Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8780 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 5:08 AM
359 online now:
CRR, dwise1, Huntard, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 354 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,395 Year: 21,001/21,208 Month: 1,434/2,326 Week: 770/345 Day: 8/124 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
21222324
25
26Next
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 361 of 377 (614790)
05-06-2011 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by ringo
05-06-2011 1:17 PM


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

So if humans are not comparable to the hypothetical designer(s) of the universe in terms of design capability why do you think they would be comparable in terms of numbers?

Straggler writes:

If anybody else can explicitly state the answer to this question I would be delighted to hear from them too.

ringo writes:

Jon has done that.

I am delighted that you and Jon are thinking as one. I look forward to being invited to the civil partnership ceremony.

But in the meantime, in the name of clarity, could you just quote Jon's explicit answer to that specific question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by ringo, posted 05-06-2011 1:17 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 362 of 377 (614938)
05-09-2011 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by Peter
05-06-2011 5:32 AM


Re: Evidence for an Only Designer
Peter writes:

Also, is there actually anything in ID theory(?) that precludes mulitple designers -- or in fact makes any comment on the number of designers necessary?

No there isn't.

Genuine 'Intelligent Design' arguments such as Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity make no comment on the number of designers required whatsoever. They simply conclude that there is a degree of complexity beyond which intelligent intervention is required.

These arguments have deep and serious flaws but they do not inherently or implicitly stipulate anything about the designer(s) beyond possessing intelligence.

Any conclusion or comment regarding the number of designers (whether single, multiple, comparable to the number of human designers or whatever else) requires additional assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Peter, posted 05-06-2011 5:32 AM Peter has acknowledged this reply

  
Ryan
Junior Member (Idle past 2185 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 05-17-2011


Message 363 of 377 (616333)
05-20-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


frako writes:

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 .......

Well, here's my answer to that: why more than one designer? using your same logic, (creationist logic) if one designer has ultimate intellegence, like creationists (I'm speaking from a Christian's point of view) believe, why have more than one, when that one can make it all by himself without any help? Plus, i'm sure, that if a watch maker wanted to, he could design a whole watch, and assemble it all by himself anyways, people like small business watchmakers do it all the time.


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 364 by Panda, posted 05-21-2011 1:02 PM Ryan has not yet responded
 Message 365 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2011 1:42 AM Ryan has not yet responded
 Message 366 by Taq, posted 05-23-2011 3:23 PM Ryan has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 364 of 377 (616400)
05-21-2011 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Ryan
05-20-2011 9:13 PM


Ryan writes:

Well, here's my answer to that: why more than one designer? using your same logic, (creationist logic) if one designer has ultimate intellegence, like creationists (I'm speaking from a Christian's point of view) believe, why have more than one, when that one can make it all by himself without any help?


That is not an answer.
That is two questions.
For future reference: you can easily identify questions by the question-mark placed at the end.

Ryan writes:

Plus, i'm sure, that if a watch maker wanted to, he could design a whole watch, and assemble it all by himself anyways, people like small business watchmakers do it all the time.


Ok. So you find a watch in a forest...

Was it designed by one designer or by multiple designers and how did you come to that answer?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Ryan, posted 05-20-2011 9:13 PM Ryan has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 365 of 377 (616435)
05-22-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Ryan
05-20-2011 9:13 PM


Well, here's my answer to that: why more than one designer? using your same logic, (creationist logic) if one designer has ultimate intellegence, like creationists (I'm speaking from a Christian's point of view) believe, why have more than one, when that one can make it all by himself without any help?

Invoking Christianity is cheating, though. The ID crowd claim that they can infer a designer from observation. The question is, even if we take that as true for the sake of argument, why would anyone infer one designer apart from having a religious dogma to that effect?

Plus, i'm sure, that if a watch maker wanted to, he could design a whole watch, and assemble it all by himself anyways, people like small business watchmakers do it all the time.

And yet none of them invented all of the mechanisms that he puts in a watch. Usually, not any of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Ryan, posted 05-20-2011 9:13 PM Ryan has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 366 of 377 (616620)
05-23-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Ryan
05-20-2011 9:13 PM


Well, here's my answer to that: why more than one designer? using your same logic, (creationist logic) if one designer has ultimate intellegence, like creationists (I'm speaking from a Christian's point of view) believe, why have more than one, when that one can make it all by himself without any help?

The data doesn't fit a single designer. An omnipotent designer would not need to reuse designs, as one example. For such a designer, starting from scratch for each and every species would be just as easy as making small tweaks to an existing design. On top of that, given convergent evolution it would appear that even a single non-omnipotent designer does not make sense either. Why else would single designer need to make the bat wing so different to the bird wing? Why the stark differences between the retina of the squid and vertebrate fish? And why would a single designer be restricted to a nested hierarchy? The only set of designers that makes sense, at least to me, is multiple designers that are blind to one anothers designs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Ryan, posted 05-20-2011 9:13 PM Ryan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Peter, posted 06-28-2013 10:44 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 367 of 377 (701889)
06-27-2013 12:43 PM


I think the issue comes down to the model we use to understand intelligence. Why for instance are we so intent on claiming that a human intelligence is 'one' designer.

Everybody has different characteristics and aspects that can be more or less present at different times. Our cells die and replenish over a period of years.

Is each individual 'one' designer?

I would say not - its just easier for us to think about people in that way!

just read this short ebook discussion of free-will and intelligence. its quite short and loosely based on David Hume's similarly titled piece.

Worth the read especially since its free at the moment.

http://spam.amzn.to/11RW0mQ

Edited by Admin, : Disable spam link.


    
Peter
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 368 of 377 (701957)
06-28-2013 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Taq
05-23-2011 3:23 PM


Isn't that the problem ?
Since any intelligent designer(s) would be capable of designing in any way they chooose ... spotting the difference is impossible.

For ID it's not even necessary.

The argument (if you want to call it that) is that biological systems are just too darn complex to have arisen by natural processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Taq, posted 05-23-2011 3:23 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
tristankelly
Junior Member (Idle past 683 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 07-08-2015


Message 369 of 377 (762054)
07-08-2015 2:59 AM


Why only one Designer
In the "old" days, it was genuinely direct. There was clear partition between the configuration and improvement bunches, with not very many individuals doing both. Presently however, its genuinely extraordinary to discover a web originator that doesn't additionally do some kind of advancement or UX fill in also. With a considerable lot of us expanding into more abilities inside of our industry, we're turning out to be progressively more creative. The issue is that now a "web originator" could mean somebody who just does configuration, does outline and some code, or may even handle the full plan to advancement process! We've turn into an industry of renaissance specialists not content with realizing exactly what we have to get by, and that is an extraordinary thing.
    
Rocky.C
Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 370 of 377 (762291)
07-10-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
04-13-2011 12:55 AM


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

No sir, you are wrong. Most creationist, such as I, do not ask that creation be taught in public schools. School is not the place for faith-based ideology such as creation and evolution. We simply want the teachers and textbooks to stop lying to our kids.

We want the inaccuracies and outright frauds supporting evolution removed.

We want the kids to be taught the truth: that evolution is just a theory, and a poor one at that, of explaining the origin and vast diversity of life.

How could any well-meaning, and honest individual object to this?

We want the fraudulent Haeckel drawings of embryos removed. The drawings have been known as frauds for decades; yet, evolutionists, in desperate search for support of their theory, because they have so little to go on, still cling to the lies. We ask that honorable evolutionists insist that all reference to Haeckel's drawings be removed immediately, and retractions inserted.

We ask that the imaginary "evolutionary tree of life" be removed. It is known that all the major animal groups all appear together in the fossil record fully formed by the Cambrian Period--what an inconvenient truth for evolutionists. Print retraction.

Creationists want all faked pictures of Peppered Moths removed because biologists have known for thirty-odd-years that moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. Also, the black and white moths used in the photos were dead when they were glued to the trees. In any event, the color of the moths tell us nothing about how a moth could have evolved from a non-moth. Print retraction.

Please, remove all references to mutant fruit flies. We have learned from decades of irradiated fruit fly experiments that these mutations always lead to disability and death. Mutations never increase information or viability within the DNA. Print retraction.

Some underhanded textbooks still print that "Piltdown Man" is an ancestor of man. It has been known for years that Piltdown was an outright fraud perpetuated by dishonest evolutionists. The skull belonged to a man and the jaw belonged to an orangutan. What makes this so sinister is that the jaw was chemically treated to make it look like a fossil. And the teeth had been filed to make them look human. The hoax remained covered up for so long because evolutionists (desperate for fossils to support their misguided theory) refused to admit the fraud.

Homology in vertebrate limbs (which clearly show a common Designer) has been used by evolutionists to prove common ancestry and descent--It is impossible to prove that this is correct. It must be accepted on faith, which makes it a religion. It doesn't deserve to ever be in any textbooks. It is voodoo science? Print retraction.

Creationists want the series of images of stooped apes morphing into man removed from textbooks. This has never been observed. And, it has nothing to do will empirical science. It takes faith to believe this crap, and it doesn't belong in textbooks. Honest evolutionists should demand removal.

Also, we do not care if one wants to believe that he or she evolved alongside apes. But, keep you stupid beliefs to yourselves. Feel free to hang ancestral pictures of apes, monkeys, and amoebas on your own walls but not in textbooks.

I guess I need to close this but I still haven't mentioned Archaeopteryx; Archaeopteryx (fraud 1999); descent of the horse; Miller-Urey experiment; lungfish; coelacanth; Lucy; Neanderthal; Mungo man; vestigial organs; and, much, much, much more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 04-13-2011 12:55 AM subbie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by jar, posted 07-10-2015 12:54 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded
 Message 372 by ringo, posted 07-10-2015 12:58 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded
 Message 373 by Coyote, posted 07-10-2015 4:48 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded
 Message 374 by DrJones*, posted 07-10-2015 5:56 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded
 Message 376 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2015 8:56 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded
 Message 377 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2015 7:42 AM Rocky.C has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29183
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 371 of 377 (762292)
07-10-2015 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Rocky.C
07-10-2015 12:45 PM


Rocky writes:

We want the inaccuracies and outright frauds supporting evolution removed.

We want the kids to be taught the truth: that evolution is just a theory, and a poor one at that, of explaining the origin and vast diversity of life.

How could any well-meaning, and honest individual object to this?

We object because to claim that "We want the inaccuracies and outright frauds supporting evolution removed.

We want the kids to be taught the truth: that evolution is just a theory, and a poor one at that, of explaining the origin and vast diversity of life." is quite frankly a lie and a really silly one at that.

The Theory of Evolution is not just well supported, it is the ONLY theory that explains the life we see today and in the past.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Rocky.C, posted 07-10-2015 12:45 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13435
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 372 of 377 (762294)
07-10-2015 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Rocky.C
07-10-2015 12:45 PM


Rocky.C. writes:

We want the kids to be taught the truth: that evolution is just a theory....


The problem seems to be that you don't understand what a theory is. Can you tell us in your own words what you think a theory is?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Rocky.C, posted 07-10-2015 12:45 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5929
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 373 of 377 (762305)
07-10-2015 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Rocky.C
07-10-2015 12:45 PM


Gish Gallop
The responses to your attempted Gish Gallop are contained in the Index to Creationist Claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

How about redoing your list and eliminating each creationist claim that has already been refuted? Wouldn't that be more honest?


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Rocky.C, posted 07-10-2015 12:45 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1672
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 374 of 377 (762309)
07-10-2015 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Rocky.C
07-10-2015 12:45 PM


Some underhanded textbooks still print that "Piltdown Man" is an ancestor of man.

I will give $100 US to the charity of your choice if you can show me a textbook printed in the last 20 years that claims that Piltdown man is an ancestor of man. I suspect you're unwilling to make a reciprocal offer.

edited to clarify thanks to Cat Sci: I mean actual science textbooks not creationist shit.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Rocky.C, posted 07-10-2015 12:45 PM Rocky.C has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2015 6:43 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11665
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 375 of 377 (762312)
07-10-2015 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by DrJones*
07-10-2015 5:56 PM


I will give $100 US to the charity of your choice if you can show me a textbook printed in the last 20 years that claims that Piltdown man is an ancestor of man.

Including Creationist textbooks?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by DrJones*, posted 07-10-2015 5:56 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
21222324
25
26Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017