Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 1:11 AM
349 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 347 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,341 Year: 23,947/21,208 Month: 1,912/2,468 Week: 5/416 Day: 5/24 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1753
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 76 of 111 (811011)
06-04-2017 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Porosity
06-03-2017 3:04 PM


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

I agree but I have made no such claim. Jar made the claim that no designer would design such a thing and so the burden is his to support the claim.

My fairly narrow point is that sometimes design looks like this


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 77 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2017 7:28 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply
 Message 78 by jar, posted 06-04-2017 7:39 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18970
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 77 of 111 (811013)
06-04-2017 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by ProtoTypical
06-04-2017 7:19 AM


My fairly narrow point is that sometimes design looks like this

Curiously I have always thought it makes more sense to think of the designer as an artist not as an engineer.


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 76 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2017 7:19 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 78 of 111 (811014)
06-04-2017 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by ProtoTypical
06-04-2017 7:19 AM


Yet is that an example of design or another example of simple evolution.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2017 7:19 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Tangle, posted 06-04-2017 7:49 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 80 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2017 8:01 AM jar has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5065
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 79 of 111 (811015)
06-04-2017 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
06-04-2017 7:39 AM


Jar writes:

Yet is that an example of design or another example of simple evolution.

Dull answer but what it actually is is an example of what happens if a system is designed, then left to go to pot. What's happening is that when there's a fault it's faster and cheaper to run a new cable leaving the original in place than attempt to find and fix it.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Je suis Mancunian.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 06-04-2017 7:39 AM jar has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1753
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 80 of 111 (811016)
06-04-2017 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
06-04-2017 7:39 AM


Yet is that an example of design or another example of simple evolution.

That is a good question and are the 2 mutually exclusive?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 06-04-2017 7:39 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 06-04-2017 8:26 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 81 of 111 (811019)
06-04-2017 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by ProtoTypical
06-04-2017 8:01 AM


No designer has ever applied.
PT writes:

That is a good question and are the 2 mutually exclusive?

Yes, and no.

That is a designer can use the process we label evolution but the end product is not that of the designer but rather just the process.

But again, even in such cases the only evidence of any designer is the presence of the designer.

No one has ever presented any evidence of any designer when it comes to living things beyond the few examples of forced breeding as with domesticated animals. There two the evidence of the designer is not in the resultant product but rather in the presence of the designer.

When it comes to live in general, No Designer need apply and no Designer has ever applied.

There is no value in supposing life as we see it is designed beyond mental masturbation.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2017 8:01 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13641
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 82 of 111 (811047)
06-04-2017 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ProtoTypical
06-03-2017 1:30 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

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


You're going to have to be more specific. "Nuh-uh," is not a satisfactory response.

I've shown that your argument is the same argument that IDist use, that has been refuted umpteen times. If you think that also impugns jar's argument, you'll have to explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 1:30 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2017 8:23 PM ringo has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1753
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 83 of 111 (811079)
06-04-2017 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
06-04-2017 2:10 PM


Ringo writes:


I've shown that your argument is the same argument that IDist use, that has been refuted umpteen times. If you think that also impugns jar's argument, you'll have to explain.

Ringo writes:

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 is jar's argument exactly or at least the point that I am arguing against. The idea that reproduction is so messed up that no one would design it that way. It is the same argument as saying that because something looks designed then it must be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 06-04-2017 2:10 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 06-04-2017 8:58 PM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 06-05-2017 11:49 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 84 of 111 (811081)
06-04-2017 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ProtoTypical
06-04-2017 8:23 PM


PT writes:

The idea that reproduction is so messed up that no one would design it that way.

But that is an argument that no one is making.

Rather what is being argued is that reproduction shows variety that if designed would show a piss poor designer.

No one is saying that no one would design it that way.

Rather what has been said is that there is NO evidence of design or of any designer and so no designer need apply.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2017 8:23 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-05-2017 4:24 PM jar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13641
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 85 of 111 (811146)
06-05-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by ProtoTypical
06-04-2017 8:23 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

This is jar's argument exactly or at least the point that I am arguing against.


The point that you're arguing against seems to be a strawman.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2017 8:23 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1753
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 86 of 111 (811184)
06-05-2017 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
06-04-2017 8:58 PM


PT writes:

The idea that reproduction is so messed up that no one would design it that way.

jar writes:

Rather what is being argued is that reproduction shows variety that if designed would show a piss poor designer.

Not really much substantive difference between those two statements is there?

edit;

The order and predictable nature of the universe compels many to infer design as those are legitimate indicators of design. The fact is that order does not always indicate design. The inverse is true about apparent disorder and this is my point.

Apparent disorder does not count against the idea of a designer any more than order supports the idea.

Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 06-04-2017 8:58 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 06-06-2017 7:06 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-06-2017 10:51 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 87 of 111 (811240)
06-06-2017 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by ProtoTypical
06-05-2017 4:24 PM


Yes, there is a significant difference between the two statements.

The first says that it could not be design while the later says design is possible if the designer is ignorant, inept, incompetent, ineffective ...

The point is until there is at least some evidence that there is some designer no designer need apply.

Speculating on design when discussing biological things is simply mental masturbation and of no worth or value.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-05-2017 4:24 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-06-2017 5:20 PM jar has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 88 of 111 (811257)
06-06-2017 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by ProtoTypical
06-05-2017 4:24 PM


The order and predictable nature of the universe compels many to infer design as those are legitimate indicators of design. The fact is that order does not always indicate design. The inverse is true about apparent disorder and this is my point.

Apparent disorder does not count against the idea of a designer any more than order supports the idea.

You're not wrong, but I think you might be missing a part: When talking about the Christian god as the designer, the would-be nature of his design wouldn't fit with his claimed characteristics because his design would be pretty stupid and he's supposed to be pretty smart.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-05-2017 4:24 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-06-2017 6:52 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1753
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 89 of 111 (811300)
06-06-2017 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
06-06-2017 7:06 AM


The first says that it could not be design while the later says design is possible if the designer is ignorant, inept, incompetent, ineffective ...

Well ok but could an inept designer design the universe? Your msg 1 claimed that it was evidence that “life is not designed” and isn't that the point that you were originally trying to support using the variety and shot gun approach of reproductive methods as evidence?

The point is until there is at least some evidence that there is some designer no designer need apply.

I agree that it is wrong to conclude that there is a designer but I also think that the question is a valid one. What I see is that we can not decide the question because we are missing the crucial element of motive, objective or intent. Of course, if we had that then the question would be settled.

So if we were in a designed universe where the designer was absent how could we tell? What would qualify as evidence of design?

Speculating on design when discussing biological things is simply mental masturbation and of no worth or value.

First of all, is masturbation really a bad thing and B) is it ever of any value to consider the question of design?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 06-06-2017 7:06 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 06-06-2017 5:29 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 90 of 111 (811302)
06-06-2017 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ProtoTypical
06-06-2017 5:20 PM


Any designer is irrelevant.
PT writes:

Well ok but could an inept designer design the universe? Your msg 1 claimed that it was evidence that “life is not designed” and isn't that the point that you were originally trying to support using the variety and shot gun approach of reproductive methods as evidence?

My point was to start a discussion about the actual evidence that is the variety of reproduction methods found as well as the characteristics of those methods.

Designers are utterly irrelevant and simply fantasy.

There does not seem to be any design involved in the universe and so again, no designer need apply.

Folk can believe there was a designer or creator but such beliefs are of no value or relevance.

AbE:

PT writes:

I agree that it is wrong to conclude that there is a designer but I also think that the question is a valid one. What I see is that we can not decide the question because we are missing the crucial element of motive, objective or intent. Of course, if we had that then the question would be settled.

But what question? Why is it valid? There are already explanations available and so no designer needs to be considered. Why add some unnecessary and untestable entity?

Edited by jar, : see AbE:


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-06-2017 5:20 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-06-2017 6:49 PM jar has responded

  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017