Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 2:32 PM
189 online now:
Aussie, caffeine, jar, NoNukes, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (7 members, 182 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,926 Year: 11,749/29,783 Month: 771/1,642 Week: 185/460 Day: 24/62 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12556
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 106 of 219 (638579)
10-23-2011 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by IamJoseph
10-23-2011 9:48 PM


Re: is my rock design
Hi IamJoseph,

Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by IamJoseph, posted 10-23-2011 9:48 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 131 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 107 of 219 (638580)
10-23-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by SavageD
10-23-2011 4:24 PM


Re: is my rock design
Each time I made a post it would seem that I would also attract "a lot of people" to my conversations. So, Whats wrong with asking to have a conversation with one person?

SavageD, I am also a creationist/IDst. The best way I have found to respond to the numerous responses in various posts, is simply extract out of each one what is important and worthy of attention

If you see the same arguments you have already addressed in a previous post, reproduce that reference or simply remind them it has been addressed

It is also helpful to remind them of what they have failed to address, which happens quite often.

Stick with it and dont get frustrated. The usual MO of these fellas is to berate, belittle and pretend they have addressed all the issues at hand. Ignore those tactics and press forward

Regardless, I see no point in revealing why "something" could be the product of an intelligent agent...It would only fall on deaf ears.

However did you notice the place up top where it points out how many visitors are on the site. Your words may not be falling on deaf ears

Keep going, dont give up

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by SavageD, posted 10-23-2011 4:24 PM SavageD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 6:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1570 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(3)
Message 108 of 219 (638603)
10-24-2011 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
10-23-2011 10:25 PM


Re: is my rock design
DB writes:

I am also a creationist/IDst.

Great!

DB writes:

The best way I have found to respond to the numerous responses in various posts, is simply extract out of each one what is important and worthy of attention

And answering the OP would definitely be important and worthy of attention!

BVZ writes:

I have found a rock. Nothing special about it. Its just a rock. As far as I know anyway, I am no geologist.

Anyway, I want to figure out if this rock was designed or not.

How can I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?

Have at it!

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-23-2011 10:25 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by subbie, posted 10-24-2011 10:27 AM Panda has responded
 Message 111 by GDR, posted 10-24-2011 10:53 AM Panda has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 109 of 219 (638624)
10-24-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Panda
10-24-2011 6:40 AM


Re: is my rock design
He doesn't need to here, Panda. He's already addressed this many times in other threads.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 6:40 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 10:38 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2011 8:30 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1570 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 110 of 219 (638628)
10-24-2011 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by subbie
10-24-2011 10:27 AM


Re: is my rock design
subbie writes:

He doesn't need to here, Panda. He's already addressed this many times in other threads.


But surely he would want the kudos of answering the question that no-one else has successfully answered in this thread?
Well, we'll see...

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by subbie, posted 10-24-2011 10:27 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4476
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 111 of 219 (638630)
10-24-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Panda
10-24-2011 6:40 AM


Re: is my rock design
Panda quoting the OP says writes:

I have found a rock. Nothing special about it. Its just a rock. As far as I know anyway, I am no geologist.

Anyway, I want to figure out if this rock was designed or not.

How can I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?

IMHO that isn't the right question to ask. The question should be either:

1/ is the process that allowed this rock to form designed or not or,

2/ more philosophically, is the process that allowed me to develop so that I perceive the rock in that form designed or not.

I have no problem with ID when it is a philosophical understanding of first cause, but I do have a problem when it is used as an argument against science.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 6:40 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 11:30 AM GDR has responded
 Message 115 by hooah212002, posted 10-24-2011 7:48 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1570 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 112 of 219 (638634)
10-24-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by GDR
10-24-2011 10:53 AM


Re: is my rock design
GDR writes:

IMHO that isn't the right question to ask.

But ID proponents claim to be able to identify if something is designed or not.
Therefore asking them to describe how they identify if something is designed seems to be a fair request.
The OP made it reasonably clear in his posts: he is not after the answer 'Yes' or 'No' - he (and I) want to know 'How'.

GDR writes:

1/ is the process that allowed this rock to form designed or not or,
2/ more philosophically, is the process that allowed me to develop so that I perceive the rock in that form designed or not.

If we know how IDists identify if a rock is designed, then surely we can then apply the same technique to answer your questions.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by GDR, posted 10-24-2011 10:53 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 10-24-2011 7:34 PM Panda has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4476
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 113 of 219 (638678)
10-24-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Panda
10-24-2011 11:30 AM


Re: is my rock design
Panda writes:

If we know how IDists identify if a rock is designed, then surely we can then apply the same technique to answer your questions.

Don't we know how a rock is formed? We know what the contituent parts are, how they combine etc. How then do we apply that technigue to understand why anything that we perceive exists?

I think that something you're getting at here has gone over my head. (It's crowded up there. )


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 11:30 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by frako, posted 10-24-2011 7:39 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 117 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 8:58 PM GDR has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2776
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 114 of 219 (638679)
10-24-2011 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by GDR
10-24-2011 7:34 PM


Re: is my rock design
Don't we know how a rock is formed?

Yea well we also know how humans evolved, and just about how everything else got to be on this planet and we still find people claiming slilly things like 6000 years ago the world got created by a magic man who made everything there is back then


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 10-24-2011 7:34 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 3181
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 115 of 219 (638681)
10-24-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by GDR
10-24-2011 10:53 AM


Re: is my rock design
I have no problem with ID when it is a philosophical understanding of first cause, but I do have a problem when it is used as an argument against science.

Then the ID you don't have a problem with is a strawman because it's never been philosophical anything, it's ALWAYS been an attack on science. ID (as purported by CID Propontists) is allegedly a substitution for biological evolution, so we need not ask any philosophical questions since biological evolution doesn't address any either.

Many many many threads (I've OP'd one myself) have been started asking for ways to test for design. Not a single CID Propontist has EVER provided a working study. Let's get a working physical test before we wander into the mess that is philosophy.


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by GDR, posted 10-24-2011 10:53 AM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 1:34 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16030
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 116 of 219 (638684)
10-24-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by subbie
10-24-2011 10:27 AM


Re: is my rock design
He doesn't need to here, Panda. He's already addressed this many times in other threads.

Are you joking? I can't tell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by subbie, posted 10-24-2011 10:27 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1570 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 117 of 219 (638690)
10-24-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by GDR
10-24-2011 7:34 PM


Re: is my rock design
GDR writes:

Don't we know how a rock is formed?

Yes. But that does not tell us how to identify if it was designed.
The OP (and I) simply want to know how IDists identify if something is designed or not.
The example of a rock is meant to be an uncomplicated test subject.

GDR writes:

We know what the contituent parts are, how they combine etc.

Yes. But that doesn't tell us if the rock was designed.
And rocks can be created on purpose by humans using the same processes as nature uses, so knowing the process still doesn't answer the question "How can I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?".

GDR writes:

How then do we apply that technigue to understand why anything that we perceive exists?

If an IDist would post that technique then maybe I could answer your question.
But currently, I do not know what their technique is and therefore cannot suggest how it could be used.

GDR writes:

I think that something you're getting at here has gone over my head. (It's crowded up there. )

It is just as likely that my explanation is lacking in clarity.

ID theory claims to be able to identify if something is designed.
The OP is simply asking for a description of how it would work, in practice, on a rock.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 10-24-2011 7:34 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by GDR, posted 10-24-2011 9:06 PM Panda has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4476
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 118 of 219 (638691)
10-24-2011 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Panda
10-24-2011 8:58 PM


Re: is my rock design
Panda writes:

ID theory claims to be able to identify if something is designed.
The OP is simply asking for a description of how it would work, in practice, on a rock.

I posted on this thread simply because I have a problem with the term "Intelligent Design". Whe I first heard the term I assumed it would be something that I would adhere to. The I find out it is really a termed coined to try and achieve a political end, and the term has been twisted into meaning somethig that is different than the one would logically assume.

My view is that evolution has the appearance of ID, and you would logically think that there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive. It seems though that the political movement believes that ID argues against evolution and so once again a pefectly useful term is corrupted. (The same can be said for the term creationism. )


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 8:58 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 9:17 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1570 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 119 of 219 (638692)
10-24-2011 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by GDR
10-24-2011 9:06 PM


Re: is my rock design
GDR writes:

I posted on this thread simply because I have a problem with the term "Intelligent Design". Whe I first heard the term I assumed it would be something that I would adhere to. The I find out it is really a termed coined to try and achieve a political end, and the term has been twisted into meaning somethig that is different than the one would logically assume.

When Intelligent Design is capitalised it is then just part of the political machinations of biblical literalists.

GDR writes:

My view is that evolution has the appearance of ID, and you would logically think that there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive.

Many (most?) christians are happy to accept that evolution happens and that it was 'started' by god.
But that would be 'intelligent design' and not 'Intelligent Design'.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by GDR, posted 10-24-2011 9:06 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 131 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 120 of 219 (639370)
10-31-2011 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by hooah212002
10-24-2011 7:48 PM


Re: is my rock design
Then the ID you don't have a problem with is a strawman because it's never been philosophical anything, it's ALWAYS been an attack on science.

Not a single CID Propontist has EVER provided a working study. Let's get a working physical test before we wander into the mess that is philosophy.

Only the sheerist stupidy would make and involve themselves with such idiodic comments as those I have quoted above

Philosophy, real philosophy, is both reality and logic based. All "working physical test" begin and end with a logic and philosophical approach

it still hasnt Dawned on any of you fellas that ID and Creationism dont begin with the relative design involved in any living thing. It begins with the a logical proposition, that states because things work in an orderly fashion, in coherent harmony with its parts, to a verifiable purpose, design is a very real probability

This is all the argument from desing needs to make it VALID. It doent need to produce a designer, it doesnt need A TRADEMARK on it.

Its not necessary to PROVE design is true, for it to be compltely valid as an explanation, the likes of which are irrefutable.

Now that I have established what it is, let the person that believes he can refute this proposition step up to the plate and do so

As I go to Yahoo and watch and read the numerous, so called fallicies of creation and ID, I weary for one skeptic to actually present what the argument from design is actually

Not understanding what is involved in ID or Design, goes a long away in misunderstanding and misrepresenting the whole position to begin with

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by hooah212002, posted 10-24-2011 7:48 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by hooah212002, posted 10-31-2011 1:37 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 124 by DWIII, posted 10-31-2011 3:47 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 134 by Larni, posted 11-03-2011 1:04 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018