|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
So SavageD do you think plants, insects and animals are they only types of life on this planet?
Maybe you should establish some bonafides and give us an idea of what you think are the biological kingdoms of life. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh? what is the alternative to chance? There are a number of alternatives, of which the most relevant to this thread would be evolution.
Tautologies only apply to reasoning. simply saying your cats name is mittens isn't a problem, saying my cats name is mittens 'because' Mittens is the name of my kitten, is. Then I suggest that you construct a stupid strawman of evolutionary thought that actually is a tautology. Better still, you could discuss the actual theory of evolution, but I guess that would leave you short of worthless arguments.
Things evolve because of mutation. Natural selection is the reason why evolution has an adaptive tendency. Evolution has an adaptive tendency because Natural selection is the reason. Again, writing the same thing twice does not make it into a tautology. Tautologies are not made by writing the same thing twice. A statement can be true and meaningful despite being written twice. In despite of being written twice, truth and meaning can inhere in a statement. These statements do not become less cogent because I wrote them twice. The fact that I wrote them twice does not lessen the cogency of these statements.
The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms for natural selection arose, it simply ignores this factor. From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance....and happens by chance. Writing the same thing twice also does not make it more meaningful. That is still just vague gibberish. Could you try to make some more definite mistake? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms for natural selection arose, it simply ignores this factor. From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance....and happens by chance. Are you completely ignoring my Message 205, or are you wanting until you can think if some way to misconstrue my explanation before you respond to it? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
subbie writes: The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms for natural selection arose, it simply ignores this factor. From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance....and happens by chance. Are you completely ignoring my Message 205, or are you wanting until you can think if some way to misconstrue my explanation before you respond to it? you think I'm super human, give me a break, can't respond to all of you, I'm constantly bombarded with responses. It's the norm of this forum to attack anyone who disagree with the evolution theory in numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's the norm of this forum to attack anyone who disagree with the evolution theory in numbers. If you would like to restrict your interolocutors to a smaller number, you need only nominate whoever you'd like to interact with. Informally, in this thread you could simply ask those you don't nominate not to reply, or if you'd like that to be enforced, you can open a Great Debate topic with any individual or individuals you choose, provided they agree. There's certainly more evolutionists here - it's a science forum, after all, where dishonesty and cheating are not allowed. Most creationists find it impossible to participate under such conditions. Regardless, if you're feeling overwhelmed you can simply say so and nominate the people you'd like to continue participating with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
It's the norm of this forum to attack anyone who disagree with the evolution theory in numbers.
This is the interweb. It is the norm to attack anyone you disagree with. Period. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
you think I'm super human, give me a break, can't respond to all of you, I'm constantly bombarded with responses. It's the norm of this forum to attack anyone who disagree with the evolution theory in numbers. If you would stick to the topic of the thread, instead of using it as a platform to be wrong about the theory of evolution (a subject totally unrelated to the actual topic) you might find yourself with fewer posts to reply to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSlev Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
The topic here is about intelligent design, and why Intelligent Designers propose a single designer and not many.
It is not about the a scientific and/or logical analysis of the Theory of Evolution, as compared to anything else.. Everyone try to stay on the subject, which is ID. Also, note that a participant is not obliged to respond to all replies he gets. This is more important for creationist/IDers, since they are the ones receiving multiple replies to the same posts. They cannot always answer back as it can become time consuming, amongst other things. In those cases that another participant does not reply to a post you would have liked a reply, bring it back into the discussion in a comprehensive manner and not an accusive manner. This will help in the overall discussion (all this applies only if your reply was on topic, everyone here are grownupes and can judge if the discussion is staying on topic)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: But IDists don't really posit their designer as some sort of 'ultimate first cause'. According Ringo ID and biblical creationism are one and the same thing so I don't see how he can be saying that. If we are talking about Intelligent Design in the context of religious belief then the role of designer and ultimate creator are almost invariably one and the same.
Jon writes: Everything we know about designing tells us that more than one designer is the norm. OK. But if you are really going to base the number of designers of the universe on our evidenced experience of humans designing things then it is not true to say that there is no preferred number. The optimal number of a human design team is between 4 and 12. So are you postulating that between 4 and 12 designers of the universe is the evidenced conclusion here? It seems ridiculous to me - But this is the logical consequence of your argument here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I have provided you with Occam's statement in two different formats:
Quite evidently a single designing entity is more parsimonious than a plurality of such entities. Let me explain to you where you are going wrong in your analysis with regard to the importance of necessity.
ringo writes: The first assumption is that one or more designers exist. No. The first assumption is that the universe is designed.
ringo writes: The second assumption is that only one exists. No. The logical conclusion is that if the universe is designed something must necessarily have designed it. A designer is a logical necessity based on the first assumption.
ringo writes: Two is more than one. Indeed. Which is why two or more designers is an unnecessary plurality.
ringo writes: I think I pointed out earlier in the thread that "intelligent design" has implications for religion that the religious don't anticipate and don't want to hear about. One of them is the likelihood of multiple designers. If a direct comparison with human designers is to be made then between 4 and 12 designers would be postulated. This is the optimal number of a human design team. But given that in pretty much any religious context the role of designer and ultimate first-cause-creator are one and the same this doesn't seem like a very legitimate comparison. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
ID does not require a single designer.
I assume that a significant proportion of ID proponents come from a mono-theistic religous background, and they therefore assume their designer to be a single entity. Those individuals when asked to consider multiple designers will probably reject the idea and come up with some reason for doing so (e.g. multiple designers are not necessary to explore the 'theory'). Since it is hard to point precisely to what it is about the Universe around us that screams 'I was designed', finding the conceptual differences one would expect from a multi-designer as compared to a single-designer hypothesis is ... well ... a bit tricky. ID (for me) makes little sense in any case; after all if all complex entities must be designed, so was the designer ... then who designed it ... and who designed it's designer ... ad nauseum. If we can get back far enough to find a complex, yet not designed entity then ID is, by definition, false. And since that is the ONLY possible starting point ... ID is clearly false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Fair enough.
The first assumption is that the universe is designed. Straggler writes:
Fair enough.
The logical conclusion is that if the universe is designed something must necessarily have designed it. Straggler writes:
There's where you go wrong. You're making an unstated assumption, a third, unnecessary assumption about the number of designers.
A designer is a logical necessity based on the first assumption. Straggler writes:
You seem to be confused by the terms "entity" and "plurality". As I understand it, Occam's principle refers to logical enities - e.g. assumptions - not "things". An unnecessary plurality of ideas is undesirable. It has nothing to do with a plurality of the things that the ideas are about.
Which is why two or more designers is an unnecessary plurality. Straggler writes:
You seem to be missing the rather obvious point that that's an unnecessary assumption. ... in pretty much any religious context the role of designer and ultimate first-cause-creator are one and the same.... If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: You seem to be confused by the terms "entity" and "plurality". As I understand it, Occam's principle refers to logical enities - e.g. assumptions - not "things" As I understand it as eliminating that which is neither logically or evidentially necessary.
ringo writes: An unnecessary plurality of ideas is undesirable. Yes.
ringo writes: It has nothing to do with a plurality of the things that the ideas are about. If the universe is designed then a minimum of one designer is a necessity. A plurality of designers is however neither logically nor evidentially necessary. So why posit such a scenario?
ringo writes: Straggler writes: If a direct comparison with human designers is to be made then between 4 and 12 designers would be postulated. This is the optimal number of a human design team. But given that in pretty much any religious context the role of designer and ultimate first-cause-creator are one and the same this doesn't seem like a very legitimate comparison. You seem to be missing the rather obvious point that that's an unnecessary assumption. You seem to be missing the much stated point that the whole premise of this thread (i.e that the universe is designed) is an unnecessary assumption intended to make some sort of comparison with the designers that are the objects of various religious belief. But if you take only some of the unnecessary assumptions made by the religious and discard others which also pertain to the number of designers they invoke then you are creating a strawman version of their position which there seems little point exploring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Quantifying the "design presence" is neither logically nor evidentially necessary.
A plurality of designers is however neither logically nor evidentially necessary. Straggler writes:
First, note my signature. You seem to be missing the much stated point that the whole premise of this thread (i.e that the universe is designed) is an unnecessary assumption intended to make some sort of comparison with the designers that are the objects of various religious belief. But if you take only some of the unnecessary assumptions made by the religious and discard others which also pertain to the number of designers they invoke then you are creating a strawman version of their position which there seems little point exploring. Second, my whole premise in this thread is that IDists don't understand the implications of their own assumptions. I don't see why I should have to accept all of their assumptions just to point out the ones that are wrong. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The optimal number of a human design team is between 4 and 12. In ID, 'designer' encompasses planning and construction; that includes the design team and all the workers on the factory floor. Based on the analogy used by IDists, the number of designers for the Universe should be well over 12. Jon Edited by Jon, : clarity Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024