Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 108 of 153 (587092)
10-16-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 8:54 PM


Re: Evidence
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 10:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 116 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 11:40 PM Percy has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 109 of 153 (587094)
10-16-2010 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 8:54 PM


Re: Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
You observe change and I observe order, both are science
I looked up 'order' in the dictionary.
There were over 21 different definitions.
Could you please clarify what you mean by order, so that we aren't all talking across each other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 2:53 AM Panda has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 110 of 153 (587096)
10-16-2010 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
10-16-2010 8:54 PM


It's even funnier when you actually read what he wrote and you quoted.
Dawn Bertot writes:
change, natural selection, etc are not answers, they are observations, the same as design, whic observes ORDER and LAWS
Design observes order and laws?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 111 of 153 (587098)
10-16-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 8:54 PM


Re: Evidence
they just dont know how to pin your ears to the wall, I do
For as many times that you have alluded to your abilities, you have failed to live up to them. You have 2k+ posts at EvC and have, so far, failed to make a case for anything.
Just to stay on topic and not get accused of being inflammatory:
the same way an eternal existence of mattter is the conclusion of Evo, wehther you ackowledge it or not.
Please explain this one. What does evolution say about the "eternal existence of matter"?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 3:06 AM hooah212002 has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 112 of 153 (587100)
10-16-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 8:54 PM


Re: Evidence
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 order
Its 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
But that is where you go wrong.
You are right that design is a conclusion, but it is one without supporting evidence or standardized method to get there. It is a conclusion because it is based on religion. You can't point to a specific item and say it was designed, or not, using any specific criteria. We have shown that over and over in these threads. It is design because, "I know design when I see it!" That doesn't make it in science.
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.
We are are on the same playing field as evidence goes. Ithas nothing to do with religion, so yes it is going just fine.
ID has everything to do with religion. And nothing to do with science. Just look at the folks pushing design. They are virtually all fundamentalists with religious beliefs which overshadow any scientific training they might have had. They are not scientists producing peer-reviewed papers for scientific journals.
Testa and others are on the right track, they just dont know how to pin your ears to the wall, I do
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.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 3:24 AM Coyote has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 113 of 153 (587106)
10-16-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
10-16-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Evidence
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 10-16-2010 9:02 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 114 of 153 (587109)
10-16-2010 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 8:54 PM


Re: Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
And i have evidence of order
Its not simply a matter of design. Design is the conclusion, ...
So here's what you do. You reword that to:
"And i have evidence of order
Its not simply a matter of ngised. Ngised is the conclusion, ..."
You use a new word (it is actually "design" spelled backwards, but that doesn't matter.
So you have come up with a way of identifying a new property ngised. So now you must set about demonstrating that, using this newly found property, you can make better predictions than can be made by people who don't work with this property.
If you can make clearly better predictions, then people will begin to take you seriously. If you cannot make better predictions, you will be ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 115 of 153 (587113)
10-16-2010 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
10-16-2010 8:54 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 10-16-2010 8:54 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 10-17-2010 8:51 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 116 of 153 (587115)
10-16-2010 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
10-16-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 10-16-2010 9:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by bluescat48, posted 10-17-2010 12:20 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 10-17-2010 8:13 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 117 of 153 (587117)
10-17-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 11:40 PM


Re: Evidence
It could have had another initiator or mechanism, regardless of what the present evidence may or may not suggest
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.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 11:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 3:40 AM bluescat48 has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 118 of 153 (587121)
10-17-2010 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Panda
10-16-2010 9:04 PM


Re: Evidence
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Panda, posted 10-16-2010 9:04 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Panda, posted 10-17-2010 8:06 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 119 of 153 (587123)
10-17-2010 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by hooah212002
10-16-2010 9:08 PM


qRe: Evidence
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by hooah212002, posted 10-16-2010 9:08 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 10-17-2010 8:03 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 129 by hooah212002, posted 10-17-2010 10:15 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 120 of 153 (587125)
10-17-2010 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coyote
10-16-2010 9:26 PM


Re: Evidence
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 where
my reasoning is invalid
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2010 9:26 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Coyote, posted 10-17-2010 9:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 121 of 153 (587127)
10-17-2010 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by bluescat48
10-17-2010 12:20 AM


Re: Evidence
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by bluescat48, posted 10-17-2010 12:20 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by frako, posted 10-17-2010 5:32 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 127 by bluescat48, posted 10-17-2010 9:27 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 122 of 153 (587130)
10-17-2010 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 3:40 AM


Re: 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
well creation has one tiny hole in it it assumes a desighner the theory whit the least assumptions is usually correct, unless you find new data that disproves the theory.
EDIT:
in short you want to kill 2 birds whit one stone, prove god, and prove that he desighned us, whit out god there is no desighn possible, and whit out desighn there is no prof of god. First prove god then we will talk about desighn. After that we may talk about the name of god and witch religion suits him.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 3:40 AM Dawn Bertot 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