Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2017 2:41 AM
386 online now:
Dredge, Heathen, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (6 members, 380 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,485 Year: 19,091/21,208 Month: 1,850/3,111 Week: 71/574 Day: 3/68 Hour: 3/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 197 of 219 (642451)
11-29-2011 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Portillo
11-29-2011 12:37 AM


The same way the archaeologist does it.

If they did that then they, like the archaeologist, would put living or formerly living organisms in the "undesigned" pile, and would cease to be cdesign proponentists.

As I wrote in the very post you're replying to:

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.

That's "different" as in not the same.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Portillo, posted 11-29-2011 12:37 AM Portillo has not yet responded

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


Message 198 of 219 (642461)
11-29-2011 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Portillo
11-29-2011 12:37 AM


The same way the archaeologist does it.

So anything that was was not designed by peolpe (with an illustrious history in and known mechanisms of, design) would be labled 'not designed'.

I guess we can all be happy with that.

End thread?

Edited by Larni, : spelling


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 196 by Portillo, posted 11-29-2011 12:37 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 199 of 219 (642471)
11-29-2011 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Portillo
11-29-2011 12:37 AM


Portillo writes:

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

The same way the archaeologist does it.

Archaeologists are not looking for design. They're looking for things that show evidence of having been made or modified by people.

At opposite ends of the spectrum the design argument is simple: you know it when you see it. A belt buckle is designed, a rock isn't. But as you move more toward the middle you reach a large grey area. For example, take these polished pebbles:

Are they from a polishing machine and therefore designed? Or are they from a stream bed and therefore natural?

That's all this thread is asking. You're given this polished pebble. How do you tell whether it was designed? This is the question that people like Spetner, Gitt and Dembski claim to have answered, and all we want is a description of the method that determines whether or not this rock was designed.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Portillo, posted 11-29-2011 12:37 AM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Robert Byers, posted 11-29-2011 7:48 PM Percy has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1838 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 200 of 219 (642574)
11-29-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Percy
11-29-2011 7:17 AM


Just to throw in my two cents in.
Design always means the fantastic complexity of nature.
Not rounded stones.
Design is where a human being understands that such a complex thing could only of come from complex processes.
Design is likely or very reasonably to be seen where complexity of process can't be mere happanchance.

Therefore its reasonable to see design and not see evolutionary etc processes.
Then from there take on attempts to deny complex processes and replace them with simple step evolutionism.

Design equals complexity equals complex processes.
Sum. God plus his mechanisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 11-29-2011 7:17 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 8:10 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 202 by DWIII, posted 11-29-2011 9:25 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 11-29-2011 10:09 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 204 by Panda, posted 11-30-2011 6:05 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 11-30-2011 11:44 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15946
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 201 of 219 (642580)
11-29-2011 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Robert Byers
11-29-2011 7:48 PM


Design always means the fantastic complexity of nature.

So a car, for example, would not be designed by this criterion, since it is not natural.

Design equals complexity equals complex processes.

So a spoon, for example, would not be designed by this criterion, since it is not complex.

Come back when you've got a criterion that works, eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Robert Byers, posted 11-29-2011 7:48 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 202 of 219 (642584)
11-29-2011 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Robert Byers
11-29-2011 7:48 PM


Robert Byers writes:


Design always means the fantastic complexity of nature.
Not rounded stones.
Design is where a human being understands that such a complex thing could only of come from complex processes.

Then perhaps we have a poor choice of terminology here. If your definition of "design" must include complexity, I suggest we simply call it "cdesign" to help avoid confusion.


Design equals complexity equals complex processes.
Sum. God plus his mechanisms.

Tell me, are mere humans capable of producing full-blown cdesign, as opposed to ordinary run-of-the-mill design?


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Robert Byers, posted 11-29-2011 7:48 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 203 of 219 (642586)
11-29-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Robert Byers
11-29-2011 7:48 PM


Robert Byers writes:

Design always means the fantastic complexity of nature.
Not rounded stones.

So stones rounded by human beings are not designed? The stones in an opal necklace, for example?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Robert Byers, posted 11-29-2011 7:48 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1183 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 204 of 219 (642609)
11-30-2011 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Robert Byers
11-29-2011 7:48 PM


Is the question too difficult?
RB writes:

Just to throw in my two cents in.

Maybe you could throw in a direct answer too?

How do I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?
Walk me through the steps.


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 200 by Robert Byers, posted 11-29-2011 7:48 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6799
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 205 of 219 (642649)
11-30-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Robert Byers
11-29-2011 7:48 PM


Design is where a human being understands that such a complex thing could only of come from complex processes.
Design is likely or very reasonably to be seen where complexity of process can't be mere happanchance.

Too bad that not a single cdesign proponentist has been able to support either of these claims.

Then from there take on attempts to deny complex processes and replace them with simple step evolutionism.

Since when is evolution a simple process?

Design equals complexity equals complex processes.

ID is a claim. It is not complexity. It is not complex processes. You are confusing the claim with what it is trying to explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Robert Byers, posted 11-29-2011 7:48 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1838 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 206 of 219 (642725)
12-01-2011 12:26 AM


Everyone.
by design i mean the great claim of iD that the universe is easily seen as designed because of its great complexity.
Round stones are a trivial operation that only taps into the greater design that includes processes of movement affecting material.

iD is simply demanding that the great complexity mankind has always seen could only come from great processes in nature.
They are reasonably too complex for trivial cause and effect without a thinking being involved.

one can not dismiss the obviousness of wonderful complexity as a teaching of a designer.
Critics must go a long way to show the universe is not designed.


Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 12-01-2011 1:03 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 12-01-2011 7:45 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 209 by Panda, posted 12-01-2011 9:26 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5904
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 207 of 219 (642726)
12-01-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Robert Byers
12-01-2011 12:26 AM


Evidence
Critics must go a long way to show the universe is not designed.

Those making the extraordinary claims are the ones who need to show their evidence.

And no, the bible does not count as evidence. Nor does your belief.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Robert Byers, posted 12-01-2011 12:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 208 of 219 (642742)
12-01-2011 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Robert Byers
12-01-2011 12:26 AM


Thank you, Robert, for this second declaration of belief. Should there come a time when you feel like addressing the thread's topic then please visit us again. Until then, adieu.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Robert Byers, posted 12-01-2011 12:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1183 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 209 of 219 (642749)
12-01-2011 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Robert Byers
12-01-2011 12:26 AM


Is the question too difficult?
How do I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?
Walk me through the steps.

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 206 by Robert Byers, posted 12-01-2011 12:26 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Robert Byers, posted 12-01-2011 7:32 PM Panda has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1838 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 210 of 219 (642798)
12-01-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Panda
12-01-2011 9:26 AM


Re: Is the question too difficult?
Well this is a obscure point.
ID is a bigger idea for the universe.
So processes only exist because of a creator.
So forces pushing rocks about are a minor process but within a bigger concept of the universe.
In both natural or man made rounded stones it was a special mechanism working upon parent material.
Both demonstrate a creator.
Natures rocks are from existing processes.
These processes show a creator.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Panda, posted 12-01-2011 9:26 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Rahvin, posted 12-01-2011 7:50 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 212 by Admin, posted 12-01-2011 8:48 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 213 by Panda, posted 12-01-2011 9:23 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(2)
Message 211 of 219 (642802)
12-01-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Robert Byers
12-01-2011 7:32 PM


Re: Is the question too difficult?
According to your line of reasoning, every possible observation would be evidence of a "creator." If your model is equally good at predicting any conceivable outcome, then it's meaningless. The terms "designed" and "not designed" lose any meaning because everything conceivable becomes "designed."

“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 210 by Robert Byers, posted 12-01-2011 7:32 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
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