Comments on: Intelligent design: In conversation with Derren Brown

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 22:41:22 +0000

Unlikely that God exists? It’s also statistically unlikely that the universe would exist. Philosophers and theorists baffle me, all those ontological, cosmological, rad-sceptic ideas and arguments – you’re all asking the WRONG QUESTIONS! The only question that matters is WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST?

Think about it…….

I don’t have an answer but I know that’s the only question worth thinking about.

By: Steven Downey

Steven Downey — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:18:29 +0000

Berber Anna, I’m afraid you post doesn’t make any sense.
You say that things don’t need to be perfectly capable of reproducing before they reproduce, erm yes they do!
There are thousands of other examples where a lifeform would have to be perfect right from the start and not evolved, the giraffe has a value in it’s neck so when it puts it’s head down to drink water the valve stops all the blood rushing to it’s head and killing it. So that ability must haver been there from the start and not evolved.

Ok so lots of fish were dying in the sea so they gradually grew legs and they ability to breath air. If that did happen there must have been some intelligence behind it. The fish can’t things oh were dying lets grow some legs!

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:57:32 +0000

Steven, bacteria can reproduce both sexually and asexually, so sexual reproduction doesn’t need to be entirely perfect to develop further, As long as the sharing of genes offers a marginal benefit, it’s going to happen more and more often. Asexual reproduction still occurs in some species of fish and reptile, so it’s not something that only fairly primitive creatures are capable of.
If you want to go back even further, to the reproduction of single strands of DNA, well, they did randomly take on the ability to reproduce. That’s how life came to be.

Why? Well, in order to fit into an unused niche. Take the fish — lots of predators in the sea, none on land. Legs and amphibious life meant not getting eaten as quickly, thus being able to produce more offspring who were also amphibious,

By: Steven Downey

Steven Downey — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:28:23 +0000

My whole point was in order for a member or members of a species to reproduce means that they would have to be already perfectly capable of reproducing. To slowly evolve the ability to reproduce (be it with the opposite sex or through eggs as previously mentioned) would mean that there would need to be lots of generations of the species, over time developing the ability to reproduce.. but they can’t because that ability hasn’t developed yet!

Lots of other obvious and logical reasons. we are supposed to have slowly evolved from the smallest of bacteria gradually into fish and then into land creatures.
The big question is WHY!
Evolutionists say creatures adapt to their environments but why on earth would a bacteria need to adapt to slowly become a fish? why would a fish need to adapt!?

By: Len

Len — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:13:27 +0000

@Alf: Nope not the same thing. Well not as such, but I understand how people would draw that conclusion as I suppose ID claims that it appears that all things were “created”.

@Rob: “and we will explain why you are mistaken”. LOL well, this whole ID vs Natural Selection war is an ongoing thing, and I’ve lost interest in getting seriously involved with them. I’m somewhat on the fence, both sides make interesting arguments. But I’m yet to read or hear a convincing argument in how natural processes could lead to what appears to be irreducibly complex biochemical systems, and the origin of life – the first living cell. (Even Dawkins had trouble with this in an interview). But as Derren says, just because things “look” designed to us it doesn’t mean it is. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t.

By: spiderabc1

spiderabc1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:59:29 +0000

@Marksays Was it the live show with the banana thief and the hole tempting game? Great pic!

By: Kirsty McCullagh

Kirsty McCullagh — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:43:11 +0000

http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu51/paddy_babe/holegazing.jpg here is my contribution… :p

By: Kirsty McCullagh

Kirsty McCullagh — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:33:30 +0000

@rob I am not a troll and (yes I will most likely get insulted for this) do not know how you can get classed as one (I believe it is repeatedly taking the micky out of people etc) I see your point about the cards, BUT not everytime is a ‘guessing game’ (I understand there is more to it than that but for ease I am calling it ‘guessing’ as the person didnt ‘know’ off the bat) I believe there is deeper levels to everything (simliar to the rule of 6.. everyone connected to everyone else by 6 people) if I am a fool for this, then I am a happy fool
@don I agree with you, choices should not be shoved down anyones throats.
@mark you deserve 2 points as you got me on facebook and on here… ugh lol.. did see Derrens one, I see them everywhere now (Mr&Mr Smith- angelina does it on the stairs!)

By: Julie

Julie — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:58:28 +0000

Watched the whole thing now. Very interesting stuff. I’ll have a ponder before replying properly. Great comments in response too.

@Mark I saw the hole and I was tempted.

By: Don

Don — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:16:25 +0000

Steven,

If you are claiming ‘perfection’ as proof of ID, then how do you account for evident lack of perfection?

Consider the prostate. Or the fact that the esophagus and the trachea cross each other in the human throat and consequently we can die just by eating. Perfectly understandable if we track the evolution, but making no sense at all as Intelligent Design.

And how do you know that our reproductive organs are ‘perfect’? How many variants have you tried?