|
|
| Author |
Message |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bouncer wrote: | | Functionality is part of design. It is secondary to the initial design and dependent on the requirements of the design. |
I suppose that would depend on how you define design.
Functionality can be the main component of a design, not secondary and not dependent upon the requirements of the design.
| Bouncer wrote: | | Efficiency is one measure of functionality. Efficiency can be summarily defined as how well the design functions compared to previously established benchmarks or compared to similar functionality in other systems. |
Efficiency is a matter of perspective. A thing designed for multi functionality, or diversity, or growth and adaptability may not necessarily demonstrate apparent traits of 'efficiency' unless the individual observing that design understands and all aspects of the intent and purpose of the design.
| Bouncer wrote: | | What is complex to a five year old is simple to an adult. Complexity is not necessarily and certainly not a primary indicator of design. |
True, but if a design is sufficiently complex then the understanding of that design and its purpose is certainly more difficult to realize.
| Bouncer wrote: | | Complexity is the primary factor in ID's argument. If I buy what they are selling then I am also acknowledging that their conclusion is absolute. That if they can't figure something out it can't be figured out. |
I don't agree. What is understood is that we do not fully understand the design, or its purpose or potential, yet.
| Bouncer wrote: | | One of the most frequent mistakes first year engineering students make is that they feel a need to make their designs more complex than is needed. |
If one is designing a pair of scissors, then this is true. If one is designing a swiss army knife or a mechanical pocket watch then this is less so true.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scorp wrote: | | But there is only one function. Reproduction. You probably know it as going forth and multiplying. |
Had to come back to this.
This is not a true statement. Survival of the species, and the individual, is the one function of life. Reproduction is one part of that but certainly not the 'only one function'.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 848
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
If an evolutionist is going to deny that nature systems exhibit the characteristics of things that were designed then the term design must be clearly defined. Otherwise, the denial of design is founded on ignorance of what design is as well as how it is accomplished.
My own definition is as follows...
Design is the intellectual process whereby a specified outcome is acheived within the constraints of proper fitness, form and function.
So, the idea of efficiency must also fit the functionality and form of the system within which the efficiency is being measured.
The reason high efficiency is not expected of a biological system is because the outcome of to high an efficiency would be the unwarranted destruction of the temperature sensitive biological entity involved.
It is known that if the energy stored in plants for an example, where to be efficiently triggered as is possible then the plant would burst into flames.
High efficiency is the design requirement of power supply systems. Unwarranted inefficiency is always to be avoided.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 848
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
The reason that breath and food use the same pathway is due to the design requirement that food be faithfully tasted.
Taste requires smell!
The nose is above the mouth since the smell of the food rises up from the food.
It is close to the mouth because of the intimacy required for a proper sense of taste.
The vocal chords require the air flow in an outward direction for proper functioning with the tongue to allow audible language communication, so the same pathway is used.
Simple and wise use of the brain is all that is needed to eliminate the danger of choking.
Also automatic responses of the body prevent inadvertent choking.
A little reflection will reveal that choking typically occurs when a person talks with their mouth full instead of being patient as wisdom warrants.
The reason that the tongue functions as a taster as well as a communicator is due to the spiritual teaching which God is promoting. Which teaching is, that the tongue is a taster of words as well as food.
The Bible says to the unbeliever to taste and see that the Lord is good!
Joman.
Ps. Remember the old axiom, "You can't design out stupidity!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Scorp wrote: | | But there is only one function. Reproduction. You probably know it as going forth and multiplying. |
Had to come back to this.
This is not a true statement. Survival of the species, and the individual, is the one function of life. Reproduction is one part of that but certainly not the 'only one function'. |
All the other functions are to ultimately accomplish reproduction. That is why organisms reach sexual maturity and then a decline begins.
Survival depends on the success of reproduction.
That's my view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I understand that is your view, but reproduction is a function of survivability of species. Survival is the ultimate goal, reproduction is a means to accomplish that goal, as is eating, etc.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 848
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Saying that God had to have designed life as we know it from the ground up is basically saying that God wasn't smart enough to set the universe in motion or to create the capacity in life to change in huge ways over time. |
God is the author of all diversity. And, the diversity on the earth is huge.
However, God has set reproductive limits.
With respect to evolution the limitation most notable is that no creature is able to beget any offspring outside it's own kind. But, this limitation doesn't hinder the immensity of diversity obtainable within the reproductive boundaries of each kind of creature.
| Quote: | | I mean really, what's more impressive? A God that has billions of years of patience and the skill to start it all or a God that could only have started a few thousand years ago? |
The answer is obvious! The God who has accomplished all that exists in this cosmos in the shortest amount of time is the most powerful, ingenius and efficient creator.
The only reason that the creation of this cosmos took so long is because God desired to teach mankind and angels by the timing of his creative events. But, mankind and angels are a little slow on the uptake. Therefore, six days was required for the students in his class.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | God is the author of all diversity. And, the diversity on the earth is huge.
However, God has set reproductive limits. |
Do you have any actual evidence for this beyond a Bible verse?
| joman wrote: | | With respect to evolution the limitation most notable is that no creature is able to beget any offspring outside it's own kind. |
Ah, "no" then.
| joman wrote: | | The answer is obvious! The God who has accomplished all that exists in this cosmos in the shortest amount of time is the most powerful, ingenius and efficient creator. |
Then my God that created the world last Tuesday beats your God.
| joman wrote: | | The only reason that the creation of this cosmos took so long is because God desired to teach mankind and angels by the timing of his creative events. But, mankind and angels are a little slow on the uptake. Therefore, six days was required for the students in his class. |
I'm curious. Do you honestly believe that this actually makes any sense?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 848
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Do you have any actual evidence for this beyond a Bible verse? |
The evidence that any particular kind of creature can only beget the same kind of offspring is scientifically proven by the kinds of offspring every kind of creature under the sun has produced.
Every experiment in reproduction/breeding has always produced the same "kind begets kind" outcome. And that is as good as science can get when it comes to proof. What is required in the face of the obvious facts produced reproductively is evidence to the contrary.
Do you know of any valid scientific evidence to the contrary?
| Quote: | | joman wrote: | | With respect to evolution the limitation most notable is that no creature is able to beget any offspring outside it's own kind. |
Ah, "no" then. |
Your response here is illogical given the fact that the evidence that kind begets kind is proven without any exceptions by standard breeding requirements and results world wide, past and present.
| Quote: | | I'm curious. Do you honestly believe that this actually makes any sense? |
Yes!
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | | The evidence that any particular kind of creature can only beget the same kind of offspring is scientifically proven by the kinds of offspring every kind of creature under the sun has produced. |
What's been proven is that populations over time can change drastically. What you're claiming is that science has proven a negative when in fact it's proven the opposite.
| joman wrote: | | Every experiment in reproduction/breeding has always produced the same "kind begets kind" outcome. And that is as good as science can get when it comes to proof. |
This is absolutely incorrect, and you should know this by now. Here's the most recent development.
| joman wrote: | | Do you know of any valid scientific evidence to the contrary? |
Here's a brief summary of four. "But they're still fish/flies/bacteria/mice/plants" is an invalid critique.
| joman wrote: | | Your response here is illogical given the fact that the evidence that kind begets kind is proven without any exceptions by standard breeding requirements and results world wide, past and present. |
Only because baraminology is pseudoscientific trash.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: |
With respect to evolution the limitation most notable is that no creature is able to beget any offspring outside it's own kind. |
Spoken like someone who truly doesn't understand the claims which evolutionary biology is making, which is quite underwhelming, given that evolution isn't very complicated.
NOBODY says that a frog will give birth to a rat, or anything like that. Evolution consists of millions of baby steps. If you start at some point, and you take a million baby steps, each step by itself is tiny, but by the end of the journey, you have most certainly moved a great distance from the starting point. That's the correct model.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carico
German Shepherd
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 327
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: Re: Designed??? I don't think so ahni. |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: | ID is a sham, has been from the very beginning.
Living systems give no indication they were 'designed' In fact several things come to mind immediately that show they couldn't have been designed:
1. No two living systems are alike. Identical twins being the exception. They are two halves of the same whole.
2. Living systems are overwhelmingly inefficient.
3. No engineer would keep his or her job if the systems they designed required 25 to 40% downtime for their designs. Living systems almost without exception require from 6 to 10 hours of sleep per day.
4. Replication(reproduction) is inefficient.
a. Only 25% of Giraffes born reach maturity. To say this is by design says a lot about the so called "Intelligent Designer"
5. Replication is imperfect. No two living systems are alike. One does not need a designer unless they want exact copies.
ID does not stand alone. Without the Theory of Evolution, ID would have nothing to say.
ID is dishonest. They say publically with an implied wink they do not know the identity of the designer. But, they can quote you chapter and verse from his so called 'word'
There is much much more. I will be covering that information when I do my series on the weaknesses of Creationism/ID. Stay tuned. |
No two human are alike precisely because God created each human unique. Ecclesiastes 12;7, "and the dust returns to the ground it came from and the spirit returns to God who gave it."
Nevertheless, a black human cannot come from 2 white humans with an all-white genetic line. So evolutionists contradict themselves when they claim there are no genes passed along from parent to offspring, but at the same time try to explain how apes can turn into people using genetic explanations! 
_________________
Blessings in Christ,
Heidi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: Re: Designed??? I don't think so ahni. |
|
|
| Carico wrote: | | Bouncer wrote: | ID is a sham, has been from the very beginning.
Living systems give no indication they were 'designed' In fact several things come to mind immediately that show they couldn't have been designed:
1. No two living systems are alike. Identical twins being the exception. They are two halves of the same whole.
2. Living systems are overwhelmingly inefficient.
3. No engineer would keep his or her job if the systems they designed required 25 to 40% downtime for their designs. Living systems almost without exception require from 6 to 10 hours of sleep per day.
4. Replication(reproduction) is inefficient.
a. Only 25% of Giraffes born reach maturity. To say this is by design says a lot about the so called "Intelligent Designer"
5. Replication is imperfect. No two living systems are alike. One does not need a designer unless they want exact copies.
ID does not stand alone. Without the Theory of Evolution, ID would have nothing to say.
ID is dishonest. They say publically with an implied wink they do not know the identity of the designer. But, they can quote you chapter and verse from his so called 'word'
There is much much more. I will be covering that information when I do my series on the weaknesses of Creationism/ID. Stay tuned. |
No two human are alike precisely because God created each human unique. Ecclesiastes 12;7, "and the dust returns to the ground it came from and the spirit returns to God who gave it."
Nevertheless, a black human cannot come from 2 white humans with an all-white genetic line. So evolutionists contradict themselves when they claim there are no genes passed along from parent to offspring, but at the same time try to explain how apes can turn into people using genetic explanations! |
The thread is about intelligent design not creationism. There are plenty of threads here just for proselytizing. Please use those for your preaching and stop cluttering this one with nonsense.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: Re: Designed??? I don't think so ahni. |
|
|
| Carico wrote: | | So evolutionists contradict themselves when they claim there are no genes passed along from parent to offspring, but at the same time try to explain how apes can turn into people using genetic explanations! |
What are you talking about? We get ALL of our genes from our parents, and no serious scientist says otherwise!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: Designed??? I don't think so ahni. |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Carico wrote: | | So evolutionists contradict themselves when they claim there are no genes passed along from parent to offspring, but at the same time try to explain how apes can turn into people using genetic explanations! |
What are you talking about? We get ALL of our genes from our parents, and no serious scientist says otherwise! |
Hey now, mutations don't necessarily come from our parents
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
