Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 4:35 AM
419 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 418 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,997 Year: 6,603/21,208 Month: 2,364/2,634 Week: 27/525 Day: 2/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1103 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 182 of 219 (641849)
11-22-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2011 10:00 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
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.

Well then, enlighten me. How would you know that the hypothetical space ship was designed by some intelligence and not spat out by the sun?

How would you detect design?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2011 10:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by hooah212002, posted 11-22-2011 11:17 PM SavageD has not yet responded
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2011 12:48 AM SavageD has responded
 Message 185 by Larni, posted 11-23-2011 5:24 AM SavageD has not yet responded
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 11-23-2011 7:51 AM SavageD has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 183 of 219 (641852)
11-22-2011 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by SavageD
11-22-2011 10:25 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
How would you detect design?

The onus is on the ID camp to explain how to detect design since they are the ones who say there is such a thing in nature. Dr. A, or any other person in the real science camp, is not an IDist so he has no such responsibility to explain a design detection mechanism or method, seeing as how sceintists don't claim for there to be design in nature.....


"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 182 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 10:25 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 184 of 219 (641857)
11-23-2011 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by SavageD
11-22-2011 10:25 PM


Design Detection For Beginners
Well then, enlighten me. How would you know that the hypothetical space ship was designed by some intelligence and not spat out by the sun?

Because it's a spaceship.

How would you detect design?

With reference to the processes actually known to produce things.

For example, since whenever we know how spaceships (and other machinery) are produced, it turns out to involve design, we would infer design in a spaceship even if we hadn't seen it produced.

On the other hand, if we see (for example) a wombat, then since whenever we know how an organism is produced, it turns out to involve reproduction and variation without design, we would infer the same for the wombat even if we didn't see the mummy wombat giving birth to it.

And, in the case of rocks, I know how igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks are produced, and it doesn't involve design, so I should classify the rock itself as undesigned. Of course, it might have been shaped into an arrowhead or a statue or whatever, and I know that those things are designed, since whenever we are able to check, a flint arrowhead has a flint-knapper and a sculpture has a sculptor; so in that case I should identify the material as undesigned but the form as designed.

But what if (you might ask) I encounter a class of thing entirely outside of my experience? Well, in that case I should try to see if I could see one of them being produced.

Of this method in general, we may note that it involves possessing actual knowledge, that it is a straightforward application of the scientific method, and that it leads to conclusions that are true; and for these reasons it will never appeal to the ID crowd who claim to be in the business of "detecting design" --- a method that works can obviously has no allure for them. And yet it does allow me to identify a spaceship as designed while you are unable to think of any reason why it wasn't "spat out by the sun".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 10:25 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by SavageD, posted 11-27-2011 4:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3932
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 185 of 219 (641871)
11-23-2011 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by SavageD
11-22-2011 10:25 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
Larni writes:

things like brand names, factory of origin stamps, etc.

SavageD writes:

How would you know that the hypothetical space ship was designed by some intelligence and not spat out by the sun?

Already answered that one, mate.


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 182 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 10:25 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 186 of 219 (641878)
11-23-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by SavageD
11-22-2011 10:25 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
Rephrasing your question, since we can tell that a spaceship or boat or car or ballpoint pen is designed just by looking at it, obviously we can detect design, so why can't we tell whether a rock is designed?

The answer is that we *can* tell whether a rock was designed. It wasn't.

But just looking at things and classifying them as designed or not designed is not very scientific and probably very error prone. For instance, was this designed (it's a termite mound):

ID claims an analytical or algorithmic procedure for detecting design. We'd like someone to describe this procedure on something like a rock, but it doesn't have to be rock, we could choose something else. could can you describe for us how one might apply this procedure in order to tell that the termite mound was not designed but this was (it's modern art):

Not to distract from your question or the topic, but it might be worthwhile noting that much of what ID purports to do is not the detection of design but of evidence of the work of an intelligence. Most of the evidence people leave behind is not designed. It often isn't even created with intent, as when you leave footprints in the sand.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 10:25 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28434
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 187 of 219 (641900)
11-23-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by SavageD
11-22-2011 9:25 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
Actually, we can detect design, and also detect those things that have not been designed.

The latter is the more important point. It is absolutely clear that living things are not designed. It is absolutely clear that rocks, sand dunes, tree rings, galaxies, mountains, are not designed.

The issue is the utter nonsense called "Intelligent Design".

There are people that make claims that there is some universal designer, but they have never presented any evidence of that "designer" much less that that designer is in any way intelligent.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 9:25 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 188 of 219 (642024)
11-24-2011 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BVZ
09-10-2008 5:55 AM


quote:
I have found a rock. Nothing special about it. Its just a rock. As far as I know anyway, I am no geologist.

Anyway, I want to figure out if this rock was designed or not.

How can I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?


Archaeologists infer intelligent design from rocks routinely to determine whether a stone which is shaped in a particular fashion, is actually just a stone or perhaps a tool used by a human.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BVZ, posted 09-10-2008 5:55 AM BVZ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2011 11:25 PM Portillo has responded
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 11:33 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 189 of 219 (642027)
11-24-2011 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Portillo
11-24-2011 11:11 PM


Archaeologists infer intelligent design from rocks routinely to determine whether a stone which is shaped in a particular fashion, is actually just a stone or perhaps a tool used by a human.

Yes, they do. But how would the ID crowd like to do it?

When an archaeologist finds a stone tool or a clay pot s/he puts that in the "designed" pile while putting a goat's skull or a tree root into the "natural" pile. But creationists are in need of a different criterion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Portillo, posted 11-24-2011 11:11 PM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Portillo, posted 11-29-2011 12:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 190 of 219 (642028)
11-24-2011 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Portillo
11-24-2011 11:11 PM


Design
Archaeologists infer intelligent design from rocks routinely to determine whether a stone which is shaped in a particular fashion, is actually just a stone or perhaps a tool used by a human.

We don't just "infer" it, we spend a lot of time working out those details and learning the subject. Some archaeologists spend their entire careers studying lithic technology.

In graduate school one of my professors had a room full of various "rocks" picked up from streambeds, alluvial fans, and other areas which can produce items that appear to be artifacts. By studying both the natural ones and the manufactured ones he, and many other archaeologists, are able to come up with guidelines for determining whether particular items are "designed" or not.

Study some archaeology and you might learn something. That might take a few years though. Archaeology is not always as easy as it looks on TV.

Where are the studies and guidelines established by "cdesign proponentsists" to do the same thing?

What we see is the exact opposite of science. Instead of science we get catechisms, and instead of empirical evidence we get opinions. When we ask for evidence, and for rules to differentiate between design and non-design, we get either gibberish or silence.

What we don't get from creationists, and what has been asked for many times on this thread, is scientific methods for distinguishing design from non-design.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Portillo, posted 11-24-2011 11:11 PM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 11-24-2011 11:43 PM Coyote has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28434
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 191 of 219 (642030)
11-24-2011 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Coyote
11-24-2011 11:33 PM


Re: Design
There is one other important point that needs to be stressed, and that is that the designer when it comes to such artifacts is a known and verifiable entity; the designer is humans and we also have additional evidence from multiple lines that the designer did exist at that time and at that place.

So far not one of the Intelligent Design supporters has presented comparable evidence of the existence of their Designer.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 11:33 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 11:55 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 192 of 219 (642032)
11-24-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by jar
11-24-2011 11:43 PM


Re: Design or not
There is one other important point that needs to be stressed, and that is that the designer when it comes to such artifacts is a known and verifiable entity; the designer is humans and we also have additional evidence from multiple lines that the designer did exist at that time and at that place.

So far not one of the Intelligent Design supporters has presented comparable evidence of the existence of their Designer.


Yes, there is that too.

The science of "intelligent design" seems to be missing a lot of the elements one would expect in a real science.

Starting with evidence.

(See signature, below.)


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 11-24-2011 11:43 PM jar has not yet responded

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1103 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 193 of 219 (642320)
11-27-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dr Adequate
11-23-2011 12:48 AM


Re: Design Detection For Beginners
Well then, enlighten me. How would you know that the hypothetical space ship was designed by some intelligence and not spat out by the sun?

Because it's a spaceship.

Circular argument. ie You know that the hypothetical space ship was designed, because it's a spaceship.


How would you detect design?

With reference to the processes actually known to produce things.

For example, since whenever we know how spaceships (and other machinery) are produced, it turns out to involve design, we would infer design in a spaceship even if we hadn't seen it produced.

On the other hand, if we see (for example) a wombat, then since whenever we know how an organism is produced, it turns out to involve reproduction and variation without design, we would infer the same for the wombat even if we didn't see the mummy wombat giving birth to it.

And, in the case of rocks, I know how igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks are produced, and it doesn't involve design, so I should classify the rock itself as undesigned. Of course, it might have been shaped into an arrowhead or a statue or whatever, and I know that those things are designed, since whenever we are able to check, a flint arrowhead has a flint-knapper and a sculpture has a sculptor; so in that case I should identify the material as undesigned but the form as designed.

But what if (you might ask) I encounter a class of thing entirely outside of my experience? Well, in that case I should try to see if I could see one of them being produced.

Of this method in general, we may note that it involves possessing actual knowledge, that it is a straightforward application of the scientific method, and that it leads to conclusions that are true; and for these reasons it will never appeal to the ID crowd who claim to be in the business of "detecting design" --- a method that works can obviously has no allure for them. And yet it does allow me to identify a spaceship as designed while you are unable to think of any reason why it wasn't "spat out by the sun".

The entire basis for you argument seems to be that:

1) Intelligent design does in fact, exist.

2) You know that rocks are not designed because you have knowledge of how they are formed.
(Which I totally agree with...though i must state that this is just *one* way in detecting design.)

I'm however curious, if ever you were to come across an object that was built by an intelligent agent, using methods outside your knowledge base.

How would you infer a designer?

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2011 12:48 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 11-27-2011 4:21 PM SavageD has not yet responded
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2011 7:26 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28434
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 194 of 219 (642322)
11-27-2011 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by SavageD
11-27-2011 4:07 PM


Re: Design Detection For Beginners
I'm however curious, if ever you were to come across an object that was built using methods outside your knowledge base.

How would you infer a designer?

You would not infer a designer.

A designer is only a possibility when there is a very good reason to think that there was a designer.

For example, you MIGHT be able to conclude there was a designer if you came across a spaceship. Note the emphasis on MIGHT.

Before we conclude that there was a designer we need to examine those parts that correspond to known designs. How is it unlike things we know are not designed like rocks and critters and galaxies?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by SavageD, posted 11-27-2011 4:07 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 195 of 219 (642338)
11-27-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by SavageD
11-27-2011 4:07 PM


Re: Design Detection For Beginners
Circular argument. ie You know that the hypothetical space ship was designed, because it's a spaceship.

That is not a circular argument.

The entire basis for you argument seems to be that:

1) Intelligent design does in fact, exist.

I wouldn't call that the basis for my argument. But knowledge of what kind of things are designed forms part of the method.

2) You know that rocks are not designed because you have knowledge of how they are formed.

Quite so, how else? Again, this observation about rocks is not the basis of my argument, merely an example of it.

I'm however curious, if ever you were to come across an object that was built by an intelligent agent, using methods outside your knowledge base.

How would you infer a designer?

Different methods wouldn't be a problem. A car fabricated by nanobots or Oompa-Loompas would still recognizably be a car.

The problem would come if I came across a different kind of thing to anything I'd seen before. And, as I said, there'd be nothing to do but try to find out how that kind of thing did in fact come into existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by SavageD, posted 11-27-2011 4:07 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 196 of 219 (642448)
11-29-2011 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dr Adequate
11-24-2011 11:25 PM


quote:
But how would the ID crowd like to do it?

The same way the archaeologist does it.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2011 11:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 1:12 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 198 by Larni, posted 11-29-2011 4:03 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 11-29-2011 7:17 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017