Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 61 of 327 (501118)
03-04-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
03-03-2009 6:34 PM


Re: God Rested After Creation
We are not all created by God; none of us alive today or yesterday or last year or last month, last century, last millennium etc have been created by God; not even Noah.
This then begs the question, in keeping with the OP, what then IS the Physical evidence that is consistent with a designer, Buz?
All others have procreated from Adam without God designing or creating each.
Does this mean that currently there is no way to "see" design other than to accept on faith that one particular creation story is accurate?
Does this mean that there is NO Physical evidence that is consistent with a designer?
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 6:34 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 03-06-2009 12:12 AM onifre has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 327 (501400)
03-05-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
03-04-2009 8:02 AM


Source of Contention
Percy writes:
Same reaction as Coyote: all your talk of God and Adam and the sabbath and resting on the seventh day just convinces people that intelligent design is not science but religion.
Advocates of intelligent design must cringe every time you post.
One of your guys prodded me in #53 of this science thread above:
Rrhain writes:
We're back to the question nobody ever answers!
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
I'm damned if I respond and damned if I don't.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 03-04-2009 8:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by anglagard, posted 03-06-2009 12:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 6:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 67 by Rrhain, posted 03-06-2009 8:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 327 (501402)
03-06-2009 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by onifre
03-04-2009 12:24 PM


Re: Evidence
onifre writes:
This then begs the question, in keeping with the OP, what then IS the Physical evidence that is consistent with a designer, Buz?
All others have procreated from Adam without God designing or creating each.
Does this mean that currently there is no way to "see" design other than to accept on faith that one particular creation story is accurate?
1. One time sudden design/creation of the species affords limited physical process evidences to cite. Therefor the evidence lies in the corroborative evidences archeological, historical, math probabilities pertaining to complexity, etc supportive to the Biblical record.
Does this mean that there is NO Physical evidence that is consistent with a designer?
A lot of this has been reiterated in other threads corroborating the BR (Biblical record) and supportive to falsification of the secularist mainline non-ID science POV.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by onifre, posted 03-04-2009 12:24 PM onifre has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 64 of 327 (501403)
03-06-2009 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
03-05-2009 11:54 PM


Re: Source of Contention
Buzsaw writes:
I'm damned if I respond and damned if I don't.
Only according to your god, not my God.
This is central to the whole debate. Should all people on earth at the end of the barrel of a gun be forced to renounce science, democracy, and questioning authority. Should 'your' 'interpretation' of the Bible override all physics, chemistry, geology, biology, history, linguistics, and so on, in order to create the Christian version of Iran, where mullahs of your liking dictate all discourse or indeed even all fashion?
Your designer, like your infallible author of the OT, whose rules are only applicable to others and not oneself, is simply an appeal to the psychological defect called Right Wing Authoritarianism.
That is why you seem to curse any interpretation of the NT as being too 'soft' because of an apparent claim that Jesus was all about damnation and nothing about proper behavior. I feel we are not even reading the same book when you apparently state that the message of Jesus is solely one of hate and fear.
As one who believes in a just God, a veteran, and a direct product of the enlightenment, I have no choice but to oppose all your misinterpreted, misogynistic, and provincial appeals to authority.
I know you disagree but I hold the rest of the world should not be subject to your psychological aberrations.
So to be more on topic, do you actually have a designer hypothesis that is superior in curing disease, superior in creating more food, or superior in basic understanding of the importance genes have in our subsequent behavior or conditions, as in Parkinson's, Sickle cell anemia or Tay-Sachs?
I think not, but this is your opportunity to 'prove' me wrong.
Edited by anglagard, : etrudition
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Edited by anglagard, : a bit more clarity

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 11:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 65 of 327 (501412)
03-06-2009 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
03-05-2009 11:54 PM


Re: Source of Contention
Buzsaw writes:
One of your guys prodded me in #53 of this science thread above...
That at a single mention of God you immediately drop into "preach" mode makes clear that what you're spouting is your religious beliefs. The degree to which your successful at restraining yourself from saying what you really believe does not fool anyone. To you the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible, just as it was to Behe at Dover.
We're up to message 65, it's well past time to answer the question. What's the physical evidence for the intelligent designer? Please don't wast everyone's time and just make stuff up off the top of your head. If you don't have an answer, don't reply.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 11:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 66 of 327 (501587)
03-06-2009 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
03-03-2009 6:34 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
We are not all created by God; none of us alive today or yesterday or last year or last month, last century, last millennium etc have been created by God; not even Noah.
One man, Adam, was created by God. All others have procreated from Adam without God designing or creating each. God's creative work on humans and the species ended on day six of Genesis one. Thus the sabbath rest as God rested on the seventh day.
So close, and yet still nothing concrete. I understand the reticence: Nobody wants to go on the record because that would require living with the consequences of that claim. Please, Buzsaw, humor me. Say it directly.
Do you claim that there are things that happen on their own or do you insist that god is required for everything?
You can explicate your answer after you actually give your answer. You certainly are hinting that you are saying that there are things that can happen on their own, but I need you to say it directly and simply without embellishment.
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 03-03-2009 6:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 67 of 327 (501588)
03-06-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
03-05-2009 11:54 PM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
I'm damned if I respond and damned if I don't.
Not at all. If you respond, then we can have a discussion about the consequences of your claim. Otherwise, we are left to guess at what you're actually claiming and then you get to be disingenuous and whine, "I never said that!" That's why I need you to say it directly and simply. Go ahead and provide your justification of your answer, but you have to give your answer first.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2009 11:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 68 of 327 (501600)
03-06-2009 10:27 PM


Nested Hierarchy and the Amnesiac Designer
The overwhelming and overpowering observation in biology is the nested hierarchy. This is an observation that is independent of evolution. In fact, it was first noticed by a creationist named Linnaeus before Darwin was ever born.
So if I were working backwards in order to describe the designer I would have no choice but to think that the designer (if it was a single designer) was suffering from a very serious case of amnesia. Why do I say this? Each change seen in the progression of life is completely uninformed by every other change out there. It's as if the designer is handed a species and asked to change in somehow. After doing so the designer's memory is wiped clean and the designer is handed a new species to modify. This is the ONLY way I can think of to explain the nested hierarchy as part of an intelligent design paradigm.
To use specific examples, what was the designer thinking when the designer made bats and birds? Why not give bats some feathers? Why not give birds three middle ear bones so they could hear airborne vibrations a little better? Why not give birds teats so that they don't have to puke up food for their young? Why not give bats flow through lungs? Why not give birds the improved hemoglobin found in bats? Why are there two completely different and uninformed solutions to flight (not to mention flying fish, insects, gliding squirrels, etc.)?
For a single designer, amnesia or Alzheimer's is the only explanation. The only other solution is a designer for each and every species, designers that are never allowed to talk to one another or share trade secrets.

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 03-06-2009 10:40 PM Taq has replied
 Message 73 by Peg, posted 03-12-2009 7:54 AM Taq has replied
 Message 74 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2009 10:02 AM Taq has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 327 (501601)
03-06-2009 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
03-06-2009 10:27 PM


Re: Nested Hierarchy and the Amnesiac Designer
Welcome to the fray, Tag.
For a single designer, amnesia or Alzheimer's is the only explanation.
I beg to differ. There is always another option
Enjoy.
ps ... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 03-06-2009 10:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 03-06-2009 11:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 70 of 327 (501605)
03-06-2009 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
03-06-2009 10:40 PM


Re: Nested Hierarchy and the Amnesiac Designer
I beg to differ. There is always another option
The bill of the platypus is a perfect example of what I am talking about. An examination of the skeletal structure of both the duck and platypus bill leaves one obvious question, WHY ARE THEY SO DIFFERENT? The outer morphology is pretty close, but the skeletal structure underneath is completely different. As with all mammals, the platypus has a single dentary bone (i.e. lower jaw bone), and this dentary bone actually can produced cusped molars (i.e. mammalian teeth). Compare this to the duck bill that has three bones, just as in dinosaurs. The upper maxilla is split to form the span in the front and top of the bill for the platypus, a ver mammalian feature. In the duck there is no split in the upper maxilla. The nares are placed very differently also.
It's as if the designer completely forgot about designing the duck when the designer was asked to form a shovel-like jaw for the platypus. It is exactly what we would expect to find if a designer suffering from amnesia was asked to design a shovel-like jaw from the mammalian jaw even after that same designer made the duck.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 03-06-2009 10:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

hari
Junior Member (Idle past 5489 days)
Posts: 15
From: Harmandar
Joined: 03-10-2009


Message 71 of 327 (502168)
03-10-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
09-01-2008 10:17 AM


God in a box?
I would like to discuss the Intelligent Designer who would be consistent with the physical evidence available
1. Evolution should not be discounted as a design option. A very effective way to develop robot control software is to have it learn from experience.
2. Everything about our world, from the lay of the land to the layout of the stars and our organs, kind of screams out that it evolved.
3. If the Intelligent Designer = God then He is timeless, unbowed by space-time, caring not a jot for the passing of 13.7 million years.
So, for instance, God created a zillion universes with differing laws and starting conditions, and watched to see which ones evolved into something interesting, with beings in His own image. He chose this particular plan because we will never be able to prove that we and our universe were designed, and so can only believe in Him by faith alone - God likes faith.
power=omnipotent - we can’t make universes yet
intelligence>=competent - Darwin thought of it too
benevolence=? - way complicated
Does ID let God choose this intelligent design option, and if not, how come?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2008 10:17 AM Blue Jay has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 72 of 327 (502336)
03-11-2009 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
09-01-2008 10:17 AM


Bluejay writes:
My arguments for this position are (1) that a God with great power could learn how to engineer something as complex as a human body, but would not be able to make it absolutely perfect;
Our definition of "perfect" and God's, may be two entirely different things.
(2) that God has all knowledge that is possible to have, but that “all knowledge” does not include the knowledge of how to do things that physics does not allow;
Until all physics can be explained, then we don't know the answer to that.
(3) that God is benevolent because He allows us to appreciate beauty and good taste, etc., but often sacrifices benevolence for practicality (makes us feel pain; allows things to die because it maintains the balance of the ecosystem, etc.).
Refer to the answer for #1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2008 10:17 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:11 PM riVeRraT has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 73 of 327 (502537)
03-12-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
03-06-2009 10:27 PM


Re: Nested Hierarchy and the Amnesiac Designer
Taq writes:
To use specific examples, what was the designer thinking when the designer made bats and birds? Why not give bats some feathers? Why not give birds three middle ear bones so they could hear airborne vibrations a little better? Why not give birds teats so that they don't have to puke up food for their young? Why not give bats flow through lungs? Why not give birds the improved hemoglobin found in bats? Why are there two completely different and uninformed solutions to flight (not to mention flying fish, insects, gliding squirrels, etc.)?
there is a good reason why bats dont have the same functions as birds do
bats are nocturnal mammals
birds are not

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 03-06-2009 10:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 03-12-2009 10:05 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 76 by Blue Jay, posted 03-12-2009 1:43 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 77 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:09 PM Peg has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 327 (502556)
03-12-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
03-06-2009 10:27 PM


Re: Nested Hierarchy and the Amnesiac Designer
The only other solution is a designer for each and every species, designers that are never allowed to talk to one another or share trade secrets.
It's even more insane than that. To explain the nested hierarchies, the designers must have been working in committees or with subcontractors.
The vertebrate committee designed the basic vertebrate design, then broke up into the fish subcommittee, the reptile subcommittee, and the mammal subcommittee.
The mammal subcommittee designed the basic mammal plan, then subcontracted out whales to one group, bats to another, primates to still another, and so on.
The bat guys were intrigued by one of the reptile group's bird designs and so tried to make their own, but were constrained by the overall mammal design that they had to work with.
I do agree, though, that common features do not imply a common designer -- the pattern of similarities seems to imply a nested hierarchy of committees of designers.
Maybe that's what Genesis meant when God said, "let us make humans in our image?"

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 03-06-2009 10:27 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:34 PM Chiroptera has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 75 of 327 (502557)
03-12-2009 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Peg
03-12-2009 7:54 AM


An Answer!!!
there is a good reason why bats dont have the same functions as birds do
bats are nocturnal mammals
birds are not
Wow! You actually have an answer for these questions!! Amazing.
Now could you give the answer? How do the difference in functions and the difference between nocturnal and diurnal produce the differences taq mentioned. If you don't connect them there is no answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Peg, posted 03-12-2009 7:54 AM Peg has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024