A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

These post were moved from the Who designed the Designer thread at admins request. It is not a direct reponse to Rodibidably last poste here.Stile writes:Besides stating the obvious in a very verbose manner, actually you have got it exacally BACKWARDS. Our imaginations are in no way real. Concepts thoughts or ideas only become real or demonstratable when compared against a verfiable physical reality, they exhibit certain characteristics which coorbortate very real possibities and conclusions from our deductive reasoning processes. When I conduct an experiment iin the physical world, the results of that experiment will corroborate my conclusions or it will not. Since I did not say what you are implying in the second part here, I would not be equivocating. Since both exist as very possibilites, (intitally), it is therefore rational and acceptable to believe in one of those possibilites. Your playing with words and concepts will not assist you cause. Since the truth of the universe is also that it could have been created or designed, against obvious design and others initial arguments to sustain the design argument, it therefore describes a TRUTH that is very real. Either both of your above principles apply to both created or not, or they do not. You cant have it both ways. If theoretical applies to design, then it applies to self-constructed, self-existent, beause there is no way you can demonstrate it is a produc of itself. Now, do you wish to contend that your imaginations for the origins of the existence of the universe are VERY REAL, if so how would you do this? If very real applies to not designed, it would apply to designed.In other words I am not equivocating, but if I am so are you. Design is a part of reality whether it is purposely designed or is naturally designed, it is something you can touch, see and observe. Call it Function or design, whichever you like, but it is definitaley a part of reality, therefore a real possibility. Playing with words does not change that which is real and observable. Here you use the words YOU or YOURS seven times in the above quote. My friend it is not ME it is reality and that which is observable and demonstratable. It is reality and its makeup that DEMONSTRATES these principles which I am advocating, I dont need to do anything. It is YOU that is avoiding the obvious. Thank you I will. As a matter of fact I am now off to Onifre's latest blatthering.D Bertot

This post is also the latest post from myself to Onifre from the Who designed the designer, thread and not a response to Rodibidably.Onifre writes:Uh, Yes you did. I would advice you to go back and read that quote. While you might have questioned my perception, you also questioned reality itself and I believe you did it again in the above qupote. Exacally. And one major way to muse about it, is to imagine that it is not real or absolute in character, which allows you to come to such conclusions as, finite things always existed, they created themselves and its clear function or design is a product of itself. I totally agree with you. Since there was no contradiction in the first place, yes it was a valid response to the question you asked. Whoa son, slow down, you minds in a tizzy running wild here. Yes Stile did admit to a designer when he answered yes to the question of possibility. Throwing words at reality like theoretical do not change reality. As I pointed out, you cannot have it both ways. It is not reasonable to say that all in the universe points to it being a product of itself, given other facts and call this a real possibility, then turn around and say design is only a theoretical possibility, such statements make no sense. Either both are real possibilities or both or theoretical. However, it doesnt matter (no pun intended), because WORDS dont change reality, they only change the argument for the sake of argument.Secondly, I dont know where you thought I said an designer would be imaginative. Thirdly, my contention that design could be a natural process, was only on the bases if one considered the universe eternal in character and a product of itself in he first place. In other words one would have to demonstrate that these are true, then of course one could conclude the second, premise. However, your task is impossible since you cannot even demonstrate the first premise. Design and a designer are therefore a very real possibility, Stile's word play notwithstanding. Come on Onifre, you can do better than this, so I may conclude from your above statements that you believe there is DEFINATELY design in the universe, or would that require me to twist your words to fit my own thinking, as you do mine.
Secondly, what part of the statement where I said that, design was not the initial way or all in all to estalish that a desinger exists, to believe in design in nature. Therefore, it would be necessary to establish or consider other preliminary factors before even coming to the above conclusion about a designer. On e approaches design after one believes correctly that finite matter that is contiegent on something else, could not be a product of itself. Oh yeah I forgot, that only theoretical correct, I only imagined the finite character of the universe.Therefore they were DESIGNED to operate in the exact MINUTNESS AND DETAIL, that allows life to exist in the universe, for the purpose which they were intended and created. I hope this answers your question, because frankly I dont see where you are going with it. I already did:
Bertot writes:In other words my statement about it happening naturally is based on a presumption in the first place. Now your catching on son, the design is there before one even gets to the design you observe in nature. The design in nature only corroborates facts that are demonstratable by the nature of the universe itself. Design is secondary to other facts. design corroborates existing facts.However, I doubt that anyone that cannot see the minute detail and design in the "adaptive organisms changing as per thier enviormental needs", will see anything else that makes much sense. Again disagreeing with design is not the same as demonstrating that it is not observable or real. If it operates or FUNCTIONS in a orderly and logical fashion, then something or someone is doing something that allows life to exist. Something or some logical orderly process is allowing you and me to use these very fine instruments to type out these very logical and orderly arguments, especially in my case. Really thats interesting. So when your driving down the road and your wipers to the vehicle come on automatically, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment? When you switch to 4 wheel drive as in the case of my Lexus, would you say the designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment. When the air bag comes out when you hit a tree, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT its enviornment.When the vehicle does anything ATUOMATICALLY without your instructions, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment?If one argues that there is still a driver, I would bring up the fact of drones and ICBMs, or all terrain guided missles tthat adapt to thier envionment as designed.Organisms change because they were designed to do so in the first place, along with the enviornment they exist in. Any other questions.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Onifre writes:So then my original contention was correct, you dont believe really that reality is real or actual, your just pretending at it. Is your existence and the things around you real or theoretical. Actually this question is of the utmost importance when considering this issue. The only contradiction is where you refuse to acknowledge evidence and reality as such. You then throw words at both of them and pretend that is takes care of the matter. If one cant even see reality as actual or real, how will one ever see any design in anything. I am surprised you believe there is design in mans creation, since you did not even see the computer in front of you actually designed. Maybe your computer was not designed, since you did not wittness it. Or maybe we could say its only a theoretical possibility, your computer just happened, or that it wasd theoretiacally designed by man. Thats called wishful thinking, the objective evidence does not point to natural causes. Even if it did the mechanism would need a source and that is the crux of the issue. Theoretical only helps you avoid the fact that only one of these ways is actually real, but since both are very VIABLE explanations, both should be presented as such in the classroom. That is, I am assuming you have no way of demonstrating that the natural proposition can be demonstrated any better than the design contention. If you can knock yourself out. My prediction is that you will end right back at groound zero, with both propositions on the table.Not liking the design concept is not a refutation of it and should not exclude it out of the science classroom as a valid explanation. If both are EQUALLY theoretical, then both are explanations for the origins of the material universe. I simply dont see how you or any judge could avoid this point. Biut please by all means feel free to present any material you believe POINTS to natural causes, Im up for knocking it to the ground. You really dont understand how this works do you? Equal propositions that are theoretical are propositions and that are not demonstratable completely are both viable propositions, especially when those are the only explanations. Even your position will not allow you to discard the other in the context of explanations in a scientific manner. Since design in even the smallest structures (DNA) is atleast appearent it is of great value in the "theoretical", explanation. Of the only two logical, "theoretical" propositions, as you call it, ONE is real and actual, atleast from our perspective. If one wishes to bandy the reality of reality, then ofcurse, we should make no deductions in the science class room either. The "theoretical" explanations of evolution should be discarded, in favor of simply explaning how things presently work or operate.But since both propositions are even "theoretical" possibilites, even as you have now admitted and both are nondemonstratable, absolutely, as you admit, then both should be included or excluded together. How in the world can you avoid this obvious conclusion. And if you are going to be evasive and play the dumb card, we will probably not make much process. I dont mind being more specific when yu stop being so obviously evasive, agreed? Would the obvious design in the single cell and its overwhelming compleity help you, I doubt it. Would the structure, order and complexity of DNA, help you I dobut it. Would the structure, design and complexity of a blue whale help you , I doubt it. When all of the intracacies of DNA are laid out and demonstrated, the skeptic has only tosay, "well I dont see that". So whats yuor point Onifre, that you can disagree with anything presented. In turn I can simply state that to ignore such complexity or intracacies is both foolish and absurd. So the collective evidence would suggest that while design is not absolutely provable, neither is a natural explanation.I think, even as evasive as you are, one could cleary see the value of presenting both sides of the issue, that is unless we are going to stick our heads in the sand and say, I dont understand this or that concept, that makes no sense to me or nothing is absolute really and use these complaints as explanations to exclude viable possibilites. Man Im good. Not mention the fact, but I will anyway, that order and reason require a source and purpose, not mention that the materials themself deserve an explanation in possibilites, if we are going to be reasonable. My conclusion is not vilolated in the least. It is your present understanding of what truth, evidence or design is or is not. Ill explain in a second.Bertot writes: Onifre writes[qs]Is that the best you have?[/as]You dont understand much about debate do you, you are being very evasive, AGAIN. If I present an explanation of something as I did above, it is your job to refute that contention or explanation, not just wave the hand and say it is not valid or dismiss it outright. Ill accept your inablity to do this as an admission in that respect, or Ill wait for a refutation of the design concept I have now repeadly presented. Even in a process that defies what is local to understanding or that which seem to defy OUR logic, it is still operating in the manner it was designed or has come to be. While people in the eleventh century probably understood the concept of a tree, they probably did not understand the principle of decomposition after it fell to the ground. Does this mean that it did not do what it did or was intended. Thier understanding of that concept would be about as well as ours in the universe. They are still designed laws whether we understand them or not. Surely even you can see this simple point, correct.Believing the sun revolves around the earth did not and does not change its order or design. When we discover how it works, we will only discover that it is still ORDER and DESIGN. Now, you will notice I responded to what you stated and didnt only ask, do you have anything better. BTW, do you have anything better? But I am the one that brought the vehicle up in the first place and I said "Motor Vehicle". If none of the before reasons stated, as to why you are being evasive, dont prove true, this one certainly will. I provided you with a clear example of how a designed item can function and adapt to its enviornment as it was designed and intended and what do you do with it, call, it a terrible analogy. But first you simply dismiss its force and application, reagrrange what I said in the example and then disregard it altogether. Here is a clear example of your evasive nature. What do you do next? You acknowledge that the motor was designed and that the vehicle was programmed to do all these things and then make the brilliant explanation that the motor hasnt changed its function. Well, what in the world does that mean?
My example to your contention that nature adapts to its enviornment and makes changes should be suffiecent to anyone to demonstrate that a designed item, even a single cell, could and was designed to do what it was intended. Like the MOTOR VEHICLE or the MOTOR, it may be proggramed, to adapt or make changes as neede, or simply die.Anyway, the fact that natural processes, have and do make changes and adapt to thier enviornment in no way demonstrates a lack of design. In fact the fact that they do this and are as complex and intercate as they are would actually suggest otherwise. At bare (bear) minimum it strongly suggests that design is a very real possibility and should be presented otherwise.
Bertot writes: O writes:In this discussion it is becoming obvious that the person that believes in design is required to PROVE everything and the one that does not is simply required to make a statement about thenatural causes and have it left at that. A single cell, DNA and other items are proof of themselves. Your repeaded request to present more detail, without dealing with the initial expalnations in the first place are becoming more and more obvious. Onifre, did you see anyone design the actual computer in front of you, yet you believe it has and was designed. Is the design principle of yourcomputer lost or not valid because you did not see it designed. Your vehicle that performs or adapts in a manner it was designed is not lost on you is it, because ypu did not see it designd or watch evolve from a less complex type of Ford (I am assuming as a out of work comedian, you might drive a Ford) Try atleast be reasonable in the discussion.Your simple taks is to demonstrate absolutely why this is not design. Go for it.D Bertot

Onifre writes:LOL. Lets see, "theoretically they are real", but "I cannot claim that the reality I experience is absolutely real" then you say, 'The point is to weigh the evidence", you have go to be kidding me. If reality is only a theoretical possibility, what the heck does any of this matter in the first place, let alone whether there is design or not. How do you weigh THEORETICAL evidence, if that is indeed how you percieve IT and reality itself. Again, LOL, what evidence and how did you decide it was evidence, theoretically.
If nothing is actually or absolutely real and it is only theoretical, then none of this matters in the first place and there should be no reason for you to argue for the process of Natural or designed.Thirdly, if it is all only theoretical, then there is no harm in presenting what may very well be a vialbe solution in the explanation of things, seeing that the only two close to real but "theoretical" solutions offer any hope of an explanation. Therefore, any conclusions drawn by science can only be theoretical and specualation, even if it appears that the conclusions are correct, that is according to you theoretical perception of reality, correct.Hence, according to your own admissions about reality and its processes, no solution is better than anyother. Yet you want to maintain that an explanation of natural verses designed is better. How in the world will you do this, now that you have boxed yourself in with such a silly perception of reality. You do see the awful contradiction you are in here, correct? Youve no where left to turn in presenting your case for a single explanation being better than another. There is no such thing as theoretical evidence Onifre, it is either evidence or it is not, it is either theoretical or it is real. Now since you have admitted that everything and all conclusions about things are theoretical, this would include your position, which would mean that your position points no CLOSER to an explanation than design. I told you in the beginning you could not win this debate. But thats because its all THEORETICAL, correct, Ha ha.Further, as I pointed out before, the explanation of design relies on the visible evidence in reality. Your position can do no better than this. You observe nature and reality from one perspective and I from another, but neither of us can say one position is better than the other, you have no way of knowing past the reality of physical things themselves.Bertot writes:Wow I was hoping you would drop a bomb on us in the form of demonstrating that you were there when the universe was formed and could therefore explain maybe how the materials that made a tree grow got here in the first place. Or perhaps you were there before the current laws of the universe, were something different than they are now, that is for the most part, and could show us the CONTINUING exclusive NATURAL pricess. Typical.Isnt it interesting that when you are demanding evidence from me, you complain that I have no better than to point out nature and examples in nature itself, then what does Onifre do?, he turns right around and does the very thing he complains about. Thats because its all theoretical correct. You mean the theoretical scientists and thier theoretical conclusions correct. For all intents and purposes this debate is over, due to the fact that you have made contradictory and unavoidable false conclusions, from which you cannot now extricate yourself or your position. You have demonstrated by your own words that no position is any better or points ot anything verses something else, indeed by the very nature of the case it cant. Even the verbage you employ and the coloful pictures you paint of your position, defy reason. Onifre "viable evidence" is limited to the reality of the closed system in which we live.Your explanations of what the evidence points to are no stronger or better than a design explanation. If it is, present the evidence that sets it apart. My perdiction is that you cannot and will not."Outside looking in", at what Onifre? You do realize you reside in the same sphere of determinal evidence as I correct? Oh yes, not to poke fun, but I did forget for a moment about your out of the body experience, floating around the house and bathroom area. You are one up one me there.As I have now stated several times, denying or disagreeing with design in nature is not the same as demonstrating it does not exist. So I see from your above statements that you werent playing the dumb card you were simply being evasive, thanks for altleast admitting that. Yes there is and the parts works together to serve a function. Complexity lends credible support to design if there is evidence to suggest that the cell depends for its existence on something else. Could one cell exist outside the human body by itself in say, the atmosphere of outer space. This would describe just about everything in existence, wouldnt you say? Its finite character, it will and can die, its funtionality with other lesser parts, its specific design within itself, its complexity and functionality with greater parts than itself and its specific function which it brings about to the collective part that it exists in. Any other questions?Now if you dont mind, I will also require you to demonstrate that it was not designed. Thats it, thats your response to a structure that stores and imparts thousands and thousand piecies of information about someone in a logical and orderly fashion, to make that thing correct in its porportions, exact in its application and true to its nature? I warned you about using your comedy routines in your attempts to make arguments. So now its science that takes the disorderly, chaotic systems in nature and organizes them for us in science neatly to help us understand what we could not otherwise. I have a better solution. Science simply interprets the ALREADY existing order and design in nature and classifies and interprests the design, to help us apply its uses.
You remind meof the Catholics, trying to tell us that they gave us the Bible, when in fact the councils simply put in organized and volumized (is that a word?) fashion what was already known for hundreds and hundreds of years before hand, the truth that had already been accepted as such for centuries.Now Onifre tells us that we cannot interpret nature and the world around us unless science is there to tell us whether it is design or not. In other words I am unwarrented in making a decision about design until science lets me know whether it is or not. Yet science has no criteria to let me know that its not. I wonder what the poor farmers and other people did with simple processes like planting a seed to know it would produce a result, before science told them it would work? Or did they figure out it was designed to grow something once they put it in the ground all by themselves? Once again you are overinflating what you and science do. Science books do not give a explanation for the origins of things, they do not make explanations of things less theoretical than design, they do not remove the very real principle of design. What they do is give explanations of the present understanding of how things presently work and that will change again and again once we understand what the exact design and nature of things is.Its always amused me that in an attempt to overthrow the design argument, the skeptic ends up pointing out more design by showing how a process might have come about naturally, ignoring the fact that the process in all its parts and adaptation has within it the necessary functions to adapt or evolve. They ignore its innate ability to perform all of these functions.No Onifre science does nothing but interpret an already existing design and order. Im all for science and the wonderful ways it manipulates nature,but to imply that people cannot function without its tenets is simply an overinflation of its uses. No you have missed the point and are trying to side track the issue once again.
Ah yes, once again the overinflated requirements for the designer. No I am not telling you are blind for not seeing design, I am telling you are blind for not recognizing that first, it is as real a posibility as natural causes, and that complaining that it is not design, is not the same as explaning why it is not. I am telling you you are blind for not recognizing that the NATURAL explanation is as theoretical as anyother. You simply sidestep these glaring issues and hope no one will pay attention to it.I am happy to go deeper Onifre when you initially help us understand why what is obviously design or order, is not design or order. You havent even began to scrath the surface, you simply say I dont see it. Thats fine, but what is your physical evidence that it was not designed to operate in this fashion in the first place. Or are you telling now, that you have no better theoretical explanation than that of anyothers. If you do I am willing to listen to it. I must admit youhave an interesting way of debating. I clearly pointed out that our lack of understanding about the way in which a thing works or whether it appears orderly to us has nothing to do with whether its present condition is designed or not. You side step this valid argument by saying I ignored yours,really Onifre. Again, does the fact that something presently by our understanding not operate in a fashion that we think it should mean it is NOT following other logical processess, even if they are not know by us? There is no order, that we PRESENTLY understand.
There is no logic to it, YET
It does not function in an orderly fashion, that we are accoustomed to presently.
Predictions cant be made about it, at PRESENT, that is until we understand it allitle better, like those people on the Enterprise.
You very carefully sidestepped my point. I pointed out that not understanding the laws of gravity in the 2nd century BC, did not make them not real or designed. Your assertionthat they are not deigned is as baseless as it every was. You sound exacally like the guy in the 3rd century BC trying to convince someone that there is no way they can sail further than a certain point before they are doomed to fall off. It is my guess that as usual, humans are wrong about thier estimations about how QM works and what it is. The present knowledge will change 1000 times before a certain point, then andonly then, we MAY realize that what was once thought to be not understandable will then be realized in the same fashion as gravity or any other principle.Besides this, none of this bandering by yourself, removes the desing principle, it only demonstrates that not only do you not rcognize design, you dont even understand the universe in which you reside. It is no surprise to me that you see no evidence for the existence of God. Why would aperson that percieves reality as theoretical, that is not real ofr all intents and purposes, see any evidence for anything else. But hey, thanks for the discussion.D Bertot

Modulous writesOnly a person that is void of the ability to be objective would make such a nonsensical statement. It demonstrates that if God were to fall of the sky on top of you, proclaim who he was and then demonstrate who he was, that only an idiot such as yourself would still stand or sit there going, uh well, uh well, I dont know.You fellas continually demonstrate why you are now and will always be in the minority, with people looking at you with both wonderment and sympathy.Each continuous line demonstrates only the strictest form of insainity and delusion, until, these words are uttered:"and they became vain in thier imaginations and thier foolish hearts were darkened, professing themselves to be wise they are becoming fools."Just A thought though. Im sure if the spoiled brat Onifre can tell people to go F...., themselves, surely I can get away with this, correct?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Onifre writes:As always if allowed to continue, I will respond to each post in turn. In the meantime Onifre, quit sucking up cry baby, its not very becoming. And by the way, Ha ha, thats a joke.The D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Onfire writes:LOL, that is, Laughing really hard, but not at your words or sentiment, but this. You now have had three post to get out a descent insult and the best you can come up with is GFY, with some commentary. Im sure there are boy and girl scouts that get out better ones. It seems my original estimation about you was correct, you are a no class, no talent, bum and punk.Hey, maybe at this point you would like to make another appeal to Daddy (Admin), "oh please admin, cant you see Im trying to do my best, please have mercy on me", what a cry baby, grow up nerd.I noticed you are always making reference to the male private parts in you insults to me and others, I am going to guess that you have problems in this area, you know the ole, "those that cant do it, talk or make reference to it or about it ", syndrome. Ill assume you are as weak in this area as you are in your argumentation and commedy routines, thats if you are actually working.Admin director writes:If this werent so serious it would be absolutely laughable. You have got to be joking with me here, correct It does not matter how anything in Christianity or anyother religion is presented in this forum, it is systematically ridiculed, insulted, belittled and goaded as you put it. Any gesting or insulting by myself or others of like mind is tame compared to the style and intensity of the skeptical abuse given out here, but why does it USUALLY go unnoticed.Take for example the gentle spirits of Jaywill, ICANT, Buzzsaw and John 10:10. Each one of these fellas and thier positions and scripture qouting has been described and reduced to the above mentioned adjectives by myself and you. You have the unmittigated gaul to ascribe this quality to me. If you will check the record, you will see that in these instances, those comments by myself were promted by some insulting, rude comment by one of the favored children here at your site. If you dont think Iam correct take a tour of the individual threads and watch this pattern develope.The above mentioned people by myself, as I have indicated are good and polite enough people, not to respond to your insults and ridicule, so those things usually go unnoticed by most and the admin here has a way of disregarding that behavior (by the antagonistic, insulting favored children), until it manifests itself in the extreme way, as in the case of Onifre, then they are forced to take action, to give the appearance of objectivity.I on the other hand am not as kind and gentle as thier spirits and have always believed that one should not let arrogant, abusive little turds like Onifre go unchecked. Actually, you do them a disserves when you do. Whether he wants to admit it or not, he will give his attitude and comments a mental check as a result of this incounter. Usually smart ass little individuals like himself only need a swift kick in the pants to bring them back to reality, sometimes it works, some times it doesnt. Again, given the steady stream of abuse to the "religious types", as they are reffered to here, this is the single most unobjective and ignorant comment I have ever witnessed.
So have the intergrity to post this post atleast and SUSPEND AWAY as you see fit, my friend.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.