|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
tesla writes: My observations are not dogma. its an untested half educated guess. But it makes more sense than accepting everything sprang out randomly for essentially no purpose at all. I think we all agree with half of what you say. An untested half-educated guess (presumably based upon available but incomplete evidence) *does* make more sense than accepting that everything sprang out randomly. That's why none of us accept that everything sprang out randomly. As far as well can tell, matter and energy follow fairly well established laws of nature, and evolution uses natural selection to choose from randomly produced alternatives. Look at it this way. Were an asteroid to strike the Earth it would be a random event, but the event itself would follow the non-random laws of nature. In an analogous fashion, were a mutation to occur it would be a random event, but whether the mutation makes it to the next generation (that's the "selection" part of natural selection) would again follow the non-random laws of nature. As to "purpose" in a "meaning of life" kind of sense, that isn't something science can tell us about.
I know you will not agree, But that doesn't mean that a version of I.D. will not one day be taught in the classroom. Things that we've learned scientifically are what tend to get taught in science classrooms. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
tesla writes: Yeah. It’s hard to explain I suppose. Probably best left alone for now. I can try to state it a better way but it could just become word salad. What the hell: ... Yes, it's word salad. I think you must have created your own terminology, for instance, necessities. Necessities is not a scientific concept. Here's a list of things that you need to define, correct or clarify:
Much of this might be moot. I think your argument is based upon the singularity being something real, and as I alluded in the third point, the singularity isn't thought to be anything real. It just falls out of math that it is believed to no longer apply before T=10-43. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
tesla writes: Since evolution is true, that things have evolved; Then there was a 'before'.Evolution in its simplest definition is simply: change. Sure, and you can ask what came before great grandpa and what came before hominids and what came before mammals and what came before amphibians and so forth. But when you start asking what came before the Earth or before the sun or before the galaxy or before matter you're not talking about evolution anymore. It's fine if you have a cosmological argument for design and a designer based upon change, but if you're going to refer to this change as evolution then be careful to make clear you're not talking about biological evolution, which is heritable change. The change in the universe that you're talking about is not heritable. If you're not clear about how you're using the word evolution then people will object that evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, or they won't say anything and just assume you're hopelessly confused. Remember, this site hosts the creation/evolution debate, so the definition of evolution people assume is in play is the one for biological evolution. When you're not using it that way then make certain people know it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Your objection makes no sense. I think you might have misunderstood the point about the potential for confusion when one is unclear about which meaning of the term evolution one is using. Since this is your thread, why don't you resume participation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
Tesla was confusing two different definitions of the word evolution. I suggested to Tesla that it is important to be clear about which definition he means. You, on the other hand, are somehow interpreting that as saying something about the topic and what can be discussed. It is not. My suggestion to you is that if you want to discuss the topic then you should start posting messages about the topic. After all, this is your thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dawn Bertot writes: change, natural selection, etc are not answers, they are observations, the same as design, whic observes ORDER and LAWS So you're saying that order is evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of order you're thinking about. Is a crystalline structure evidence of design? You're also saying that laws of nature are evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of law you're thinking about? Is the law of gravity evidence of design? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dawn Bertot writes: And i have evidence of order We agree with you that there is evidence of order. The question is what kind of order are you talking about why do you think it is evidence for design.
You observe change and I observe order, both are science. I presume you also observe change? Anyway, if by change you're referring to evolution then you're making the same mistake Tesla did. Evolution and change are not synonyms. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hi Dawn,
Don't you remember that arguments that evolution is incomplete because it doesn't deal with the origin of the universe are off-topic in this thread? See Message 31, here's an excerpt:
Admin writes: If you would like to discuss how the various fields of science outside of cosmological investigations of origins are incomplete if they don't include how the universe originated then you'll have to propose a new thread. I'm having trouble sorting out what you mean in your Message 115:
Dawn Bertot writes: Percy writes: So you're saying that order is evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of order you're thinking about. Is a crystalline structure evidence of design? You're also saying that laws of nature are evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of law you're thinking about? Is the law of gravity evidence of design? No a crystalline is the result or design of an already existing order in the form of its substructure, molecules, etc So order that emerges from a lower level order isn't evidence of design? But the lower level order in molecules and atoms *is* evidence of design? You go on:
The kind of law that produces a result that is identifiable, ie, sight, hearing, taste, etc. The individual parts operate in an orderly fashion to produce a usable function. Or they operate in an orderly fashion to produce the clear and evident result, that is visible and observable So sight, which is based upon an internal order of molecules and atoms, is evidence of design, but crystals, which are also based upon an internal order of molecules and atoms, are not evidence of design? About usable functions, how do you conclude that crystalline salt does not have a usable function while sight does? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Order is always evidence of order and design... "Order is always evidence of order..."??? Really? Anyway, assuming that what you really meant to say is that order is always evidence of design, then you're contradicting what you say in Message 115 where you draw a distinction between order in a crystal versus order in things like sight and hearing. How is the order in a crystal not evidence of design while the order in a gloppy mess like the gall bladder *is* evidence of design? You asked to go one-on-one earlier. Before I'd consider that I'd move this thread back to Proposed New Topics so you can clarify your position and define your terms. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024