Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2017 5:15 PM
365 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, xongsmith (5 members, 360 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,867 Year: 21,473/21,208 Month: 1,906/2,326 Week: 361/881 Day: 79/107 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 167 of 219 (641184)
11-17-2011 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Admin
11-16-2011 9:11 AM


Re: is my rock design
You had the opportunity to discuss your ideas about "order, law and purpose" in the Intelligent Design vs. Real Science and Does ID follow the scientific method? threads. We will not be discussing them again in this thread, so please stop posting here. Thanks.

With respect there was absolutely no one responding to this thread for weeks. I thought any kind of related material might move the subject and thread along

As far as the thread you mentioned is concerned,I saw no adequate responses to the arguments there so i saw no harm in advancing them in a dead thread

As you wish however

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Admin, posted 11-16-2011 9:11 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 168 of 219 (641185)
11-17-2011 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Larni
11-17-2011 10:48 AM


Re: is my rock design
You have ran away from me before, Dawn: gonna run again?

Just like Dewise1 and Panda I defy you to produce the line, argument or statement ,where I have ran

Both of them shrank and cowarded from thier accusations, I am sure you will as well

So please produce it if you wish to make your accusation stick. Ill be waiting

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Larni, posted 11-17-2011 10:48 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-17-2011 9:09 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 174 by Larni, posted 11-18-2011 7:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


(2)
Message 169 of 219 (641200)
11-17-2011 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dawn Bertot
11-17-2011 7:00 PM


The Flight Of The Frightened Rabbit
Just like Dewise1 and Panda I defy you to produce the line, argument or statement ,where I have ran

Here are some of the questions that you have ducked, refused to answer, or simply totally ignored on one single thread; one of the ones on which you now disdain to post because it is "dead".

panda, #20 writes:

The start seems like a good place to start:
Please describe an example of an observation made by IDM.

Also, I do not currently understand how 'determination' is linked to the scientific method.
Please ellaborate on what you mean by 'determination'.

Tanypteryx, #23 writes:

I am eager to finally see what the actual hypothesis of ID is and how the Scientific Method can be applied to test whether any evidence of ID can be detected and explained.

Dr Adequate, #24 writes:

Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them.

If you can't do that then ID has fallen at the first hurdle towards being a scientific theory.

Coyote, #29 writes:

What you will be looking at, if you want any credibility at all, is a rule or set of rules to distinguish design from non-design.

If you have no reliable way to distinguish between design and non-design you have nothing.

So lay off the double-talk and tell us how one can reliably determine whether a particular item is designed or not.

Coyote, #45 writes:

So let me repeat, and try not to duck this time: What is your set of rules for distinguishing design from non-design?

You see from the definition of intelligent design given by IntelligentDesign.org that design "theorists" are able to do this, and that this is a critical part of their "scientific" method. As such it is not off topic. I think you just can't answer the question.

dwise1, #45 writes:

Now after persistently avoiding the question of ID's methodology or even whether one even exists, Dawn claims that it does indeed exist. And that it is identical to the scientific method! Fine! Great! So then finally please tell us, Dawn, just how is the scientific method supposed to deal with supernaturalistic hypotheses? That is, after all, what ID wants to force science to do (not through scientific channels, but rather by appealing to the general public which is largely scientifically illiterate. So just how is that supposed to happen?

Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along:
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design?

dwise1, #66 writes:

Please take the opportunity to express, in a logical manner, the inexorible chain of logic that leads to your conclusion.

Straggler, #68 writes:

But the hypothesis is part of the scientific method. How can you be following the scientific method if your methods are hypothesis-free?

Admin, #72 writes:

In order to demonstrate that ID does actually follow the scientific method you will have to provide examples of ID actually following the scientific method. Coyote is requesting that you show how ID followed the scientific method to reach the conclusion of design, and addressing this issue is precisely what this thread is about.

You don't have to use the example of concluding design if you don't want to, but you are going to have to find at least one example of ID actually following the scientific method.

Admin, #74 writes:

In this thread you have not as yet provided any observations, experiments, evaluations or predictions. Please provide at least one example of ID following the scientific method by describing the original hypothesis, the experimental framework, the observations, the analysis, the predictions, the validation of those predictions, and the theory resulting from generalizing what was learned.

Coyote, #78 writes:

How do you evaluate those physical properties? In other words, how do you differentiate design from non-design?

What is your method for doing this?

Taq, #83 writes:

The SM itself requires you to make presuppositions AND THEN TEST THEM. They are called hypotheses. The SM also requires you to presuppose that your hypothesis is wrong and to describe the evidence that one would see if the hypothesis is wrong. This is called the null hypothesis.

So how does one construct the hypothesis and null hypothesis in the IDM, and what types of experiments does one run to test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis?

Taq, #85 writes:

More importantly, a hypothesis is a TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE statement that has observational consequences in the real world. So what are the ID hypotheses and how are the both testable and falsifiable. What type of scientific experiments are used to test these hypotheses?

Taq, #87 writes:

You have yet to show how those basics are employed in the IDM. You claim they are there, but until you show how they are used you have no argument. Science is an actual activity, it is something you DO. So show us what you specifically do when using the IDM. What are the experiments, and what are the hypotheses that are being tested? What is the null hypothesis?

Bluejay, #91 writes:

I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines:

An example of ID making observations of the natural world.

An example of ID formulating a hypothesis based on those observations.

An example of ID experimenting to test that hypothesis.

An example of ID forming a theory based on the results of the experiment.

If you can provide examples of all of these steps, then I would say that ID has at least passed the barest minimum standards of the scientific method.

I suspect that most scientists would require more than just this bare minimum, but it would at least be a start.

Can you do this much?

Modulous, #117 writes:

It is your claim that ID uses the same rules of empiricism and reasoning: Show us an example.

Admin, #20 writes:

Bluejay's request to provide examples of ID using various parts of the scientific method is identical to the requests I made in messages earlier in the thread. Illustrating how ID uses the scientific method is the very raison d'Ítre of this thread.

Panda, #126 writes:

I would like to do one thing.

I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines:

A real world example of IDM making observations of the natural world.

A real world example of IDM formulating a hypothesis based on those observations.

A real world example of IDM experimenting to test that hypothesis.

A real world example of IDM forming a theory based on the results of the experiment.

jar, #128 writes:

You have not yet addressed the issue of how IDM uses any processes or procedures so it is impossible for use to address IDM at all. [...] Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change.

ringo, #130 writes:

Now show us how you use the ID method to design an experiment to test that hypothesis.

jar, #132 writes:

Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change.

Modulous, #137 writes:

So Dawn, provide an example observation, evaluation, experimentation, construction, prediction that might occur in the investigation of ID. This will enable to compare the way this is done with the way it is done in science in general to see if you are correct. You've drastically failed to so far do so - and I predict you'll fall back to talking about design rather than Intelligent Design should you ever attempt to do this. Do you want me to show an example of how it is done in real science?

At the moment, all I can do is compare the IDM I know (which is not the same as SM) until you instruct me an IDM that is the same as SM. So instruct me.

Bluejay, #141 writes:

I think you're just nitpicking my way of phrasing the question. Let me rephrase it then. This is what I would like you to provide:

An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.

An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.

An example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.

An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.

ringo, #147 writes:

I asked you to design an experiment. You're standing on the surface of a planet. You've hypothesized that it was designed as some sort of "Genesis Project". What specific data are you going to collect to test that hypothesis? What equipment will you use to collect the data? How will you analyze the data?

ringo, #151 writes:

I asked you to specify exactly what data you would look for to determine whether the Genesis Planet was designed. I asked you what equipment you would use and how you would analyze the data. You answered none of those questions.

The question isn't "who" the designer is. The question is: How would you design an experiment to detect design in the first place. What exactly would you plunk down on the lab bench?

I'm not asking for a general approach. I'm asking for one simple specific experiment.

ringo, #155 writes:

I didn't ask what argument you would use. I asked what data you would collect, specifically. Would you weigh leaves? Would you test soil pH? I asked what equipment you would use, specifically. An infrared spectrometer? A gas-liquid chromatograph? I asked how you would analyze the results, specifically. Linear regression? Standard deviation?

Message 131 says nothing about that. You haven't devised a specific experiment or even hinted at one.

I'm not asking for vague descriptions of what a lab building looks like. I'm asking for specifics.

jar, #156 writes:

How does IDM actually investigate how the designer effects change?

frako, #159 writes:

What that the harmony in nature is so complex it had to be desighned why why could it not acure naturaly?? Whitout any aid from an inteligence??

Dr Adequate, #165 writes:

the question is: what type of test would you need to conduct to detect design in nature? That's design. Not order, not law, not harmony. Design.

dwise1, #176 writes:

Do they indeed use the same methods? You have not demonstrated that, not even attempted to -- nearly 200 messages into the topic and you have not yet tried to support the OP? And just where have you "already descirbed {them} several times now"? You have offered a short list of some basic ideas, but you have most certainly not yet offered any kind description of either method. We keep asking you to and you keep dodging -- probably one big reason for your no longer being able to start new topics. [...] OK, Dawn, so just what is your ID methology? And just how does it work? In detail!

While you're at it, could you also please present in detail how you think that the scientific method works.

dwise1, #190 writes:

Dawn, {biting my tongue here}, what you list are not methods. Rather, they are bases (please note that the pronounciation is for the plural of "basis", not the plural of "base"). We are not asking for bases, but rather for methodologies. A likely candidate for an actual description of a methodology might be what I reproduced for you at the end of my Message 176.

PS
C'mon. What are the details of that methodology? Because we really do need to know those details.

Panda, #191 writes:

Dawn Bertot: give an example of what you are claiming!

Show:

A real world example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.

A real world example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.

A real world example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.

A real world example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.

If what you claim is so obvious then presenting an example should be child's play.

NB: The answer to a question is not another question, unless you are avoiding giving an answer.

ringo, #195 writes:

We're not talking about "order and harmony". We're talking about intelligent design.

And so far you haven't done any tests, you haven't described any tests, you haven't specified what you're testing for.

I'm asking you for one simple test that you would do to identify design. What would you be holding in your hands while you're doing the test?

Coyote, #198 writes:

Here are some of the problems:

Different observers can look at "a leaf" or any other object and come up with different opinions on "order" and "harmony" (whatever those terms mean). Unless you can define some objective criteria you are dealing with the subjective.

There are all kinds of leaves, from those you don't want growing in your lawn to fossils hundreds of millions of years old. What data will you collect, and from which leaves will you collect it? What will you do to ensure that your data is not subjective? What criteria will you use to ensure you have enough data? What measurements and observations will you take? How much additional data will you need from other organisms? You didn't think you could just study leaves, did you?

When you have enough data, how will you work from that data to a conclusion? What data will you use, and what data will you judge not to be important? What criteria will you use to decide these things? What assumptions will you use, and how well supported are they? Will you be able to establish a theory that explains all the data, as well as related data, and ignores no important data?

Admin, #211 writes:

The topic of this thread concerns whether ID follows the scientific method. What you need is at least one example of ID research following the scientific method. When you return, please address your discussion to the topic.

Taq, #230 writes:

Let me repeat. Your hypothesis is that an intelligent designer is responsible for the order we observe. The null hypothesis is that non-intelligent mechanisms produce this order. Now, what are the experiments we can run to test both the hypothesis and null-hypothesis?

jar, #243 writes:

How does IDM actually investigate how the designer effects change?

Admin, #248 writes:

See my Message 120 and Message 211 where I requested that you provide an example of ID following the scientific method. I'm suspending you for 4 days. See you after Thanksgiving. In your very first message after your suspension I want you to provide responses to this list of requested information composed by Bluejay:

An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.

An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.

An example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.

An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.

If you post anything else I'll just suspend you again, but for a longer period.

frako, #322 writes:

your method assumes that order needs a desighner can you provide a theory and some evidence to support it to why order cannot arise naturaly. If you cannot your argument is worth as much as this one.

Admin #323 writes:

Hi Dawn,

Please stop posting to this thread until you can provide an example of ID research following all the steps of the scientific method in the point-by-point style requested by Bluejay:

An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.

An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.

An example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.

An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.

Taq, #324 writes:

So how do you deduce ID from the observations using the SM? Instead of saying that it can be done why don't you SHOW HOW IT IS DONE?

[...]

All you need to do is say "The hypothesis for ID is . . . " and describe the hypothesis.

Then you need to describe the experimental set up. At this point you predict what the experimental results will be if your hypothesis is true, and what results the experiment will produce if your hypothesis is false (the null hypothesis). Then you run the experiment.

Can you do this or not?

Perhaps you could breathe some new life into that thread by answering some of these simple and pertinent questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 7:00 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 11:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

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


Message 170 of 219 (641210)
11-17-2011 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
11-17-2011 9:09 PM


Re: The Flight Of The Frightened Rabbit
Perhaps you could breathe some new life into that thread by answering some of these simple and pertinent questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow I am actually very impressed, that someone finally took the time to re-post what they think I have not answered

As I looked at each one of these i see and remember that i have actually answered and responded to each one

If admin wishes to give me the time I can respond again to each one

The basic fallacy for each one of these highlights is two-fold.

First you use a contrived and exclusive definition for the words science and evidence. IOWs you have abandoned the basic meaning of the words science and evidence

Secondly, you start in the middle of the process called investigation (Scientific method) and claim that origins dont matter to the process of the scientific method

Which of course in any normal investigation the how and why, always matter

So as a mattter of convience you ignore this point of the process for yourself and require it of the theist in his scientific method

Thereby creating one set of rules for yoursel and another for us. Imagine that

And that is just the start. If admin allows I would be happy to respond to each one in turn


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-17-2011 9:09 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2011 12:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 172 by Panda, posted 11-18-2011 6:02 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 173 by Admin, posted 11-18-2011 7:02 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 171 of 219 (641214)
11-18-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dawn Bertot
11-17-2011 11:19 PM


Re: The Flight Of The Frightened Rabbit
As I looked at each one of these i see and remember that i have actually answered and responded to each one

If you "see" that you are hallucinating; if you remember that you are delusional.

The basic fallacy for each one of these highlights is two-fold.

First you use a contrived and exclusive definition for the words science and evidence. IOWs you have abandoned the basic meaning of the words science and evidence

Secondly, you start in the middle of the process called investigation (Scientific method) and claim that origins dont matter to the process of the scientific method

Which of course in any normal investigation the how and why, always matter

So as a mattter of convience you ignore this point of the process for yourself and require it of the theist in his scientific method

Thereby creating one set of rules for yoursel and another for us. Imagine that

This windy wordy mess of blatant falsehood and drooling nonsense is not actually an answer to any of the questions.

Now why don't you go to the other thread, man up, and answer some of the questions you've been asked instead of whimpering and blubbing and whining out your lame, self-pitying excuses?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 11:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1214 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 172 of 219 (641240)
11-18-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dawn Bertot
11-17-2011 11:19 PM


Re: The Flight Of The Frightened Rabbit
Dawn Bertot writes:

As I looked at each one of these i see and remember that i have actually answered and responded to each one

Responding is not the same as answering.
If I asked you "What is the time?" and you said "I don't understand clocks." that would be a response and not an answer to the question.

So far, your replies have only been responses.


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 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 11:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 173 of 219 (641243)
11-18-2011 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dawn Bertot
11-17-2011 11:19 PM


Dawn Berot's Posting Permissions Removed Here
Hi Dawn,

I am removing your posting permissions in the Intelligent Design forum.

--Percy

Edited by Admin, : Typo.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 11:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3943
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 174 of 219 (641249)
11-18-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dawn Bertot
11-17-2011 7:00 PM


Re: is my rock design
In Message 80 you said

Are you sure your goal is not to represent us in a certain light?

Which implies my intent in the debate is less than honourable.

I replied in Message 95

Quite sure. My interest here lies in the fact that creo posters on this site have a trend towards writing things that only they understand.

This is indicative of not being clear as to the points they are attempting to make.

This is one of the advantages of the science crowd: using precise and nice vocabulary that is understood universally.

Have I made myself clear? Even if you disagree with my position you should understand what I'm getting at.

It would have been so nice if you had acknowlede the fact that my intentions were, in fact honourable.

But no, you skulked off; only to repeat your accusations of debating in bad faith here (calling in my admin buddies).

Bit of a pattern forming, eh?


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 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 7:00 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
DWIII
Member (Idle past 704 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


(1)
Message 175 of 219 (641282)
11-18-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Dawn Bertot
11-16-2011 7:18 AM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:


With regard to crystalline structure, some geologic processes produce more order (e.g., large uniform crystals such as quartz) than other geologic processes (e.g., amorphous glasses such as obsidian). So, as far as crystalline structure is concerned, do igneous rocks composed of quartz show more evidence of design than igneous rocks composed of obsidian?

I find it interesting that you can recognize complex and simple order but not design. What is the criteria that you use to recognize and define order? How do you come to that conclusion

I haven't come to any conclusion yet; I was asking if you yourself believe that a crystal exhibits more order than an amorphous material; yes or no?

But... if you really want my input on this, consider the following:

One possible way to quantify simplicity/order vs complexity/disorder is Kolmogorov complexity; in particular, the length of a description (in a suitable symbolic language) necessary to fully describe the positioning of each atom in a sample. For example, given sufficiently-large sample sizes, specifying the regular lattice (built up of repeated unit cells of silicon atoms and oxygen atoms) of a perfect quartz crystal would take far less data than to specify the individual positions of every one of those same atoms in a disorderly arrangement, such as obsidian.


As I read your post I see you havent been here that long, as such are unfamiliar with what I am actually arguing.

I have been lurking at EVC for a number of years now, so I am quite familiar with the arguments of many of the cdesignists here. Even so, it's always been quite difficult for me to make heads or tails of most of what you yourself put forth, given that you seem to have a remarkable talent for mixing up and equivocating your chosen set of magic words almost at random(!).


These all have the same, ordered, harmounious and consistent sub-structure, which exhibit incredible design, wouldnt you agree

...

So as far as crystaline structures are concerned, igneous rock composed of quartz are all the same at thier substructure and are ordered designed and created by the same process, regardless, if one can see more or less design, in its finished product. Wouldnt you agree?

...

Would'nt you agree that the substructure of any or all the processes you describe are exacally the same, regardless of any relative design in its finished product

What's there to agree with if you cannot even get your $#@#$%$%@ grammar straight???


Wouldnt you agree that in any of the processes you describe, we are still going to find destailed order and purpose, regardeless of our conclusions of how the process was formed?

Suppose we do find exactly the same "detailed order and purpose" in every single thing produced by every single process? If there are no viable examples of non-design for comparison, or alternatively no conceivable method of measuring the amount of design, how could you then even hope to objectively recognize design in the first place?

Sorry, but "I knows it when I sees it" is just not good enough.


How the process took place is secondary to overwhelming display of order itself, which actually formulates the design argument. Our conclusions of whor or why are not necessary for the argumnent to be valid, correct?

Then, as far as science is concerned, the design argument is essentially worthless, and at best a dead end. Learning the "how" or the "why" (or even possibly the "who") that lies behind any given phenomenon is exactly what science is all about.

Since you (apparently) have been booted from this subforum, I suppose there is no point in continuing.


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2011 7:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 176 of 219 (641710)
11-21-2011 11:07 PM


Is my rock designed?
Seems there's no way to tell how a rock was designed...therefore design does not exist.

If ever one should come across an alien space craft of some sort, it would only be logical to conclude that it was spat out by the sun since there would be no way to determine that it was designed...Ignorance is bliss.


Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2011 1:44 AM SavageD has not yet responded
 Message 178 by Larni, posted 11-22-2011 6:06 AM SavageD has responded
 Message 179 by Panda, posted 11-22-2011 10:36 AM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 177 of 219 (641725)
11-22-2011 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by SavageD
11-21-2011 11:07 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
Seems there's no way to tell how a rock was designed...therefore design does not exist.

If ever one should come across an alien space craft of some sort, it would only be logical to conclude that it was spat out by the sun since there would be no way to determine that it was designed...Ignorance is bliss.

Your inability to detect design does not mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it is impossible for other people to detect it.

As to whether ignorance is bliss, I find that knowledge also has its charms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by SavageD, posted 11-21-2011 11:07 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3943
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 178 of 219 (641738)
11-22-2011 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by SavageD
11-21-2011 11:07 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
But that is the whole flaw in the inference of design.

It has not yet been shown by any CDesign proponetist that there is a reliable way to detect design without things like brand names, factory of origin stamps, etc.

it would only be logical to conclude that it was spat out by the sun

Only if one was an idiot.


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 176 by SavageD, posted 11-21-2011 11:07 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 9:25 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1214 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 179 of 219 (641766)
11-22-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by SavageD
11-21-2011 11:07 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
SavageD writes:

Seems there's no way to tell how a rock was designed

Since ID'ists claim to be able to detect design, your sarcastic comment actually undermines their position.

Is that what you intended?


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 176 by SavageD, posted 11-21-2011 11:07 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 180 of 219 (641846)
11-22-2011 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Larni
11-22-2011 6:06 AM


Re: Is my rock designed?
it would only be logical to conclude that it was spat out by the sun

Only if one was an idiot.

How so? If there's no way to detect intelligent design then I'm free to believe that the space craft could have come from anything.

Surely I can't say it was designed by an intelligence because there's apparently no distinguishing qualities by which one can infer design for anything.

Unless, you disagree with me?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Larni, posted 11-22-2011 6:06 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2011 10:00 PM SavageD has responded
 Message 187 by jar, posted 11-23-2011 11:36 AM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 181 of 219 (641848)
11-22-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by SavageD
11-22-2011 9:25 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
How so? If there's no way to detect intelligent design then I'm free to believe that the space craft could have come from anything.

Surely I can't say it was designed by an intelligence because there's apparently no distinguishing qualities by which one can infer design for anything.

As has been pointed out, your inability to detect design is not a universal disability.

I suppose if you yourself really have no criterion at all for detecting design, then you, personally, could believe that a spaceship was "spat out by the sun". The rest of us, however, would not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 9:25 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 10:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017