Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 110 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2017 2:21 PM
398 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,233 Year: 9,839/21,208 Month: 2,926/2,674 Week: 350/961 Day: 80/134 Hour: 7/12

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3941
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 136 of 219 (640345)
11-08-2011 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dawn Bertot
11-08-2011 6:40 PM


Re: is my rock design
Erm. Why bother posting if you have nothIng to say?

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 135 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-08-2011 6:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by subbie, posted 11-08-2011 11:16 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 137 of 219 (640360)
11-08-2011 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Larni
11-08-2011 8:24 PM


Re: is my rock design
Erm. Why bother posting if you have nothIng to say?

How would he ever post?


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 136 by Larni, posted 11-08-2011 8:24 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(2)
Message 138 of 219 (640387)
11-09-2011 2:15 AM


Topic please!
Larni writes:

Erm. Why bother posting if you have nothIng to say?


subbie writes:

How would he ever post?

And how are these responses conducive to the debate? Lately I've come across a lot of invective comments from the evolutionist camp. I'd have thought they knew better.

Could we please concentrate on the topic?

(Added by edit)
It's not that I don't appreciate your cheers on my previous post, Larni and subbie, but that's how it goes: I only discovered it after I posted my admonishing comment, otherwise I would have posted something less grumpy.

Edited by Parasomnium, : sugaring the pill


"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.

  
EWCCC777
Junior Member (Idle past 1903 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 11-07-2011


Message 139 of 219 (640434)
11-09-2011 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Parasomnium
11-03-2011 9:46 AM


Re: is my rock design
Well, of course the design argument is not science!! Compatible with science? Yes. Science itself? No. Not IMHO.

The DA by definition demands a supernatural, transcendent, metaphysical being. Such a Being would be under no obligation to prove Itself in the physical realm. I find it unlikely that design will ever be naturally proven...some might argue that this should weaken my stance as a Creationist, but actually, if I believe there is a Being greater than and in fact responsible for any natural law or process, it makes perfect sense to my worldview that It would not empirically prove Itself in a natural way. But I digress...I doubt you are interested in my theology! Sorry. It so fascinates me.

In any case, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that evolution is a viable candidate. It is no more likely to be empirically proven than is design, since many evolutionary concepts cannot be proven (since life forms that have undergone processes that are integral to their proof can never be observed, and existing life forms still don't dogmatically prove evolution --and when I say that, I mean from one species to another-- happened/happens). Now, whether evolution is just as valid an idea as Design, or whether Occam would be more pleased with it, is a matter of opinion. It seems to me that Occam would have a problem with His Majesty Stephen Hawking's idea that the universe sprang from nothingness spontaneously and then life began and evolved. He might also take issue with lack of evidence that new genetic information can be and is introduced to many, many times over time and lead from the existence of microbes to the existence of man...which is, in itself, such a complex concept that, in my opinion (and I am new to this, so forgive me a little ignorance), could be said to boast only shaky compatibility with the Principle of Parsimony. The idea that a supernatural Being created man from dust, then breathed into Him, creating life -- well, it may be a supernatural concept (which might not be pleasant to Occam's dsicriminating palate), but if allowed, it is certainly simpler than the idea of so many years and so many miniscule changes taking us from "goo-to-you," if you'll excuse the creationist humor.

I apologize if my rambling is a little murky; I probably still lack the scientific vocabulary that I need in order to sound as professional as some of you. I hope you can at least understand what I am getting at, and would appreciate your patience with my delivery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Parasomnium, posted 11-03-2011 9:46 AM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Coyote, posted 11-09-2011 3:01 PM EWCCC777 has responded
 Message 147 by Parasomnium, posted 11-09-2011 6:26 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded
 Message 148 by Nuggin, posted 11-09-2011 8:17 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11243
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 140 of 219 (640436)
11-09-2011 2:57 PM


They're makin' claims! Quick, everybody pile on and angrily correct all his errors regardless of whether or not they're on topic.

Er... no, please don't.


Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 3:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5650
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 141 of 219 (640437)
11-09-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by EWCCC777
11-09-2011 2:43 PM


Brief aside on science
I apologize if my rambling is a little murky; I probably still lack the scientific vocabulary that I need in order to sound as professional as some of you.

It is not just a matter of vocabulary, to do science also takes an understanding of the scientific method and how it is applied.

A small example: you write about empirical proof pertaining to evolution or design. Empirical proof is not a part of science.

Here are some definitions I put together an another website some years ago that might help:

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 2:43 PM EWCCC777 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 3:37 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
EWCCC777
Junior Member (Idle past 1903 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 11-07-2011


Message 142 of 219 (640439)
11-09-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Coyote
11-09-2011 3:01 PM


Re: Brief aside on science
I appreciate your lesson, and I apologize if I misused some terminology. I definitely have a lot to learn, and will reread your post to make sure I have a clearer understanding of the terms in question. I have been humbled recently by the realization of how little, in fact, I know.

OK. So...science doesn't require what I would (apparently incorrectly)call proof (meaning, my definition, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt), so why am I continually called upon by scientists to provide natural proof (evidence) of design? Just an aside of my own.

You are saying, in essence, that science by definition does not require proof, and that this is a common understanding. It's a bit like my saying, "Faith does not require proof. This is a common understanding."

Both above statements can be generally acknowledged as being true, so how will one ever negate itself by failing to produce conclusive evidence? Additionally, how can you require of one concept what you do not require of another? What is the point of requiring conclusive evidence of someone else's idea when you do not require it of your own?

There is evidence that seems to point toward evolution. There is also much evidence lacking. The same can be said of the design argument. The fact that much of the evidence for design is not the kind that science would prefer is irrelevant, for science and design, while compatible, are not ONE.

I cannot put God on a lab table and allow you to observe Him, as someone suggested in another thread days ago. The thing is, I do not have to in order for the concept of intelligent design to be worthwhile. I do not believe the burden of proof rests on my shoulders simply because someone says it does, anymore than evolution has to prove itself to me because I say it does (and the fact that it does not is awfully convenient, since there is nothing absolutely conclusive for it to present to me).

Edited by EWCCC777, : Rephrasing

Edited by EWCCC777, : Correction

Edited by EWCCC777, : Spelling of "compatible." Frick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Coyote, posted 11-09-2011 3:01 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by subbie, posted 11-09-2011 4:18 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded
 Message 146 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2011 4:23 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded

    
EWCCC777
Junior Member (Idle past 1903 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 11-07-2011


Message 143 of 219 (640440)
11-09-2011 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by New Cat's Eye
11-09-2011 2:57 PM


I would appreciate the correction if it's respectful, and also don't feel that my post is so off-topic I mean, if design cannot be conclusively proven in nature, then that goes back to the topic of the thread, doesn't it? If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry if it is too extratopical.. I honestly thought when I posted it it was pretty close to home. I am just anxious to get my ideas out there just like everyone else on the board, and see what comes back at me, hopefully learn a thing or two.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-09-2011 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-09-2011 4:11 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11243
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 144 of 219 (640441)
11-09-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by EWCCC777
11-09-2011 3:48 PM


The topic is: How do you use ID theory to determine if something, say a rock, was designed or not?

There's no need to talk about evolution or god, I mean "The Designer". If your answer is, "it can't", well then that's that. I agree, it cannot. Its not a real theory and its not science and it doesn't actually *do* anythign at all. Its a sham to disguise religion.

Here's a list of the things you typed that are incorrect:

The DA by definition demands a supernatural, transcendent, metaphysical being.

I'm not sure what "DA" means though...

It{evolution} is no more likely to be empirically proven than is design

many evolutionary concepts cannot be proven

whether evolution is just as valid an idea as Design, or whether Occam would be more pleased with it, is a matter of opinion.

His Majesty Stephen Hawking's idea that the universe sprang from nothingness

{abiogenesis} could be said to boast only shaky compatibility with the Principle of Parsimony

it {Creation} is certainly simpler than the idea of so many years and so many miniscule changes taking us from "goo-to-you,"

I'm not going to get into why they are incorrect because it has nothing to do with how ID can be employed to determine design.


Oh, hey, I'm still waiting for reply to Message 73

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 3:48 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 145 of 219 (640442)
11-09-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by EWCCC777
11-09-2011 3:37 PM


Re: Brief aside on science
Both above statements can be generally acknowledged as being true, so how will one ever negate itself by failing to produce conclusive evidence?

The key problem is your use of the word "conclusive." If by that you mean evidence such that it leaves room for no other possible conclusion and establishes something beyond question, science never seeks or even acknowledges "conclusive evidence." All evidence and all conclusions in science are tentative. Everything is constantly questioned and new evidence is always sought. Already acquired evidence is re-evaluated for accuracy and to see if a better theory can be developed to replace the current one.

There is evidence that seems to point toward evolution.

All evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

There is also much evidence lacking.

If by that you mean there are still unanswered questions, you are of course correct. This is true of all areas of science. That's why scientific investigation is a never ending process. Every answer yields new questions. This is in fact a hallmark of a scientific theory.

The same can be said of the design argument. The fact that much of the evidence for design is not the kind that science would prefer is irrelevant, for science and design, while compatible, are not ONE.

There is no scientific evidence for design. The only "evidence" for design is religion-based. There are certainly some who believe they can reconcile design with science, but I have yet to see any convincing efforts to do so.

I do not believe the burden of proof rests on my shoulders simply because someone says it does, anymore than evolution has to prove itself to me because I say it does (and the fact that it does not is awfully convenient, since there is nothing absolutely conclusive for it to present to me).

The burden of proof rests on the person making a claim because of simple logic. Proving that a claim is false is very difficult, and in some cases impossible.

That you are not convinced by the evidence supporting evolution says more about your level of knowledge about evolution than it does about the evidence.


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 142 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 3:37 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 568 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 146 of 219 (640444)
11-09-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by EWCCC777
11-09-2011 3:37 PM


Re: Brief aside on science
OK. So...science doesn't require what I would (apparently incorrectly)call proof (meaning, my definition, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt), so why am I continually called upon by scientists to provide natural proof (evidence) of design? Just an aside of my own.

I'd just like to remind you of what "Evidence" actually is.

"Evidence" is any fact or observation that adjusts the likelihood of one or more hypotheses being accurate.

If a fact or observation does not change the relative likelihood of a particular set of hypotheses, then that fact or observation is irrelevant.

Largely when discussing "intelligent design" or various forms of Creationism, we see a set of arguments that essentially boil down to "but you don;t really know, one way or the other." See the recent Big Bang thread for an example - the claim there is that Big Bang cosmology "supports" the hypothesis of a "Creator."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that, if a given theory doesn't affect the likelihood of the competing hypotheses (ie, the Big Bang works just as well with or without a deity), then that theory cannot be evidence regarding those hypotheses. There was no adjustment made to their relative likelihoods. The information is irrelevant.

We have evidence supporting the hypothesis that evolution explains the variety of life observed on Earth today, because innumerable observations have been made that are explained by that hypothesis and which are not as well explained by any competing hypothesis, including those loosely defined sets of hypotheses called "intelligent design" and "Creationism."

When we talk about evidence, they key is to forget what you think you know. Look at the hypotheses being considered. Decide how you would predict the world to look if each of those hypotheses is true - and this is especially important for hypotheses you don't personally find convincing yet.

After you've made your predictions, then you go back and look at all of the observations you've made so far. Using your predictions, you can decide the relative likelihood of a given phenomenon being observed if a given hypothesis were true, as compared to how likely that phenomenon is to be observed across all of the competing hypotheses (for instance, it's very unlikely to find Tom's fingerprints on the murder weapon in most hypotheses where Tom is not the killer, but very likely in hypotheses where he is the killer; comparatively, noting that the killer had dark hair is not particularly strong evidence of anything, because it's equally likely that any other dark haired person could be the killer).

After you've examined all of your observations and compared them to the predictions of all of your competing hypotheses, you can decide which hypothesis has the best chance of being accurate.

When you're dealing with real mysteries, questions that we cannot even begin to answer before we start investigating, it's impossible for us to be certain. There will never be "absolute proof." It's always possible, however unlikely, that we are all trapped in the Matrix, or that this is all a dream. Well-established theories on nature are overturned from time to time - the Earth is round, not flat; Newton was wrong, and Einstein is far more accurate, etc.

But we can determine what hypothesis best fits the evidence we've uncovered so far.

That's what science does. We find the explanation that best fits all of the observations we've made on a subject so far, with the reservation that we can still change our minds if/when new observations tell us a slightly different story.

You are saying, in essence, that science by definition does not require proof, and that this is a common understanding. It's a bit like my saying, "Faith does not require proof. This is a common understanding."

Faith, indeed, does not require proof, or evidence of any kind. Faith is confidence in the accuracy of an assertion, without sufficient evidence to justify that confidence. Faith is the sure knowledge of things you do not have evidence of, and often could not possibly know. It is the "evidence" of things unseen, the confidence of things hoped for.

In short - it is irrational, often wishful thinking, and nothing more.

There is evidence that seems to point toward evolution. There is also much evidence lacking. The same can be said of the design argument. The fact that much of the evidence for design is not the kind that science would prefer is irrelevant, for science and design, while compatible, are not ONE.

If you want to find out whether life on Earth was designed by an intelligent actor, you first need to ask yourself two questions:

What would the world look like if living things were designed by an intelligence?

What would the world look like if living things were not designed?

Are you able to answer those questions? What should we see in each case? What should we not see?

I cannot put God on a lab table and allow you to observe Him, as someone suggested in another thread days ago. The thing is, I do not have to in order for the concept of intelligent design to be worthwhile. I do not believe the burden of proof rests on my shoulders simply because someone says it does, anymore than evolution has to prove itself to me because I say it does (and the fact that it does not is awfully convenient, since there is nothing absolutely conclusive for it to present to me).

The burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive claim. If I claim to have a lion in my backyard, the burden of proof must rest on me to show evidence for my assertion.

Otherwise, all assertions would have to be assumed true until proven false...and that gets rather out of hand. For instance, can you disprove the existence of an invisible, intangible, silent dragon in my garage? If the burden of proof likes not with me as the person making the assertion, but with you as the skeptic, it would be impossible for you to disprove my assertion...and so there must be an intangible, invisible, silent dragon in my garage.

I presume you can see the problem with that line of reasoning.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 3:37 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 147 of 219 (640450)
11-09-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by EWCCC777
11-09-2011 2:43 PM


Re: is my rock design
Hello EWCCC777,

Thanks for your sincere reply. Others have already commented on your thoughts on things like proof and evidence and such, so I'll just concentrate on your remarks about parsimony.

You said:

quote:
The idea that a supernatural Being created man from dust, then breathed into Him, creating life -- well, it may be a supernatural concept (which might not be pleasant to Occam's dsicriminating palate), but if allowed, it is certainly simpler than the idea of so many years and so many miniscule changes taking us from "goo-to-you," if you'll excuse the creationist humor.

First of all, rest assured that William of Occam would have no problem at all with the supernatural concept you described. He was, after all, a Catholic monk.

Next, I think you are mistaken when you say that the supernatural scenario is simpler than the evolutionary one. Many years and many mutations do not make the intrinsically simple process of evolution any more complex. The only thing they do is guarantee the gradual accumulation of the results of each step. Though the end result can become very complex indeed, the process toward it is not.

The supernatural scenario, on the other hand, is intrinsically more complex because of the need for a supernatural being, which itself is complex beyond compare. Maybe it looks simple: "God created everything", but looks are deceptive. The very concept of God makes it extremely unparsimonious.


"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 139 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 2:43 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 148 of 219 (640456)
11-09-2011 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by EWCCC777
11-09-2011 2:43 PM


Occam's Lesson
well, it may be a supernatural concept (which might not be pleasant to Occam's dsicriminating palate), but if allowed, it is certainly simpler than the idea of so many years and so many miniscule changes taking us from "goo-to-you," if you'll excuse the creationist humor.

You are, unbeknownst to you I'm sure, misquoting (or misimplying) Occam's Razor.

Often quoted as "The simplest answer is usually the correct one", what Occam Razor really says is:
"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)"

The key concept expressed is that if you have an answer that does not require an additional agent, then you shouldn't assume an additional agent at work.

Here's an example:
I push the doorbell which makes a connection allowing electricity to flow to the "bell" device causing it to ring.

Entities required:
Me, doorbell, internal device which makes a connection, electricity, wiring to connect to "bell device" and "bell device".

Here's a different take on it:
I push the doorbell which makes a connection allowing electricity to flow to the "bell" device which then gets monitored by an invisible dwarf who always decides to ring the bell.

There's no need to invoke an "invisible dwarf" to answer the question.

In fact, invoking an "invisible dwarf" raises a whole new set of questions about this undetected agent.

Invoking a magical Jewish Wizard who is undetectable and uses undetectable forces to do things that we have not evidence occurred is likewise not a simpler solution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by EWCCC777, posted 11-09-2011 2:43 PM EWCCC777 has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 149 of 219 (640666)
11-11-2011 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by DWIII
11-03-2011 2:29 AM


Re: is my rock 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?

What is complicated about recognizing order and purpose. The point is that design is established by the order not the presence of a designer

A. Is orderly function observable or not?. Yes or no?

B. Do I need to see a designer for the argument to be valid

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

Fear has nothing to do with simple logic. If we were to break down the rock we could easily see the order and structure in the molecular structure of the rock itself to know it was designed

If we take the process that formed the rock, break down those individual process that contain both order and law, then it is easy to see the rock was designed

Is there order and law in the rocks basic structure?

Does the process that formed the rock show order, law and purpose?

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...)

Your opinion does not matter, only that which is logically demonstrable by both evidence and logic

When has it been necessary to see the guy that put my car together to know it demonstrates order law and specific purpose

Once you remove you feelings and view it as both a physical and logical proposition

Does order, law and purpose exist or not?

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by DWIII, posted 11-03-2011 2:29 AM DWIII has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by DWIII, posted 11-11-2011 4:16 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 150 of 219 (640669)
11-11-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Parasomnium
11-03-2011 9:46 AM


Re: is my rock design
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.

Para, you missed and skipped the point altogether. It is not necessary to infer anything about the design theory, for it to be valid. Its not a theory. It is what it is, order law and purpose

Do you deny that these things exist in real it and in physical properties?

Scientists too see organization, function and purpose, but they conclude it must have been put together somehow, not necessarily by someone.

Your conclusions are not necessary for the proposition to be valid as an argument

It only matters if order law and purpose are present

So your above comment validates at least the validity of the design argument. So when your and mine opinions are put aside, the argument is valid, correct?

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.

Now whois special pleading. You've gone beyond the basic argument into speculation. the design argument does not need opinion or speculation

Just demonstrate both from a physical and logical standpoint why the argument is not acceptable or valid

Conclusions are not necessary for the argument to be valid

You have no where to go

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Parasomnium, posted 11-03-2011 9:46 AM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Parasomnium, posted 11-14-2011 2:13 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017