|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
since we know such objects are near impossible to come about through chance. for example, a watch Of course, one significant difference between a watch and a DNA molecule is that a watch is composed of smaller parts that do not come together by themselves naturally whereas the smaller parts of a DNA molecule do combine together naturally by themselves. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
SavageD writes:
Yes, life forms are synthetic, synthesized by a natural process of mutation and selection.
Because I observe all other lifeless planets, I personally have reason to believe that life forms are in some way, synthetic. SavageD writes:
Not irrational. Scientific. We know a lot about those mechanisms through observation.
To say that these complex mechanism's came about through a cycle of chance & selection would be irrational. SavageD writes:
Selection is a simple process. A lion "selects" the zebra that he can catch. The one he eats can't pass its genes on to the next generation, so any mutations that it carried are "selected out" of the gene pool. If the cycle is guided by chance then whats selecting? But this topic isn't about design per se. The OP suggests that if life was designed, it was probably by a group of designers instead of one - i.e. the design hypothesis points away from the Christian God. Edited by ringo, : Fixed tense: "is designed" --> "was designed". If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
To say that these complex mechanism's came about through a cycle of chance & selection would be irrational. If the cycle is guided by chance then whats selecting? If you are then asking whats selecting, you are then going to ask, where did this mechanism to select come from? You would have to conclude that it came about by chance, thus making the process start all over again. This is illogical, its called circular reasoning. The selections happened through chance and chance occurrences happens through selection. If you were to say that the mechanism to select did not come about by chance, then that would leave the only other alternative,the mechanism is a probably a product of design. This shows a misunderstanding of how natural selection works. Would you like explanations of those misunderstandings or are you just going to push back harder against them? For example,
If you are then asking whats selecting, you are then going to ask, where did this mechanism to select come from? The selective process did not come from something, its simply inherent to imperfect replication in a competitive environment. Does that make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Just about everything designed that we see is designed by lots of designers and the more complex it is the more designers we have. So why do you assume that only one designer designed a universe as complex as ours your own logic points to there being tones of designers some designers designed stars, some rocks, some planets, some plants, some bacteria, some animals ....... Simply following the ID logic, one is not lead to a single designer. To get to the single designer, they use the uncaused first cause argument. All of it, though, is simply post-hoc rationalizations of pre-conceived monothesim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: The selective process did not come from something, its simply inherent to imperfect replication in a competitive environment. Does that make sense? I already know what natural selection is and no, your not making sense. Your claiming that, \\the selective process did not come from something//...in effect what YOU are saying is: Natural selection is simply there because it is there, there are no means through which this mechanism originated. It is simply passed on, so no it did not result from chance...This is a logical fallacy. Your not even attempting to say how the system for this selection could have arose. From the evolutionist stand point natural selection arose through chance processes and thus depends on accumulative chance occurrences. Thus making natural selection a mechanism of chance on a whole. This kind of thinking is both irrational and illogical.
My point: Natural selection is a mechanism resulting from design, as it is the only other alternative to explaining how such a complex & intricate mechanism can arise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
SavageD writes: Catholic Scientist writes: The selective process did not come from something, its simply inherent to imperfect replication in a competitive environment. Does that make sense? I already know what natural selection is and no, your not making sense. Your claiming that, \\the selective process did not come from something//...in effect what YOU are saying is: Natural selection is simply there because it is there, there are no means through which this mechanism originated. It is simply passed on, so no it did not result from chance...This is a logical fallacy. Your not even attempting to say how the system for this selection could have arose. From the evolutionist stand point natural selection arose through chance processes and thus depends on accumulative chance occurrences. Thus making natural selection a mechanism of chance on a whole. This kind of thinking is both irrational and illogical.
My point: Natural selection is a mechanism resulting from design, as it is the only other alternative to explaining how such a complex & intricate mechanism can arise. Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in. Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But if you think that all scams involve selling you Brooklyn bridge you will fall for all manner of scams that having nothing to do with selling you Brooklyn bridge.
Brooklyn bridge scams are a subset of scams. Biblical creationists are a subset of those who believe in Intelligent Design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
jar writes:
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in. Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm. Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms. Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in". Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Taq writes: The beginning of any ID investigation starts with a person's religious beliefs and never strays far from them. OK. But that doesn't mean that IDists are biblical creationists does it?
Taq writes: But it is inherently creationist, no matter what the religious flavor is. Jar believes in a creator of "all that is seen and unseen". Is he a creationist? Is he an IDist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: You have asserted that parsimony has "nothing to do with reality" but beyond that assertion you haven't said anything at all to counter the following: 1) The more parsimonious a proposal is the less likely it is to be wrong because the fewer assumptions it contains that are unsupported. 2) The no designer proposition is the most parsimonious. Do you have any counter-arguments? Or just your already stated assertion? jar has acknowledged this reply I guess that says it all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
SavageD writes: jar writes:
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in. Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm. Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms. Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in". Again, get your definitions correct. Natural Selection is just the filter, it is the world and environment we live in. It really is that simple. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo on parsimony writes: As I said, my understanding is that that applies to different kinds of entities, not multiple instances of the same kind. Where are you getting that from? Regardless - Zero designers remains the most parsimonious conclusion.
Ringo writes: Straggler writes: Surely you agree that zero unevidenced designers is the most parsimonious proposition. This really is incontrovertible isn't it? That isn't the topic here. All hail the precise wording of the topic.
Ringo writes: We're considering the hypothetical if there is at least one designer. We are considering why many rather than one. Or indeed none. You are making a distinction between designers and creators that doesn't apply to any religious context.
Ringo writes: In the case of life on earth, we have evidence of common descent. In the case of phantom designers, we don't. Exactly. So parsimoniously we conclude no designers. Which in a religious context is functionally the same as no creators.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
jar writes: SavageD writes: jar writes:
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in. Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm. Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms. Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in". Again, get your definitions correct. Natural Selection is just the filter, it is the world and environment we live in. It really is that simple. "get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
"get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition? It's not the definition of 'natural selection'. And, jar already defined 'natural selection', so a comparison of your definition and his should give you some indication as to where you went wrong. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
Jon writes: "get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition? It's not the definition of 'natural selection'. And, jar already defined 'natural selection', so a comparison of your definition and his should give you some indication as to where you went wrong. Jon Wait I'm confused, where did I go wrong with my definition? Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms. Enlighten me o_o...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024