Why only one Designer

Those so called "understood processes" are actually \\ideas or hypotheses// put forth to in an attempt to answer the ridiculous question of how something can come from nothing.These hypothesis aren't even testable, so how then can they even begin to understand them? later on you say that --> Well...where did these processes come from? after all you admit that \\there's no evidence of anything 'before' the bang; as such, there's no evidence of anything that 'caused' it.// anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to come about through chance. for example, a watch.Thats many a reason to take the concept of design seriously, we see it happening all around us, the houses, the cars etc. How then should we distinguish design from non-design; are we just gonna say my car is here because it evolved o_O? I'm talking about the ecosystem here, not the origin of life...in 'b' you make no sense either, wtf were talking about o.o?...were you attempting to quote mine? Your assuming I believe in a magic creating fairy, i do not, unlike evolution which relates wings to falling reptiles. lolEdited by SavageD, : No reason given.

Sorry let me re-phrase that:Anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to arise through chance. for example, a watch."The Theory of Evolution does not say that any species came about through chance"....Nor does it attempt to describe how the mechanism used to create these new species arose (e.g dna utilization).It simply states that these mechanisms are there, so things evolve, or things evolve because these mechanisms are there. To be more precise: Things evolve because of natural selection, natural selection is there so things evolve...Everything else in the theory is due to chance. This is a tautologyThe evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms that natural selection utilizes arose, it simply ignores that factor. From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance that happens by chance. No we don't, but we have observations / evidence which suggests that living things are possibly a product of design.

On your first point, I'm not certain what you were trying to illustrate but if it is that your saying IC isn't viable.....I'll have to point out that the IC argument isn't for 'every product' of design, only certain ones.On your second point, you would notice that I specifically said "the ecosystem"...meaning the planets entire ecosystem (on a whole).If I had said "an ecosystem", it would have made a difference, since I may be referring to a specific island like in your example, so your example does not apply. To be more specific:water -> plants -> insects & animals
If you remove anyone of these from the planets entire ecological system, life would seize to exist on this planet.Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

Oh? what is the alternative to chance? o_O 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. I'll fix it for you:
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. 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. Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

I'm more interested in why is this isnt true?You don't see the point because your quote mining.

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.

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 meEdited by SavageD, : sue me again

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 --> You also say that: Nothing....Clearly I'm differentMost 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

Yes, "most" but not all. 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...

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.

I said This before: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 etcThough it is to be noted that I'm not saying ID is not tied down to the one designer scenario, but merely our evidence suggests it is one designer....The whole argument for ID is simply that "life is here because it was probably created / designed", It never puts into this question / thesis the amount of designers.Edited by SavageD, : needed to clear something up

Fair enough, though, you seem to think that I believe in the "one designer scenario"....I do not, I believe that life is here as a result of being created, the number of creators do not matter to me.The evidence for the one designer scenario are mainly these:1) Signatures (dna etc): all living organisms require dna & or rna to determine their distinguishing features, live and adapt....Including rna viruses. Imagine taking away dna from every living thing....what organisms will these kinds of viruses be left with to reproduce & survive?2) Noticed similarities (common design): Everything requires mechanisms to utilize water & or sunlight to live.3) The intricacy of the ecosystem: All Organisms depend upon each other to both regulate the environment in which they live and survive.Edited by SavageD, : sue me

1) Although there are 3 or more different types of dna structures, the principle that they follow are all the same; They serve as the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms. It is more likely that if there were many designers they would all think of different mechanisms (other than dna) in several living things.2) The point in all living organisms needing water and sunlight here is that they require one common source for sustenance. It is more likely that if there were many designers they would all think of different mechanisms for sustenance in several living things.3) You combine the first two points, then you look at this point. This should indicate that organisms share undeniable commonalities indicating a common idea. The complex and intricate interweaving of the ecosystem (i.e. Life sustains life.) serves as a another sign of "common thought" in relation to the first two points.You combine the three points and not only do the organisms share a common mechanism for life (dna), they also share a common source for sustenance (water), and an intricate system requiring themselves and other counter parts like them to stay alive (the ecosystem). The probability for such commonality being the idea of many would be small since the system exhibits an intricate relationship in regards to one purpose, life.It took different people to invent cars, toasters and radios wouldn't you agree? These inventions share almost nothing in common because they have different designers. They in no way require each other to function nor are they in any way related to each other or require each other in an intricate system. The probability of these being created by many designers are greater.

You're quote mining...your taking my quotations out of context without addressing my main argument (which you have conveniently left out). Simply nit picking at each of my points serves no purpose. Also, your examples are in disarray; they in no way exhibit any relationships as my points have....I said this at the end of my points:

quote:

---

You combine the three points and not only do the organisms share a common mechanism for life (dna), they also share a common source for sustenance (water), and an intricate system requiring themselves and other counter parts like them to stay alive (the ecosystem). The probability for such commonality being the idea of many would be small since the system exhibits an intricate relationship in regards to one purpose, life.

​

It took different people to invent cars, toasters and radios wouldn't you agree? These inventions share almost nothing in common because they have different designers. They in no way require each other to function nor are they in any way related to each other or require each other in an intricate system. The probability of these being created by many designers are greater.

---

In short these mechanisms (dna, water sustenance & the ecosystem) are not simply there as separate counterparts; they are required utilities to sustain life, they show relatedness and they are undeniable commonalities for every organism.Every Living organism requires dna. DNA, aside from being used for the development and functioning of all living organisms, play a key role in developing the different mechanisms for utilizing water.Water, inturn plays a key role for all organisms to stay to alive; Without water, all organisms die. To tie in these two points (dna, water sustenance), life is needed to sustain life (the ecosystem is required). Organisms depend on each other to regulate the environment in which they live, and in most cases they need each other for food / energy.It is not 'definitive' evidence of a single designer, but the odds / probabilities are in favor of these exhibited commonalities being the idea of solely one designer. The reason for this being that all organisms share these commonalities, which inturn suggests one common thought / idea. Just need to point out that this is a reply to AZPaul3 as well.Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

Your being a smart ass, you left out those two points because your argument would break apart. I've already told you why your response was invalid. Your examples were in no way related to each other as mine were, your were nit picking. If I were to do the same (nit pick), I would be going away from my own argument. Here again your analogy is wrong because you are nit picking. I pointed out that it isn't simply DNA & water which is the commonality. It is dna, water, their importance & commonality in the system of things (the ecosystem i.e. life is needed to sustain life.) which exhibit the common idea. lol, I would like to see your point for asserting this statement.Why couldn't it be some other planet with some other abundant form of liquid? Point is we are in the here and now, we believe that life is here because it was designed. Your making the same mistake as before (nit picking). It isn't simply the system as a whole you are to look at; you are to also look at the commonalities on the smaller levels, as well relatedness on the physically observable characteristics (dna, water), & their intertwining in a system. No, it isn't simply commonalities which suggest common thought. It is commonalities, along with their relatedness & physically observable traits which would suggest whether a design could have been the idea of one designer.