Re: Intelligent Design hypothesis

Here is my response addressing the biggest problem, that I think exists, in this 'test'.

Video I'm replying to can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqxlpIyHUZw

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Intelligent
• Design
• scientific
• method
• evaluation
• hypothesis
• evolution
• evolutionist
• atheist
• atheism
• theist
• theism
• Darwin
• Darwinianism
• origin
• of
• the
• species
• creation
• nature
• natural
• world
• God
• Christ
• Christian
• Genesis
• flawed
• logic
• reply

[perfacetus]

It hasn't been able to do better, and when it does well it is mimicing what is already there. The things that were there already are just taken and given another application (Bats Sonar for eg).

[perfacetus]

Maybe so, but there reason why most of it took place recently is because it took us soooo long to invent the basics, which apparently happened on their own in eovlution.

No need to for communication of idea with evolution.... for some reason.

[lewiseu]

Even with all that in mind, I fail to see how that has any actual relevance to what's being said, it ultimately doesn't matter how long it took for us or nature to create everything, let's not forget, nature took at least half a billion years just to make the first cell.

[lewiseu]

To turn it around on you, you posit that the universe and, by extension, nature as we know it, could have only been created by an infinite, with, naturally, infinite knowledge.

It's a little sad, then, that humanity is able to, on occasion, do better than such a powerful and knowledgeable being.

[lewiseu]

Well, technically, the vast majority of human technological development has occurred over the last 80 or so years. As mentioned, technological growth is exponential, not linear, as such, while our technology and knowledge has increased since we've been able to record these things, most of has really happened within the span of a lifetime (in other words, someone born in 1920 would have seen practically the majority of human scientific and technological development).

[perfacetus]

So it take the whole of man kind working together thousands of years of thought and effort to replicate what occurred on its own with no thought at all....

[perfacetus]

Nope, if you know of one feel free to suggest it to the medical profession because they don't know about it, that is why they are forced to use titainium.

[lewiseu]

Of course it has taken us thousands of years.

Your god did not see it fit to imbue us with the technical knowledge necessary to replicate his/her/its creation, so, logically, we are a step behind in some/most cases.

The point is that we won't *always* be a step behind, our technology is exponentially improving and it will eventually get to the point of rivalling or exceeding the complexity of what we know of life.

[lewiseu]

You're right, on their own they wouldn't be too good.

Fortunately, humanity has learned the skill of creating alloys, and I'm fairly certain that there is at least one metallic alloy that lasts longer and is stronger than the bones in our body.

[perfacetus]

Actually Aluminim would be rubbish. Apart from the toxicity to our bodies Titainium (which conveniently fuses with out bones really well unlike any other metal) wears away so quickly that when people do hip replacements they only do it 10 years before they think you will die, because it only lasts 10 years unlike our bone which lasts MUCH longer.