Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2017 7:08 AM
392 online now:
14174dm, jar, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (5 members, 387 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,053 Year: 13,659/21,208 Month: 3,141/3,605 Week: 483/933 Day: 21/51 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
26NextFF
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1 of 377 (612039)
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


Using ID and creo logic .

Acording to intelligent design complex stuff need a designer . If you see a watch in the forest you know its designed. Well yea you have a point tough that watch was not designed by 1 person some designed the parts some designed the shape and some people put it together.

If you find a computer in the forrest you know it is designed well sure but there where tonesof people involved in the design of the computer

Just about everything designed that we see is designed by lots of designers and the more complex it is the more designers we have. So why do you assume that only one designer designed a universe as complex as ours your own logic points to there being tones of designers some designers designed stars, some rocks, some planets, some plants, some bacteria, some animals .......

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 04-13-2011 12:55 AM frako has responded
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 4:50 AM frako has responded
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 10:21 AM frako has not yet responded
 Message 17 by kbertsche, posted 04-13-2011 1:45 PM frako has responded
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2011 3:27 PM frako has not yet responded
 Message 221 by Peter, posted 04-21-2011 10:18 AM frako has not yet responded
 Message 363 by Ryan, posted 05-20-2011 9:13 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 377 (612041)
04-12-2011 7:54 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Why only one Designer thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
subbie
Member (Idle past 118 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 3 of 377 (612084)
04-13-2011 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


So why do you assume that only one designer designed a universe as complex as ours your own logic points to there being tones of designers some designers designed stars, some rocks, some planets, some plants, some bacteria, some animals .......

Because creationism and ID are (very) thinly veiled attempts to get Genesis into science classes, and there's only one designer in Genesis.

Don't bother trying to point out flaws, non sequitors or fallacies in their reasoning. They don't reason. They obfuscate and lie. In fact, pointing out arcane errors in their arguments only makes matters worse. To anyone who can't follow an argument (most of their target audience), that only makes it all seem more complicated, and more reasonable to just say, "let both sides be heard." When that happens, they win.


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 1 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 5:24 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 3:46 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 370 by Rocky.C, posted 07-10-2015 12:45 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 4 of 377 (612089)
04-13-2011 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
04-13-2011 12:55 AM


Still i was hoping for an ID-ist or Creo to tell me why there is only one designer. Hm i guess since none of them will bite that the hindus and their 1000 and more god theory is right
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 04-13-2011 12:55 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 5 of 377 (612091)
04-13-2011 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


I'll give the short answer:

There is nothing in ID that compells someone to posit only one designer, and IDer could very well believe there are many designers.

Many IDers posit a single designer simply because most are monotheists.

It's as simple as that.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 5:24 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 5:03 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2694
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 6 of 377 (612092)
04-13-2011 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by slevesque
04-13-2011 4:50 AM


I'll give the short answer:

There is nothing in ID that compells someone to posit only one designer, and IDer could very well believe there are many designers.

Many IDers posit a single designer simply because most are monotheists.

It's as simple as that.

Well using their logic there is a reason to believe there are more designers.

"Everything complex has to be designed because we see that in the things humans make"
OK then everything complex must have multiple designers because we see that in everything we make.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 4:50 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM frako has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 377 (612107)
04-13-2011 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


The Fewer the Merrier
So why do you assume that only one designer designed a universe as complex as ours [?]

If you can 'explain' it with one designer, why try to explain it with one thousand?

Jon

Edited by Jon, : typ0


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 5:24 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 04-13-2011 11:01 AM Jon has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13023
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 8 of 377 (612111)
04-13-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
04-13-2011 10:21 AM


Re: The Fewer the Merrier
Jon writes:

If you can 'explain' it with one designer, why try to explain it with one thousand?


As frako already said, they're using human design as an analogy. For all intents and purposes, that's the only argument they have.

Human design is usually done by committee (or it evolves over a period of time with a series of designers). If IDists were honest about their "conclusion", that's what their Designer would be like.

But of course it isn't a conclusion at all. They start with the Designer they want to prove and work their way back through the analogy, blatantly ignoring the parts that don't fit.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 10:21 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 11:29 AM ringo has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 377 (612118)
04-13-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
04-13-2011 11:01 AM


Re: The Fewer the Merrier
As frako already said, they're using human design as an analogy. For all intents and purposes, that's the only argument they have.

Indeed, but that is driven by the limitations of a single human doing the designing, and the fact that there are more than enough humans to do the collaborating.

From what I can tell, there are two ways that the designing could take place: a single, rather powerful, designer working alone; or a group of less powerful designers working together.

I think the human analogy only goes so far; if we can look at the nature of the 'design', we should be able to figure out the competence of the designer(s) and from there make a rough guess as to how many there were(/are).

I think...

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 04-13-2011 11:01 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 04-13-2011 12:05 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13023
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 10 of 377 (612127)
04-13-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
04-13-2011 11:29 AM


Re: The Fewer the Merrier
Jon writes:

I think the human analogy only goes so far;


And that's a major flaw in the design hypothesis. The analogy doesn't take them where they want to go. Once they have the predetermined answer, they have to stop the inquiry lest it bring up any pesky complications, like a pantheon.

Jon writes:

... if we can look at the nature of the 'design', we should be able to figure out the competence of the designer(s) and from there make a rough guess as to how many there were(/are).


Of course the last thing that IDists want to do is figure out something that they already "know".


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 11:29 AM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 04-13-2011 12:25 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5784
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 11 of 377 (612132)
04-13-2011 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
04-13-2011 12:05 PM


Re: The Fewer the Merrier
Of course the last thing that IDists want to do is figure out something that they already "know".

The last thing IDists want to do is figure out something that they already "know" is wrong.

But that's no problem. Their "method" is perfectly suited to their purpose.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 04-13-2011 12:05 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2052 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 12 of 377 (612134)
04-13-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by frako
04-13-2011 5:03 AM


Well using their logic there is a reason to believe there are more designers.

If you want to critic the intelligent design movement, I would suggest reading at least a book or two from an Ider explaining what ID is.

Because rarely do you show anything other then simple gross misunderstanding about it ...

"Everything complex has to be designed because we see that in the things humans make"

This is a perfect example of the gross misunderstanding I am talking about, and a rather obvious strawman of what the IDers say.

Yes, they sometimes use human designs as analogy, but their arguments do not rest on this analogy (contrary to what Ringo claims).

OK then everything complex must have multiple designers because we see that in everything we make.

Humans design complex things, simple things, random things, weird things, and they do all those either alone or with in collaboration with others.

If you would want to show that an IDer would have to logically believe in multiple designers, you would have to show that a designed thing absolutely requires multiple designers. Which would be quite an astonishing feat, considering all the counter-examples of things built by a single designer that I can think of ...

But what is really more interesting in this thread is how blatantly illogical the reasoning in the OP is, and yet no atheist/evolutionist here bothered to tell you you were wrong. Everything is fine as long as you can bash ID in the process it seems, and who cares about basic logic!

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 5:03 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 04-13-2011 1:03 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 04-13-2011 1:28 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Jon, posted 04-13-2011 1:33 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 04-13-2011 1:41 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 18 by frako, posted 04-13-2011 2:36 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2011 4:17 PM slevesque has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13023
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 13 of 377 (612139)
04-13-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
04-13-2011 12:39 PM


slevesque writes:

Yes, they sometimes use human designs as analogy, but their arguments do not rest on this analogy (contrary to what Ringo claims).


Feel free to point out how it is contrary. Show us how ID thinking is independent of the fact of human design.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6455
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 14 of 377 (612141)
04-13-2011 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
04-13-2011 12:39 PM


If you want to critic the intelligent design movement, I would suggest reading at least a book or two from an Ider explaining what ID is.

The Wedge Document seemed to sum it up nicely.

If you would want to show that an IDer would have to logically believe in multiple designers, you would have to show that a designed thing absolutely requires multiple designers.

I would argue that the nested hierarchy is much more consistent with multiple designers that are blind to each others designs. I see no other way to explain the nested hierarchy from a design perspective. Either that, or a single designer that slightly modifies pre-existing species and then suffers amnesia after designing the new species.

IDer's like to cite archaeological artifacts as an example of evidence. If they were to stay true to this example they would use the same techniques. For example, there are many types of arrowheads. Differences in arrowheads are due to differences in cultural origins. That is, separate designers for different designs that originated from a shared historical archetype. Why shouldn't this same technique be used for life? Each life design group was given the basic metazoan layout and then each life design group changed things from there. This would be a much better explanation for why the cephalopod and vertebrate eye are so different, yet perform the same function. A single designer would have no problem mixing and matching different design units between cephalopods and vertebrates.

IMHO, assuming that ID is true for the moment, the nested hierarchy screams multiple designers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by bluegenes, posted 04-13-2011 8:41 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 377 (612143)
04-13-2011 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
04-13-2011 12:39 PM


Ahem...
... and yet no atheist/evolutionist here bothered to tell you you were wrong.

Ahem:

quote:
Jon in Message 7:

If you can 'explain' it with one designer, why try to explain it with one thousand?


Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
26NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017