|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If you are going to make direct comparisons with real known entities there is no need for vagueness is there?
In any practical sense there is a very limited range of numbers that could be applied to (for example) human designers. A team of a billion humans would be unwieldly wouldn't it? And as discussed zebras work best in groups of 10 to 200. Of course if you are not assuming that the designer of the universe is comparable to humans or zebras (etc.) then there is no basis for coming to any conclusion regarding the number of designers at all. Including no basis for thinking "some" is superior to "lots" or "a few" or "one" or "200". In fact any comment on numbers at all becomes completely nonsensical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Straggler writes:
And yet we need something, some word, to express the idea if we're going to discuss it. Your notion that it can't be done isn't good enough. In fact any comment on numbers at all becomes completely nonsensical. I'd be quite happy if IDists would say, "one or more designer(s)," instead of, "the designer," or, "a designer." If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
In the absence of any specifics about the designer any comment about the number of designers is necessarily based on additional assumptions. It is good to see that you have come to understand ringo's argument. So what's your objection? Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Bluejay writes: All that need be considered is the number of designers requisite to explain the evidence of design. Without the consideration of population sizes, to the best of my ability, here are the types of evidence that are required to support the hypotheses of different numbers of designers:
(This is, of course, ruling out the possibility of directly observing the designers at work.) Without considering the actual evidence yet, I would conclude that, in principle, one designer is more parsimonious than two designers. Bluejay is on the right track here. If you want to establish unity or multiplicity of source with regards to the making of a particular thing, you look for patterns in the product and for identifiable differences in style. Texual analysis can determine that there was more than one author of Genesis, more than one author of the Illiad, and can pretty accurately determine which plays of Shakespeare's were written by him and which are spurious. So the question is really: can you determine whether or not the universe displays a unity of style in creation? I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon Reality has a well-known liberal bias.-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.- John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ZenMonkey writes:
It looks like the Mammal Committee put a lot of effort into terrestrial, aquatic and aerial designs. The Fish Committee concentrated almost all of their efforts on aquatic designs and they used a completely different approach at that. The Dinosaur Committee did a dramatic about-face and scrapped all of their early designs, going in a different, mostly aerial direction. So the question is really: can you determine whether or not the universe displays a unity of style in creation? Then there were the disputes in the Arthropod Section about the number of legs.... If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
This thread is point less....I have already pointed out that ID advocates (such as myself) believe that life originated because it was designed / created....The number of designers are irrelevant.
Some ID advocates posit that life was probably created by one designer due to noticed similarities & possible signatures (dna etc); Also the observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date)....However all this is personal preference. I for one do not care if it was one or many designers, fact is, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that life is here because of a designer. Edited by SavageD, : made a mistake so sue me Edited by SavageD, : sue me again
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Some ID advocates posit that life was probably created by one designer due to noticed similarities & possible signatures (dna etc); Also the observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date)....However all this is personal preference. Sorry, but evidenced conclusions are not a matter of personal preference, unless one is to throw out the entire scientific method. If the supposed similarities point to a single designer, then they point to a single designer, and a single designer should be the preferred conclusion based on that evidence. If the supposed similarities are not enough to point to a single designer, then they are not enough to point to a single designer, and those preferring a single designer conclusion would be scientifically unjustified in doing so.
The number of designers are irrelevant. This is not the stance of the typical IDist. Most insist on the singularity of the designer. Few would admit that such an insistence is based on 'personal preference' or a priori conclusions about the nature of the designer. This thread is for those who insist that the evidence for design points to a single designer to support that stance. Interestingly, no creationists holding to this position (there are many on these forums) have come forward to attempt to support such a position. I wonder what that should tell us... Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
I would say that the arthropod committee got their budget request in early and still haven't seen any real reduction in funding yet.
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon Reality has a well-known liberal bias.-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.- John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
Jon writes: Some ID advocates posit that life was probably created by one designer due to noticed similarities & possible signatures (dna etc); Also the observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date)....However all this is personal preference. Sorry, but evidenced conclusions are not a matter of personal preference, unless one is to throw out the entire scientific method. If the supposed similarities point to a single designer, then they point to a single designer, and a single designer should be the preferred conclusion based on that evidence. If the supposed similarities are not enough to point to a single designer, then they are not enough to point to a single designer, and those preferring a single designer conclusion would be scientifically unjustified in doing so. Honestly why the hell are you arguing over this. The main argument for ID is that "life originated because it was created." Where in that statement does it state any specific number of designers? also you comment is filled with tautologies, for example -->
Jon writes:
If the supposed similarities point to a single designer, then they point to a single designer, and a single designer should be the preferred conclusion based on that evidence. You also say that:
The number of designers are irrelevant. This is not the stance of the typical IDist. Most insist on the singularity of the designer. Few would admit that such an insistence is based on 'personal preference' or a priori conclusions about the nature of the designer. This thread is for those who insist that the evidence for design points to a single designer to support that stance. Interestingly, no creationists holding to this position (there are many on these forums) have come forward to attempt to support such a position. I wonder what that should tell us... Nothing....Clearly I'm different Most ID advocates posit the one designer scenario for a number of reasons: noticed similarities (common design) & possible signatures (dna etc); The observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date). The intricacy of the ecosystem (Organisms depend on each other). The stasis of different taxonomic groups etc etc etc seriously I can go on and on about this. Edited by SavageD, : No reason given. Edited by SavageD, : sue me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The main argument for ID is that "life originated because it was created." Where in that statement does it state a number of designers? For most IDists, the singularity of the designer is an integral part of the 'theory'.
Clearly I'm different Clearly.
Most ID advocates posit the one designer scenario for a number of reasons: noticed similarities (common design) & possible signatures (dna etc); The observation that this planet is the only one containing lifeforms (to date). The intricacy of the ecosystem (Organisms depend on each other). The stasis of different taxonomic groups etc etc etc seriously I can go on and on about this. As I already said:
quote: When it comes to science, evidenced conclusions are not a matter of 'personal preference'. The evidence either supports the notion of a single designer or it does not. Which is it? Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
Jon writes: The main argument for ID is that "life originated because it was created." Where in that statement does it state a number of designers? For most IDists, the singularity of the designer is an integral part of the 'theory'. Yes, "most" but not all.
As I already said:
quote: When it comes to science, evidenced conclusions are not a matter of 'personal preference'. The evidence either supports the notion of a single designer or it does not. Which is it? Ignoring your tautological quotation, I would say the evidence mainly points to a single designer... Though it is to be noted that I'm not saying it is tied down to only one designer, but merely that our evidence suggests so...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Ignoring your tautological quotation, I would say the evidence mainly points to a single designer... Excellent! Now present that evidence. Edited by Jon, : quoting error Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3780 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
Jon writes: Ignoring your tautological quotation, I would say the evidence mainly points to a single designer.. Excellent! Now present that evidence. You do realize that the argument for ID isn't the amount of designers, but rather that "life originated because it was created." Presenting the evidence for a single designer would only cause more pointless arguments as you could also argue that there were many designers; as stated before, the number of designers does not matter... Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
SavageD writes: I would say the evidence mainly points to a single designer... SavageD writes: ... you could also argue that there were many designers; ... Which is it? Does the evidence point to a single designer or not? Jon Edited by Jon, : goofy quote problem Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Ringo.
Ringo writes: But I'm arguing against the assumption that only one member of that population is a designer, which is not parsimonious. Okay, so the point of my post obviously isn't getting through. The basic point is that you're simply wrong: parsimony actually does also apply to the number of entities proposed, and not just to categories of entities. What you started with in this discussion was the thing designed (i.e. the universe), and the question that needs to be answered is, "How many entities are required to explain the design?" The absolute minimum number of designers is one (assuming that zero is off the table, of course), so we first ask the question of whether or not one designer is capable of designing the universe independently. Without making any assumptions about the designer (e.g. lifespan or creative capacity), is there any reason to think that a single designer could not have written every book in the library? If not, then you have your answer: one designer could, in principle, have created the universe alone. It's only when you begin adding assumptions about constraints that the designer might be under (e.g. timeframe, economics, etc.) that you begin to suggest that a single designer could not have done it. But, until these constraints are considered, there's really no need for more than one designer, is there? This should be enough to establish, at least in principle, that one designer is more parsimonious than two. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024