Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 8:54 PM
21 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, dwise1, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Distinguishing "designs"
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8839
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 61 of 73 (445218)
01-01-2008 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 1:06 PM


borrowed parts
I understand better now.

It is somewhat fuzzy. It is amusing that is actually difficult to define where "I" leave off and "not-I" starts. However, I think there is a clear difference (for organisms as complex as mammals) between things which are fundamental parts of them that are formed from their nuclear DNA ( :) ) and reproduce through their sexual reproductive processes and things which arrive from the outside.

(I am avoiding the nitpicking details that suggest that our important gut organisms may not be found in other than humans.)

The dust and grime which gathers one a lawn mower or the oxygen it uses to run are, in the analogy we are using clearly not as much a "part of it" as the spark plugs are. We do not find a mammal with a octopuses eye even thought it might be slightly better for some uses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 1:06 PM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 3:20 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 62 of 73 (445236)
01-01-2008 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by NosyNed
01-01-2008 2:27 PM


Re: borrowed parts
However, I think there is a clear difference (for organisms as complex as mammals) between things which are fundamental parts of them that are formed from their nuclear DNA ( ) and reproduce through their sexual reproductive processes and things which arrive from the outside.

This particular biological definition of "part", based on structure, has no direct equivalent in a mechanical device. That is why I used a definition based on function. Surely you need a definition that can be applied to both.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 01-01-2008 2:27 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1128 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 63 of 73 (447001)
01-07-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
08-04-2007 12:26 PM


Ned writes:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=2121&m=19#19 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=2121&m=19#19">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=2121&m=19#19

The obviously WRONG kind of design which you can't seem to remember for very long.

I didn't know that there are different kinds of design, or that 'design' ever means non-intelligence. Does not 'design' presuppose intelligence?

If 'design' does not indicate 'Designer' then please tells us what you mean you use the word 'design'?

You have titled your topic "Distinguishing 'designs'" - why don't you define the very many different meanings of 'design'?

As far as I can tell your whole point is to define yourself as correct which defines your opponent as incorrect. Needless to say: definitions are not evidence - right?

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2007 12:26 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2008 6:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8839
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 64 of 73 (447002)
01-07-2008 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object
01-07-2008 6:33 PM


Semantic Games
We've already played that game Ray. Tiresome now.

Deal with the actual issue or refrain from using an argument you can't support.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-07-2008 6:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-07-2008 7:26 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1128 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 65 of 73 (447020)
01-07-2008 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by NosyNed
01-07-2008 6:44 PM


Re: Semantic Games
Semantic Games

Let me re-phrase:

Your topic is titled: Distinguishing "designs"

By placing the word designs in quote marks like this ("designs") you are saying that said word does not mean design (without quote marks).

In other words you have assumed your conclusion by definition or "semantic games" as you call it.

Why don't you define "designs" (plural) - is there a post that has these special or stipulated meanings?

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2008 6:44 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2008 7:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8839
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 66 of 73 (447025)
01-07-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object
01-07-2008 7:26 PM


Definition of "design"
In previous centuries the word design meant the output from human work.

We now have to be careful to note that there are at least two ways to produce outputs. This has all been discussed above.

Did you have trouble reading it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-07-2008 7:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-07-2008 8:59 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1128 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 67 of 73 (447047)
01-07-2008 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NosyNed
01-07-2008 7:54 PM


Re: Definition of "design"
In previous centuries the word design meant the output from human work.

False.

Before the rise of Darwin, design was the paradigm of the scientific community. The view was put forth by William Paley and as you might know Paley explained and showed that design corresponds to the work of invisible Designer (straightforward logic).

In fact, we know Darwin's book was a rebuttal to Paley (reference available upon request).

I ask you again to define your terms?

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2008 7:54 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by sidelined, posted 01-07-2008 10:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 69 by jar, posted 01-07-2008 10:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 70 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2008 11:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 73 (447059)
01-07-2008 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object
01-07-2008 8:59 PM


Re: Definition of "design"
Cold Foreign
Object

In fact, we know Darwin's book was a rebuttal to Paley (reference available upon request).

Consider it requested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-07-2008 8:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 69 of 73 (447061)
01-07-2008 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object
01-07-2008 8:59 PM


Re: Definition of "design"
I ask you again to define your terms?

Ray, did you read Message 1?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-07-2008 8:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8839
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 70 of 73 (447071)
01-07-2008 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object
01-07-2008 8:59 PM


Re: Definition of "design"
Message 49 and others

Design: The "design" of an object is it's form and the interrelationship of it's parts.

We are aware of at least two different kinds of processes that produce objects with "interesting" forms and part relationships.

Paley was aware of only one process that produces objects with interesting forms and relationships of parts. He explicitly tried to compare an object that we know is produced by one kind of process to one that exhibits the characteristics objects that we know have been produced by another process.

Watches exhibit the charateristics of objects arising from one process; living things exhibit the characteristics of the other process.

Of course, Paley is an example of the kind of bias and blindness that you often toss around. He was trying to find a particular answer. That combined with his ignorance of what we learned over a century later lead him to wrong conclusions.

Edited by NosyNed, : To fix a totally screwed up post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-07-2008 8:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-09-2008 4:30 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1128 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 71 of 73 (447517)
01-09-2008 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by NosyNed
01-07-2008 11:25 PM


Idiotic Semantic Games
Ned titles his topic and writes:

Distinguishing "designs"

By the placing the word designs in quote marks like this ("designs") Ned is clearly indicating that "designs" does not mean the understood meaning of design. Why else would he place said word in quotation marks? But since he qualified "designs" with the word distinguishing he is saying there is more than one valid meaning of the word design.

Ned writes:

Design: The "design" of an object is it's form and the interrelationship of it's parts.

Nobody can say for certain what this really means; to write Design followed by "design" is very confusing.

Paley was aware of only one process that produces objects with interesting forms and relationships of parts. He explicitly tried to compare an object that we know is produced by one kind of process to one that exhibits the characteristics objects that we know have been produced by another process.

This commentary says the greatest advocate of design was mistaken. Since an evolutionist wrote the commentary this is expected, but it leaves us wondering as to what is the point since we already know that evolutionists believe designists are mistaken?

Watches exhibit the charateristics of objects arising from one process; living things exhibit the characteristics of the other process.

All this says is that natural selection is the "designer" - God is not the Designer. This is, of course, false.

Blind forces with no mind cannot create watches; the same is the product of invisible Designer, which is a superior explanation in my opinion.

Now we can ascertain why Ned is placing the word designs in quote marks: he is saying that design does not really exist. Why use the word design to begin with?

Answer: he is attempting to trick gullible fence sitters into accepting that blind and mindless forces produced living watches. This is the purpose of his idiotic semantic games.

Of course, Paley is an example of the kind of bias and blindness that you often toss around. He was trying to find a particular answer. That combined with his ignorance of what we learned over a century later lead him to wrong conclusions.

This comment says you are biased and blind if you accept the logic of the observation of design and organized complexity corresponding to the work of invisible Designer.

But if you accept the logic of organic gradations inferring evolution you are not biased or blind.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2008 11:25 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 01-09-2008 5:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8839
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 72 of 73 (447529)
01-09-2008 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Cold Foreign Object
01-09-2008 4:30 PM


Re: Idiotic Semantic Games
Nobody can say for certain what this really means; to write Design followed by "design" is very confusing.

You clearly managed to mess up the reading.

This commentary says the greatest advocate of design was mistaken. Since an evolutionist wrote the commentary this is expected, but it leaves us wondering as to what is the point since we already know that evolutionists believe designists are mistaken?

And this furthers the discussion not at all.

Blind forces with no mind cannot create watches; the same is the product of invisible Designer, which is a superior explanation in my opinion.

Now we can ascertain why Ned is placing the word designs in quote marks: he is saying that design does not really exist. Why use the word design to begin with?

But we know that blind forces can create complicated and useful objects. That has been demonstrated. You haven't even begun to discuss the topic here.

The definition of "design" that I am using was given above. As noted it was beyond your reading comprehension.

This comment says you are biased and blind if you accept the logic of the observation of design and organized complexity corresponding to the work of invisible Designer.

But if you accept the logic of organic gradations inferring evolution you are not biased or blind.

Ray

This is the argument that you have used everywhere. It appears it is your only argument. However, you never actually go beyond this silly, unsupported assertion so this also doesn't further the discussion.

I've wasted more than enough time with someone who:
1: Can't read
2: Will not support his conspiracy argment
3: Has no other argument
4; Doesn't have a clue what this thread is about.

You can continue your rant Ray. But I'm not interested in wasting more time with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-09-2008 4:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
waqasf 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 73 of 73 (462908)
04-10-2008 12:29 PM


Spam deleted

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019