Intelligent Design

[QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B][Quote] When I see a machine, I know it has been created.
[/B][/QUOTE]No, you patently, demonstrably, do not. [Added by edit] I'm assuming you implicitly mean all machines. I don't doubt you could recognise a human built machine, but all machines.....?Evolution doesn't have the information to tell you how a flagellae evolved, but then you can't tell me how a creator did it, either. Also, you're getting into some seriously circular argument if you're expecting me to believe the ID doesn't exhibit specified complexity, intelligence that wasn't designed as intelligent, & the machinery with which to create things.This would require an ID for the ID, non? Hence the circularity. As some level or other, the ID is going to exhibit all those complex traits that you maintain can't exist without ID. Since we all know the alleged ID is God dressed up in a mac & dark glasses, who designed God? You can't have it both ways. Or can intelligence, & all the necessary supporting "machinery" arise naturally? If not, then God can't exist, can he?Cue "God has always existed" argument. If you can show this, you may have an argument, otherwise, the ID is just as stymied as the rest of life as we know it. He/She/It HAD to have been designed.I digress. This is is the traditional staple of the creationist. A God of the gaps argument. I can't see how this could occur naturally, so it didn't.If you're so sure you can infer design, then tell me how you tell the difference between a naturally occurring system, & a designed one. Think carefully.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-19-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]

quote:

---

I'm assuming you implicitly mean all machines. I don't doubt you could recognise a human built machine, but all machines.....?

---

That flagellum looks like it could be taken out of a manual on how to rebuild a car. It looks like a human designed machine to me. And that's what the Bible says: Evidence of God is in creation. I do think this is ultimately faith alone and if I had my way, neither would be taught as Science.Evidence of God is in creation?First you have to know it was created. Therein lies your problem.See below. [QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]Evolution doesn't have the information to tell you how a flagellae evolved, but then you can't tell me how a creator did it, either. [/Quote][/b]No, I cannot. But I am content with "God created it."Well I am content with evolution did it. [QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]

quote:

---

This would require an ID for the ID, non?

---

I am also content with things beyond my comprehension. One thing I thought of recently to explain this to myself is this:Something created man. Something created that. Something created that... on to infinity. God is infinite. So God rather than create something, to create something, to create man... just created man directly. [/Quote][/b]Still haven’t eliminated the circularity, & as predicted you introduced the God has always existed argument.Who created God? If you can’t answer this, then I’ll trump you with flagellae have always existed & never required designing.You see your fallacy? God never required designing, but flagellae did. ??????? Hand wavy nonsense.Who designed the designer?

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]

quote:

---

I digress. This is is the traditional staple of the creationist. A God of the gaps argument. I can't see how this could occur naturally, so it didn't.

---

​

Actually, creationists avoid the God of the gaps argument. .[/Quote]

​

LOL

​

[QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]
That's why I reject Evolution being put into the Bible. The more Man tries to explain the world without God, the more the Bible must fit Man's ideas -- thus becoming a God of the gaps. [/Quote]

​

[/b]

​

Wha..? I’ll have a pint of what he’s havin’!

​

Explaining the world without God, is having a world without God as an explanation. God IS NOT in the gaps.

​

[QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]
If you're so sure you can infer design, then tell me how you tell the difference between a naturally occurring system, & a designed one. Think carefully.[/Quote]

​

I can tell you if some thing are designed. I cannot tell you if something is not designed.

​

Designed:
"Hello world! How the heck are you!? Want to go play in the park?"

​

Don't know if it was designed:
"yasccibybfoadnasomynamdqm"

​

Is that what you mean? Maybe you can give me examples of naturally occuring and designed systems.

​

David[/B]

---

No, that’s not what I mean, give me the criteria that you objectively apply to something in order to determine that it was designed. You are just reasserting that you can recognise design. Tell me how.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:

So what have we got here to conclude design:

​

Meaning. Function. Non-Random. Complexity.

​

---

Meaning is entirely subjective, so I'm going to scratch that one straight away. Have you seen some modern art? So, function, non-randomness, & complexity.Snowfall. It is non-random, both throughout the year & geographically. Snowflakes are complex. Function? To delight small children. To allow the accumulation of water at the poles, causing sea level changes. Make the lanscape white in order to reflect radiation. To ensure a release of water in the spring to facilitate plant growth. Take your pick. Function is another entirely subjective factor. In order to ascribe function you need to know what the designer required of his design, right? There may be other consequences of the design that are not the original intended function, for example my computer throws out heat, but that's not indended, it's a by product. So, as long as a system can be shown to have a potentially positive effect on something, you cannot discard that as an intended function, since you don't know the mind of the designer.So, there we go, a purely natural system that fits your definition of designed.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:

A snow-flake isn't complex at all -- it is repetitive. In Biology my freshman year of college we learned that life is both complex and orderly.

​

Ocean: Complex and Random.
SaltCrystal/Snow-Flake: Not Complex and Not Random
Life: Complex and Non-Random

​

My teacher would be so proud...

​

David

---

Bad example. Let me try another tack. I hand you an odd shaped piece of wood with no apparent function.Piece of wood: Uncomplex & randomErgo it's not designed. But I DID design it. The exact opposite of what you expect.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.