Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 183 of 648 (587424)
10-18-2010 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 6:39 PM


"Anything is not possible", when there are no other possibilites. those limited possibilites however, are limited to the only available information, which is based in emperical evidence, that how we know the are the only possibilites.
So long as there is no evidence pointing to the contrary, anything is possible. This is only logical, and, it allows for design to remain a possibility.
But possibilities alone do not constitute proof, and that was my only point, as you seem to agree.
On the contrary, its evidence that falls squarely within only two logical possibilites.
Why do you think it is one of only two choices
I don't, my logic doesn't point me to design. I don't see anything as a "choice."
But, I was just pointing out to you that a possibility doesn't make it proof.
Think about it logically, you are giving examples of data that can be examined. The finitness or eternality of matter involve information, the likes of which are not now available, therfore they are not falsifiable.
the best you can do is draw conclusions from data, examine its nature and then conclude that the eternality of matter or design are its initiation source. Both are valid logical conclusions, therefore both should be taught
All well and good, but it didn't answer the questions I asked you. They were just yes or no questions.
Are you saying that a human fossil in the Cambrian era wouldn't falsify the ToE?
If I told you that you won't find anything under my bed, and you find something, doesn't that falsify my claim?
Likewise if it is stated that you won't find human fossils in the Cambrian era, and you do, doesn't that falsify the claim?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 6:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 3:13 AM onifre has replied
 Message 200 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 3:30 AM onifre has replied

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


Message 184 of 648 (587426)
10-18-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ringo
10-18-2010 7:07 PM


You're still not describing any test. What equipment do you use? What samples do you test? What results would lead to the conclusion of design? What results would not lead to a conclusion of design? Details, please.
On the contrary. the equipment is the same as yours. I would use a microsope to examine microscopic organisms correct? I sample the organisms, smallest to great and back again
the order that I am witnessing in these test would lead me to design, or possible design, but evidence nonetheless
No No, thats your problem, showing that order is not present. Why in the world would I look for disorder, where only order is present. Nice try though
Again, nobody is trying to demonstrate that there's no order. We're trying to figure out how that order points to design.
if you admit order is present, is it the possible result of a designer, yes or No?
if you adnmit order is present, what type of order is it?
it would point to design the same way any intelligent order would point to design, by order. Your approval is not necessary for it to be order or the result of design by order.
It only needs to be demonstrated logically using physical properties for it to be evidence, as evidence goes.
If I wasnt there and a crime was commited, I can never witness that crime, but the evidence on occasion, will leave no doubt, except by liberal activist judges with no sense of justice or reality
ribe the experiments. Without a connection in reality, all the logic in the world has no value.
This is where you are ignoring the force of my argument, probably deliberatley. your connection in reality is the order in reality
"Even though God is invisible to us, we can witness his Godhead by the things which are MADE (designed), even his eternal power and Godhead, SO THAT THEY (YOU) ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE" Romans 1:20
Just like Gay marraige ringo, you are violating simple, simple principles to set aside easily understandable tenets
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 10-18-2010 7:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by frako, posted 10-18-2010 7:37 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 186 by ringo, posted 10-18-2010 7:52 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 10-18-2010 9:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 185 of 648 (587428)
10-18-2010 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 7:31 PM


if you admit order is present, is it the possible result of a designer, yes or No?
if you throw a coin 100 times and it lands 50 times on heads and 50 times on tails is order present yes, no? is it desighned yes no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 7:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 2:37 AM frako has not replied
 Message 196 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 2:42 AM frako has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 186 of 648 (587431)
10-18-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 7:31 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
the order that I am witnessing in these test would lead me to design, or possible design, but evidence nonetheless
The question is HOW does that order lead you to design? How do you distinguish, by experiment, what is designed from what is not?
You can't just co-opt somebody else's experiment and re-interpret the conclusion. You need additional evidence from additional experiments to show that your conclusion is correct and the conclusion accepted by science is wrong.
What additional experiments will you do and how will they confirm or falsify your hypothesis?
Dawn Bertot writes:
No No, thats your problem, showing that order is not present.
Again, nobody is suggesting that order is not present. The question is whether or not that order points to design.
Dawn Bertot writes:
if you admit order is present, is it the possible result of a designer, yes or No?
You're getting ahead of yourself. You can't decide whether order is the possible result of the Tooth Fairy until you establish that the Tooth Fairy exists. If your experiments are supposedly pointing to design, then they have to be pointing at the designer too.
Dawn Bertot writes:
if you adnmit order is present, what type of order is it?
Before you can decide what type of order it is, you have to define what types there are.
Slow down and explain everything in detail. It isn't a race.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 7:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 2:56 AM ringo has not replied
 Message 198 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 3:00 AM ringo has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 187 of 648 (587452)
10-18-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 6:13 PM


Again, what is it that your are testing for.
Perhaps you should read the title of the thread?
Now conduct a test to show me where those properties came from to begin with
That's what we keep asking you for, the tests we can run to determine if something came from this supposed designer. What are they?
To demonstrate that matter is eternal in character or that atheism is true one needs all information that has ever existed. otherwise it only remains a probability.
You don't need all information to test Evolution. You only need the observations we already have to construct a hypothesis and then design an experiment to create new observations that will test that hypothesis. So how does one do this with Design? What are the testable hypotheses and how does one test them?
laws and order are a test because they are testable.
Testing a law only confirms the law. What we need are experiments that test Design, not laws.
You have simply convinced yourself, you rmethodology is the only approach.
It is not the only methodology, but it is the scientific methodology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 6:13 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 3:51 AM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 188 of 648 (587454)
10-18-2010 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dawn Bertot
10-18-2010 7:31 PM


the order that I am witnessing in these test would lead me to design, or possible design, but evidence nonetheless
How do you determine if something is designed or possibly designed? Could you pick one? And how does observing order lead to the conclusion of design?
No No, thats your problem, showing that order is not present. Why in the world would I look for disorder, where only order is present.
If you want to claim that Design is scientific then you must strive just as hard to support your hypothesis as you do in trying to disprove it. That's how science works. If you are going to claim that order evidences design then you must show how it does so. On top of that, you must also describe observations, if made, that will disprove your hypothesis. So what are these observations?
if you admit order is present, is it the possible result of a designer, yes or No?
Sure, it is possible, but how do we determine that it IS due to a designer? What are the experiments we can run to determine this?
If I see a rainbow is it possible that there is a pot of gold at the end of it with a Leprechaun guarding it? I suppose this is possible, so does this make rainbows evidence of Leprechauns?
If I wasnt there and a crime was commited, I can never witness that crime, but the evidence on occasion, will leave no doubt,
Not according to your logic. It is possible that the evidence was planted, and so the very existence of the evidence found at the crime scene is therefore a logical conclusion for the planting of evidence.
it would point to design the same way any intelligent order would point to design, by order.
Is it possible that nature can produce order without the input of an intelligence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 7:31 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 189 of 648 (587457)
10-18-2010 9:25 PM


This thread is terminal
This thread is terminal.
Dawn can't produce anything but gibberish to support the claims of design.
But then this is what we are used to seeing from IDers.
The problem IDers have is the same one that creationists have: they know the answers, and just have to make up some reasonable-sounding pseudo-science to bolster their own belief and hopefully to convince others. Because they know science is wrong, they don't see any need to study it.
The problem is, those of use who do science look at the details and those details provided by creationists and IDers haven't added up to anything. They come on these internet boards and purvey their beliefs wrapped in pseudo-scientific jargon and all we can do is cringe--or laugh.
It really is that bad.
If you want to show how science is wrong, start by learning something about it. Gibberish is not going to impress anyone who knows the difference.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 4:08 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 190 of 648 (587460)
10-18-2010 9:58 PM


The third possibility
The Initial First Cause Designer designed and died.
Th problem is Dawn Bertot continues to present absurdities and false dichotomies. There are not simply two possible causes, there could be an unlimited sequence of small, transitory and ephemeral causes.
In addition, as has been pointed out, even if there were some designer that fact is irrelevant and unimportant except as a historical footnote and in the case of Product Liability suits.
The designer, even if real, is worthless and insignificant.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 4:16 AM jar has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 191 of 648 (587463)
10-18-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 11:05 PM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
DB writes:
I agree and I am saying the samething you are from a more basic level. I dont need the conclusions 0f design, evolution, ID and creationism to demonstrate a point so simple it cannot be missed unless one is being deliberately evasive, such as our friends here
You're not saying the same thing as me. You contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Percy asked if crystalines were an example of design. You said "No.....," when in order to be consistent with what follows......"crystalline is the result or design of an already existing order........," you should have said, "Yes....."
The difference in yours and mine is that mine implies that the ID agent designed the order of the substructure, molecules, etc for crystals to form. Without the designer, no crystals. I would have answered, "Yes........"

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 137 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 11:05 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Taq, posted 10-18-2010 10:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 192 of 648 (587464)
10-18-2010 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Buzsaw
10-18-2010 10:14 PM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
The difference in yours and mine is that mine implies that the ID agent designed the order of the substructure, molecules, etc for crystals to form. Without the designer, no crystals. I would have answered, "Yes........"
So there is nothing we could ever show you that you would consider not designed, correct?
The problem is that this type of Design conclusion doesn't help us explain anything. Crystals form because of physical forces and chemistry. That explains everything we need to know about how crystals form. However, you add "because the designer made them that way" which adds zilch as far as an explanation. Design is superfluous at best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 10-18-2010 10:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Buzsaw, posted 10-18-2010 10:48 PM Taq has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 193 of 648 (587465)
10-18-2010 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Taq
10-18-2010 10:22 PM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Taq writes:
So there is nothing we could ever show you that you would consider not designed, correct?
How could one differenciate, relative to crystalline, for example?
Taq writes:
The problem is that this type of Design conclusion doesn't help us explain anything. Crystals form because of physical forces and chemistry. That explains everything we need to know about how crystals form. However, you add "because the designer made them that way" which adds zilch as far as an explanation. Design is superfluous at best.
Design is not superfluous. To be superfluous would be to go beyond what is required or sufficient. In order for the designer to order crystals, the designer would have to put in order the chemistry and forces necessary for crystals to form.
Jehovah, the designer of the first man did not simply speak energy and matter into existence. He used the elements in the soil from which he formed and designed the man. It took some time of day six for him to do that and it required rest after his work was finished. He didn't simply speak life into the man. He breathed life into the man from himself.
What I'm saying is that the whole Universe enchilada was designed by Jehovah, the Biblical ID. That includes all forces and the order of chemical reactions.
Where did the energy come from? All existing energy was infinite and thus compatible with 1LoT.

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 192 by Taq, posted 10-18-2010 10:22 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 10-18-2010 11:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

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


Message 194 of 648 (587467)
10-18-2010 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Buzsaw
10-18-2010 10:48 PM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Once we know the laws, the processes, the procedures, Buz, what value or significance has the designer even if it existed?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Buzsaw, posted 10-18-2010 10:48 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2010 7:54 AM jar has replied

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


Message 195 of 648 (587480)
10-19-2010 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by frako
10-18-2010 7:37 PM


if you throw a coin 100 times and it lands 50 times on heads and 50 times on tails is order present yes, no? is it desighned yes no?
Since that is not even reasonable as an illustration the question is obviously irrelevent. If you throw one and it lands as you have suggested, please film it beacuse Iwont believe it if you do not
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by frako, posted 10-18-2010 7:37 PM frako has not replied

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


Message 196 of 648 (587481)
10-19-2010 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by frako
10-18-2010 7:37 PM


if you throw a coin 100 times and it lands 50 times on heads and 50 times on tails is order present yes, no? is it desighned yes no?
Yes, because you said SOMEONE threw the coins, that would be a designer of sorts correct?
Since that is not even reasonable as an illustration the question is obviously irrelevent. If you throw one and it lands as you have suggested, please film it beacuse Iwont believe it if you do not
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by frako, posted 10-18-2010 7:37 PM frako has not replied

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


Message 197 of 648 (587482)
10-19-2010 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by ringo
10-18-2010 7:52 PM


The question is HOW does that order lead you to design? How do you distinguish, by experiment, what is designed from what is not?
Experiment is not necessary, where logic dictates, the only possible outcome. Both design or order and eternal matter are supported by the data and logic. I dont need an experiment to determine that order and design are present, or the logicalpossibility of design
The logical proposition and its support is proof of itself, it does not need your contived methodology
You can't just co-opt somebody else's experiment and re-interpret the conclusion. You need additional evidence from additional experiments to show that your conclusion is correct and the conclusion accepted by science is wrong.
Tell me plainly, sharon stone infatuated, what does science tell us about the origin of matter, is it eternal or finite
What is science RIGHT about in this question of existence. present your evidence.
You're getting ahead of yourself. You can't decide whether order is the possible result of the Tooth Fairy until you establish that the Tooth Fairy exists.
order and physical properties that act orderly are ALWAYS and will always be the result of a valid logical proposition, the refutation of which IS NOT POSSIBLE. In this instance the proposition will always, always, always demonstrate design, by deduction, without the necessity for or the producing of a designer himself
Thats what reality allows. Im sorry if that upsets you or that you cannot refute it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ringo, posted 10-18-2010 7:52 PM ringo 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