|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
See Message 18 for the topic description. --Admin
While we will certainly repeat and I hope so, some of the points we had previously discussed, it is my intention to set out here what is actually involved in the term evidence Secondly to demonstrate that evidence is not always demonstrated by groups claiming said evidence and that what is required of others is not required of that same group Thirdly, to demonstrate that conclusions, of EVEN undetermined probabilities are a natural, logical and necessary part of evidence. they follow out of those probabilties. Finally of course, to show how said evidence demonstrates the design probability, AS STRICLY EVIDENCE, without simple contemplation of, or producing a designer. IOW, its not required of either of those, to demonstrate DESIGN as evidence Ill start the ball rolling in a few hours with more specific points in relation to the above illustrations, as an addition to this post Back in a few Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Change title. Edited by Admin, : Add comment and hide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Admonishment writes
This thread is about the evidence for design and a designer, and discussion will focus on these areas: How evolutionists hold others to requirements they do not impose on themselves. How analysis of the evidence by the same requirements evolutionists hold themselves to supports design and a designer.For this discussion the definition of evidence is anything that is apparent to our senses. If we can see, touch, hear, feel or taste it, it's evidence. Evidence that is indirect is still valid evidence. For instance, the reading on a thermometer is valid evidence of the temperature, even though we're not feeling the temperature directly. Larni writesWhat requirements do scientists hold creation science to that they do not hold for themselves? No coyote, we will start here since Larni has actually addressed an issue that Admin wishes discussed. Every position, teaching, ideology, study concerning physical realities, in this instance, the physical world and its makeup, hav three basic tenets. The evidence that suggests what it is presently, what that evidence suggests abouts its origins and the conclusions as to what it will be or become, once it has exhausted its resources. No position that deals withthe physical world can avoid these logical conclusions and assumptions. The answer to your question is this Larni. Creation science suggests and indicates designby way observation and experimentation, STRICLY from the available evidence. Yet this is not good enough for the scientific method, because it is required to produce a designer or it suggests that we have not seen God designing anything. Yet in the scientific method no requirement is made for the initiation source of the physical realities, or present physical evidence that leads one to the conclusion of the TOE. Even if itis implied or suggested that things have always existed, one would need to provide evidence of the same nature that is required of the theory of design to produce a designer. Hence Larni, you have a requirement for the design camp that one does nto have for themeself. Therefore, all things being equal larni, we can only deal with the present physical evidence. evolution draws its conclusions about Macro change from the present limited evidence. If its going to require a designer designing or indicate that we need to see the designer Then I must require the TOE, to provide evidence that someone or something DID NOT provide the materials in the first place. If neither of us require such conclusions about our respective tenets, then the present physical evidence will support the design principle soley by the available evidence To suggest otherwise would be presumpsuous and ILLOGICAL Dawn Bertot Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Since intelligent design by humans is the only unquestionably verified example of design that we have, would it make sense to qualify something as intelligent design even if it clearly goes against universal properties of that human design? This type of argument avoids the fact and presumes that design is the only position lacking positive and absolute available evidence, concerning the physical world. Its a kind of a side issue, to the main point that needs to be resolved, concerning the available evidence and what it suggests for design and the TOE Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. While I understand everything testa is doing here, (and doing a fine job, I might add),if it is not acceptable to you, when where and how can we discuss my original proposition, and tie it in with telsa's comments Since it is my damn thread to begin with. Just kidding of course, on that part Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. No, I am not confused about the meaning of anything. What I am wanting us to do is, discuss what is and should be acceptable from a LOGICAL stndpoint, as evidence, that which is to be believed and taught in the classroom, concerning origins physical reality itself Now whether, this needs to be discussed in some science forum or cosmology forum ( I really dont see the difference, because both will eventually get to the essential question, what we can really know) I really dont give a rats behind. Just let me know so I can start the thread, with the verbage and ideas that I am trying to advance if this is concept is not science (in your view), then for heavens sake, let me know where it could be discussed Thanks Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
To put it into the simplest practical terms: there exists no way that science can work with the supernatural. Hence, science must employ methodology based on that which we are able to observe, measure, detect, etc, AKA methodological materialism. Science does not and cannot make any statement about the possible existence of God nor any of the rest of the supernatural Could not agree more. We however can observe the available evidence and coupled with reason make an informed decision, that design is a real possibility. Evolution makes and employes all the same educated guesses as to why it operates the way it does, with conclusions taught from those observations change, natural selection, etc are not answers, they are observations, the same as design, whic observes ORDER and LAWS We are on equal playing field. Only arrogance would assumeone is science and the other is not. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
We have evidence for change, natural selection, etc. in science. We do not have evidence for "design." We can't even get creationists to come up with definitions and criteria to differentiate design from non-design. The best we have seen is "I know it when I see it." That's not science. Face it, the whole ID movement is religion with the serial numbers filed off in hope of fooling the school boards and the courts. Hasn't worked out too well, has it? And i have evidence of orderIts not simply a matter of design. Design is the conclusion, the same way an eternal existence of mattter is the conclusion of Evo, wehther you ackowledge it or not. You observe change and I observe order, both are science We are are on the same playing field as evidence goes. Ithas nothing to do with religion, so yes it is going just fine. Testa and others are on the right track, they just dont know how to pin your ears to the wall, I do
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. I am usually happy to respond to all posts, I simply dont have enough time. I suggest a one on one debate with the person of your choice, anybody but Jar, someone rational How about it Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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 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 its the conclusion of such law (however) that I want to demonstrate in a logical fashion, that is really at issue. Whether you believe it is evidence of design is not, is not what is at stake, but rather will the evidence allow it from a logical and philosophical standpoint. It most certainly will IOWs, the evidence supports the conclusion as much as any physical observation will allow, in your case evolution or change, in my case order and design Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The question is what kind of order are you talking about why do you think it is evidence for design. Order is always evidence of order and design, whether it actually is or not. We are not talking about what is provable only that which is evidentially acceptable, from a logical standpoint Now watch you query in reverse. If order, from a logical perspective, is not evidence of possible design or design, then it would follow that change is not the result of macro evolution exclusively. It could have had another initiator or mechanism, regardless of what the present evidence may or may not suggest Now notice, I said from a logical and evidential perspective, not stricly from a contrived scientific method. There is a difference. The logical one covers all areas Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Could you please clarify what you mean by order, so that we aren't all talking across each other? properties working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to produce a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose, or even an appaernt purpose Question, are the definitions you looked up valid as defined and testable against natural properties. IOWs is order identifiable from atleast those definition ? Where do you suppose those authors derived those definitions? Im going to bet reason and natural properties Remember our belief as to whether order is order, is not necessary for it to be valid as a logical, natural and verifiable Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
Please explain this one. What does evolution say about the "eternal existence of matter"? Please tell me your overall thinking is atleast better than the question you posed. Every position or belief that attempts to explain physical realities, or even the mechanism itself, is forced to the logical implication of its origin or initiation. Your suppression of this indirect implication, doesnot mean that it does not exist as a logical conclusion of your position on and about evolution. Every position must face such a question when dealing with physical realities, especially when we attempt to explain them to begin with Whether in evolution or design, we are forced by logic and reason to ask where the process came from, thatprovides the mechanism So, whether evolution "says anything about the eternal existence of matter", is is a logical conclusion of its tenets and cannot be seperated, except by avoidance Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you want to establish a scientific field of "design" a good start would be a reliable definition of what is designed and what is not. That definition will have to separate things that are clearly natural from things that are clearly designed, and it will have to make a good start on determining whether those things which are borderline are designed or not. If you can come up with rules which make a good start in these determinations, then we have something to work with. So far creationists haven't even tried to come up with such rules. Your rules are your own, they fly in the face of that which is simply reasonable. "A definition of what is designed and what is not", is primarily determined by logic and observation of order in natural properties. it doesnt need your approval to be reasonable,logical and demonstratable. Your arrogance assumes as much. All I need to do is establish that is orderly, logical and law abiding, for it to be designed, or the possibility of design. it follows the same rules exacally as any explanation of a mechanism or its conclusions, whether direct or indirect
As long as you are pushing fundamentalism and avoiding what the evidence actually shows, and as long as I can provide evidence for what I claim, I don't consider my ears pinned anywhere. Ill skip most of your post, it is nothing more than a irrational and emotional response Ill try and salvage from the above comment. I am pushing reason and reality, not fundy or religion The evidence actually shows we are on the same playing field and we use the same rules for our conclusions and initial observations. Unless you are prepared to show me where my logic is faulty Your "evidence", and its conclusions are exacally the same as mine Unless you are prepared to show me wheremy reasoning is invalid Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
That is possible, which is what the ID crowd should be looking for, not bashing evolution. One overturns a scientific Theory with a better theory, based on evidence. You fellas need to get a grip on reality and your emotions. Evolution is what it is. But that is just the point Bluescat, the scientific theory allows both positions to be plausible and atleast demonstratable, without fear of contradiction, presently Evos are afraid of design because of its implications. Unfortunatley they cannot do anything abouts is connection to , order, reality, reason and properties, the conclusionof which design is as reasonable and plausable as any conclusions derived by science Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
but but but DB isn't advocating for a biblical designer, Buz. DB is an IDist...... They claim there is a difference. No, Bertot is neither in this instance, he is a rational thinker, Deism or ID is not rquired to establish my position, only reality and rational thought applied to physical properties Its the simplest of all propositions I will get to the other post as quickly as I can today, very busy. Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024