|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What constitutes Intelligent design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
It comes to my attention in looking over the many posts in the forum that IDist and creationist claim that where there is design there must be a designer. It strikes me that in none of these claims for design being prevalent everywhere no one states what constitutes design.
In other words by what criteria do you tell something is not designed? I submit that the appearance of design that objects acquire is no more than a consequence of a balance of the undirected forces at work upon these items.This is consistent with what we observe. When we manipulate metals, for instance, to produce something we can observe the changes produced through our actions and we can explain how these manipulations occur.The structure of the world and the life therein obey the four known forces of nature {strong ,weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces}. I would say that design by an entity must show a mechanism by which these four forces can be manipulated. In no way is there evidence that these forces are manipulated by unknown entities nor any hypothesis brought forth to claim they are. SO is there a mechanism that IDist's or creationists can bring forth to explain their claims that objects are designed by an intelligent means?Also, it would be good to have them explain what designed the complexity behind the intelligence they invoke as necessary to explain the complexity of the world. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given. "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
AdminnNosy
I have edited the original post. Is it up to muster or shall I add some to it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Bump
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Since it seems ,perhaps, that a nudge is needed to have people make their claims known, then I will post some images and ask questions.
Are these examples of design? Why or why not? Explain your answer. Is this designed?
Why or why not? Explain. How about these?
Is this designed?
Perhaps the people who back ID or creationism could explain what they feel justifies design in the first place and then explain their position.One last picture though.
Any takers? Edited by sidelined, : No reason given. "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
nwr
Thank you for your response concerning Dembski. However I am not looking to debate Dembski but rather the people here who make claim to having an explanation for the design that they see and to be able to describe in what way they arrive at this. If any people here wish to use Dembski as a basis for making the arguement that is all well and good but I have yet to see anyone making any response whatsoever. I feel that the evidence they may have is not very compelling.Perhaps they do not wish to have to defend it in any way since that would involve having to answer questions that may be raised that they themselves have not thought through the answers on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Taz
I hope that makes it easier for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
bluescat48
Well one can always hope they somehow find the cajones to bring forth a reasonable attempt at showing the workings of their logic and thinking. Until then the best we can do is keep bumping it for 300 posts at which point we can claim victory by default. Edited by sidelined, : fixed spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
bump for input
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Is there no one confidant enough in the hypothesis of intelligent design that would be willing to clear up these issues?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Heck Taz I would welcome anyone who can defend the Intelligent Design theory but it seems that no matter how often I bump this thread I can get no one to bite.
I guess the ID hypothesis has no merit worth defending then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
ICANT
1. Where did the singularity come from that our universe came from? Best answer so far we don't know. That is not entirely correct. We have not yet established the correct answer to that question however there are models that can be suggested that utilize present knowledge in order to explain the universe. Page not found | Philosophy | University of Colorado Boulder | University of Colorado Boulder Scroll down on this page until you arrive at the following title A Scenario for a Natural Origin of Our UniverseUsing a Mathematical Model Based on Established Physics and Cosmology This is no doubt beyond most of the people here including myself however the points made in the text leading up to the equationsshould help to clarify any misunderstandings about science and its ability to explain things accurately.
2. Where did life come from? Best answer so far. We don't know. Similar to statement 1 and also not quite correct. That we do not know the exact mechanics of the origin of life does not mean that we cannot form plausible scenarios. A big problem ,of course, occurs in the difficulty in defining properly exactly what constitutes life itself.Is there a definite border or is it a matter of defining a level of complexity above which we humans define as life and below which we do not. I have resurrected an old thread of mine in which you may be interested to peruse for insights into this dilemma. http://EvC Forum: Is there a border dividing life from non-life? -->EvC Forum: Is there a border dividing life from non-life?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024