Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2018 5:57 AM
204 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 201 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,051 Year: 11,874/29,783 Month: 896/1,642 Week: 4/306 Day: 4/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 3173 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 31 of 219 (482362)
09-16-2008 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by BVZ
09-16-2008 1:31 AM


The god thingy
BVZ writes:

Excelent work! So... how do I figure our if my rock (I think I will name him Stumpie) is 'the result of informed and reasoned decisions'? It refuses to tell me, no matter how many times I ask!

Okay, when the IDers talk about an intelligent designer, they have a specific IDer in mind; even though they are loath to say so. This IDer is some kind of god thingy that goes around creating universes and such like ‘just because it can’. Furthermore, some IDers, when they’ve not got their ID hat on, claim to have a personal relationship with the god thingy – even to the point where it communicates with them in some cases.

On a couple of other threads I have suggested that IDers just ask the god thingy how it formulated its design, etc, but I’m still waiting for them to get back to me. I’m thinking there may be some intellectual property issues here – you know the sort of thing, the god thingy has failed to gain copyright protection or a full patent for the design. You know what these creative types can be like – full of innovative flair but short on practical considerations like protecting the design! Of course it could be something a lot more mundane – the god thingy’s dog may have eaten the design spec and the god thingy has forgotten how it did it…we’ve all been there.

So I’m thinking you need to keep working away at Stumpie, it may be our best hope of unravelling the mystery of design.

Good luck (and welcome to EvC).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by BVZ, posted 09-16-2008 1:31 AM BVZ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by BVZ, posted 09-16-2008 8:52 AM dogrelata has not yet responded

  
BVZ
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 08-20-2008


Message 32 of 219 (482365)
09-16-2008 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by dogrelata
09-16-2008 8:21 AM


Re: The god thingy
Maybe Stumpie is the only thing in the universe that is NOT designed.... maybe Stumpie IS the designer.

I mean... he is a rock that whispers things to me. He MUST be special.

Your special arent you Stumpie... yes you are... yes you are...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by dogrelata, posted 09-16-2008 8:21 AM dogrelata has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by kuresu, posted 09-16-2008 9:01 AM BVZ has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 33 of 219 (482366)
09-16-2008 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by BVZ
09-16-2008 8:52 AM


Re: The god thingy
Just cause it whispers to you doesn't mean its not designed (or rather, the designer.

The ring had a tendency to speak to its owners as well, and we know who designed it.

Wait, maybe that means god is nothing but a lesser being, once servant to a greater and more evil master?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by BVZ, posted 09-16-2008 8:52 AM BVZ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by dogrelata, posted 09-16-2008 9:27 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 3173 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 34 of 219 (482371)
09-16-2008 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kuresu
09-16-2008 9:01 AM


Re: The god thingy
BVZ writes:

Maybe Stumpie is the only thing in the universe that is NOT designed.... maybe Stumpie IS the designer.

I mean... he is a rock that whispers things to me. He MUST be special.

I think you may be on to something here.

You need to be careful though…if Stumpie gets around to asking you for money, he is probably no more than another TV evangelist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kuresu, posted 09-16-2008 9:01 AM kuresu has not yet responded

  
BVZ
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 08-20-2008


Message 35 of 219 (482567)
09-17-2008 1:19 AM


Okay... are there really NO ID supporters on this board who can help me figure out if a simple rock is designed or not? Come on guys. I know you are out there.

If ID 'theory' can't even be used for something as simple as this, what use is it?


Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2008 1:25 AM BVZ has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 219 (482574)
09-17-2008 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by BVZ
09-17-2008 1:19 AM


Okay... are there really NO ID supporters on this board who can help me figure out if a simple rock is designed or not?

No, there are not.

Come on guys. I know you are out there.

What makes you so sure?

If ID 'theory' can't even be used for something as simple as this, what use is it?

Its only purpose is against evolution, have you not read the Wedge Document?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by BVZ, posted 09-17-2008 1:19 AM BVZ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by BVZ, posted 09-23-2008 1:53 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
BVZ
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 08-20-2008


Message 37 of 219 (483540)
09-23-2008 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
09-17-2008 1:25 AM


I guess this thread proves it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2008 1:25 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 38 of 219 (483944)
09-25-2008 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by BVZ
09-10-2008 5:55 AM


Rocks without DNA programming
TONY: Rocks are not "alive" because they have no Bio-Machinery and DNA programming. No moving parts to speak of.

Now one could mould sand, etc. and cook it to create a hard rock that is "designed".

If you rough it up some what you may not be able to "see" the difference from one naturally created verses the masterfully designed rock that "looks" natural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BVZ, posted 09-10-2008 5:55 AM BVZ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ikabod, posted 09-25-2008 7:01 AM Bio-molecularTony has responded
 Message 40 by Granny Magda, posted 09-25-2008 10:20 AM Bio-molecularTony has not yet responded

    
ikabod
Member (Idle past 2354 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 39 of 219 (483948)
09-25-2008 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Bio-molecularTony
09-25-2008 6:35 AM


Re: Rocks without DNA programming
may be not .. rocks may be designed ..

if the feet of creatures are designed , to walk on and across such rocks , either the rocks where there before any creature .. are rocks eternal ? ie rocks either pre - date or co-exsist with the designer .. making rocks a sort of unliving diety i guess

OR

both the foot and the rock where designed to fit each other .. like a car tire and the modern road surface .. thus rocks should show design traits

hmmm not sure where that leaves limestone rocks and fossiles ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-25-2008 6:35 AM Bio-molecularTony has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-27-2008 5:27 AM ikabod has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 40 of 219 (483965)
09-25-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Bio-molecularTony
09-25-2008 6:35 AM


Re: Rocks without DNA programming
Hi Tony,

Rocks are not "alive" because they have no Bio-Machinery and DNA programming. No moving parts to speak of.

OK. Did anyone say they were alive?

Now one could mould sand, etc. and cook it to create a hard rock that is "designed".

Agreed. Artificial rock is commonplace.

If you rough it up some what you may not be able to "see" the difference from one naturally created verses the masterfully designed rock that "looks" natural.

Sure, a rock could be made that would be realistic enough to fool me, but then, I'm not a geologist, just an amateur rock collector. Even so, I can recognise most of the man-made rock-like substances that one might find.

Let's say that I am fooled though; what does this prove, except that my knowledge of rocks and rock-like objects is flawed? Who does the rock have to fool before we declare it to be indistinguishable from a natural rock? Me? You? A six week old baby? A professor of Geology?

How does any of this get us any closer to finding out whether the rock is designed or not?


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-25-2008 6:35 AM Bio-molecularTony has not yet responded

    
BVZ
Member (Idle past 3352 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 08-20-2008


Message 41 of 219 (484054)
09-26-2008 1:44 AM


I suspect that ID theory only works when you are considering complicated things that the ID proponents themselves don't understand.

The moment you consider something simple, like a rock, it stops working. Why is this? Because ID 'theory' is an argument from incredulity, and a rock offers nothing to be incredulous about.

I might be wrong though. Anyone can show how wrong I am by applying ID theory to my rock, and telling me if it was designed or not.

Also, I have seen ID proponents on this forum. Why are they not in here, explaining thier theory to me? Is it because they have nothing to teach?

They want ID in the schools... but they have nothing to teach. I for one am not surprised in the least.


Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-27-2008 5:43 AM BVZ has not yet responded
 Message 45 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2008 8:18 AM BVZ has not yet responded

    
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 42 of 219 (484226)
09-27-2008 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ikabod
09-25-2008 7:01 AM


Re: Rocks and designed feet issue
rocks either pre - date or co-exsist with the designer .. making rocks a sort of unliving diety i guess OR both the foot and the rock where designed to fit each other .. like a car tire and the modern road surface .. thus rocks should show design traits

TONY: I am not a 24hour day (7 CREATIVE "DAYS") Christian. I believe each creative day is a Time period /stage of creation. So the bible written in Hebrew and not English does not give any fixed time for each stage of creation.

Genesis 1:1 So in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ( before stage one or first "day"). Rocks like the earth already existed before the feet that later came to be created by God.

Edited by Bio-molecularTony, : correct spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ikabod, posted 09-25-2008 7:01 AM ikabod has not yet responded

    
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 43 of 219 (484227)
09-27-2008 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by BVZ
09-26-2008 1:44 AM


Intelligently copying the natural processes
Intelligently copying the natural processes to create a rock is an none issue to me. Intelligence for sure has the ability to create anything it likes if the power and know-how is there.

Nature (scientific physical laws) does not have any know-how or power to Create complex machinery, complex information commands. To cook up a story that it can happen is to lie in the face of intelligent people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by BVZ, posted 09-26-2008 1:44 AM BVZ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 09-27-2008 7:25 AM Bio-molecularTony has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17581
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 44 of 219 (484244)
09-27-2008 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Bio-molecularTony
09-27-2008 5:43 AM


Re: Intelligently copying the natural processes
Bio-molecularTony writes:

Intelligently copying the natural processes to create a rock is an none issue to me. Intelligence for sure has the ability to create anything it likes if the power and know-how is there.

It's important to note that this is an actual direct answer to the question posed by this thread: Is my rock designed?

The answer, evidently, is that there is no way to know, since a sufficiently sophisticated intelligence can create anything, including a perfect imitation of a naturally created rock.

We've seen this answer before, and of course it brings us to the ever-present ID dilemma about how we know what a designer did and didn't do. ID begins with the premise that there are certain things and processes (like life) that are too complex to have come about naturally, and that therefore could only have been the product of an intelligence. But this intelligence can obviously do much more than just the complex things. If he can do the complex, then obviously he can do the simple, too. If he can create the immensely complex bacterial flagellum, then he can obviously create the much simpler grain of sand.

So how do we tell what the designer did and didn't do? If he could create life on earth, why would he restrict himself to just creating the life? Wouldn't he also want to carefully craft the environment for that life? Shouldn't there be evidence of the designer's handiwork in constructing the continents and the oceans, the mountains and the islands, the deserts and the forests, not to mention the tectonic processes that constantly rework our planet's surface? And isn't the earth's near-circular orbit at just the right distance and sharing the orbit with no other planets evidence that the designer must have placed it here? Shouldn't there be evidence of how he moved the planets of the solar system around? Perhaps the asteroid belt out beyond Mars is a former planet that was mined to oblivion to provide the resources for constructing the solar system?

What I'm getting at is that there are a rich set of questions that come up once you take seriously the possibility that a designer rather than nature did everything. ID will never address these questions because its real goal is not advancing science by adding to our knowledge but advancing religion through the elimination of any science that contradicts conservative Christian beliefs.

Nature (scientific physical laws) does not have any know-how or power to Create complex machinery, complex information commands. To cook up a story that it can happen is to lie in the face of intelligent people.

Wouldn't you call throwing out unsupported assertions the same thing as "cooking up a story"? Which you equated to a lie?

I suggest you stick to the topic and leave characterizations of your opponents out of future posts.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-27-2008 5:43 AM Bio-molecularTony has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 10-04-2008 10:10 PM Percy has responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 338 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 45 of 219 (484248)
09-27-2008 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by BVZ
09-26-2008 1:44 AM


Information rich rocks.
BVZ writes:

The moment you consider something simple, like a rock, it stops working. Why is this? Because ID 'theory' is an argument from incredulity, and a rock offers nothing to be incredulous about.

I.D.ers are keen on information as evidence of intelligent design, and the Young Earth variety are frequently incredulous about the information that rocks can impart to us. Your little rock may well be able to answer the question "how old are you?" It might also be able to tell us about conditions on earth when it formed, and will surely be able to answer about the general process that formed it.

If it proves to have high information content, is that evidence of design?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by BVZ, posted 09-26-2008 1:44 AM BVZ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 10-04-2008 10:25 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018