Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 144 of 315 (476725)
07-26-2008 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Beretta
07-26-2008 3:26 AM


Do we really need a designer?
No, a certain level of organization can come about without an organizer -that's where physical law comes in -simple equations. However when you're talking about a biological organism, the organization is not that simple -in fact if you had to organize it into an equation, the equation would not be simplifiable.
Ok, check out this video (you can start it at 2mins 40 secs - the intro is not that relevant) - so you're happy with this level of organisation occuring naturally? At what point does a designer have to step in?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Beretta, posted 07-26-2008 3:26 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Beretta, posted 07-26-2008 7:50 AM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 182 of 315 (477222)
07-31-2008 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Beretta
07-31-2008 8:42 AM


Re: God of the gaps fallacy
Well how about the'evolution in the gaps' fallacy represented by the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly many many complex forms appear fully formed and evolutionists have to imagine that somehow evolution happened before that anyway.
Let's talk about evolution hypothetically, 'cos obviously it never realy happened. But let's pretend that it did. The idea is that fairly undifferentiated tiny squashy things that do not leave any fossil record, slowly differentiated over tens of millions of years to become several types of tiny squashy things that do not leave any fossil record... and then some of these squashy things start to develop slightly harder bits, and as these harder bits convey advanatges, most of the different types of squashy bits gain harder bits too. And these harder bits are able to leave a fossil record.
Hypothetically, if that is what actually happened, what would you expect to see in the fossil record?
But of course the biggest question is, why did the Designer make the fossil receord look so preceisly like the above hypothetical scenario??? What was that all about?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Beretta, posted 07-31-2008 8:42 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Beretta, posted 07-31-2008 9:54 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 195 of 315 (477246)
07-31-2008 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Beretta
07-31-2008 9:54 AM


Re: God of the gaps fallacy
The suggestion that the precursors to the cambrian were soft bodied and thus not preservable no longer holds as an hypothesis.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument. Discovering the special circumstances where the soft-bodied precursors are preserved is a fantastic discovery - how could this in any way possibly shake evolution? Surely we want as many of these discoveries as possible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Beretta, posted 07-31-2008 9:54 AM Beretta has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 197 of 315 (477252)
07-31-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
07-31-2008 2:28 PM


Re: God of the gaps fallacy
By the way, congratulations on getting several people to digress with you onto evolutionary topics.
Yep - hangs head in shame
But then, this is all it appears that Beretta has. Say we discovered tomorrow that evolution was completely incorrect, and that we were back to the drawing board - it would be hell for the creationists because suddenly they would have to compete with every other creation myth on the planet. And they have nothing with which to fight their corner... evolution is their best friend as it is a 'safe' enemy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 07-31-2008 2:28 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by RickJB, posted 07-31-2008 3:48 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 314 of 315 (478077)
08-11-2008 5:10 PM


Time for a change of tack?
As we have all realised - there is little to no evidence for a designer being put forth. Beretta has pushed the idea that observations of life on Earth reveal design, and hence there muct exist a designer. Perhaps it is is time we turned things around. Let us accept for a moment that the appearance of design is indeed the result of very real design. Instead of asking for information regarding this designer, let us infer as much as possible regarding the attributes of this designer from the "design" itself. I have started a new thread, yet to be promoted, which concerns my own thoughts in this regard.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024