Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-25-2017 6:52 PM
221 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,614 Year: 19,220/21,208 Month: 1,979/3,111 Week: 200/574 Day: 42/90 Hour: 3/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
jar
Member
Posts: 29143
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 61 of 111 (810940)
06-03-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by ProtoTypical
06-03-2017 8:51 AM


Re: Help wanted: No designer need apply
PT writes:

I just don't see how it addressees the question of design which is, at it's heart, a question of origin.

And how it addresses the question of design has been repeatedly answered.

Now it you wish to play the "We can't know the objectives of the designer" cop out game then the answer is "In that case, present the designer and we can ask about that issue". However, until such time as the designer is presented to be questioned the "We can't know the objectives of the designer" cop out is simply mental masturbation and of no worthy consideration or discussion.

Edited by jar, : plat ----> play


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 8:51 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 1:29 PM jar has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18805
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 62 of 111 (810946)
06-03-2017 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by ProtoTypical
06-03-2017 7:34 AM


The untested design hypothesis
The 'why' of it comes in when considering the design objective. How can you be critical of an arrangement if you don't know what the arrangement is for?

Conversely, how can you support a "design objective" if you don't know what the arrangement is for? This is the issue behind Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... and Is ID properly pursued?. In the latter I note:

quote:
This assumes a fair degree of development, capability, education and intelligence on the part of the observer. A "Poison Dart" Frog cannot look at a watch and discern that it is a designed object, and neither could a native person unschooled in the concepts of manufacturing such products ... yet he is capable and intelligent enough to discern the cause and effect (and how to make use of) the frog's venom. There are, in fact, historical documents recording where explorers showed watches and the like to such unschooled natives and the natives thought that they were magical objects rather than manufactured things.

The search for the evidence of design must be done by those with the most capable trained "eyes" free of constrained perspectives - the most open and complete knowledge of the physical workings of the universe and all it contains ... matter, energy, life. Anything less will likely lead to mistakes or a lack of understanding to see the actual fingerprints of design.

Without as complete a base of knowledge as possible we could be looking at a watch with the mind of a frog, or we could be like a child, bemused by a kaleidoscope of pattern when there is none ... we could be unable to properly observe and evaluate the evidence before us.


An open-minded skeptic will consider the possibility of a designer, and be skeptical that it exists due to lack of objective empirical evidence. In essence will make no decision yay or nay until there is evidence one way or the other.

The "design" could be as simple as creation of the universe with all the physics etc laws so that life would form and evolve with no other effort required, or as complex as micromanaging every little puff of wind, every little movement of atoms, obsessively directing everything.

Personally I favor the former as the latter seems inept, error prone, myopic and fumbling, focusing on one problem at a time regardless of consequences that then have to be taken care of in unending ineptitude.

Curiously, it seems religions tend to favor the latter.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 7:34 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 1:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13326
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 63 of 111 (810968)
06-03-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by ProtoTypical
06-03-2017 7:34 AM


ProtoTypical writes:

Why wouldn't a designer do it exactly that way? Does it matter if the failure rate is high?


Why would a designer design an airplane that crashes 99 per cent of the time? Of course it matters.

ProtoTypical writes:

How can you be critical of an arrangement if you don't know what the arrangement is for?


The whole premise of the ID movement is that if something "looks designed" it must be. Why not use the same argument against ID? If it looks like nobody with half a brain would design it that way, it most likely wasn't designed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 7:34 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 1:11 PM ringo has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1740
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 64 of 111 (810976)
06-03-2017 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ringo
06-03-2017 11:51 AM


The whole premise of the ID movement is that if something "looks designed" it must be. Why not use the same argument against ID? If it looks like nobody with half a brain would design it that way, it most likely wasn't designed.

That captures my point exactly. If they are the same argument then they are both faulty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 06-03-2017 11:51 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 06-03-2017 1:22 PM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 1:37 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1740
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 65 of 111 (810977)
06-03-2017 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
06-03-2017 9:51 AM


Re: The untested design hypothesis
An open-minded skeptic will consider the possibility of a designer, and be skeptical that it exists due to lack of objective empirical evidence. In essence will make no decision yay or nay until there is evidence one way or the other.

I agree with this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2017 9:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13326
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 66 of 111 (810978)
06-03-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ProtoTypical
06-03-2017 1:11 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

If they are the same argument then they are both faulty.


Indeed. We know that the argument for design is faulty. Your argument is faulty for the same reason.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 1:11 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 1:30 PM ringo has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1740
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 67 of 111 (810979)
06-03-2017 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
06-03-2017 9:19 AM


Re: Help wanted: No designer need apply
And how it addresses the question of design has been repeatedly answered.

No it hasn't. You make the unsupported claim that if it were designed then the design is faulty. What would a properly designed evolutionary process look like?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 06-03-2017 9:19 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 06-03-2017 2:24 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1740
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 68 of 111 (810980)
06-03-2017 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ringo
06-03-2017 1:22 PM


Your argument is faulty for the same reason.

No. Jar's argument is faulty for the same reason.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 06-03-2017 1:22 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 06-04-2017 2:10 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29143
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 69 of 111 (810981)
06-03-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ProtoTypical
06-03-2017 1:29 PM


Re: Help wanted: No designer need apply
PT writes:

No it hasn't. You make the unsupported claim that if it were designed then the design is faulty. What would a properly designed evolutionary process look like?

Again, you are simply trying to move the goal posts, palm the pea, con the rubes, misdirect attention.

What I have said is what is seen is inefficient, inept, unintelligent, ineffective.

It can be and has been explained.

There is no reason, point, need or logic to imagine a designer but looking at what exists, the designer if there was a designer is ignorant, inefficient, ineffective, inept and inane.

As I have said, no designer need apply and any discussion of some imaginary designer is simply mental masturbation.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 1:29 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member
Posts: 146
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 70 of 111 (810982)
06-03-2017 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ProtoTypical
06-01-2017 9:38 PM


We know what our designs look like. It is one thing to look at a piece of pottery on earth and say that it was designed but how do you assess a universe for elements of design? What would a designed universe look like?

The burden of proof for a designed universe is on the claimant. But you can't and here's why:

ID provides no way to compare complex systems, like a laptop compared to bio chemical entities, to tell which one is purposefully designed and which was the result of combinations of natural processes.

ID deceptively uses words like "design" and "complexity" without clearly defining them.

ID then goes on to claim "design" without defining the designer or providing any experiment that could independently confirm the existence of said designer.

ID raises to many questions of infinite regression "who designed the designer?" which is fundamentally unanswerable, as well as contradictory to things we already know to be true.

ID is just a clever idea some lawyers came up with to sell pseudoscience to gullible believers and in the end, on every front, fails on science based reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-01-2017 9:38 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 4:08 PM Porosity has not yet responded
 Message 76 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2017 7:19 AM Porosity has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 71 of 111 (810985)
06-03-2017 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Porosity
06-03-2017 3:04 PM


The burden of proof for a designed universe is on the claimant.

But you can't and here's why:

ID provides no way to compare complex systems, like a laptop compared to bio chemical entities, to tell which one is purposefully designed and which was the result of combinations of natural processes.

If there's any kind of rational order in the system it's designed. The ToE assumes such orderly organized things can be the product of random biochemical processes, but that is what can't be demonstrated, it can only be assumed. ID just makes more sense

There are combinations of natural processes that work just fine on their own principles but the very fact that they exist and function at all implies a designer. DNA is absolutely beyond random biochemical processes. Yes it's just an assumption, but the idea that it could be the product of merely natural processes is also an assumption, and a really irrational one.

ID deceptively uses words like "design" and "complexity" without clearly defining them.

Yeah, we creationists always expect people to be able to recognize when something is reasonable in itself. Stupid of us. Design is really very simple and obvious to the rational mind. Functioning complex biological systems necessarily imply an Intelligence that designed them. Yes again it's something we expect an intelligent rational person to be able to recognize. But the ToE has hijacked their minds and cast a spell on them so they can't, they actually think random blind processes could do all this. Behe's rotating flagellum is an example of something that could not have evolved but had to have been designed, even if simply packed into the original DNA code which itself was designed.

ID then goes on to claim "design" without defining the designer or providing any experiment that could independently confirm the existence of said designer.

There is no need to define the designer which is why ID doesn't do it. The whole point is to demonstrate design itself and the designer is implied. The designer has to be infinitely intelligent, what else do you need to know?

All you can answer with is some form of assertion that a designer is not needed, that the appearance of design can be created by the operations of biochemical processes by themselves, that complexity can be the product of evolution too. You expect far more of ID than you can offer for the ToE.

ID raises to many questions of infinite regression "who designed the designer?" which is fundamentally unanswerable, ...

No it doesn't. Skeptics raise those questions all the time whenever God is mentioned. Christianity's God is self-existent, there is no regression because there's only the One God who has existed forever. ID aims to show that biological entities have the characteristics of design, meaning creation by an intelligence, and again all you can do is insist and assert that blind processes can do it alone. The Blind Watchmaker notion. It's all a war of plausibility in the end and if you're devoted to the ToE you'll just go on insisting it can happen, and creationists will go on insisting that it can't, that there must be an infinite intelligence behind what we see.

In other words there is no way to bring evidence to bear on this question, it is completely a matter of rational recognition.

as contradictory to things we already know to be true.

But you don't.

ID is just a clever idea some lawyers came up with to sell pseudoscience to gullible believers and in the end, on every front, fails on science based reality.

It fails on the entrenched bias of the ToE and that's all.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Porosity, posted 06-03-2017 3:04 PM Porosity has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2017 5:34 PM Faith has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18805
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 72 of 111 (810988)
06-03-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
06-03-2017 4:08 PM


We do know.
as contradictory to things we already know to be true.

But you don't.

But we do.

Things like the extreme age of the earth being necessarily way older than all YEC pipe dreams. The evidence is everywhere, from radiometric age, to tree rings, to relative age of sedimentary layering, to astronomical changes of the moon affecting the earth's rate of spin over time, recorded in coral heads confirming extreme old age.

You yourself cannot begin explain the simplest data of tree rings, you've said so.

Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 has defeated every YEC attempt to show alternative explanations, because they cannot explain the correlations -- why different systems give the same ages.

Why different labs can reproduce the same results over and over and over. (a wink at the topic? )

Such correlations between different methods can only occur through astronomical blind chance larger than any ID argument, the action of a jester god who is out to fool you, or reality.

I'll take reality.

But gosh, have you creationists ever dragged THIS thread way off topic with your song and dance. Typical.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 4:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 7:50 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 8:04 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 73 of 111 (810992)
06-03-2017 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
06-03-2017 5:34 PM


Re: We do know.
All reason and logic are on the side of ID as well as YEC. You have to ignore all that to make your dating methods superior. Like all methods that seek to reach into the prehistoric past they can't be corroborated. You get one reading based on a theory and that's all you have. You need a lot more than that. Meanwhile the logic and reason that support the argument of design and irreducible complexity should be enough to call the dating methods into question.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2017 5:34 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2017 6:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25606
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 74 of 111 (810993)
06-03-2017 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
06-03-2017 5:34 PM


Re: We do know.
Come to think of it, I don't know how the dating methods relate to ID. Although I jumped in here to defend the logic of ID, I'm not a follower of ID and don't know whether it's Old Earth or Young Earth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2017 5:34 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18805
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 75 of 111 (811006)
06-04-2017 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
06-03-2017 7:50 PM


Re: We do know.
All reason and logic are NOT on the side of ID as well as YEC. ...

There, fixed it for you.

... You have to ignore all that to make your dating methods superior. Like all methods that seek to reach into the prehistoric past they can't be corroborated. ...

Except they are corroborated every time they agree from one method to the other, every time they correlate.

... You get one reading based on a theory and that's all you have. You need a lot more than that. ...

And we HAVE a lot more that that, we get thousands of readings, and we get readings from multiple labs with different methods from the same sample and surprise: they agree. You have absolutely no idea how much work is done on dating methods to calibrate and correlate dates.

You only say this out of desperate blind ignorance, in spite of being unable to handle the evidence on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

And if you continue to disagree then start at Message 2 and try to prove them wrong. You won't last. CRR just gave up on doing that after only 3 posts ... will you be the next creationist to run away from reality?

Note you should answer on that thread rather than here, as the age dating is not this thread topic.

... Meanwhile the logic and reason wishful thinking that support the argument of design and irreducible complexity ...

There, fixed that for you.

... should be enough to call the dating methods into question.

Except that they say absolutely nothing about the dating methods. This is a stretch even for you Faith.

Message 74: Come to think of it, I don't know how the dating methods relate to ID. Although I jumped in here to defend the logic of ID, I'm not a follower of ID and don't know whether it's Old Earth or Young Earth.

And again, the topic is the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time so this is off topic as well as foolish.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 7:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017