. This "critter" is extremely rare, and pretty small; hardly "vast amount of food material".

Feeding

The larvae feed on the underground parts of the Austrodanthonia. Whether the larva needs a single tussock for development or must move between tussocks to complete its development is unknown (ACT Government 1998f).

Reproduction

The life cycle of the Golden Sun Moth is relatively well understood. Longevity is estimated to be about two years (Edwards 1994), however, genetic evidence suggests that generation time may actually be 12 months (Clarke 1999).

Lives for two years, completes what needs to be done, then dies.
I guess some people have a hard time understanding that death is an important part of nature.
Maybe if you were God everything would live in this plain forever, I would hate to live in that universe.

Never mind the fact that providing ad-hoc rationalizations for sub-par "design", renders the whole concept of Intelligent Design unfalsifiable - on top of already being unsubstantiated - which is a great argument against holding such a ridiculous belief in the first place.

P.S. This "critter" is extremely rare, and pretty small; hardly "vast amount of food material".

What's sub par about being unable to eat? It lives long enough to mature and fuck, then it dies, species continues. What flaw is there? Better yet, I ask you this: What absolute purpose of life does this creature not satisfy? Even more so, is there a proven purpose of life?

Couldn't the rationale you're using here be as much a critique of 'natural selection' as it is 'intelligent design'. If it's not a flaw in one system, what makes it a flaw in another system? Are you now the judge of what natural selection's purpose is, or what the purpose of intelligent design is?

As for ID's falsifiability...regardless of an ad-hoc rationale, it remains unfalsifiable.

If you want the short version: You're full of shit, Rust.

Lives for two years, completes what needs to be done, then dies.
I guess some people have a hard time understanding that death is an important part of nature.
Maybe if you were God everything would live in this plain forever, I would hate to live in that universe.


I think the point being made is why make a moth that has no mouth in its adult state, and therefore dies 2-5 days after reaching adulthood?

Food isn't that good of an answer, because the moth would be food for its predators if it could live for decades.

Saying "Death is an important part of nature" doesn't explain anything. Nobody is claiming it should be immortal. Why no mouth in adulthood? Why not have everything, humans, turtles, cows, lions, everything, die within 2-5 days of becoming an adult? They would "complete what needs to be done" and then die...

The answer to these questions are bound to be arbitrary and completely speculative. More reasons why "Intelligent Design" is silly, at best.

What's sub par about being unable to eat? It lives long enough to mature and fuck, then it dies, species continues. What flaw is there? Better yet, I ask you this: What absolute purpose of life does this creature not satisfy? Even more so, is there a proven purpose of life?



How does that not undermine life in a Christian sense? Its life is entirely pointless, the best argument is that it can provide food for another species and being that theres an extremely small population, it can barely even do that(if it actually does, someone just made the assumption)....

I just feel that the inability for the creature to live on its own as an adult due to a FLAW IN DESIGN proves creationism null and void.

How can you say that a creature that is genetically pre-dispositioned unable to survive due to a design flaw was created by god?

What's sub par about being unable to eat?

If it is able to eat, it can potentially live longer. It cannot eat as an adult, therefore its lifespan is reduced. Not living longer, means not being able to fuck as much - which both you and Vanhalla mention, suggesting you give importance to the act of reproduction. There.

But let's say that reproduction is unimportant. Great. The inability to lay down a specific criteria for determining "parness" is a great argument against the utility of Intelligent Design. Indeed any criteria you give would be unsubstantiated since if an Intelligent Designer exists, we would reasonably lay the fundamental designation of what's optimal or not at his/her/its feet - a completely mute, silent, unresponsive set of feet.


Couldn't the rationale you're using here be as much a critique of 'natural selection' as it is 'intelligent design'.How so?


As for ID's falsifiability...regardless of an ad-hoc rationale, it remains unfalsifiable.That it is unfalsifiable is precisely my point! Thank you for making it for me.

If you want the short version: You're full of shit, Rust.

Says the man desperately trying to rationalize an insect on the verge of extinction because it has no ability to eat once it reaches adulthood, as part of the workings of an Intelligent Designer.

You never fail to deliver the irony; thanks.

Saying "Death is an important part of nature" doesn't explain anything. Nobody is claiming it should be immortal. Why no mouth in adulthood? Why not have everything, humans, turtles, cows, lions, everything, die within 2-5 days of becoming an adult? They would "complete what needs to be done" and then die...
Multifaricality.
Creation comes in many elements and forms.
Because somethings live longer/are better equipped for survival, the simplest forms of life were not designed, but rather came forth out of the primordial ooze of which no chemical evidence can be found?

If you say so Rust.
But we cannot be absolutely sure either way.

I was going to reply...but this is just dumb.

A moth has no mouth, so this necessitates it being flawed since it only lives a few days after maturity? Okay.

I will say this though: The moth is on the verge of extinction due to the limiting of its natural habitat by the punctuation of human civilization. It has survived an incredible duration of time without the ability to eat. Your argument fails.

Multifaricality.
Creation comes in many elements and forms.

Which is a great catch-all cop out! There can never be any unintelligent design that refutes the existence of an "intelligent designer", because you can trot that excuse out against anything!

What? Blind spots in the eyes of mammals because of the unnecessary way their retinas are wired (unnecessary since many other animals don't have them which would prove that if life was "designed" the designer knows how to create eyes without blind spots)? Well that's just part of the diversity of life our great Intelligent Designer wanted!

What? A unnecessary vestigial organ - the appendix - that has probably killed millions and millions of people through history that couldn't get proper medical attention? Well death is just part of the natural process!


You can justify the most ridiculous things using those cop-outs. That doesn't make "intelligent design" stronger, it makes it a laughing stock. It makes it more ridiculous than it already is.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/1427-1-thumb.gif

His arm was cut off? Great news, because that's just how the Black Knight likes it!


Because somethings live longer/are better equipped for survival, the simplest forms of life were not designed, but rather came forth out of the primordial ooze of which no chemical evidence can be found?
No, not just because somethings live longer (a great attempt at downplaying the fact that it has no mouth and therefore starves, by the way). It's because that's the way the evidence points us, it's because that's the better explanation, it's because with this explanation we can make predictions where as with an intelligent designer we essentially cannot - the whim of an intelligent designer is unknown to us and could change at any time.

The point of showing this example is not to show a logical necessity, but to show how either it would be silly for a designer to purposefully design something inefficient, or if you trot out the cop-outs, how we can apply those excuses to anything which would leave us without really understanding nature to begin with.

If you say so Rust.
But we cannot be absolutely sure either way.Ah, the greatness of Science! It's open to improvement.

When you manage to "wound" the theory of evolution in any significant way - and nobody has - Science will change it's mind. Until you do, evolution will still reign supreme.

A moth has no mouth, so this necessitates it being flawed since it only lives a few days after maturity? Okay.

No, a moth has no mouth and starves to death therefore it necessitates us to reconsider the idea of an intelligent designer. Either we apply some criteria to determine what is "intelligent" and what is "unintelligent" or we give these pathetic cop-outs of yours which achieve nothing except rationalizing for yourself what is actually happening.


I will say this though: The moth is on the verge of extinction due to the limiting of its natural habitat by the punctuation of human civilization. It has survived an incredible duration of time without the ability to eat. Your argument fails.

1. Living longer as an adult could mean more time for reproduction, which means more of the population.

2. One of the main reasons why loss of habitat is bad for a species is because it loses its food source ("This decline has largely been caused by the loss of suitable food plants or by change in the structure of grasslands"). Since this moth only eats while in the larval stage - a stage where it greatly lacks mobility - this species is especially vulnerable to that loss of food plants!

If it could eat as an adult, it could eat other types of food or be able to fly around in search of suitable food. It cannot.

I love when you get cocky and say things like "you're full of shit" or "your argument fails". It's pretty much a guarantee you'll make an utter fool out of yourself. Funny shit. :D

It's because that's the way the evidence points us, it's because that's the better explanation, it's because with this explanation we can make predictions where as with an intelligent designer we essentially cannot


Can I see some of this evidence that explains the earliest forms of life?

What do you mean exactly by "explains the earliest forms of life"? Also can I seem evidence from ID research that "explains the earliest forms of life"?

Anyway...

There are various explanations for abiogenesis itself, and explanations on how life could arise from non-life.
For example the Urey-Miller experiment (http://www.issol.org/miller/miller1953.pdf) showed how organic compounds that were likely needed for life on Earth to develop could be created in the early conditions on Earth. Other experiments testing other possible conditions on Earth (i.e. considering different gases present in the atmosphere, and in different concentrations) have also produces similar results. We have self-replicating molecules (http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html), and molecules that replicate others. We've also found fossils of very early life on Earth (http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/g38537726r273422/fulltext.pdf) (3+ million years old).

Are there gaps? Sure. We're dealing with a very complicated process that took place millions of years ago. We can hardly fault Science for not being able to explain 100% of it today, just a few decades after most of these ideas were conceived.

(I looked over this several times to make sure I didn't typo mouths for moths or vice versa.)

Well, I cannot speak for others on here, but I don't believe anyone is defending ID. Rather, they are attacking the idea that a moth without a mouth is absolute evidence against ID, which it is not. It is not proof precisely because the arguments of its 'suffering' and 'inefficiency' is akin to saying, if God is intelligent and all-loving, then why is there evil in this world? So, sit in the ashes and wail to God that life isn't fair so you aren't believing in Him/It/etc anymore, like a child who is learning chess, but can't beat the teacher, so you smash the board and walk off huffing. But, of course, life isn't fair, and you must do you best to overcome that (i.e. survival of the fittest doesn't take away from God's existence, but I don't think God's existence is what you are arguing. I just wanted to make that point.).

On the reverse side, one could make this moth as an argument for ID, as in, obviously a mouth at the adult stage would be evolutionarily advantageous because individuals could survive longer, fuck more, etc. Also, it'd be evolutionarily advantageous for humans to have a 300 year life span and have health and looks of their 20's for their entire adult stage until one day they just keel over for the same reasons as the moth, but that is just as patently false an idea as 'why didn't evolution provide mouths.' What is good for the individual is not always good for the species because of increased resource use. Just imagine if we could all live to 300 healthfully as long as we kept eating. Not a happy vision, yeah? Let's hope we can fix our current resource issues (world food shortage) as we increase our survival rates through life prolonging medicine and technology. Imagine if a flu still killed people like it used to. 'What is good for the individual is not always good for the species,' remember?

Simply, the environmental forces shaping genetic evolution have not given these moths mouths or humans an extended life span of 300 years, and whether that's because they just aren't needed for the survival of the species or that it's still a matter of time remains to be seen. Arguing that we are perfect now and that lifeforms are genetically stable is silly. It may very well be that we as a species are still being 'designed,' designed by the forces of evolution/an intelligence, and, if we practiced eugenics (which we do in milder forms) like Hitler did, then we progress to becoming Intelligent Designers. We already are Intelligent Designers of other domesticated species.

I don't think most anyone anymore (that is rational) argues against the evidence of genetics and the ability for species to adapt to changing environments. So, instead of looking at individual adaptation and experience (Oh, dear! That poor, poor moth becomes adult, fucks and dies because they starve to death!), look at where they have been and where they are going. Apparently, their current form works for them as a species. Is that crazy? No.

Here's a real crazy idea though.

Maybe at one time they all had mouths, but lost them because it was evolutionary disadvantageous! Maybe they ate each other instead like many other insects, but when they evolved into having a fucked up adult mouth it boosted their species survival rate rather than individual survival rates, which continued to the point where a mouth became irrelevant and those was lost.

Or, if some had mouths and others didn't:

Then competition would be created for resources between each other with mouths and other species that could be a evolutionary disadvantage. And, of course, then there is competition between those who have mouths and those who do not becomes the survival of the fittest and maybe the mouths would die out because of their competition with other mouths. Who knows?

These are of course just hypotheses I pulled from my imagination, but the message is clear: Your explanation of why a moth has no mouth is not absolute evidence against ID, and its bad science to hold out an absolute conclusion without supporting facts.

Except evolution allows sub-optimality; things don't necessarily have to be the most optimal solution in evolution, they just have to be good enough. That's it.

When concerning a designer, what are we supposed to assume? That he purposely chooses to be sub-optimal? That he purposely designs things to work worse than they have to? That he purposely put blind spots in the eyes of millions of species when he didn't need to (since many others don't have such blind spots)? How is that reasonable?

What kind of clumsy design do ID proponents want as evidence against a designer (an intelligent one at least)? A Design that is sub-optimal? Check. A Design that greatly increases the mortality rate of the species? Check. A Design that greatly reduces the chance of a species to procreate? Check. Millions of species being created only to go extinct shortly later? Check.

All of those can be shown. So either they admit that the idea of a designer is refuted, provide a way to falsify a designer, or continue to use cop-out after cop-out and send the whole concept to the realm of unfalsifiable nonsense in the process. Which is it going to be?

I apologize I forgot to include an important detail...

The moth has an entire DIGESTIVE SYSTEM ......

This means that (if there was a god) God intended this moth to feed (due to its digestive organs) but forgot to give it a mouth.

God made a mistake, god by definition can't make a mistake, god doesn't exist.

The logical thing here is nature made a mistake and forgot to give the moth a mouth (we know its a mistake b.c. its supposed to be able to feed but can't)....


So there was a mistake in the creation of this creature: FACT

God can't make a mistake: FACT

In this case God did: God does not exist.

I just found out about this species of moth that lives in Australia which is born without a mouth so it's life cycle goes as follows:

1.) Born

2.) Grows up

3.) Mates

4.) Dies within 2 to 5 days

This is not intelligent design!!! Creating a creature that is unable to feed itself is not intelligent! Where the fuck was god on this one? Did he just forget? Of course that would make fallible and therefore not really "god"...

As you can see here there is a FLAW IN DESIGN!!!! ...Had God correctly designed this moth he would have given it a way to feed like animals are obviously supposed to be able to do. If not, than this undermines the entire basis of life that the only meaning is to reproduce and survival doesn't mean anything.

Here is info on the Moth:

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25234

A better explanation is that Africa exists.

"god loves everyone, everyone is special, god will help, god wants everyone to be happy." while ignoring a continent. yeah ok.

A better explanation is that Africa exists.

"god loves everyone, everyone is special, god will help, god wants everyone to be happy." while ignoring a continent. yeah ok.

yeah but you can just make the argument that he made Africans genetically equal with everyone else and due to outside circumstances (other than god) they just fucked it up...

Here in the moth case, they are screwed over b.c. "god" clearly forgot to give them a mouth but gave them a digestive tract...I mean really, why would he give them digestive organs? To be a dick? That would also contradict god, so end of story.

The digestive system is a remnant of it's larval stage. They eat while they are larvae.

So if a designer exists, he gave the digestive system to them for the larval stage. Now why he decided to leave it while they are adults is another story...

So if a designer exists, he gave the digestive system to them for the larval stage. Now why he decided to leave it while they are adults is another story...

Same concept...

That proves nothing.

-NS

Yeah, what he said.

Everything in nature serves a purpose--if we fail to perceive it, that's on us.

That said, "intelligent design" is a meaningless buzzword designed to make Piscean Age superstition sound more PC.

Obviously, we don't live in solid state genetics, which opens the door for ongoing design perhaps reaching a state of perfection, as I pointed out earlier. God's existence has not been checked at all by this. Even so, just because the digestive system is left over without a mouth proves nothing. If you believe in blind evolution and science and disbelieve the spiritual, congratulations. Now please go kill yourself because there is no free will and no ultimate meaning to anything...

Mr. Kitty:

How can you believe that a left over digestive system is a mistake? It could very well be that if they had mouths it would cause their species to die out.

2. One of the main reasons why loss of habitat is bad for a species is because it loses its food source ("This decline has largely been caused by the loss of suitable food plants or by change in the structure of grasslands"). Since this moth only eats while in the larval stage - a stage where it greatly lacks mobility - this species is especially vulnerable to that loss of food plants!

Wouldn't this detriment to an insects larval stage create an extinctive process no matter how long the adult stage is? Wouldn't a larger population also more quickly consume the food sources that do remain available?

Simple questions defeat the basis of your argument every time. As to the increased range available if they lived longer: how many areas does its primary plant food grow in that isn't punctuated by human colonies?

This species survives just fine without a mouth in the absence of humans. Introduce synthetic community to the equation and it dies. Sure, the cockroach, mouse, fly, and rat survive just fine; the design for their natural habitat doesn't limit their ability to integrate into synthetic conditions. Does it make the deer genetically flawed because their populations run near extinction on the outskirts of cities? Shouldn't God have given them wings if he were an intelligent designer so they could fly over roadways to reach their seasonal water and food sources?

Your argument is fucking ridiculous, Rust. Aside from astronomical and volcanic cataclysm, nature's designs tend to work very well without human civilization providing a catalyst for population eradication.

Is the magpie naturally flawed because it can't dodge bullets? Surely, if it could, it would have survived long enough to increase its range to that outside of human reach and thus adapted to its new conditions. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't this detriment to an insects larval stage create an extinctive process no matter how long the adult stage is? Wouldn't a larger population also more quickly consume the food sources that do remain available?

Simple questions defeat the basis of your argument every time.

No, it wouldn't create an extinctive process. Countless other insects survive with this detriment in their larval stage just fine. Guess what the big difference is? They are able to find other food sources once they reach adult hood, not only because they have mouths that allow them to eat but because they can move around.

As for the larger population, that would be kept in check by the resources of the area.... but that's just the point, if they would live longer, and had mouths that allowed them to eat more/different kinds of food, finding other resources would be viable!

Your "simple questions" didn't defeat anything; they just should how simple you are.

As to the increased range available if they lived longer: how many areas does its primary plant food grow in that isn't punctuated by human colonies?

It doesn't have a "primary plant food" in it's adult state, that's the point! If it did, if it could open itself up to more/different food sources, which could be present at the areas it currently inhabits, or nearby where it could move to, it would have more option for survival.


This species survives just fine without a mouth in the absence of humans. Introduce synthetic community to the equation and it dies.

So? The designer is supposed to be intelligent, not a complete fucking moron. Did he not know that humans would exist and would expand and create new technologies?

If he exists he apparently has given many organisms adaptations to fit to their "synthetic environment", like bacteria that evolved the ability to eat nylon.

Does he has some sort of bacteria fetish? "Fuck moths, lets help this bacteria find more food"?

Shouldn't God have given them wings if he were an intelligent designer so they could fly over roadways to reach their seasonal water and food sources?

Giving them wings isn't the only solution, is it? Why not make them think twice before crossing a road? Why not make them more adept at crossing roads? There. Easy.

This is again another one of your cop-outs; a ridiculous parody of yours that ignores not only that there could be countless other simple solutions, but also the countless other examples of shoddy design given here.


Is the magpie naturally flawed because it can't dodge bullets? Surely, if it could, it would have survived long enough to increase its range to that outside of human reach and thus adapted to its new conditions.

Because "dodging bullets" is a request equal to "having a mouth in adulthood just like virtually all other moths have". You're the king of analogies! :rolleyes:

Sorry, but asking why he would design this moth that has no mouth in its adulthood and therefore starves to death in around two days is a perfectly reasonable question. The silly and inane scenarios/parodies you take out of your ass in desperation aren't going to change this.

I just found out about this species of moth that lives in Australia which is born without a mouth so it's life cycle goes as follows:

1.) Born

2.) Grows up

3.) Mates

4.) Dies within 2 to 5 days

This is not intelligent design!!! Creating a creature that is unable to feed itself is not intelligent! Where the fuck was god on this one? Did he just forget? Of course that would make fallible and therefore not really "god"...

As you can see here there is a FLAW IN DESIGN!!!! ...Had God correctly designed this moth he would have given it a way to feed like animals are obviously supposed to be able to do. If not, than this undermines the entire basis of life that the only meaning is to reproduce and survival doesn't mean anything.

Here is info on the Moth:

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25234

If I was God I'd make heaps of senseless bullshit for the lulz

So God made man, this moth with no mouth, and everything else.

And man was all like, "WTF? Thats illogical. What is the purpose of this poor moth? Hell, whats the purpose of all of this?"

"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.

"Certainly," said man.

"Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God.

And that was that.

* * * * *

Isn't 'humor' itself illogical?

"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.

"Certainly," said man.

Do you see a difference between these two statements:

Everything must have a purpose.
or all things must be for something.


Everything must have a cause.
or shit doesn't just happen.

Either way, being unable to feed in adult form doesn't constitute a flaw. It means a shorter life, surely. Flaw? No.

Cop-outs all around!

Again, either:

1. Provide a logical and meaningful way to determine a "flaw" in design.

2. Admit that there is big room for improvement in the alleged "design" of an insect that is made to deliberately starve to death, and that therefore it is flawed.

3. Send the whole concept of ID to the realm of unfalsifiable nonsense.

Which is it going to be?

lol. epic fail on gods part. i dont beleive in god. i beleive in science and philosophy and the idea that through human reason e can overcome any obstacle in our existance.

"Intelligent Design" doesn't have to make sense to us, or the designer could not be intelligent, just because one species happens to miss out on eating to survive doesn't mean that it's an impossibility.

lol. epic fail on gods part. i dont beleive in god. i beleive in science and philosophy and the idea that through human reason e can overcome any obstacle in our existance.

god -or intelligent design- is a philosophy you fucking idoit, and to say that one possibility is impossible with no VALID reason is ignorant, god could or could not exist, to believe firmly in either will get you no where.

"Intelligent Design" doesn't have to make sense to us, or the designer could not be intelligent, just because one species happens to miss out on eating to survive doesn't mean that it's an impossibility.

What's an impossibility? The species? Of course it isn't an impossibility, it exists. The designer? Its existence might not be an impossibility, but it does mean that if he exists he creates very silly, suboptimal, unnecessary and inefficients things. Not to mention that it's unfalsifiable, has no shred of evidence... and just plainly inferior to evolution.

Also, "Intelligent Design doesn't have to make sense to us, or the designer could not be intelligent" is a complete non-sequitur.

This is not intelligent design!!! Creating a creature that is unable to feed itself is not intelligent! Where the fuck was god on this one? Did he just forget? Of course that would make fallible and therefore not really "god"...

As you can see here there is a FLAW IN DESIGN!!!! ...Had God correctly designed this moth he would have given it a way to feed like animals are obviously supposed to be able to do. If not, than this undermines the entire basis of life that the only meaning is to reproduce and survival doesn't mean anything.



1-God doesn't make things with "flaws"


2-Everything has a purpose, perhaps this moths purpose was to make people like yourself think about stuff a little and maybe learn something

Do you see a difference between these two statements:

Everything must have a purpose.
or all things must be for something.


Everything must have a cause.
or shit doesn't just happen.

Some things might not seem to have any purpose beacause we don't know what the purpose is. That doesn't mean it has no purpose.

The species still exists. Therefor there is no flaw. It only lives for a few days, true. But in those few days it finds a way to reproduce. That is all that really matters is that it finds a way to keep itself from going extinct.

Although, I don't believe in intelligent design.

god -or intelligent design- is a philosophy you fucking idoit, and to say that one possibility is impossible with no VALID reason is ignorant, god could or could not exist, to believe firmly in either will get you no where.

Man, and I thought you were cool.

The species still exists. Therefor there is no flaw.

That makes absolutely no sense.

My car has a flaw: It doesn't run. It still exists, in it's flawed state.

Flawed doesn't necessarily mean it would cease to exist (though millions and millions of other species have...) it means it has very big deficiencies. Not having a mouth, and thus starving to death, is a big fucking deficiency.

That is all that really matters is that it finds a way to keep itself from going extinct.So then it must be flawed seeing as it's apparently failing miserably at doing so because this moth is on the brink of going extinct.

If we were to give animals medals for "who keeps itself from going extinct the best", this species would barely get a ribbon for participation.

If we were to give animals medals for "who keeps itself from going extinct the best", this species would barely get a ribbon for participation.

I lol'd

I just found out about this species of moth that lives in Australia which is born without a mouth so it's life cycle goes as follows:

1.) Born

2.) Grows up

3.) Mates

4.) Dies within 2 to 5 days

This is not intelligent design!!! Creating a creature that is unable to feed itself is not intelligent! Where the fuck was god on this one? Did he just forget? Of course that would make fallible and therefore not really "god"...

As you can see here there is a FLAW IN DESIGN!!!! ...Had God correctly designed this moth he would have given it a way to feed like animals are obviously supposed to be able to do. If not, than this undermines the entire basis of life that the only meaning is to reproduce and survival doesn't mean anything.

Here is info on the Moth:

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25234

YOU CAN NOT PROVE A NEGATIVE!! As the title of the thread claims.

That being said I don't buy intelligent design because there is no evidence, along with some type of personal God as well.

The end.

The digestive system is a remnant of it's larval stage. They eat while they are larvae.

So if a designer exists, he gave the digestive system to them for the larval stage. Now why he decided to leave it while they are adults is another story...

I'm also interested in why natural selection failed to give it a mouth in it's adult stage...

What conditions or advantage to survival do you think would cause this to happen?

I'm also interested in why natural selection failed to give it a mouth in it's adult stage...

What conditions or advantage to survival do you think would cause this to happen?

Well I'm not a biologists, so my response would take me as far as my knowledge of biology/evolution/insects etc. goes.

That said, a possible scenario is that the ancestors of this moth did have a mouth and then they lost it. If I'm not mistaken the larva and the adult moths eat different things. If at one point the adult food source was depleted, then they would be able to eat while in the larval stage but not in the adult stage. If that were the case, they would have no benefit in having a mouth it could potentially even be a detriment (e.g. it takes energy to maintain a working mouth). Thus, a mutation that caused the moth to lose it's mouth wouldn't be harmful, it could be benign or even beneficial.

A similar scenario has happened with cave fish and their eyes. There are species of fish that have lost their eyes after living in caves for many years.


I'll quote part of a study examining this phenomena on the cave fish, and their explanation of why eye-less fish could be selected (though they also mention that this "regression" could be achieved through other phenomenons like genetic drift, so it doesn't have to be only beneficial traits being selected):

"In essence, the argument against selection is that the cost of making an eye is trivial compared to the cost of its replacement tissue in the socket 2 and 3 or that the developmental cost is paid by cave fish anyway because the eyes start developing and only degenerate after many cell cycles of tissue growth and replacement [6]. However, modern physiology and molecular biology suggest that these arguments might address the wrong costs. The vertebrate retina is one of the most energetically expensive tissues, with a metabolism surpassing even that of the brain [8]. Underscoring this high metabolic demand is the observation that one manifestation of genetic defects decreasing the efficiency of mitochondria is blindness (e.g., Leber's hereditary optical neuropathy [9]). Thus, maintenance of eyes might pose a significant burden in the cave environment. Increasing this burden, the vertebrate retina uses more energy in the dark than in the light because the membranes of the photoreceptor disks must be maintained in the hyperpolarized state until they are depolarized in response to light 10 and 11. Oxygen consumption by the vertebrate retina is approximately 50% greater in the dark than in the light [8]. Adding further to the retina's cost is its structural maintenance. Ten percent of the photoreceptor outer disks in vertebrates are shed and renewed each day, and the structure may be completely replaced over 35 times yearly [12].

Thus, although the energetic cost of making an eye may be trivial, the expense of maintaining one is much greater. In the dark, it may be costly enough to create effective selection for eye regression. In contrast, the argument of metabolic cost cannot be made for regression of pigmentation, and the QTL trait-value data (Figure 1) show that the two traits have regressed through different mechanisms.

This study shows that regression may be effected by active selection as well as by the passive accumulation and fixation of damaging mutations and that the various possibilities can be distinguished by the patterns of allelic substitutions involved. Thus, regression, an integral part of the progress of evolutionary change, can be accomplished in a variety of ways."


http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/~tabin/Pdfs/Protas2.pdf

Excellent explanation Rust. I couldn't think of a scenario but that is an elegant response, Thank You...

This is not intelligent design!!! Creating a creature that is unable to feed itself is not intelligent! Where the fuck was god on this one? Did he just forget? Of course that would make fallible and therefore not really "god"...

As you can see here there is a FLAW IN DESIGN!!!! ...Had God correctly designed this moth he would have given it a way to feed like animals are obviously supposed to be able to do. If not, than this undermines the entire basis of life that the only meaning is to reproduce and survival doesn't mean anything.

Here is info on the Moth:

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25234

Said supernatural being might be an asshole, or fuck up. Or be too lazy or nit notice said them, being too busy controlling all universes and shit.

Just mentioning that.

Said supernatural being might be an asshole, or fuck up. Or be too lazy or nit notice said them, being too busy controlling all universes and shit.

Just mentioning that.

But if he was an asshole, would that invalidate his ability to be a creator, albeit cynical, yet still a perfect creator? What if Holy wasn't what he was looking for?

But if he was an asshole, would that invalidate his ability to be a creator, albeit cynical, yet still a perfect creator? What if Holy wasn't what he was looking for?

just a person is an asshole and fucks things up does not mean they cannot make good things.

Homo Sapiens are a perfect example of there being no such thing as intelligent design.

YOU CAN NOT PROVE A NEGATIVE!

This.

Compared with evolution, ID is foolish. But this thread certainly is not proof that there is no intelligent design, or no designer.

And, of course, certain posters personal opinions on which decisions and choices would qualify as being "intelligent" or logical are biased. We are all "intelligent" enough to make creations of our own, which themselves may appear very illogical, stupid, or pointless. Just because you cannot find meaning or purpose in something, doesn't mean someone didn't choose to make it that way.

Dali could have chosen to paint things as they appeared in nature, or he could have painted them as he did. Which is "better", which is more "intelligent", which choice is more logical? Who's to say.

Some people choose to believe in God, and some choose not to. Some of those people, from each of those groups, feel a need to propagate their own opinion while eliminating the other. Thats all this thread is really about.

Compared with evolution, ID is foolish. But this thread certainly is not proof that there is no intelligent design, or no designer.

And, of course, certain posters personal opinions on which decisions and choices would qualify as being "intelligent" or logical are biased. We are all "intelligent" enough to make creations of our own, which themselves may appear very illogical, stupid, or pointless. Just because you cannot find meaning or purpose in something, doesn't mean someone didn't choose to make it that way.

Dali could have chosen to paint things as they appeared in nature, or he could have painted them as he did. Which is "better", which is more "intelligent", which choice is more logical? Who's to say.

Some people choose to believe in God, and some choose not to. Some of those people, from each of those groups, feel a need to propagate their own opinion while eliminating the other. Thats all this thread is really about.

You keep elevating your respect in every post I see from you. If we had more people that understood that you don't need to eliminate other people's ideas but instead, give insight on personal beliefs if someone really has no idea what to believe and wants your input, then this world would be a much more peaceful and more stable life.

If what is "intelligent" or "better" is subjective, then that's an argument against ID, not in favor of it.

Those people that say " Just because you don't think it's intelligent or meaningful didn't mean it wasn't designed" are dooming ID to the realm of unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable bullshit.

Any moron can do that.

"Some of those people, from each of those groups, feel a need to propagate their own opinion while eliminating the other. Thats all this thread is really about."

People believing they know the truth, and that anything else is moronic.

"Some of those people, from each of those groups, feel a need to propagate their own opinion while eliminating the other. Thats all this thread is really about."

People believing they know the truth, and that anything else is moronic.


expressing an opinion...how unusual...

Lack of explanation for one argument is NOT evidence for the other. The fact that existence cannot be explained does not mean that God created everything. On the other hand, just because you can prove the Bible as nothing more than mythology, that does not mean there is no higher power. Let's assume that the Bible is based on astrology, Darwinism exists, and Dinosaurs roamed the earth trillions of years ago... a lot of things are still left subjective. The problem is that everyone is determined to invest their faith in things that have been proven false with tangible and undeniable evidence, and we live in a society where the legitimacy of everyone's beliefs (which happen to be established) are (for the most part) respected equally. As far as we actually know (not believe), God COULD exist, and natural selection COULD have just been his mechanism for creation. On the other hand, the conservation of matter and energy theories COULD possibly be wrong, and there is a logical explanation for creation that does not include God.

Arguing about "intelligent design" is really fucking stupid, considering the fact that both scientific AND religious reasoning argue that it exists. The one thing I CAN prove however, is the fact that both the hardcore atheists along with the fundamentalist fanatics have the potential to be equally ignorant. MOST atheists argue that "if God existed there would be no suffering", making them as scientifically adept as Miss Cleo. The only redeeming factor for Atheism is the minuscule fraction of Atheists that aren't a pain in the ass to have an intellectual conversation with (2 out of the 37 that I know).

EDIT: I am just expanding on what Obbe said, not very much of this besides specifics can be credited to original thought.

Flawed doesn't necessarily mean it would cease to exist (though millions and millions of other species have...) it means it has very big deficiencies. Not having a mouth, and thus starving to death, is a big fucking deficiency.
Made me lol

This arguement is silly, it can go either way.

Evolution: The moth was too busy reproducing with every female it could find and so it didn't feed. (There's a species of mouse that does this as well, it runs around and fucks until it is exhausted and starved, and then dies). Thus, due to natural selection, the mouth in adulthood eventually disappeared as it was no longer needed.

ID: This doesn't necessarily have to be a flaw. 'God' could have designed it that way so it concentrated on the survival of the species rather than personal survival. I mean, humans put personal survival first, but why do we assume that EVERY animal does this? Seems to me that insects put survival and the continuation of the species first.

Personally, the evolution side sounds more logical but for the purpose of this thread...no, it doesn't prove ID to be non-existant.

It sucks that I'm indirectly exposed to Obbe's inanity by people quoting him, alas that's the painful reality of the ignore system here.

If anyone is even remotely convinced by his ridiculoous statement, please keep in mind that evolution isn't a matter of opinion; it is something that can be verified by evidence and facts, just as what constitutes of valid scientific theory depends not on the personal opinion of everyone or anyone, but the parameters that have been established in Science long ago.

"Eliminating" ID because it doesn't conform to the evidence and because it's not avalid scientific theory isn't really a matter of opinion.

Seems to me that insects put survival and the continuation of the species first.


Except this moth is on the verge of extinction. Apparently it doesn't put "survival and continuation of the species first", because it's failing miserably at it.

We can "rescue" ID by ad-hoc modifications and ridiculous cop-outs all we want, in the end that makes it sillier than it already is.

I can proposes a "theory" that gravity is actually the result of some magical elves that pull objects to the ground. When asked why we don't see these elves I can say they are invisible. When asked why can't we see them in thermal imaging, or hit them, I can say they are immaterial and move the objects through magic. When asked why this gravity would depend on how massive an object is, I can say the more massive the object the more massive, stronger and faster the elf! Do any of these ridiculous rationalizations make my "theory" any better? No. They make it worse.

Saying things like "ID could have designed it that way on purpose" or "this isn't a flaw" (while refusing to define what a "flaw" that could prove ID wrong is) are rationalizations, rationalizations made to save ID from total refutation and which in the process make the whole concept of ID a complete fucking joke.

It sucks that I'm indirectly exposed to Obbe's inanity by people quoting him, alas that's the painful reality of the ignore system here.

What must really suck is lacking the willpower not to read those quotes without the aid of a program editing out whats written, apparently a cause to your unjust suffering.

Anyone interested in what I'm saying, read this: I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design. Evolution is supported by evidence within this limited system within reality. Evolution has always seemed more 'right' to me, although thats probably because I was taught evolution before I even knew something like ID existed. In this thread, I even stated my personal opinions on ID and the concept of the 'designer' type of God, which I do not support.

That said, I do believe in God, and I do believe you could view every 'thing' within reality as a 'creation' of God, or as a position within a system.



Now, anyone doubting my statement, go read the OP. Why was this thread made? To have a civilized discussion on these matters? To share your opinion while considering others?

No, this thread is about "I'm right, you're wrong.". It's about who can be the bigger asshole. Its right there in the title, 'This Proves Intelligent Design Does NOT Exist', important words capitalized just as an angry fundamentalist would type it.

Free speech and freedom to express ones opinion is great. This is my opinion: Do we have to be assholes to everyone we disagree with? Do we have to make everyone else's business our own? Do we have to let other peoples illogical, pointless concepts of reality bother us?

No. We don't.

^^^ +1 to you, sir.

Except this moth is on the verge of extinction. Apparently it doesn't put "survival and continuation of the species first", because it's failing miserably at it.

Saying things like "ID could have designed it that way on purpose" or "this isn't a flaw" (while refusing to define what a "flaw" that could prove ID wrong is) are rationalizations, rationalizations made to save ID from total refutation and which in the process make the whole concept of ID a complete fucking joke.

The profile says NOTHING about why they are on the verge of extinction, although from the references Dear, C. (1997). Restoration of a native grassland inhabited by Synemon plana (Lepidoptera). M.Sc. Thesis. University of Melbourne. it is safe to assume their extinction is because of humans destroying their habitat, NOT because "it's failing miserably at [survival]".

If it wasn't because of destruction of habitat it would provide a stronger point for evolution but because it is, the arguement can still go either way.

Define a flaw that pretty much dispoves ID? (The ID that christians use, anyway) We see (and hear about them) quite a lot, mental and physical retardation from birth. There is NO logical reason why a creator would do something like this, it's just...well, retarded. Or what about the disease recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa , causes the skin to fall off at the slightest touch, people who have it are in constant pain...if there is a designer I would call it UN-intelligent design.

The profile says NOTHING about why they are on the verge of extinction, although from the references Dear, C. (1997). Restoration of a native grassland inhabited by Synemon plana (Lepidoptera). M.Sc. Thesis. University of Melbourne. it is safe to assume their extinction is because of humans destroying their habitat, NOT because "it's failing miserably at [survival]".

1. Actually, it does say something and I quoted it in this very thread.

"This decline has largely been caused by the loss of suitable food plants or by change in the structure of grasslands"

Why both of those things are related to its inability to eat food while an adult, has also been discussed.

"It doesn't have a "primary plant food" in it's adult state, that's the point! If it did, if it could open itself up to more/different food sources, which could be present at the areas it currently inhabits, or nearby where it could move to, it would have more option for survival."

The fact that it begins to starve to death as soon as it reaches its adulthood and therefore only has a life span of around two days - which it must use to find another mate - is a great impairment in looking for new habitats and areas nearby that could provide new food sources and homes for their larva.

2. Not being able to cope to changing environment is part of "sucking at survival". To survive you must be able to overcome adverse conditions. A changing environment is one of them. This species has not been able to overcome these adverse conditions created by a changing environment well , thus what I mean by "sucking at survival".


If it wasn't because of destruction of habitat it would provide a stronger point for evolution but because it is, the arguement can still go either way.Not at all, destruction of the habitat is pretty meaningless because we're talking about a "designer" that is supposedly intelligent and has supernatural (or at least super-human) abilities. Thinking that humans destroying their habitat is an unsurmountable obstacle for the "designer" is silly; he could very well modify this species to cope with the loss of a habitat. He could start by giving it a working mouth while it's an adult...


Define a flaw that pretty much dispoves ID? (The ID that christians use, anyway) We see (and hear about them) quite a lot, mental and physical retardation from birth. There is NO logical reason why a creator would do something like this, it's just...well, retarded. Or what about the disease recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa , causes the skin to fall off at the slightest touch, people who have it are in constant pain...if there is a designer I would call it UN-intelligent design.Except with the numerous cop-outs given in this thread, we could still rationalize those examples you cite.

To use some of the cop-outs that have been suggested:

Physical and mental retardation decrease longevity, and thus "provide vast amounts of food material for an incredibly wide base of organisms that make up the roots of the tree of life" (from Post #4 ). They also add to the "Multifaricality [of creation] Creation comes in many elements and forms" (from Post #13).

It seems you agree that these sort of excuses are ridiculous...

What must really suck is lacking the willpower not to read those quotes without the aid of a program editing out whats written, apparently a cause to your unjust suffering.

You're accusing me of lacking willpower? Well, that sounds like something an asshole would say!

It's about who can be the bigger asshole. Its right there in the title, 'This Proves Intelligent Design Does NOT Exist', important words capitalized just as an angry fundamentalist would type it.

Saying that something is wrong does not mean you're being an asshole, let alone that you're imploring other people to compete and see who can be the bigger asshole, as you so ridiculously suggest.

For example, if I were to make a thread saying "2+2 IS NOT equal to 5" is that me being an asshole? No. It's me stating a fact: 2+2 =! 5.

It's nobody's fault that your skin, or that of ID proponents, is so thin that simply being told that your belief is wrong is automatically seen as some sort of insult or attack. That says a whole lot about how vacuous the belief is in the first place, that it needs to exaggerate things to defend itself, making a simple statement "X is not true" into "a verbal attack an asshole would say imploring others to outdo each other in 'assholery' ".

Even if we accept such a ridiculous exaggeration, can we not act above that which is requested by the OP? Is your view of humanity so pessimistic that you cannot fathom people acting courteously despite the original comments? You talk about people putting others down yet that's precisely what you're doing to the OP!

More importantly, what does that have to do with your incorrect assertion that this thread is all about eliminating opinions, when it's not? Like I said, the truth or falsehood of evolution/ID is not an opinion.

This is my opinion: Do we have to be assholes to everyone we disagree with? Do we have to make everyone else's business our own? Do we have to let other peoples illogical, pointless concepts of reality bother us?

Where people here being assholes to everyone they disagreed with? I didn't see that. Where people here making everyone elses' buisness their own? I didn't see that either. How do you know these things are pointless?

P.S. I decided to view your posts in this thread, for a while at least, to be able to effectively refute your silly comments.

Sorry Rust, but are we looking at the same webpage here? I read through the entire thing and used the search function in Firefox AND IE but couldn't find that quote...



Not being able to cope to changing environment is part of "sucking at survival". To survive you must be able to overcome adverse conditions.

Thinking that humans destroying their habitat is an unsurmountable obstacle for the "designer" is silly; he could very well modify this species to cope with the loss of a habitat. He could start by giving it a working mouth while it's an adult...


1. Not at all, near complete desctruction is not what I call 'adverse conditions'. I'd call it something along the lines of "Apocolypse for whatever creature is in our way". The numbers of every creature that suffer from desctruction of habitat are declining.

Take a look at primates, we are destroying their native forests and some species are now endangered, and we are meant to be almost like them. Even we would not be able to survive if someone came along and destroyed our habitat and food. I doubt we could adapt quick enough to eat moss off rocks, but still in my opinion we don't 'suck at survival'.

2. Well, they still seem to be doing fine (they are still alive) but even so, taking on arguements from ID peoples, there is the element of free will. If we are talking about the christian god as the ID then remember in the bible he said he made humans in the image of himself, not every creature (but if you ask me, if he exists and if we're like him...we've got a pretty sucky god)



It seems you agree that these sort of excuses are ridiculous...

The food source ones? For ID yes, for design, no. A designer might be too uncreative to think of other food sources so they put other animals to eat. But because we are talking about INTELLIGENT design, yes they are ridiculous.

Oh and please don't get annoyed that I'm pointing out arguements for ID as well, I'm just trying to show that I REALLY don't think this moth disproves ID, there as so many other, better examples you could use to disprove it

Sorry Rust, but are we looking at the same webpage here? I read through the entire thing and used the search function in Firefox AND IE but couldn't find that quote...

You're right, I apologize. That is something I found searching through other sources and had forgotten it wasn't in the original link.

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/6277E110F4C5BA95CA2570ED00017CA9/$File/106+Golden+Sun+Moth+2000.pdf



1. Not at all, near complete desctruction is not what I call 'adverse conditions'. I'd call it something along the lines of "Apocolypse for whatever creature is in our way". The numbers of every creature that suffer from desctruction of habitat are declining.

2. Well, they still seem to be doing fine (they are still alive) but even so, taking on arguements from ID peoples, there is the element of free will. If we are talking about the christian god as the ID then remember in the bible he said he made humans in the image of himself, not every creature (but if you ask me, if he exists and if we're like him...we've got a pretty sucky god)

1. Which has what to do with the fact that these conditions would be associated with "Survival"? You said it was not failing at survival. The fact that it is on the verge of extinction proves that it is. Whether we label the conditions "adverse" or "apocalyptic" is not important.

2. An Intelligent Designer would have the power to overcome these conditions. Indeed, if ID proponents are to be believed (i.e. if an intelligent designer exists) he has in the past since other species have survived loss of habitat, food, and other truly apocalyptic events in Earth's history.

3. You completely ignored the fact that the lack of a mouth is worsening the problem. Having no mouth makes the situation even worse, which arguably shows a terrible design.



Oh and please don't get annoyed that I'm pointing out arguements for ID as well, I'm just trying to show that I REALLY don't think this moth disproves ID, there as so many other, better examples you could use to disprove it

I'm pointing out how we could rationalize all examples, making sure that they don't disprove ID! That's the point:

Either we set a firm baseline of what constitutes a flaw that disproves design (I would say an animal that starves to death and is in the brink of extinction qualifies) or we give excuses like "that insects put survival and the continuation of the species first" and render ID unfalsifiable - with the ranks of other silly "theories" like the one on gravity I gave an example.

How come no one tries to argue with me? :(

Sure thing!


Arguing about "intelligent design" is really fucking stupid, considering the fact that both scientific AND religious reasoning argue that it exists.

Care to provide valid scientific "reasoning" that supports the idea that an intelligent designer exists?


MOST atheists argue that "if God existed there would be no suffering", making them as scientifically adept as Miss Cleo. The only redeeming factor for Atheism is the minuscule fraction of Atheists that aren't a pain in the ass to have an intellectual conversation with (2 out of the 37 that I know).

1. Does making ridiculous accusations, taking statistics out of your ass and making sweeping generalizations make you as adept as Miss Cleo? :confused:

2. What I would say most atheists I've seen argue is that the existence of suffering proves to be a problem for the claim that a benevolent and omnipotent god exists, which is not the same as ""if God existed there would be no suffering".

You're accusing me of lacking willpower? Well, that sounds like something an asshole would say!

It's not an accusation, its an observation. ;)

Certainly wasn't the kindest thing I could say, but comments like that shouldn't bother anyone anyways, right? :rolleyes:

That says a whole lot about how vacuous the belief is in the first place, that it needs to exaggerate things to defend itself, making a simple statement "X is not true" into "a verbal attack an asshole would say imploring others to outdo each other in 'assholery' ".

Ignorance really must be bliss. Where once you were blind, now you shall see:

This is not intelligent design!!! Creating a creature that is unable to feed itself is not intelligent! Where the fuck was god on this one? Did he just forget? Of course that would make fallible and therefore not really "god"...

As you can see here there is a FLAW IN DESIGN!!!! ...

Looks like theres a lot more then just "X is not true, here is my reasoning". Seems like someone hates ID/Christianity/religion so much they just can't stand to let it be.

Why was this thread made seeking out ID supporters in the first place? Are ID proponents pushing their belief onto him, and he is explaining why he personally does not accept those beliefs and his reasoning for why? No, he is seeking someone out because he wants to shoot down any argument they attempt to make. He wants to be an asshole.

Even if we accept such a ridiculous exaggeration, can we not act above that which is requested by the OP?

Of course it can be done, but are you seriously going to pretend that it is a common occurrence here? You're not new to this forum.

Like I said, the truth or falsehood of evolution/ID is not an opinion.

What a person accepts as true or false is very much their opinion. If someone does not want to accept evolution, you shouldn't push it on them proclaiming it as truth and their opinion as wrong because it makes you an asshole, just as they would be one if they had started proclaiming ID as truth and your opinion as wrong.

They have the freedom to believe what they want, just like you. It doesn't matter if your opinion is supported by the scientific community and theirs is not. That doesn't give you a 'right' to be an asshole.

I decided to view your posts in this thread, for a while at least, to be able to effectively refute your silly comments.

Theres nothing more exhilarating then pointing out the shortcomings of others, is there? :rolleyes:

Care to provide valid scientific "reasoning" that supports the idea that an intelligent designer exists?
Even though using the phrasing "intelligent design" implies that I am arguing "God's work", I was simply arguing that either the mechanism for natural selection or "God" could arguably be the "intelligent designer". This was just me ridiculing the argumentation of something that is for the most part subjective with the use of something else that is subjective, or even false, as evidence to back up any claims.

1. Does making ridiculous accusations, taking statistics out of your ass and making sweeping generalizations make you as adept as Miss Cleo? :confused:

2. What I would say most atheists I've seen argue is that the existence of suffering proves to be a problem for the claim that a benevolent and omnipotent god exists, which is not the same as ""if God existed there would be no suffering".

The idea of making ridiculous accusations and pulling statistics out of my ass implies that I am basing them off of something that is completely false. Any compilation of argumentation (for Atheism) from a respectively broad spectrum of Atheists will prove that they, in fact, do make the claim of "there would be no suffering if there was a God". However, in the spirit of fair play, I will acknowledge the fact that these people are usually arguing against those of the Christian persuasion (meaning they are arguing against a "brand packaged" God, not the existence of God in general).

Also, any personally applicable statistics, while not reliable evidence for an argumentation, are justifiable as support for a claim of personal experience to support an opinion (not an argument, hence, a second paragraph [implying a change of subject or subtopic]) in order to nullify any presumed exaggeration; the idea being that if one were to exaggerate with actual numbers, it would be more obvious, somewhat preventing a misinterpretation of tone.

This thread proves there is no intelligent design.

this undermines the entire basis of life that the only meaning is to reproduce and survival doesn't mean anything.


Reproducing is survival of the species. Regardless of how long organisms live, their only goal is to perpetuate their species.


Dipshit.

I just found out about this species of moth that lives in Australia which is born without a mouth so it's life cycle goes as follows:

1.) Born

2.) Grows up

3.) Mates

4.) Dies within 2 to 5 days


How does the moth grow up if it can't gain nutrients? Because your body uses the gained matter to increase its size and grow.

However I always thought intelligent design was kind of shaky because of fucking. If something intelligent designed everything there would be lots of different was things mated, instead 95% of the time there is a male that passes its DNA to a female via a penis, even plants have stamens with pollen that is passed to other plants. If something intelligent designed everything it would have more creativity than that.

I just found out about this species of moth that lives in Australia which is born without a mouth so it's life cycle goes as follows:

1.) Born

2.) Grows up

3.) Mates

4.) Dies within 2 to 5 days

This is not intelligent design!!! Creating a creature that is unable to feed itself is not intelligent! Where the fuck was god on this one? Did he just forget? Of course that would make fallible and therefore not really "god"...

As you can see here there is a FLAW IN DESIGN!!!! ...Had God correctly designed this moth he would have given it a way to feed like animals are obviously supposed to be able to do. If not, than this undermines the entire basis of life that the only meaning is to reproduce and survival doesn't mean anything.

Here is info on the Moth:

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25234

Maybe somehow they can be used in the cure for a disease we have no cure for, and if they had a mouth it would change their design so that they are not able to either.

How does the moth grow up if it can't gain nutrients? Because your body uses the gained matter to increase its size and grow.

In the link it states that it consumes all of it's food in larval stage.
By the way, this means it lives longer than 2-5 days, just not in adult form. It has to grow as a larvae first and then go through metamorphosis to reach adulthood, therefore living for far longer than 48 hours.

Rust

Thank you for defeating the morons with rational thought. Though I haven't read the whole thread, what I've read of your posts is good logic. However, I'd like to point out that sucking at survival is hard to judge in the modern era of the industrialized world. The extinction rate is at 100,000 times the estimated natural background level, so although this moth is having trouble surviving, it and many other species are experiencing a time of insanely fast environmental change.

Same as the mass extinctions the earth has gone through before. The meteor that likely killed the dinosaurs launched thousands of tons of particulates into the atmosphere, reflecting sunlight, cooling the earth, and drastically changing the environment. It's not so much that the dinosaurs sucked at surviving as they were royally fucked by something they didn't see coming. Of course some species survived, but that was purely luck. The mammals of that era were rather shitty at surviving before the meteor because the niches in the ecosystem they could occupy were few and far between, but when the earth cooled and the big beasties went away this just so happened to be a perfect environment for them to take advantage of.

The moths aren't so much shitty at surviving as unlucky. Rock doves on the other hand are very lucky. Moths were unlucky in that our changing their habitat is killing them off. This new habitat we create, the concrete jungle of modern cities, just so happens to benefit pigeons.

I'm far more interested in nature than philosophy, as you can probably see, so hopefully this will help clarify exactly whats going on.

YOU CAN NOT PROVE A NEGATIVE!!
This.
O (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html) R (http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html) L (http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf) Y (http://www.strange-loops.com/athdisprovinggod.html) ? (http://threadtheneedle.blogspot.com/2005/04/you-cant-prove-negative.html) :p (http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/01/you-cant-prove-negative.html)

Reproducing is survival of the species. Regardless of how long organisms live, their only goal is to perpetuate their species.


Dipshit.

an animal that is genetically predispositioned to die (not b.c. of time or outside circumstances) proves there was a fault in design...dipshit...

also according to religion everything has a purpose, what the hell is the purpose of this moth? to die!

This creature does not disprove intelligent design. God can be intelligent and sadistic. It does mess up the whole "The animals exist in the form they did at creation and before the fall of man there was no death or suffering." BS.

God can be sadistic.

God is all powerful and all good by definition...

God is all powerful and all good by definition...

So tormenting Job to make a point to Satan was good? He was basicaly bragging about the perfection of his creation. What about killing Egyptian first borns to change Ramses's mind?

So tormenting Job to make a point to Satan was good? He was basicaly bragging about the perfection of his creation. What about killing Egyptian first borns to change Ramses's mind?

No, no, no, that'll be his position when someone else is arguing God is Good.

God is all powerful and all good by definition...

No. He's not all good. He's multi-faceted.

He's a jealous God, an angry God, a loving God... etc etc. If God is an ultimate creator/deity are you going to really box Him up and say He can only be good? That's stupid.

Even though using the phrasing "intelligent design" implies that I am arguing "God's work", I was simply arguing that either the mechanism for natural selection or "God" could arguably be the "intelligent designer". This was just me ridiculing the argumentation of something that is for the most part subjective with the use of something else that is subjective, or even false, as evidence to back up any claims.

So then you were using the phrase intelligent designer with a completely different meaning that had been used since the beginning of this thread? I accept your apology.

As for it being subjective, it's not. It can be determined through evidence and facts. The issue of whether an intelligent designer exists or not is not subjective. It might be impossible for us to prove or disprove completely, but that doesn't make it subjective.


The idea of making ridiculous accusations and pulling statistics out of my ass implies that I am basing them off of something that is completely false. Any compilation of argumentation (for Atheism) from a respectively broad spectrum of Atheists will prove that they, in fact, do make the claim of "there would be no suffering if there was a God".

It doesn't mean it is based on something completely false, necessarily, just that in light of you providing absolutely nothing to substantiate the claim, the claims seems rather ridiculous, out of place and unsupported.

Also, you said "most" atheists do. " Any compilation of argumentation (for Atheism) from a respectively broad spectrum of Atheists" might prove that some atheists do, but to claim that it would prove mosts do is, again, ridiculous to me.

-

In the end, did you provide anything to support what you said? Because it seems you're just distancing yourself as far as possible from your silly statements...

However, I'd like to point out that sucking at survival is hard to judge in the modern era of the industrialized world. The extinction rate is at 100,000 times the estimated natural background level, so although this moth is having trouble surviving, it and many other species are experiencing a time of insanely fast environmental change.

I am very aware of that - I wasn't really judging these species or putting them down, my point was that if an intelligent designer exists he should have the power to cope with that changing enviornment even at this fast pace. He - if one exists - apparently has done so in the past because many different species have survived cataclysmic events in Earth's history.

In order to make my point easily I defined "sucking at survival" as meaning "being on the verge of extinction" which undoubtedly this species is. It was mostly just a shorthand, one that tries to make the fact that they are almost non-existence - needlessly so if an intelligent designer exists as ID proponents claim - very obvious.

I am very aware of that - I wasn't really judging these species or putting them down, my point was that if an intelligent designer exists he should have the power to cope with that changing enviornment even at this fast pace. He - if one exists - apparently has done so in the past because many different species have survived cataclysmic events in Earth's history.

In order to make my point easily I defined "sucking at survival" as meaning "being on the verge of extinction" which undoubtedly this species is. It was mostly just a shorthand, one that tries to make the fact that they are almost non-existence - needlessly so if an intelligent designer exists as ID proponents claim - very obvious.

But who's to say we actually need these insects? What if they're ran their course and now it's their time to become extinct? Would an intelligent Designer really want everything to always exist? What if He decided that a species was only going to survive as a species X amount of years?

Certainly wasn't the kindest thing I could say

I'm willing to guess that the OP would say something similar about his post... You choose to label him an asshole. Are you an asshole?


Looks like theres a lot more then just "X is not true, here is my reasoning". Seems like someone hates ID/Christianity/religion so much they just can't stand to let it be.

1. You were talking about the title of the topic and you used that as evidence. The title of the topic is simply that: "X is wrong". That's what I was replying to, your claim that "It's about who can be the bigger asshole. Its right there in the title".

2. Even if we include the whole post itself, it still is nothing close to your fantasy that it was about who could be the biggest asshole.



Of course it can be done, but are you seriously going to pretend that it is a common occurrence here? You're not new to this forum.


I'm not suggesting that it's a common occurrence. It isn't. Saying things like "you lack willpower" and "you're ignorant and blind" (both things you accused me of but conveniently try to pass them off as "observations ) are precisely what make it not a very common occurrence! Thank you for personifying exactly what you were complaining about!



What a person accepts as true or false is very much their opinion. If someone does not want to accept evolution, you shouldn't push it on them proclaiming it as truth and their opinion as wrong because it makes you an asshole, just as they would be one if they had started proclaiming ID as truth and your opinion as wrong.

Except this thread isn't about "what another person wants to accept or not". This thread is about something that isn't an opinion, that is, whether an intelligent designer exists or not. You're changing the topic.

I would imagine the OP acknowledges that many people will not accept the fact of evolution and will maintain that ID is correct in spite of the facts. He's simply that ID is wrong, and that is not an opinion like you were suggesting but something that can be verified through evidence and facts.

That doesn't give you a 'right' to be an asshole.

And who determines who's being an asshole? You do? Who determines whether they have that "right" in the first place? You do?

Consider this: I believe that gives you the right to be an asshole. You just claimed I was wrong. What gives you the right to push your opinion on me?



Theres nothing more exhilarating then pointing out the shortcomings of others, is there? :rolleyes:

There are a lot of things more exhilarating than that. Why would you say that? :confused: Is that you being an asshole?

But who's to say we actually need these insects? What if they're ran their course and now it's their time to become extinct? Would an intelligent Designer really want everything to always exist? What if He decided that a species was only going to survive as a species X amount of years?

Why choose to make them starve to death then? Why choose this very slow process (they've had no mouths for a long time)? Why choose a process that depends on our actions, which we could stop at any time (i.e. we could cease to destroy the habitat).

Yes, you can give "what if" scenarios to rescue the concept. Yet those "what if" scenarios make ID weaker. They don't help it. Ad-hoc rationalizations aren't the stuff of Science and reason, that's the stuff of people rationalizing their dying idea. Not only can they be used to "rationalize" the most ridiculous ideas, but they make ID's lack of predictive even more blatant!

We use theories not only to explain what has happened, but also what will happen. If ID is riddled with "what if" scenarios, we really can't predict anything. Just look at the vastly different rationalizations given by ID proponents in this thread: You suggested that the designer might be doing this on purpose to kill off the species while others where suggesting that the designer had nothing to do with it, that it was just us meddling in his affairs!
...


http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/1427-1-thumb.gif

What if the Black Knight didn't want his left arm all along?

No. He's not all good. He's multi-faceted.

He's a jealous God, an angry God, a loving God... etc etc. If God is an ultimate creator/deity are you going to really box Him up and say He can only be good? That's stupid.

Is he non-existent as well? It seems rather silly to "box Him up and say that he can only exist"....

Somehow the physical universe was born.
It started as pure energy, which somehow turned into matter.
Matter somehow turned into living things.
Living things somehow developed consciousness.
Consciousness now is trying to know why it and the physical universe were born.
It's like being a human baby that was placed by it's parents on a spaceship soon after it was born. No living beings, only sophisticated robots. The machines supply the child with food and drink, and everything else he needs to grow into a conscious adult, including an education. But the robots cannot teach him how he was born, fore they were not present at his birth nor programmed with this information. How could the child ever unravel the mystery of his birth through logic alone? No matter how well he comes to understand the world of robots and the confines of the space station, the why and how of his existence will be veiled from him. Only with the help of another visitor to his isolated home can this knowledge be revealed. Thus the question of how you are born can be easily answered by an outside source, but is impossible to answer through your own solitary efforts.

Why and how was the universe created?
Or, if it was not created, why is it here at all?

Fundamental questions, but unanswerable by science. They cannot be reproduced in a lab and therefore fall outside the domain of material science. So we have metaphysics and plain physics.
All questions concerning the creation of the universe are metaphysical. That does not mean unanswerable, only that investigative methods which go beyond those available to physics are needed.

The progress of science consists in the discovery of a new mystery the moment one thinks that something fundamental has been solved.

As Planck said, "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and, therefore, part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

When the mind attempts to look inward at itself, confusion results, causing further inquiry in that direction.
Nowhere in this immeasurably vast domain of space/time have we found a place where our limited human mind is not. For the mind, and the mathematical/technological tools created by the mind, have been both the means of discovery and part of the territory to be explored.

Is he non-existent as well? It seems rather silly to "box Him up and say that he can only exist"....

But that's illogical. You can't box a deity into existing and non-existing simultaneously. You can make clashes in their "personality" but you're still personifying them... which, even if we were made in his image, limits them to Human logic and human ideology.

I will agree that there is a possbility a God does not exist. We can't know. We'll never know until we're dead... and if we just rot in the ground, well then we never knew either way. But I don't believe that possibility.

So then you, the person who said "It's a God... who's logic and abilites greatly exceed ours" (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9643475&postcount=18), is boxing up a god that supposedly created the entire universe out of thin air into our human logic?

So then you, the person who said "It's a God... who's logic and abilites greatly exceed ours" (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9643475&postcount=18), is boxing up a god that supposedly created the entire universe out of thin air into our human logic?

I said we humanize him, of course it will make more sense in our eyes.

He's far beyond our logic because he had no need to make us complete clones of him. How would I be boxing him up by saying He didn't have to have a reason to not make us a complete clone?

And that was for every god discussed. The other Gods were more comprehensible because some of them were gods that were first Human and when you humanize a God it will OBVIOUSLY seem to make more sense than a God who's logic, life, and abilities greatly exceeds a human.

You're using petty wordplay games to try to trip me up. You're a smart person, Rust, maybe smarter than I. I would expect better from you than little kiddy games. It's not boxing something up if you admit to the fact that if it created you, it's obviously not going to make sure you're on par with it. You're the created, it's the creator.

You're the created, it's the creator.

Not in his mind.

I said we humanize him, of course it will make more sense in our eyes.


You don't need to humanize anything. You will find the truth through meditation and hallucination.

You don't need to humanize anything. You will find the truth through meditation and hallucination.

I'm not saying we need to, I'm saying PEOPLE DO HUMANIZE. People find a way to personify and bring themselves closer to what they think is their deity.

And Obbe, I understand Rust doesn't believe that, but I was using the situation to say "How is it boxed up to say that I admitted a creator, who created me, far exceeds my logic?"

He played with the words and tried to trap me, trying to get me to folly my words. If he can't comprehend it, then he's nowhere near as intelligent as I figured him to be.

Obbe, I understand Rust doesn't believe that, but I was using the situation to say ...

Yes, that is what you were doing. Don't worry, I didn't misunderstand. However, I do think your pursuit will be fruitless. What does it matter if he's wrong and you're right? Or vice versa? What does it matter if he misinterprets what you've written? Is it worth it?

Maybe it is to you. Personally, I don't care.

Also, I think rust was pointing out that believing that things are not able to be existent and non-existent at the same time, is human logic. For all we know, a God could be able to.

Yes, that is what you were doing. Don't worry, I didn't misunderstand. However, I do think your pursuit will be fruitless. What does it matter if he's wrong and you're right? Or vice versa? What does it matter if he misinterprets what you've written? Is it worth it?

Maybe it is to you. Personally, I don't care.

Also, I think rust was pointing out that believing that things are not able to be existent and non-existent at the same time, is human logic. For all we know, a God could be able to.

Well, I know he'll never change his mind on the matter unless something drastic occurs, but I'd rather explain myself, thinking he misunderstood me, than leave the matter as is, and make him look dumb for not making sense with his attempt.

He maybe have been getting at that point, but any argument that doesn't have a right or wrong answer will always have loopholes. There's no way for us to be certain a God does or does not exist, but to think you're some vigilante intellectual (not you, I'm talking about Rust) by trying to force your opinion on people who are not like-minded (that you think are dumb because they believe in something you can't fathom) is just annoying and quite rude.

AWWWWW SHEIT!!!

I can see it coming now ...

You're using petty wordplay games to try to trip me up. You're a smart person, Rust, maybe smarter than I. I would expect better from you than little kiddy games. It's not boxing something up if you admit to the fact that if it created you, it's obviously not going to make sure you're on par with it. You're the created, it's the creator.

I'm not using any "petty word games" - though thanks for the insult. I'm using your own words. If you follow the discussion that took place in the thread that contained that post, you'd see (remember) that in it you argued that god could have a logic that surpasses ours (i.e. that he could do things that make no sense to us). From that statement, it follows that you cannot rule out the possibility that he both exists and doesn't exists.

That isn't a word game, that's a the rational, logical deductive conclusion from the statements you've made.

I may be incorrect in my understanding of what you said/argued in that thread - you should correct me if that's the case - but me being incorrect is still not a "game".

Moreover, if you weren't arguing that he could use a logic that we do not understand, then you would be "boxing him up" in our logic! You may not want to call it that because it sounds bad, but in the end that's what you would be saying: God is constrained and most conform to the bounds of our human logic. That's the box.

OP is proof of having no intelligent design.

I'm not using any "petty word games" - though thanks for the insult. I'm using your own words. If you follow the discussion that took place in the thread that contained that post, you'd see (remember) that in it you argued that god could have a logic that surpasses ours (i.e. that he could do things that make no sense to us). From that statement, it follows that you cannot rule out the possibility that he both exists and doesn't exists.

That isn't a word game, that's a the rational, logical deductive conclusion from the statements you've made.

I may be incorrect in my understanding of what you said/argued in that thread - you should correct me if that's the case - but me being incorrect is still not a "game".

Moreover, if you weren't arguing that he could use a logic that we do not understand, then you would be "boxing him up" in our logic! You may not want to call it that because it sounds bad, but in the end that's what you would be saying: God is constrained and most conform to the bounds of our human logic. That's the box.

I apologise for coming off on the offensive towards you.

And yes, basically we have to box God up to understand him, even with my description I use HIM as my term, but the idea of existing, yet being non-existant is absurd. I can see where you come across with it, though. I completely mean to say that God's logic is not our logic and that we cannot comprehend sometimes the things done, but it seemed to me that you were saying I was trying to say it was alright to personify God. My mistake. In no way do I believe that human logic could ever fully explain or help us understand God's logic. Some things do seem to contradict in human logic, such as Predestination/Free Will, both of which are taught to the Christian faith, and cause strife among their believers, but sometimes... in a wierd way they do make sense.

I never want to claim I can understand God's logic, but I will admit that I believe I can see, in far-off way, how some of the "contradiction" that people pull up aren't really contradictions, but are just the rules for certain situations.

And yes, basically we have to box God up to understand him, even with my description I use HIM as my term, but the idea of existing, yet being non-existant is absurd.


Yet "absurd" is precisely what we're left with if we can't fully understand him!

If he can surpass human logic, then you cannot rule out him being able to exist and not-exist at the same time. That's what human logic guarantees: that no such absurd things exist. If we go off human logic, there is no guarantee.

Yet "absurd" is precisely what we're left with if we can't fully understand him!

If he can surpass human logic, then you cannot rule out him being able to exist and not-exist at the same time. That's what human logic guarantees: that no such absurd things exist. If we go off human logic, there is no guarantee.

Alright. I understand where you are coming from. I apologise again for being on the offensive with you.