Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 126 (8772 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2017 2:37 PM
391 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,244 Year: 18,850/21,208 Month: 1,609/3,111 Week: 404/707 Day: 100/78 Hour: 3/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1740
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 91 of 111 (811304)
06-06-2017 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
06-06-2017 5:29 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
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.

The whole point of your thread is to refute the idea of a designer and so if the concept is fantastically irrelevant then what's the point of denoting any evidence?

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?

The age old question of 'where did we come from?'. It is valid because we want an answer and the explanations that now exist, exist because we asked the question. I don't see sufficient reason to stop asking the question or to stop seeking refinement of the answer.

You claim that the entity is untestable. Can we not hypothesize her existence in a way that is falsifiable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 06-06-2017 5:29 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 06-06-2017 7:10 PM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 99 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 1:41 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

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


Message 92 of 111 (811305)
06-06-2017 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
06-06-2017 10:51 AM


but I think you might be missing a part:

Yes there always seems to be something missing when looking for a designer.

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.

I think that the would-be nature of his design detracts more from the Christian narrative then it does from the concept of a designer.

edit

or put another way, that our assessment of the design objective is wrong.

Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-06-2017 10:51 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2017 10:17 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 93 of 111 (811306)
06-06-2017 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ProtoTypical
06-06-2017 6:49 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
PT writes:

The whole point of your thread is to refute the idea of a designer and so if the concept is fantastically irrelevant then what's the point of denoting any evidence?

No, the whole point of the topic is to discuss and educate folk on just how complex reproduction is and the reality of the different methods.

Designers really are so fantastically irrelevant that they are only useful as examples of how silly the concept of ID really is.

PT writes:

The age old question of 'where did we come from?'. It is valid because we want an answer and the explanations that now exist, exist because we asked the question. I don't see sufficient reason to stop asking the question or to stop seeking refinement of the answer.

That's fine. You can even propose a topic on the subject.

PT writes:

You claim that the entity is untestable. Can we not hypothesize her existence in a way that is falsifiable?

LOL.

Not when nonsense like "the objective of the designer is unknown" gets introduced.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-06-2017 6:49 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-06-2017 8:53 PM jar has responded
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:20 PM jar has not yet responded

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


Message 94 of 111 (811307)
06-06-2017 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
06-06-2017 7:10 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
No, the whole point of the topic is to discuss and educate folk on just how complex reproduction is and the reality of the different methods.

Designers really are so fantastically irrelevant that they are only useful as examples of how silly the concept of ID really is.

Well then you have totally moved your goal posts from msg 1 where you said

...classic sign of evolution and the fact that life is not designed...

Then we also find that "male and female he created them" is actually the exception to the rule.

When we add in the fact of infant mortality where even successful reproduction does not mean a critter lives long enough to reproduce it seems clear that there is neither plan or design to reproduction and in fact entirely different models and methods have evolved where none are really reliable or effective and all simply barely good enough to continue.

or perhaps I just misunderstood, carry on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 06-06-2017 7:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 06-07-2017 7:20 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 95 of 111 (811325)
06-07-2017 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by ProtoTypical
06-06-2017 8:53 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
Yes, you did understand. But you are experienced it seems in quote mining and taking parts out of context.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-06-2017 8:53 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11532
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 96 of 111 (811340)
06-07-2017 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by ProtoTypical
06-06-2017 6:52 PM


I think that the would-be nature of his design detracts more from the Christian narrative then it does from the concept of a designer.

Don't kid yourself; the concept of a designer comes from the Christian narrative.

our assessment of the design objective is wrong.

Could be, who knows?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-06-2017 6:52 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2017 7:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 97 of 111 (811369)
06-07-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ProtoTypical
05-31-2017 7:10 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

If we are contemplating the possibility that GOD exists then we should realize that we are not capable of critiquing anything that THEY might have done. You need a GOD's view to do that.

That is also a rather large and unevidenced assertion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2017 7:10 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 98 of 111 (811372)
06-07-2017 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ProtoTypical
06-03-2017 1:11 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

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

Ultimately, the argument we are using is that if the evidence is consistent with natural processes, then we conclude that natural processes did it. We observe that natural processes (e.g. natural selection and random mutation) produce matching molecular and morphological phylogenies in living species. We then find that larger species groups also fall into these same phylogenies, which means that the evidence is consistent with natural processes.

Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point? You might as well argue that since God can plant DNA and fingerprints at crime scenes that we can't use forensic science in courts. As soon as the physical evidence doesn't matter, then the conversation is over.


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 101 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:14 PM Taq has responded
 Message 106 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2017 7:36 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 99 of 111 (811373)
06-07-2017 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ProtoTypical
06-06-2017 6:49 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
ProtoTypical writes:

The whole point of your thread is to refute the idea of a designer and so if the concept is fantastically irrelevant then what's the point of denoting any evidence?

Actually, the whole point is for ID/creationists to once again demonstrate that ID/creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that can never be falsified by any evidence, no matter what that evidence is. The claims that we can't "judge design" just further support that conclusion.

I don't see sufficient reason to stop asking the question or to stop seeking refinement of the answer.

When you make ID/creationism unfalsifiable, as you have done, then you have ceased asking questions and are refusing to refine the answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-06-2017 6:49 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:08 PM Taq has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9488
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 100 of 111 (811374)
06-07-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Taq
06-07-2017 1:41 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
When you make ID/creationism unfalsifiable, as you have done, then you have ceased asking questions and are refusing to refine the answer.
The whole concept of God is falsifiable. It was meant to be that way. Belief is a valid approach, however. Evidence in and of itself was never meant to be a slam-dunk answer to every question in life.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 1:41 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 3:07 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 06-07-2017 10:26 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9488
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 101 of 111 (811375)
06-07-2017 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Taq
06-07-2017 1:37 PM


Tricks or Treats
Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point?

Exactly. If God exists and is as powerful and far reaching as some believe, He would have no need to trick anybody.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 1:37 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 3:08 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9488
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 102 of 111 (811376)
06-07-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
06-06-2017 7:10 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
jar writes:

Designers really are so fantastically irrelevant that they are only useful as examples of how silly the concept of ID really is.

Keep in mind, folks that jar believes that GOD, if GOD exists, expects us to think, reason, and learn without falling back on Her as a copout....in regards to anything in our known reality.

He will, of course, argue that I am misrepresenting what he means.

Perhaps there really is little reason to bring up GOD in a Science thread.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 06-06-2017 7:10 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 103 of 111 (811379)
06-07-2017 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Phat
06-07-2017 2:08 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
Phat writes:

Belief is a valid approach, however.

When has a dogmatic belief ever been a valid approach to any question? When you start with the answer, why even ask the question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:08 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 104 of 111 (811381)
06-07-2017 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Phat
06-07-2017 2:14 PM


Re: Tricks or Treats
Phat writes:

Exactly. If God exists and is as powerful and far reaching as some believe, He would have no need to trick anybody.

We were told that we couldn't judge what the designer would or wouldn't do, or why. Therefore, a trickster deity is on the table.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:14 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 105 of 111 (811429)
06-07-2017 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
06-07-2017 10:17 AM


Don't kid yourself; the concept of a designer comes from the Christian narrative.

Sure it is there too but I think there is evidence that it existed in many cultures long before the Christians wrote it down. A designer or god is a posited answer for the so far unanswerable question of origin and that question has been around for about as long as we have been asking questions.

I just mean that if the Christian narrative is inconsistent with what nature reveals that doesn't detract from the idea of a creator that is perhaps different from what is described in the bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2017 10:17 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2017 7:40 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017