Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 317 of 377 (613991)
04-29-2011 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by SavageD
04-29-2011 10:28 PM


Re: Evidence for an Only Designer
You're quote mining...your taking my quotations out of context without addressing my main argument (which you have conveniently left out).
Try not to be offensive and stupid simultaneously.
People can read your last two paragraphs. I have not hidden them. The context is there for all to see. I omitted them because they seemed to be more of the same.
Now, do you have anything to say in response to what I wrote, or do you merely wish to whine that I didn't C&P everything that you wrote?
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).
And yet clearly lots of designers could have worked within the paradigm of water as a solvent and DNA as a means of information storage; just as lots of designers could work within the paradigm of electricity and silicon chips.
Here's a question. Can you suggest what a second designer could have used other than water? Is there any other liquid sloshing around this planet that would have done just as well?
Organisms depend on each other to regulate the environment in which they live, and in most cases they need each other for food / energy.
The economy exhibits a similar interdependence, yet we do not conclude that one person designed it.
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.
But the existence of commonalities does not suggest "one common thought / idea" when we turn to look at cases where we know design to be present and know the details of the design process --- or if it did suggest that, it would suggest wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by SavageD, posted 04-29-2011 10:28 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by SavageD, posted 04-30-2011 1:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 320 of 377 (614123)
05-02-2011 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by SavageD
04-30-2011 1:51 PM


Your being a smart ass, you left out those two points because your argument would break apart.
You are lying to me, about me.
How do you think that's going to work out?
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.
If you really wish to offer no rebuttal to my criticisms, we can move on.
Here again your analogy is wrong because you are nit picking.
The words "nit-picking" do not in fact have magical powers to make an argument go away.
lol, I would like to see your point for asserting this statement.
In tomorrow's lesson, we'll be learning the difference between an assertion and a question.
Tonight I'd like you to read up on what a "question-mark" is.
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.
I am sure that something must have been going through your mind when you wrote that. But it was probably not the thought: "What would be an actual answer to Dr Adequate's question?"
Let's try again. If a designer wanted to design life suitable for this planet, what other than water would have made a suitable liquid medium?
Your making the same mistake as before (nit picking).
"Nit picking" are still not magic words.
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.
Perhaps you could expand on that, maybe even put it into coherent English.
I have two objects. Both are powered by electricity; both have identical plugs and can (not simultaneously of course) plug into the same socket; both take the same voltage; both are capable of displaying numbers; both do so in the same font ...
... which is red in both cases, this being the result of both of them using red LEDs; both are capable of displaying the time; both of them are capable of making beeping noises; both contain copper wires; both contain printed circuit boards; in both cases the circuit boards are green; both contain silicon chips; both contain screws; in both cases the screws tighten when turned clockwise and loosen when turned anticlockwise; both have buttons on them; both have plastic casings; both casings are black; both are products of the same global economy; neither of them works underwater; and both function in the atmosphere and range of temperatures and pressures found on this planet. I could go on, but you get the picture.
These are "commonalities". These are "physically observable traits". How would you rate the likelihood that they were designed by the same person?
I don't even have to tell you that one is an alarm clock and the other is a microwave for you to think that this is unlikely. It would in fact be quite unlikely even if they were both alarm clocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by SavageD, posted 04-30-2011 1:51 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 365 of 377 (616435)
05-22-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Ryan
05-20-2011 9:13 PM


Well, here's my answer to that: why more than one designer? using your same logic, (creationist logic) if one designer has ultimate intellegence, like creationists (I'm speaking from a Christian's point of view) believe, why have more than one, when that one can make it all by himself without any help?
Invoking Christianity is cheating, though. The ID crowd claim that they can infer a designer from observation. The question is, even if we take that as true for the sake of argument, why would anyone infer one designer apart from having a religious dogma to that effect?
Plus, i'm sure, that if a watch maker wanted to, he could design a whole watch, and assemble it all by himself anyways, people like small business watchmakers do it all the time.
And yet none of them invented all of the mechanisms that he puts in a watch. Usually, not any of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Ryan, posted 05-20-2011 9:13 PM Ryan has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 376 of 377 (762323)
07-10-2015 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Rocky.C
07-10-2015 12:45 PM


Because creationism and ID are (very) thinly veiled attempts to get Genesis into science classes, and there's only one designer in Genesis.
------------------------------------
No sir, you are wrong. Most creationist, such as I, do not ask that creation be taught in public schools. School is not the place for faith-based ideology such as creation and evolution. We simply want the teachers and textbooks to stop lying to our kids.
We want the inaccuracies and outright frauds supporting evolution removed.
We want the kids to be taught the truth: that evolution is just a theory, and a poor one at that, of explaining the origin and vast diversity of life.
How could any well-meaning, and honest individual object to this?
We want the fraudulent Haeckel drawings of embryos removed. The drawings have been known as frauds for decades; yet, evolutionists, in desperate search for support of their theory, because they have so little to go on, still cling to the lies. We ask that honorable evolutionists insist that all reference to Haeckel's drawings be removed immediately, and retractions inserted.
We ask that the imaginary "evolutionary tree of life" be removed. It is known that all the major animal groups all appear together in the fossil record fully formed by the Cambrian Period--what an inconvenient truth for evolutionists. Print retraction.
Creationists want all faked pictures of Peppered Moths removed because biologists have known for thirty-odd-years that moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. Also, the black and white moths used in the photos were dead when they were glued to the trees. In any event, the color of the moths tell us nothing about how a moth could have evolved from a non-moth. Print retraction.
Please, remove all references to mutant fruit flies. We have learned from decades of irradiated fruit fly experiments that these mutations always lead to disability and death. Mutations never increase information or viability within the DNA. Print retraction.
Some underhanded textbooks still print that "Piltdown Man" is an ancestor of man. It has been known for years that Piltdown was an outright fraud perpetuated by dishonest evolutionists. The skull belonged to a man and the jaw belonged to an orangutan. What makes this so sinister is that the jaw was chemically treated to make it look like a fossil. And the teeth had been filed to make them look human. The hoax remained covered up for so long because evolutionists (desperate for fossils to support their misguided theory) refused to admit the fraud.
Homology in vertebrate limbs (which clearly show a common Designer) has been used by evolutionists to prove common ancestry and descent--It is impossible to prove that this is correct. It must be accepted on faith, which makes it a religion. It doesn't deserve to ever be in any textbooks. It is voodoo science? Print retraction.
Creationists want the series of images of stooped apes morphing into man removed from textbooks. This has never been observed. And, it has nothing to do will empirical science. It takes faith to believe this crap, and it doesn't belong in textbooks. Honest evolutionists should demand removal.
Also, we do not care if one wants to believe that he or she evolved alongside apes. But, keep you stupid beliefs to yourselves. Feel free to hang ancestral pictures of apes, monkeys, and amoebas on your own walls but not in textbooks.
I guess I need to close this but I still haven't mentioned Archaeopteryx; Archaeopteryx (fraud 1999); descent of the horse; Miller-Urey experiment; lungfish; coelacanth; Lucy; Neanderthal; Mungo man; vestigial organs; and, much, much, much more.
How does this random assortment of creationist lies relate to the topic?
Once again: pick your favorite piece of dishonest creationist bullshit. Put it here. See if you can defend it. Then it will be on topic, 'cos you get to pick the topic.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Rocky.C, posted 07-10-2015 12:45 PM Rocky.C has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024