|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member} | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
hmmm seems DNA and its infomation can manage with out a designer .. who would have guessed that hmmm, well frankly I don't agree at all but you have a great imagination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Or why do octopi have better 'designed' eyes than humans? We live in a different environment, maybe it's not a 'better' design just different reflecting something they need that we don't. How 'bout those whales, seals, and porpoises, who live in the same environment as the squid and octopi? They have mammalian retinas, with the light-sensitive part on the back side, but they look through the same seawater as the squid. Some of them spend their days looking for squid to eat! Why not two designers? A God for mammals and a God for cephalopods? And the mammal god just forgot that baleen whales didn't need teeth, so he had them grow tooth buds before they were born? What's wrong with that? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Then you need to show either a design or a designer. I believe I am not alone in seeing design absolutely everywhere - it's in the organization of information.
Picking at the ToE does not automatically support your position. Perhaps not but it sure shows that there is a lot wrong with the ToE and we really should be looking at that not just writing it off as irrelevant when we don't want to see it.
RickJB writes: Beretta writes: Heh, that's a complete fudge, Beretta. You're blaming science for the fact you have no evidence of a creator! Who the creative intelligence is should not even be a part of science Not at all, I'm saying that the design apparent everywhere is evidence of a designer.i'm also saying that total or even partial understanding of the designer is not a prerequisite for what is actually obvious to those with eyes to see and a brain to comprehend. Those who cannot see what is obvious to so many are blinded by human wisdom and human wisdom is really very limited.
Science is, or course, not equipped to deal with superstition - it deals with what is observable. What is superstitious about being able to see design? ID deals with what is observable. Evolution is a supposition based on a belief that a designer is not necessary - perhaps evolution should be called a superstition based on denial of the obvious.
However, the identification of who did the design should certainly belong in ID "science" How about first things first -lets just get it on the table for consideration and take it from there instead of steadfastly ignoring the very obvious and real possibility that a designer is required.
in the same way as water is identified as a major cause of erosion in Geology. There we go, the limitations of science -we see erosion, we see water as a causative agent. We see design, we are sure there is no designer.It doesn't follow, so one should not limit oneself to what we cannot possibly know for sure. Something like the ToE which is really not so well supported by the evidence despite all the religious dogma and absolute God-like assurance of the evolutionary believers who for some reason are absolutely sure that no God is required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5020 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: There we go, the limitations of science -we see erosion, we see water as a causative agent. We see design, we are sure there is no designer. But "we" don't see design! We see chemical reactions and evolution; physical matter and a whole load of time. The only folks who see design are those who have a religious outlook to support. You talk as if science is in desperate need of a designer to explain the natural world. I can assure you that it isn't.
Beretta writes: What is superstitious about being able to see design? What's to see? Where is this design? How do I spot it? All you can tell me is that it's "obvious". Yet if it is so "obvious" then it should be easy for anyone to identify it. How do I spot design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
But "we" don't see design! Perhaps that's where education has led us -people who don't see design where it is so absolutely obvious to so many. Even Richard Dawkins concurs that it looks like design, only problem is he's absolutely sure that it didn't require a designer and is not in fact design. That is a belief system not based on fact -it is a philosophy that obscures the obvious with the utterly ridiculous.How does one really imagine that all different kinds of incredible eyes in all different kinds of incredible creatures all fell into place by random events and the selection of the best random events that apparently worked by chance without the slightest bit of intelligence. We see chemical reactions and evolution We see chemical reactions and physical laws but we do not see evolution -we believe in it and we believe that no designer was required for the design which is apparent.
physical matter and a whole load of time We see physical matter and we believe as a matter of necessity that a whole bunch of time was required for what we believe must have happened.In fact without a whole bunch of time, the entire story falls apart completely. No time, no evolution. Even with time, how can we be sure that evolution could have happened? We see what we want to see sometimes and we believe what we've been led to believe and while you think that that is true of ID, I have no doubt that that is true of the whole evolutionary myth and all its supposed support which is really thin on the ground and hopeful beyond what is reasonable.
The only folks who see design are those who have a religious outlook to support. The only ones that see evolution are the ones that have been indoctrinated into believing it and have a religious outlook to support. It's called 'blind to the obvious,' you see what you're supposed to see and all the 'evidence' convinces you because if so many others are convinced, then it must be true. But consider the intricacies, how many many absolutely miraculous chance mutations had to come along by purely random processes at just the right time. It isn't happening now -only variation which is already written into the genetic code.You don't know how the first cell came to be and just because peppered moths changed their relative proportions and finch beaks got longer and shorter you have to imagine that that same observable process created peppered moths and finches from pre-existing one-celled organisms millions of years ago.It's pure belief, it's not supported by the evidence -it's believed despite the evidence against it. It's actually tragic.
You talk as if science is in desperate need of a designer to explain the natural world. I can assure you that it isn't. I don't believe for a moment that science is in desparate need of a designer -I believe that scientists in general are in desperate need of making sure that a designer is never allowed to be considered despite the designs. It's in the nature of man to flee accountability to anyone apart from themselves.
How do I spot design? You look at your own hand, you consider the capabilities of your own brain and you break out of the box that you're living in -you've been deceived and you don't even have the slightest recognition of the problem.Unlike evolutionists and their constant carping about ID supporters and their lies, I don't believe that you are lying, but I'm absolutely sure that you're deceived.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
We see physical matter and we believe as a matter of necessity that a whole bunch of time was required for what we believe must have happened. No, we know for a certainty, confirmed by perhaps ten independent lines of evidence, that we live on a planet that's over 4,000,000,000 years old. And we can trace how life changed over the last couple of billions of those years. The bunch of time is incontrivertibly there, Beretta. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Beretta.
Beretta, msg #78 writes: Those who cannot see what is obvious to so many are blinded by human wisdom and human wisdom is really very limited. Maybe scientists are, in fact, being blinded by human wisdom; but, at least we're trying. God gave us about five senses and a relatively large brain, and we're just using these meager facilities to try to understand the world around us. All you're doing is telling us we shouldn't even bother, because the answer is so obvious that we shouldn't have to work to find it. Yet, when we do work to find it, we find something entirely different from what you thought was obvious. And, of course, you criticize us for that too. Still, you haven't put forward the method you use to determine what design is and how to distinguish it from non-design.
Beretta writes: You look at your own hand, you consider the capabilities of your own brain and you break out of the box that you're living in -you've been deceived and you don't even have the slightest recognition of the problem. Beretta, scientists are people who, in fact, have looked at their hand, considered the capabilities of their own brains, then said, "That's amazing!" and spent the time trying to figure out how they work. Creationists are people who looked at their hand, considered the capabilities of their own brains, then said, "That's amazing!" and decided that they didn't really need to understand how they work, because God designed them. This line of attack of yours is extremely rude and, frankly, extremely ignorant. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5020 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Your entire post is one long argument from incredulity, Beretta.
Beretta writes: Perhaps that's where education has led us -people who don't see design where it is so absolutely obvious to so many. What is "obvious" and what is observed in the world around us are not the same thing. Education frees humanity from a reliance on the "obvious". Consider: Is it "obvious" how one can make a fire?Is it "obvious" how one can make a bow and arrow? Is it "obvious" how one can extract metal from ore? Is it "obvious" how one can make a gearing system? Is it "obvious" how one can make a steam engine? Is it "obvious" how one can make electricity? Is it "obvious" how one can make a machine that will fly? Is it "obvious" how matter is formed from atoms? Is it "obvious" that each living organism contains DNA? The computer that you are typing on works, not because it was "obvious" to those who created it, but because it is the cumulative result of thousands of educated minds investigating the world around them. Observations and education are key. "Obvious" counts for nothing at all in science. The only obvious thing in this discussion is that you have no evidence whatsoever for a designer. The rest is just window dressing, I'm afraid. On a side note:-
Beretta writes: How does one really imagine that all different kinds of incredible eyes in all different kinds of incredible creatures all fell into place by random events and the selection of the best random events that apparently worked by chance without the slightest bit of intelligence. Eyes pose no problem for the ToE whatsoever. All the stages can be seen in molluscs. Eye evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps that's where education has led us -people who don't see design where it is so absolutely obvious to so many. Yes, this is absolutely where eductation leads us. Being educated leads us to know that what is "obvious to so many" is bollocks. This is kinda why people need to be educated. You should try it yourself some time.
Even Richard Dawkins concurs that it looks like design ... Of course. This is the most basic argument in favor of evolution. Of course evolution deludes people into imagining design.
How does one really imagine that all different kinds of incredible eyes in all different kinds of incredible creatures all fell into place by random events and the selection of the best random events that apparently worked by chance without the slightest bit of intelligence. We don't need to imagine it, we can prove it. That's kind of the difference between biology and the shit you make up in your head.
We see physical matter and we believe as a matter of necessity that a whole bunch of time was required for what we believe must have happened. And, whoopie-do-dah, we can prove it. Isn't science great?
Even with time, how can we be sure that evolution could have happened? You could spend thirty seconds with this little thing we call "logic", and then you could slap yourself on the forehead and say "Damn, how silly I've been". Don't worry, it's not going to happen. Thirty seconds of logical thought is not something that you or any other creationist will undertake. Relax.
The only ones that see evolution are the ones that have been indoctrinated into believing it and have a religious outlook to support. It's called 'blind to the obvious,' you see what you're supposed to see and all the 'evidence' convinces you because if so many others are convinced, then it must be true. But consider the intricacies, how many many absolutely miraculous chance mutations had to come along by purely random processes at just the right time. It isn't happening now -only variation which is already written into the genetic code.You don't know how the first cell came to be and just because peppered moths changed their relative proportions and finch beaks got longer and shorter you have to imagine that that same observable process created peppered moths and finches from pre-existing one-celled organisms millions of years ago.It's pure belief, it's not supported by the evidence -it's believed despite the evidence against it. It's actually tragic. Mmm ... do you know what the word "mutation" means? Only if you did, you'd lie less often.
I don't believe for a moment that science is in desparate need of a designer -I believe that scientists in general are in desperate need of making sure that a designer is never allowed to be considered despite the designs. It's in the nature of man to flee accountability to anyone apart from themselves. Your beliefs are most amusing, but do not constitute evidence for anything except that you're a bigoted religious fanatic frightened of the facts that contradict your crazy beliefs.
You look at your own hand, you consider the capabilities of your own brain and you break out of the box that you're living in -you've been deceived and you don't even have the slightest recognition of the problem.Unlike evolutionists and their constant carping about ID supporters and their lies, I don't believe that you are lying, but I'm absolutely sure that you're deceived. On the one hand, I see why you're desparate to dodge the question you were asked. On the other hand, we can all see that you're desparate to dodge the question you were asked. Let's ask it again. How do I spot design? That was kind of the topic. So let's ask it again. How do I spot design? How, for example, can I tell a snowflake designed in a laboratory from one that just dropped out of the sky? Answer the frickin' question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: It's really quite impossible for you to conclude that something like this must be the product of a designer until you completely understand the natural processes that biologists believe were responsible for their creation. And, it's impossible for you to understand these processes so long as you begin with the conclusion that, since it looks designed it must be, and end your inquiry there. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Your entire post is one long argument from incredulity, Beretta. Well perhaps I'm just incredulous because of how little it takes to satisfy the average philisophical naturalist that what he wants to believe is in fact true because no other alternative is even allowed leaving evolution in some form as the only candidate in the running. Tom Bethell put it this way: "No digging for fossils, no test tubes or microscopes, no further experiments are needed.For birds,bats and bees do exist. They came into existance somehow.Your consistent materialist has no choice but to allow that,yes,molecules in motion succeeded, over the eons, in whirling themselves into even more complex conglomerations, some of them called bats, some birds, some bees. He 'knows' that is true, not because he sees it in the genes, in the lab or in the fossils, but because it is embedded in his philosophy." After all if nature is all that exists then some purely naturalistic process must have generated life in all its diversity. For the materialist, real evidence is not needed, it's a matter of logical necessity to believe in evolution.
The computer that you are typing on works, not because it was "obvious" to those who created it, but because it is the cumulative result of thousands of educated minds investigating the world around them. The same old same old...Can't seem to divide these two because it is convenient. Science advances technology, therefore evolution must be true. No. Repeatable, experimental science advances technology (oh and a vast number of those scientists that advance technology do not believe in evolution nor need to in order to carry out their experimental advances). You see, whether you 'believe' in evolution or not, you are able to do science well - evolution is not about science, it is about philosophical presuppositions and recalcitrant 'evidence'being forced to fit into the party storyline. Eyes pose no problem for the ToE whatsoever. All the stages can be seen in molluscs. And that satisfies you completely? For every macro change,how many random micro genetic changes do you think you require? You have one possible, maybe, could be line (without all the diffucult details filled in) and that apparently enables the committed evolutionist to fill in all the enormous macro gaps in the fossil record with what they believe must have happened. It's one thing to point out the gaps, it's another altogether to claim the right to fill the gaps with what you have already decided is true despite the lack of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Instead of accusing other people of being biased or brainwashed because they don't agree with you perhaps you would like to actually discuss the evidence.
You say that you like Dembski's method of identifying design. Well how about giving us a worked example to show that there really IS design in nature ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1300 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
Maybe it would help with understanding but I don't think that it's necessary to know who the designer is in order to be able to identify design.It should give us reason to look for the designer but still first things first - are we alone or is a designer responsible for all the amazing creatures that do exist? But once you've identified the design what can be done to understand the design without knowing who the designer was? When asked a simple question about the different methods of reproduction your only reply was 'Design?' , so what more can we infer about why those specific designs were chosen?As for who the designer(s) is you must have some ideas, since you accept that things are 'designed'. However, you admit that the designer(s) is basically incomprehensible. Can you even guess if they are supernatural in origin or simply very advanced aliens? This is why the hypothesis of a designer or designers is completely useless to science, since there is no possibility to further our understanding of the universe, since as you admit, we can't comprehend the designer, so we can't understand their design choices. In other words there is no how, and we can't ask why. Unless there is some other procedure we can follow. Any suggestions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4523 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
sooo i guess you are still looking for that creature that is a good example of design ? May be you should go look at that computer game called Spore .. where you get to design a creature ....might give you a hint or two ...
by the way when i look at my hand .. from a design point of view .. i think ... hmm two thunmbs would be much better , and double jointedness for the fingers ...nails that either grow much slower or dont break and get ragged .. hang on why nails at all ....and the thing the hand is mounted on .. the arm that is a bit limited in design , better rotation at the shoulder , being able to effectivly use your hands behind your back , now that would be a useful design .... Oh no i forgot the hand WAS designed .. and that means it cant be changed .. a design is a FIXED product .. i will have to go back to the desginer to get a upgrade .. is HAND ver 2.037.03 beta released yet ? sorry my imagination ran wild there ... Soo if everything is designed .. how do we get upgrades .. and what does the designer think of cross breeds ..clearley changing the design that was intended ? ? ? are all the modern roses growing in peoples gardens a crime vs design ... i mean mere humans selectivly breed then for colour and flower shape .. chnaging how they where meant to be .. if it is a crime .. what will be the punishment ....if its not does that mean we can go around evolving new looks .... like a extra thumb ??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5020 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: Well perhaps I'm just incredulous because of how little it takes to satisfy the average philisophical naturalist that what he wants to believe is in fact true because no other alternative is even allowed leaving evolution in some form as the only candidate in the running. It's has nothing to do with what anyone believes, it has everything to do with where the evidence points whether anyone likes it or not. When we investigate life on earth ALL the evidence points to evolution and to an old Earth. In this way, the science of evolution is no different from the science that made your computer. The "alternative" you offer amounts to saying more little more than saying "No, God did it". That's not an answer, it's willful ignorance. It's a fear of learning. Of course, you could attempt to answer the topic question and tell us how "design" can be spotted, otherwise all you offer is ignorance.
Beretta writes: [Regarding eye evolution]And that satisfies you completely? Even if I wasn't satisfied, it tells me a hell of a lot more than "Godidit"! ------------- So lets recap on what we have from you about design:-
Beretta writes: Designer: Very imaginative, very mathematical, very brilliant - way beyond our limited brains and abilities to understand in more than a fairly elementary way. So we have have a designer who is very talented and all, but there no point investigating because we wouldn't understand him/her/it anyway.
Beretta writes: Design: "Obvious". We don't need to understand design because it is "obvious". ----------------- We're not doing so well with this ID thing.... So, as an alternative to evolution can you please tell us how design can be spotted, other than that it is "obvious"? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024