Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8869 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2018 12:00 PM
270 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Stile, Tangle (6 members, 264 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,430 Year: 15,253/29,783 Month: 1,197/1,502 Week: 195/492 Day: 15/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 121 of 219 (639371)
10-31-2011 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dawn Bertot
10-31-2011 1:34 AM


Re: is my rock design
Try that again. This time in English.

"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 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 1:34 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 1:42 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 196 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 122 of 219 (639372)
10-31-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by hooah212002
10-31-2011 1:37 AM


Re: is my rock design
Try that again. This time in English.

Playing the dumb card or commedy card wont help your cause and it makes your position look weak in front of our viewers

Are you saying you cant answer the argument?

You and your friends have started with a false presupposition and ran with it, this is why it is so easy to refute what is not true to begin with

Come on Hooah, give it a shot

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by hooah212002, posted 10-31-2011 1:37 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by hooah212002, posted 10-31-2011 1:45 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 123 of 219 (639373)
10-31-2011 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dawn Bertot
10-31-2011 1:42 AM


Re: is my rock design
No, seriously. You make absolutely no sense. You are rambling in typical Dawn Bertot fashion. It's not that you are making these astounding arguments that baffle me and amaze me, it's that your handle on the English language is that of a 4 year old Swedish kid.

Try again, in English that we can all understand.


"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 122 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 1:42 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 8:30 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
DWIII
Member (Idle past 1126 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


(1)
Message 124 of 219 (639377)
10-31-2011 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dawn Bertot
10-31-2011 1:34 AM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:


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

We may have something here which may lead to a usable metric. Let's assume that the probability that a specific thing was designed (design probability: DP) is correlated to a suitable combination of:

a) How well it works in an orderly fashion,
b) How much coherent harmony exists among its parts, and/or
c) The degree to which its purpose is verifiable.

Let's call this combination of those three ingredients DP(a,b,c) such that

where 0 stands for impossibility, 1 stands for certainty, and 0.5 would be the probability of a coin flip.

Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed.

Edited by DWIII, : typo-fix


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 1:34 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 8:33 AM DWIII has acknowledged this reply
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-03-2011 12:43 AM DWIII has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 196 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 125 of 219 (639398)
10-31-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by hooah212002
10-31-2011 1:45 AM


Re: is my rock design
it's that your handle on the English language is that of a 4 year old Swedish kid.

What do you have against sweedish children, are they less intelligent than anyother four year old?

It's not that you are making these astounding arguments that baffle me and amaze me

It looks as though DWIII understands the points and has made a rational response and request

He doesnt seem to be scared of the argument

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by hooah212002, posted 10-31-2011 1:45 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by hooah212002, posted 10-31-2011 2:44 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 196 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 126 of 219 (639399)
10-31-2011 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by DWIII
10-31-2011 3:47 AM


Re: is my rock design
Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed.

Very nice post, I will get to it as soon as I can give it the attention it needs

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by DWIII, posted 10-31-2011 3:47 AM DWIII has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by tsig, posted 11-01-2011 2:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 127 of 219 (639427)
10-31-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dawn Bertot
10-31-2011 8:30 AM


Re: is my rock design
What do you have against sweedish children, are they less intelligent than anyother four year old?

What language do they speak? Are you that dense that you didn't comprehend what I was saying?

It looks as though DWIII understands the points and has made a rational response and request

I don't give a fuck if you think he understood it or not. If you wish to address ME you should expect to make your argument that I can understand it if I so request, which I did. You will also notice that DWII didn't actually address any specific piece of drivel that you typed.

So, instead of blathering on about some nonsense: is the rock designed? How can you tell?

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"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 125 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 8:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
tsig
Member (Idle past 831 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


(2)
Message 128 of 219 (639484)
11-01-2011 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dawn Bertot
10-31-2011 8:33 AM


Re: is my rock design
quote:
Very nice post, I will get to it as soon as I can give it the attention it needs

Dawn Bertot


I'm guessing that will be sometime around the twelfth of never.

Edited by ts, : No reason given.

Edited by ts, : quote tags


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 8:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 196 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 129 of 219 (639692)
11-03-2011 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by DWIII
10-31-2011 3:47 AM


Re: is my rock design
Ts writes
I'm guessing that will be sometime around the twelfth of never.

Actually no, but that is very funny "twelfeth of never". thats commical

As you know the EVC is very addicting and one could spend countless hours at an unending process, point counter point

Anyway lets see

DWIII writes

Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed.

Since we dont derive the idea or conclusion of design from a designer or the idea of a designer, but from how something is put together, it makes perfect sense to apply the same reasoning and equation to any property in nature that exhibits the same properties of organization and purpose

When viewing any man made property, we rarely consider who put it together, brfore we subconsously understand its obvious organization, function and purpose

Who, when and where is usually an after thought of an already eixsting precondition of the thought process when confronted with obvious design

While design is both relative and a relative term, that doesnt mean that overwhelming organization should be discarded, simply because it is relative in appearance

Shape size and apprearance of say, just humans, is a relative design, because each one is different to a certain degree

If you look deeper however and more specific the organization and detail becomes more appearent

Using a single rock is simply not a valid approach to the principle of design

While probabilty is a consideration, it still does not remove the visible evidence of things working in harmony to affect a clear purpose

Again, whether something was designed and whether we decide that it was designed, is not what makes the design principle valid

Its valid because of its organization and harmony to a clear purpose

I simply dont see how that simple yet recognizable principle can ever be avoided or ignored, unless one really works hard to do so

We simply dont, recognize design by WHO might have put something together, but by its existing organization, function and purpose

This is why the design argument can never be overturned or refuted

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by DWIII, posted 10-31-2011 3:47 AM DWIII has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by DWIII, posted 11-03-2011 2:29 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 11-03-2011 5:36 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 132 by Panda, posted 11-03-2011 6:44 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Parasomnium, posted 11-03-2011 9:46 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
DWIII
Member (Idle past 1126 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 130 of 219 (639699)
11-03-2011 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dawn Bertot
11-03-2011 12:43 AM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:


DWIII writes

Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed.

Since we dont derive the idea or conclusion of design from a designer or the idea of a designer, but from how something is put together, it makes perfect sense to apply the same reasoning and equation to any property in nature that exhibits the same properties of organization and purpose

This is precisely what we are asking you to do, "to apply the same reasoning and equation to any property in nature that exhibits the same properties of organization and purpose". Why won't you do so?


If you look deeper however and more specific the organization and detail becomes more appearent

Using a single rock is simply not a valid approach to the principle of design

What prevents you from looking deeper into a single rock? If you cannot adequately handle the simpler cases, how can we trust that you can handle the more complex cases?


While probabilty is a consideration, it still does not remove the visible evidence of things working in harmony to affect a clear purpose

You are the one who mentioned "probability", which itself is a well-defined mathematical concept (ranging from 0 = impossible to 1 = certain).


Again, whether something was designed and whether we decide that it was designed, is not what makes the design principle valid

Its valid because of its organization and harmony to a clear purpose

I simply dont see how that simple yet recognizable principle can ever be avoided or ignored, unless one really works hard to do so

We simply dont, recognize design by WHO might have put something together, but by its existing organization, function and purpose

You keep repeating yourself. I had already noted (extracted and paraphrased from one of your uncharacteristically coherent statements) that

quote:

... the probability that a specific thing was designed (design probability: DP) is correlated to a suitable combination of:

a) How well it works in an orderly fashion {function},
b) How much coherent harmony exists among its parts {organization}, and/or
c) The degree to which its purpose is verifiable {purpose}.


So why are you so afraid to apply these three (presumably measurable) criteria to any specific object?

Dawn Bertot writes:


When viewing any man made property, we rarely consider who put it together, brfore we subconsously understand its obvious organization, function and purpose

Who, when and where is usually an after thought of an already eixsting precondition of the thought process when confronted with obvious design

While design is both relative and a relative term, that doesnt mean that overwhelming organization should be discarded, simply because it is relative in appearance

Shape size and apprearance of say, just humans, is a relative design, because each one is different to a certain degree

Sadly, I see essentially no design exhibited in this bizarre section of prose, since it clearly lacks both function and organization. (I can't speak to the alleged purpose, however...)


This is why the design argument can never be overturned or refuted

Actual science does not fear falsifiability.


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-03-2011 12:43 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:27 PM DWIII has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17744
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 131 of 219 (639708)
11-03-2011 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dawn Bertot
11-03-2011 12:43 AM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:

Actually no, but that is very funny "twelfeth of never". thats commical

The Twelfth of Never has become a catchphrase in American popular cultural. It's the title of a well known pop song first recorded by Johnny Mathis.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-03-2011 12:43 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1635 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 132 of 219 (639713)
11-03-2011 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dawn Bertot
11-03-2011 12:43 AM


Re: is my rock design
Fascinating...
Anyway - back to the OP - "How can I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?"

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 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-03-2011 12:43 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 619 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(7)
Message 133 of 219 (639723)
11-03-2011 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dawn Bertot
11-03-2011 12:43 AM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:

We simply dont, recognize design by WHO might have put something together, but by its existing organization, function and purpose

This is why the design argument can never be overturned or refuted

Well, that's settled then: the design argument is not science. If it were, it would have to be falsifiable, which you just proclaimed it isn't.

Dawn, the crux of the design argument is that ID-ists infer the existence and the intelligence of a designer from the observation of apparent design. They do concentrate on who and not so much on how. They see organization, function and purpose, and conclude that it must have been put together by someone - and a very specific someone too, even if they don't always admit it openly.

Scientists too see organization, function and purpose, but they conclude it must have been put together somehow, not necessarily by someone. True, an eye is highly organized, it is functional in various ways, and it clearly serves the purpose of providing vision to its owner. But how does that indicate there can only be one explanation for the way it came to be? Even if we were to accept that intelligence must be involved, there would still be room for more than one explanation. The specifics of various eyes, if considered thoroughly, do not really indicate brilliant design. On the contrary, if anything, they could indicate incompetent design, or mis-communication among a team of designers, or multiple cases of plagiarism among competing designers, et cetera. If we look beyond eyes and consider, for example, malaria, we might even be tempted to conclude the existence of an evil designer, or a blundering designer, who let a dangerous experiment escape the lab. Or, at best, a benign designer who happens to give the interests of Plasmodium falciparum precedence over those of Homo sapiens.

And those are just a few possible explanations if we entertain the thought of intelligence being involved. Since intelligence itself is a rather complex phenomenon, which demands an explanation of its own, it might serve us well to look for other, simpler explanations. The mindless process that ensues when organisms with varying heritable traits compete for scarce resources, i.e. the process of evolution, is a very viable candidate in that respect. It accounts for (self-)organization, function, and purpose just as well as intelligent design, and it has the added benefit that it also accounts for apparent blunders and other mishap, while obviating the need for the involvement of intelligence. Occam would be pleased.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-03-2011 12:43 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 2:43 PM Parasomnium has responded
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:42 PM Parasomnium has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3961
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 134 of 219 (639744)
11-03-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dawn Bertot
10-31-2011 1:34 AM


Re: is my rock design
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

So now you need to supply some physical evidence for design.

Design being true could have a probalility of being zero. The more evidence you can provide to support design being true (e.g. a test to identify when something is designed and when it isn't [the purpose of this thread]) the more we have to accept the probability is approaching '1'.

As yet we have no test for what is designed and what is not (hence this thread) so we can't currently say that 'things being designed' is anythning more than wishful thinking.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 1:34 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-08-2011 6:40 PM Larni has responded
 Message 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:54 PM Larni has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 196 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 135 of 219 (640336)
11-08-2011 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Larni
11-03-2011 1:04 PM


Re: is my rock design
et we have no test for what is designed and what is not (hence this thread) so we can't currently say that 'things being designed' is anythning more than wishful thinking.

Sorry I havent got to these any quicker, many things going on. I have already typed out responses just need to get them on the site

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Larni, posted 11-03-2011 1:04 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Larni, posted 11-08-2011 8:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
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