Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 2:40 PM
380 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (6 members, 374 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,302 Year: 23,908/21,208 Month: 1,873/2,468 Week: 382/822 Day: 42/66 Hour: 2/15

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
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 106 of 111 (811430)
06-07-2017 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Taq
06-07-2017 1:37 PM


Ultimately, the argument we are using is that if the evidence is consistent with natural processes, then we conclude that natural processes did it...

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

I don't understand this point at all. How else could it possibly look? If you design a universe and it has processes in it then those processes will, no doubt, look natural. I mean what else would a designer use if not natural processes? Or put another way, whatever a designer might use would become a defacto natural process.

As to the question of why is the hypothetical designer is not immediately apparent I don't know but I don't think deception is the only option. Being a wee little human in a 14.5 billion yr old universe with a wee little brain might be another possibility.

As soon as the physical evidence doesn't matter, then the conversation is over.

No one is saying that the evidence doesn't matter. I am just taking exception to what is being inferred from the evidence and trying to be rigorous with the logic.

Is it possible to identify ourselves as being part of a designed system from the inside of that system?

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.

Better check with jar on that but yeah. My objective is to examine my own belief on the subject.

The claims that we can't "judge design" just further support that conclusion.

I am just saying that any apparent localized disorder in the goings on of the universe isn't a very robust argument against the existence of a designer.

edit

but apparently we are not talking about that

Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.


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 110 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 10:58 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 107 of 111 (811431)
06-07-2017 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ProtoTypical
06-07-2017 7:29 PM


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.

Right on, you're right.

I think my misunderstanding stemmed from a divergence between the slight contextual difference, and the big conceptual difference, from there is a designer and there could be a designer. But I could be wrong about that too

Cheers!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2017 7:29 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2017 7:56 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 108 of 111 (811432)
06-07-2017 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by New Cat's Eye
06-07-2017 7:40 PM


...from there is a designer and there could be a designer.

This is a critical distinction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2017 7:40 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 109 of 111 (811436)
06-07-2017 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Phat
06-07-2017 2:08 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
The whole concept of God is falsifiable.

How?


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

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

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

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.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:08 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-09-2017 12:19 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 110 of 111 (811456)
06-08-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by ProtoTypical
06-07-2017 7:36 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

I don't understand this point at all. How else could it possibly look? If you design a universe and it has processes in it then those processes will, no doubt, look natural.

If species were separately designed then we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy since there is no reason that a designer would force its designs into a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect to see a nested hierarchy is if species evolved from a common ancestor.

Is it possible to identify ourselves as being part of a designed system from the inside of that system?

As described above, yes. If we suddenly saw nearly all species suddenly appear in the fossil record just 10,000 years ago, then I think we could conclude that there is a high probability that we are in a designed system of life.

My objective is to examine my own belief on the subject.

If I may make a suggestion, your first step should be to ask yourself what it would take to prove ID/creationism wrong. That is what any good scientist would do. What would it take to disprove ID/creationism when it comes to the question of the origin of species?

From what I have seen so far, you seem to have taken the position that a designer can do anything and produce every possible observation. If that is the case, then I don't see how your belief can be examined.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2017 7:36 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 111 of 111 (811521)
06-09-2017 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Coyote
06-07-2017 10:26 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
Coyote writes:

Phat writes:

The whole concept of God is falsifiable.


how?

Off topic but on point, this is the question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 06-07-2017 10:26 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017