Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 5:46 AM
449 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 445 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,961 Year: 6,567/21,208 Month: 2,328/2,634 Week: 516/572 Day: 2/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
23242526Next
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 316 of 377 (613990)
04-29-2011 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by SavageD
04-29-2011 10:28 PM


Re: Evidence for an Only Designer
SavageD writes:

Water, inturn plays a key role for all organisms to stay to alive; Without water, all organisms die.


Are you suggesting that if there were two designers, one of them would have designed his version of life without water?

What's the difference between several designers all using water for their lifeforms and several designers all using metal for their automobiles? It just seems like the sensible thing to do and doesn't in any way suggest a lone designer.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by SavageD, posted 04-29-2011 10:28 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 317 of 377 (613991)
04-29-2011 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by SavageD
04-29-2011 10:28 PM


Re: Evidence for an Only Designer
You're quote mining...your taking my quotations out of context without addressing my main argument (which you have conveniently left out).

Try not to be offensive and stupid simultaneously.

People can read your last two paragraphs. I have not hidden them. The context is there for all to see. I omitted them because they seemed to be more of the same.

Now, do you have anything to say in response to what I wrote, or do you merely wish to whine that I didn't C&P everything that you wrote?

In short these mechanisms (dna, water sustenance & the ecosystem) are not simply there as separate counterparts; they are required utilities to sustain life, they show relatedness and they are undeniable commonalities for every organism.

Every Living organism requires dna. DNA, aside from being used for the development and functioning of all living organisms, play a key role in developing the different mechanisms for utilizing water.

Water, inturn plays a key role for all organisms to stay to alive; Without water, all organisms die. To tie in these two points (dna, water sustenance), life is needed to sustain life (the ecosystem is required).

And yet clearly lots of designers could have worked within the paradigm of water as a solvent and DNA as a means of information storage; just as lots of designers could work within the paradigm of electricity and silicon chips.

Here's a question. Can you suggest what a second designer could have used other than water? Is there any other liquid sloshing around this planet that would have done just as well?

Organisms depend on each other to regulate the environment in which they live, and in most cases they need each other for food / energy.

The economy exhibits a similar interdependence, yet we do not conclude that one person designed it.

It is not 'definitive' evidence of a single designer, but the odds / probabilities are in favor of these exhibited commonalities being the idea of solely one designer. The reason for this being that all organisms share these commonalities, which inturn suggests one common thought / idea.

But the existence of commonalities does not suggest "one common thought / idea" when we turn to look at cases where we know design to be present and know the details of the design process --- or if it did suggest that, it would suggest wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by SavageD, posted 04-29-2011 10:28 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by SavageD, posted 04-30-2011 1:51 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3422
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 318 of 377 (613998)
04-30-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by SavageD
04-29-2011 10:28 PM


Re: Evidence for an Only Designer
It is not 'definitive' evidence of a single designer, but the odds / probabilities are in favor of these exhibited commonalities being the idea of solely one designer.

Is this your opinion or are these odds/probabilities demonstrable in some manner?

Sorry to keep dragging this out, SavageD, but your answers seem to be no more than suppositions without any separation of what would be 0ne- or multiple-designer evidence. Again, taking the human design/designer experience as our guide there doesn't seem to be anything in your points that in any way negates a multi-designer scenario.

Unless there is something compelling in the odds/probability analysis you mentioned then I'm afraid your evidence for a one-designer hypothesis is not sufficient.

Do you have a probability analysis you could share? Though not stellar in all areas, my math is more than sufficient to comprehend probability theory. Feel free to get as detailed as you think is necessary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by SavageD, posted 04-29-2011 10:28 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 319 of 377 (614016)
04-30-2011 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Dr Adequate
04-29-2011 11:40 PM


Re: Evidence for an Only Designer
Dr Adequate writes:

Try not to be offensive and stupid simultaneously.

People can read your last two paragraphs. I have not hidden them. The context is there for all to see. I omitted them because they seemed to be more of the same.

Your being a smart ass, you left out those two points because your argument would break apart.


Now, do you have anything to say in response to what I wrote, or do you merely wish to whine that I didn't C&P everything that you wrote?

I've already told you why your response was invalid. Your examples were in no way related to each other as mine were, your were nit picking. If I were to do the same (nit pick), I would be going away from my own argument.


And yet clearly lots of designers could have worked within the paradigm of water as a solvent and DNA as a means of information storage; just as lots of designers could work within the paradigm of electricity and silicon chips.

Here again your analogy is wrong because you are nit picking. I pointed out that it isn't simply DNA & water which is the commonality. It is dna, water, their importance & commonality in the system of things (the ecosystem i.e. life is needed to sustain life.) which exhibit the common idea.


Here's a question. Can you suggest what a second designer could have used other than water? Is there any other liquid sloshing around this planet that would have done just as well?

lol, I would like to see your point for asserting this statement.

Why couldn't it be some other planet with some other abundant form of liquid? Point is we are in the here and now, we believe that life is here because it was designed.


The economy exhibits a similar interdependence, yet we do not conclude that one person designed it.

Your making the same mistake as before (nit picking). It isn't simply the system as a whole you are to look at; you are to also look at the commonalities on the smaller levels, as well relatedness on the physically observable characteristics (dna, water), & their intertwining in a system.


But the existence of commonalities does not suggest "one common thought / idea" when we turn to look at cases where we know design to be present and know the details of the design process --- or if it did suggest that, it would suggest wrong.

No, it isn't simply commonalities which suggest common thought. It is commonalities, along with their relatedness & physically observable traits which would suggest whether a design could have been the idea of one designer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-29-2011 11:40 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2011 7:09 AM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 320 of 377 (614123)
05-02-2011 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by SavageD
04-30-2011 1:51 PM


Your being a smart ass, you left out those two points because your argument would break apart.

You are lying to me, about me.

How do you think that's going to work out?

I've already told you why your response was invalid. Your examples were in no way related to each other as mine were, your were nit picking. If I were to do the same (nit pick), I would be going away from my own argument.

If you really wish to offer no rebuttal to my criticisms, we can move on.

Here again your analogy is wrong because you are nit picking.

The words "nit-picking" do not in fact have magical powers to make an argument go away.

lol, I would like to see your point for asserting this statement.

In tomorrow's lesson, we'll be learning the difference between an assertion and a question.

Tonight I'd like you to read up on what a "question-mark" is.

Why couldn't it be some other planet with some other abundant form of liquid? Point is we are in the here and now, we believe that life is here because it was designed.

I am sure that something must have been going through your mind when you wrote that. But it was probably not the thought: "What would be an actual answer to Dr Adequate's question?"

Let's try again. If a designer wanted to design life suitable for this planet, what other than water would have made a suitable liquid medium?

Your making the same mistake as before (nit picking).

"Nit picking" are still not magic words.

No, it isn't simply commonalities which suggest common thought. It is commonalities, along with their relatedness & physically observable traits which would suggest whether a design could have been the idea of one designer.

Perhaps you could expand on that, maybe even put it into coherent English.

I have two objects. Both are powered by electricity; both have identical plugs and can (not simultaneously of course) plug into the same socket; both take the same voltage; both are capable of displaying numbers; both do so in the same font ...

... which is red in both cases, this being the result of both of them using red LEDs; both are capable of displaying the time; both of them are capable of making beeping noises; both contain copper wires; both contain printed circuit boards; in both cases the circuit boards are green; both contain silicon chips; both contain screws; in both cases the screws tighten when turned clockwise and loosen when turned anticlockwise; both have buttons on them; both have plastic casings; both casings are black; both are products of the same global economy; neither of them works underwater; and both function in the atmosphere and range of temperatures and pressures found on this planet. I could go on, but you get the picture.

These are "commonalities". These are "physically observable traits". How would you rate the likelihood that they were designed by the same person?

I don't even have to tell you that one is an alarm clock and the other is a microwave for you to think that this is unlikely. It would in fact be quite unlikely even if they were both alarm clocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by SavageD, posted 04-30-2011 1:51 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 321 of 377 (614262)
05-03-2011 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by ringo
04-28-2011 10:47 AM


Re: Assumptions
ringo writes:

Straggler writes:

If you assume that the designer of our universe is comparable to the entities that exist within our universe you can conclude a plurality of designers. As you have done throughout this thread.

We are assuming that.

You are assuming that. But why is this assumption any more valid than any other assumption about this hypothetical designer?

ringo writes:

The whole conclusion of design depends on that assumption.

No it doesn't. No IDist is claiming that the designer is comparable to humans or zebras or elephants or ice caps. You are. And if you insist on making such comparisons you are left trying to answer the ridiculous question as to how many humans/zebras/elephants/ice caps it would take to design the universe.

You continue to make these flawed comparisons but won't face the inevitable question such comparisons inevitably lead to.

ringo writes:

Is there only one mountain? Only one cloud? Only one sea-floor vent? Only one ice cap?

How many of these things are capable of designing universes? How many of these things are capable of existing outside our universe (whatever that even means) such that they could have designed and created it?

So why do you consider such comparisons valid or meaningful?

ringo writes:

My argument is based on assumptions that are inherent in the given premises.

Then your conclusion of "some" is simply a circular restatement of the premise as you have decided to interpret it.

It is a strawman version of ID that is just as flawed as theirs is. But what is the point in creating straw man version of ID?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by ringo, posted 04-28-2011 10:47 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by ringo, posted 05-03-2011 10:38 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 322 of 377 (614264)
05-03-2011 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Jon
04-28-2011 10:59 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Whatever arguments are going around it remains the case that commenting on the number of hyppthetical designers required to design our universe is utterly non-sensical unless some assumptions about who or what is doing the designing are made.

Most IDists assume that the designer is the object of their religious beliefs.

Ringo is apparently assuming that the designer of our universe is comparable to ice caps, clouds and mountains (having abandoned previous comparisons with zebras and elephants).

What are you assuming Jon?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Jon, posted 04-28-2011 10:59 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Jon, posted 05-03-2011 4:08 PM Straggler has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 323 of 377 (614273)
05-03-2011 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Straggler
05-03-2011 9:51 AM


Re: Assumptions
Straggler writes:

But why is this assumption any more valid than any other assumption about this hypothetical designer?


We are accepting, for the purpose of this thread, the conclusion that the universe was designed. The comparison with known designers is inherent in that conclusion, so we have no choice but to accept the comparison as valid. We are not required to accept any other assumptions that don't lead directly to that conclusion.

Straggler writes:

No IDist is claiming that the designer is comparable to humans or zebras or elephants or ice caps.


They're claiming that the design is comparable to motors, codes, etc. So yes, they most definitely are claiming that their designer is comparable to the designers of those things, humans.

Straggler writes:

Then your conclusion of "some" is simply a circular restatement of the premise as you have decided to interpret it.


It isn't "my" conclusion. It's the logical conclusion drawn from the premises that IDists use to draw their conclusion.

It's like concluding that there would have been a lot of manure on Noah's ark. Creationists may not like the conclusion, they may hide from the conclusion and make up a lot of nonsense to explain it away but it is in no way a strawman of their position. It's an inevitable consequence of their own premises.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2011 9:51 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2011 12:39 PM ringo has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 324 of 377 (614333)
05-03-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Straggler
05-03-2011 9:57 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Whatever arguments are going around it remains the case that commenting on the number of hyppthetical designers required to design our universe is utterly non-sensical unless some assumptions about who or what is doing the designing are made.

Precisely the point. And so ID falls apart as a religious belief, one which cannot even be masked as science, when the jump is made from 'designed' to 'one designer only', as you already mentioned:

Most IDists assume that the designer is the object of their religious beliefs.

I still cannot see why you are disagreeing with ringo on this point.

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2011 9:57 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2011 12:15 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 325 of 377 (614457)
05-04-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Jon
05-03-2011 4:08 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Jon writes:

And so ID falls apart as a religious belief, one which cannot even be masked as science, when the jump is made from 'designed' to 'one designer only', as you already mentioned:

You can come to the (flawed) conclusion of design without contemplating the number of designers. Once you start asking about the number of designers you cannot say anything meaningful without making additional assumptions. And making assumptions on the basis of zebras, elephants and ice caps are just as fuckwitted as any other.

ringo writes:

Jon writes:

Most IDists assume that the designer is the object of their religious beliefs.

I still cannot see why you are disagreeing with ringo on this point

On that point I am not and never have.

But the conclusion of design and the assumptions about who or what did the designing (and how many of them there are) are not necessarily based on the same things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Jon, posted 05-03-2011 4:08 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 326 of 377 (614461)
05-04-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by ringo
05-03-2011 10:38 AM


Re: Assumptions
ringo writes:

It's the logical conclusion drawn from the premises that IDists use to draw their conclusion.

The ID premise as far as I am aware is that some aspects of nature are too complex to have arisen by accident and thus are requiring of intelligent intervention of some sort. Do you agree that (flawed as it is) this is the basis of the intelligent design premise in it's most generalised form?

ringo writes:

They're claiming that the design is comparable to motors, codes, etc.

They are claiming that the requirement for intelligence is exhibited in these objects and that these objects are thus comparable in that sense.

ringo writes:

The comparison with known designers is inherent in that conclusion, so we have no choice but to accept the comparison as valid.

No comparison of designers has been made at all beyond the possession of intelligence. If you want to extrapolate this to come up with a straw man version of ID I can't stop you. But this extrapolation is yours not theirs.

ringo writes:

So yes, they most definitely are claiming that their designer is comparable to the designers of those things, humans.

Unless you are suggesting that a team of humans could have designed the universe (or that IDists believe this to be the case) this direct comparison is quite evidently utter nonsense.

You don't need to make straw men versions of ID. It is flawed enough already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by ringo, posted 05-03-2011 10:38 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by ringo, posted 05-04-2011 1:11 PM Straggler has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 327 of 377 (614465)
05-04-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Straggler
05-04-2011 12:39 PM


Re: Assumptions
Straggler writes:

No comparison of designers has been made at all beyond the possession of intelligence.


You're just repeating yourself.

The comparison to human designers is implicit in the use of examples such as motors and codes. They say that motors and codes can be made only by designers and human designers are the only example we have of designers that make motors and codes. Human designers are also the only example we have of intelligent designers.

The comparison is in no way a strawman of the IDists' position.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2011 12:39 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2011 5:27 PM ringo has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 328 of 377 (614505)
05-04-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by ringo
05-04-2011 1:11 PM


How Many Humans Would It Take To Design Our Universe?
ringo writes:

You're just repeating yourself.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

ringo writes:

The comparison to human designers is implicit in the use of examples such as motors and codes.

The possession of intelligence is an explicit comparison. Any further comparison is of your own extrapolation.

ringo writes:

They say that motors and codes can be made only by designers and human designers are the only example we have of designers that make motors and codes.

So what other example of intelligent design would you suggest they cite even if they are not making the direct comparison you have falsely concluded?

ringo writes:

Human designers are also the only example we have of intelligent designers.

Then the question as posed in this thread inevitably boils down to asking - How many humans would it take to design our universe? Doesn't it?

ringo writes:

The comparison is in no way a strawman of the IDists' position.

If you asked a geneuine advocate of ID how many humans it would take to design our universe what would they say?

Jon writes:

But ID/Creo does not posit a human designer. Message 234

Jon (of all people) sums it up.

Your comparison is a false one. You are needlessly creating a straw man version of ID that does nothing but detract from it's genuine and numerous flaws. Why bother?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by ringo, posted 05-04-2011 1:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Jon, posted 05-04-2011 5:48 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 331 by ringo, posted 05-04-2011 6:01 PM Straggler has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 377 (614510)
05-04-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Straggler
05-04-2011 5:27 PM


Re: How Many Humans Would It Take To Design Our Universe?
Jon writes:

But ID/Creo does not posit a human designer. Message 234

Jon (of all people) sums it up.

Your comparison is a false one. You are needlessly creating a straw man version of ID that does nothing but detract from it's genuine and numerous flaws. Why bother?

Please, don't quote my statements out of context.


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2011 5:27 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2011 5:56 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 330 of 377 (614512)
05-04-2011 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Jon
05-04-2011 5:48 PM


Re: How Many Humans Would It Take To Design Our Universe?
So Jon - Can we base our conclusion regarding the number of designers of our universe on how many humans it would take to design our universe?

Or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Jon, posted 05-04-2011 5:48 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
23242526Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017