Message 1 of 3 (793707)
11-04-2016 5:14 PM
If something only appears to be designed. (the operative word being, "ONLY" implying it is not designed) then that thing does not have the features of design also or the feature of design it may have have been proven possible for nature to produce randomly, and are simplistic such as symmetry.
When something appears to be designed but isn't like perhaps a natural land bridge or a snowflake, when we go beneath the surface of it's "appearance" we see those things don't have the features of intelligent design.
For example, our natural land bridge has no rails. (contingency planning), it has no specified complexity (correct placement of correct parts/congruity), it has loose weathering, crumbling material. (correct materials).
Before you say, "designed things don't have those features," you should get a grip of reality and check your medication dosage, because the reason your teeth are made of enamel rather than blubber, is rather obvious. The reason your eyelids aren't as thick as the skin on your knuckles is rather obvious. The reason the clotting cascade exists rather than a haemorrhage, is rather obvious.
Likewise in a car, we can see each and every part is congruent to the whole. Each designed thing has an overall goal and sub-goals which function in union with all the other sub-goals. For example your eyes and ears function in congruence with your brain for balance, for example. Everything within a car is in the right place, in relation to all the other systems and designs. The brakes are located with the correct material, with the wheel, the water for washing the windscreen isn't inside the tyres, your ears aren't located on your butt cheeks...etc..
Things that appear to be designed but also have the features of designed can't be designed AND not designed. If the features of intelligent design are present, according to the law of the excluded middle, the object is designed by identity. If the object does not have the features of design it is not designed.
EXAMPLES of absurd reasoning that ignore identifying characteristics;
"You have human dna, anatomy, sentience, etc..but you're not human".
"This pig has all the features of a pig but I say it's a cow because it behaves like one."
"I think this cat is a person on the inside." (anthropomorphism/anthropopathism)
"This cake is baked in same way as usual but I say it's not baked, nor is it a cake because I don't like the taste."
Of course there are lots of issues on the periphery of this subject of design, you may think I haven't heard of your complaints before but it would take a long time to cover everything and I would have to write perhaps an opening message ten times longer than this one to deal with those complaints... For examples things that are designed, if they are very simple designs, usually only have a few elements of design or even one. But it seems to me all things that appear to be designed but certainly aren't, never have the elements of design. If a child is given play doh, if we dismiss the doh itself the child may design a shape similar to a dog turd. It's true and extremely simplistic level of intelligence can't always be known.
Animated designs such as helicopters or people, always have all of the features of design or nearly all of them, to such a degree of over-qualification that it's frankly AMAZING that anyone would argue life isn't designed and really rather obtuse/ignorant, in my opinion;
- specified complexity
- contingency planning
- Incredible information storage density
- directed energy
- energy efficiency
- aesthetics and symmetry
- correct materials
- congruence of all goals/systems (unity)
- clever engineering solutions to obscure problems inherent to the invention itself. (differential in cars, a clever relationship between the gears to solve the problem.)
Life has all of these design features and more. To conclude life only appears to be designed is a logical contradiction which is 100% LUDICROUS. Whether you like it or not, life qualifies as designed. Land bridged and snowflakes don't because they only LOOK designed but don't have the features of design. (true examples of appearance of design).
Also, for something to qualify as designed it must at least have the feature of specified complexity that leads to either a goal or a function. For example, a snowflake has symmetry but we know this can happen without design, naturally from water molecules. But a coin only really has specified complexity and is perhaps made from the correct lasting material too. The simpler the design is, I concede, the harder it is to tell the difference, so for example, two "1" marks on a beach of just a line for the "1" is exceedingly simple, so our knowledge becomes thwarted, but all complex designs such as helicopters or people, are so PACKED with the features of intelligent design that it's basically absurd to question it because it becomes special pleading fallacy because you wouldn't question if an object was designed if it had all the usual features of design but if that object was hidden under a cloth and I revealed it was a dead frog, you would then back-track and say, "now I disagree it is designed".
The issue of evolution cannot be discussed for how can it be when we know how to infer when something is designed? Evolution can only serve to muddy-the-water, introducing evolution into the matter is truly not relevant because evolution can't take away the features of design. If something is designed by qualification, then logically it is objectively irrelevant what any theory states.
My answer is - who cares what evolution states as a theory, if it is wrong it is wrong. I am afraid life qualifies as designed, by deductive reason. Appealing to it is not allowed nor can it be discussed, if we have an object in our hand and we can evaluate if it is designed, any attempt to OPINE that it isn't, is indirect and extraneous to the evaluation.
I don't see any way out except for you to argue a contradiction, that something qualified as designed isn't because you BELIEVE evolution is true. Just try honesty for once and admit it.
(I go on about ID a bit, you may think I have switched and am an IDist now. No, I am not, I still believe in creation.)
Whether you agree or disagree with me, my argument for design is much stronger as an argument than the appearance argument because life does have the features of design in abundance, we even plagiarise those designs, it is referred to as, "biomimetics". When we run out of our own ideas, we look to nature to steal God's ideas, proving by deductive reason, that the design in nature is superior to our own, and of course exists otherwise biomimetics could not exist. That we can steal the designs means there is design I am afraid.
You can't get a stronger case. If you asked me, "Mike, to make this argument stronger what would you need?"
Answer; "only God's autograph".
Why do I bother to tell you these things knowing you will always invent a way out? Because I am a spokesman. I do it just for the sake of truth, because I believe it is correct wisdom that certainly favours God's existence more than you will ever admit to but that deep down you must surely know because really these things I have deduced are elementally true, they are overt, children could understand why they are correct.
(I hate the ad hominem. If you attack me and say "you struggle your logic is wrong and you are fundamentally stupid" or some such thing, then in all fairness wouldn't you expect me to get a poor score on a logic game rather than the all-time top score; http://www.mindgames.com/game/Zoobiedoku) I mean, if my brain is somehow diseased because I am a creationist Christian then wouldn't than pan out in reality?
Edited by mike the wiz, : typos, misspelling, I am a fast typist, no doubt I have left some.
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-04-2016 6:16 PM|| ||mike the wiz has responded|