|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Logic can dictate an outcome. History is full of examples where logic did not dictate the outcome.
Logic pitted against existence itself, dictates that there are only 2 POSSIBLE explanations or possibilitesfor the existence of things. How did you determine that there are only 2 possible explanations, and what are these possibilities?
Logic dictates given the above premise that order is present. What premise?
What tests will science conduct to test for the etrnality of matter. Such a test is not possible, even in the imagination. The former inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree. The scientists working at particle accelerators across the globe would likewise disagree. It has been experimentally verified that matter can be created and destroyed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
That doesn't address what I said. You said in Message 163 that design is "real". You can't reason from the abstract to the real. You need to start with a basis in reality - i.e. true premises. "Possible" explanations are worthless without real-world data.
Logic pitted against existence itself, dictates that there are only 2 POSSIBLE explanations or possibilitesfor the existence of things. Dawn Bertot writes:
Try to keep up. Nobody is arguing against order.
The proposition of order, is dictated by both logic and physical properties. Dawn Bertot writes:
Again, the conclusion is worthless without real-world data that point to it - and not to any other conclusion. You need to do experiments to distinguish your conclusion from the conventional conclusion.
Hence design is an easy and identifiable conclusion to such a proposition, until such time science controverts its tenets Dawn Bertot writes:
Try to keep up. Nobody cares about the "eternality of matter". Science only concerns itself with the matter that exists today and that existed in the observable past.
What tests will science conduct to test for the etrnality of matter. Dawn Bertot writes:
That's what I'm trying to tell you. Your test is useless because it does nothing to distinguish your proposition from the conventional science. That's why you need a different test, one that points to your conclusion and away from the conventional explanation. My TEST ends up being the same one as yours, only logic against reality "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
And you will not address the evidence for a designer (a key point if there is design) or show why the designer, even if true, is relevant or of any significance. To claim that there is evidence for some designer you must do more than show that your idea is not excluded. If you wish to see design taught you MUST present evidence that explains what is seen better than any other explanation. I have done this to many times to mention now The simplicity in your above statement is simply beyond belief. Anyone holding a position concerning physical matters and thier explanation, is forced to a logical conclusion of thier/its initiation source tinkering with immediate and observable materials such as evolution does, does not provide any answer, the same of which is required of the design principle. what test does science do to allow us to know matter is eternal. Now take it slow, simpleton If order is not evidence of design Then evo is not evidence of eternal matter, For, now pay attention, if design is required to demonstrate design more than order, why is evolution not required to demonstrate the idea that evo "seems to arise in and of itself". As you fellas suggest Now pay even closer attention. You cant just assume that the processes arise of itself, without demonstrating it. If Im required to demonstrate design more than order, then you obligation is to do what you claim for me Again, order in specific detail, consistent and sustained, with observable principles, is design. all you need to do is simply show that it is not order. if you argree that it is order, then I am not required or obligated to do anymore or less than what is required of your position Logic and observation demoands that you provide the same rules, you require of me. So, is there a test to demonstrate the eternality of matter. Because this is what you would need to demonstrate your position true and mine false have fun You fellas really dont know how to reason correctly do you? dawn bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You seem to be the only one saying anything about "eternal matter". You really dont understand anything about logical rational thought processes do you? You and others have suggested many times that these things happen on thier own, with no ID. If that is the case you are asserting a proposition, the likes of which, now pay close attention, says you are prepared to defend that assertion. If that assertion is true where is your evidence, the same type that you require of me. now pay even closer attention. If your evidence for that assertion is, because you see it happening, that is observation, the same as the OBSERVATION od ORDER is for mine. Now, would you like to tie yours into the same type of evidence you require of my position So if order is not evidence of design, then neither is it true that these things SEEM TO HAPPEN ON THIER OWN Now tell me which one is valid or which one is incorrect? Have fun Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: So, is there a test to demonstrate the eternality of matter. No one but you has ever even mentioned "the eternality of matter" whatever that even means. It is also totally irrelevant to the question I asked.
quote: Even if there were some designer, why is that of any relevance, importance or significance beyond the two areas I have mentioned repeatedly, as a historical footnote or in cases of Product Liability suits? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
So if order is not evidence of design, then neither is it true that these things SEEM TO HAPPEN ON THIER OWN So, you are saying NO order happens on it's own and your designer has it's hands in every little aspect of everything? The droplet of water I mentioned: your designer did that too?
You really dont understand anything about logical rational thought processes do you? I fear you are projecting your own inadequacies onto others, my dear boy.
You and others have suggested many times that these things happen on thier own, with no ID. If that is the case you are asserting a proposition, the likes of which, now pay close attention, says you are prepared to defend that assertion. Go back and read what I posted. Take a gander at the circle of life. All natural and can be explained without the need for any designer. Look at a walnut seed. We can watch it from seed to sapling to tree. That is order, is it not? Was your designer there to make it grow? IF so, how do you know that? How can you prove it? You are asserting something that only convolutes matters, all the while saying "prove I am wrong" as if you can just have any old hair brained idea become accepted without proving it to be correct. If I am wrong, please feel free to explain yourself better. However, I know you won't and will just say you are the only rational person ever. {abe}
If that assertion is true where is your evidence, the same type that you require of me. Are you really asking for evidence that things happen naturally? Have you ever taken a nature hike? Have you ever looked at nature? WHERE IS YOUR DESIGNER????? NATURE happens naturally. The life we see EVERY DAY happens naturally: no mythical creatures necessary. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You really dont understand anything about logical rational thought processes do you? So says the person who conflates possibility with reality.
You and others have suggested many times that these things happen on thier own, with no ID. If that is the case you are asserting a proposition, the likes of which, now pay close attention, says you are prepared to defend that assertion. If that assertion is true where is your evidence, the same type that you require of me. We can evidence the unintelligent mechanisms that result in the final product. That is how. We can design experiments whereby these forces are demonstrated.
If your evidence for that assertion is, because you see it happening, that is observation, the same as the OBSERVATION od ORDER is for mine. It is the fact that we can make PREDICTIONS of what observations will be made and will not be made based on theoretical unintelligent forces that makes our assertions valid. One of those predictions is that unintelligent chemical and physical forces can create order. We observe this in crystals, as one example. So how is order evidence of a designer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
tinkering with immediate and observable materials such as evolution does, does not provide any answer, Yes, it does. It has given us TONS of answers. Scientific journals are full of such answers. For example, which stretches of DNA are possibly responsible for uniquely human morphology? We turn to evolution for this answer. We compare human genes with other animals using the theory of common descent to look for genes that have changed significantly in the human lineage while remaining nearly unchanged in other lineages. This has led us to many interesting answers, such as the human MYH pseudogene which may have resulted in allowing the cranium to enlarge during hominid evolution. Design, on the other hand, can only supply word salad type answers like those found in your posts. No real world applications. No avenues of research. No science.
what test does science do to allow us to know matter is eternal. Measure mass before and after an event, such as a nuclear decay event or a collision in a particle accelerator. As it turns out, matter is not eternal.
If order is not evidence of design Then evo is not evidence of eternal matter, False. If order is not evidence of design then order is not evidence for design. Period. Nowhere have you shown why order is evidence of design. Nowhere. You have simply asserted it without reason. That is not how logic is used.
if design is required to demonstrate design more than order, Why do you mention order at all? Why do you consider order evidence of design? You need to establish this first before pointing the finger at others.
Again, order in specific detail, consistent and sustained, with observable principles, is design. What if I define unintelligent design as order in specific detail, consistent and sustained? Would this mean that observing order is now evidence of unintelligent design? Is your argument nothing more than a semantic argument?
Logic and observation demoands that you provide the same rules, you require of me. Great. First rule is you need to show how order is evidence of design. We can do the same for a nested hierarchy which is evidence for evolution. So now it is up to you to do the same.
So, is there a test to demonstrate the eternality of matter. Because this is what you would need to demonstrate your position true and mine false What does eternality of matter have to do with anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
You and others have suggested many times that these things happen on thier own, with no ID. No one can make an absolute statement that there is no ID. What we have said is that things happen naturally without evidence of an ID. However, it is possible that one still exists. So what is the evidence for design? You answer it here:
If your evidence for that assertion is, because you see it happening, that is observation, the same as the OBSERVATION od ORDER is for mine. So you believe order is evidence for design. But the problem is that your definition for order...
DB writes: properties working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to produce a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose, or even an appaernt purpose ...is the same as the definition for something designed. Specifically when you say "demonstartable and useful purpose, or even apparent purpose." That is not in any definition you will find defining "order" - (see Merriam-Webster) - what you're describing is design. So when asked for evidence of design, you say "order." And when asked for your definition of order, you describe design. That is textbook circular reasoning, and a clear logical fallacy. However, if you see the actual definition of order: " a regular or harmonious arrangement" - nothing in that suggests design or designer. Nature arranges regularly and harmoniously, without purpose. So you have confused and mixed up both words to describe the same thing. Of course it makes logical sense to you that order is evidence for design, in your mind they are the same thing. I think you need to fix that before anymore debating can be done. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Why is anyone bothering to continue ask Dawn Bertot to explain why "order is evidence of design"?
It has been asked several times and each time DB has shown a complete inability to answer. If Dawn was able to produce an explanation, I am sure it would have already been posted in large yellow capitals. Personally, I don't think DB even understands the question.Either that or cognitive dissonance has turned Dawn into a gibbering moron. All we will ever see is DB continuing to use a creationist random sentence generator as he avoids answering the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Why is anyone bothering to continue ask Dawn Bertot to explain why "order is evidence of design"? I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm doing it just to piss you off. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
jar writes: .....the Theory of Evolution involves OBSERVED process. IDists observe and come to a different conlusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Buzsaw writes: jar writes:
IDists observe and come to a different conlusion. .....the Theory of Evolution involves OBSERVED process. IDists observe their conclusions whole. They don't need to come to what they've already projected. Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
IDists seem to just make stuff up and avoid discussion. For example not one IDist has ever presented a single example of the observed processes or model of the imagined designer.
And the question remains, "What value or significance is there to the designer even if it existed?" Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
IDists observe and come to a different conlusion. No, you've got that backwards. IDists start with a different conclusion and then look for whatever they can find to support it. Even if they have to make most of it up (which they do). Or lie about what they do find (which they do). Just like most creationists. Let's face it, if they had arrived at their conclusions from their observations, then there would be some kind of record of their progression from observation to conclusion. You know, actual research. And if that actual research existed, then they could readily present it in support of their position. Which they don't do, which is a strong indicator that any such actual research does not exist, which is a strong indicator that they had never progressed from observation to conclusion. It's the same thing with the "Two Model Approach's" (TMA) "creation model". If creationist had actually formulated an actual model, then they would have had to have done so based on evidence, which means that they would have actual evidence to present for their "creation model". However, despited their repeated claims of having mountains of evidence for creation, they never ever present even a single shread of that purported evidence. They will even go so far as to become rather belligerent in their refusal to present any of their purported evidence. Obviously, they have none.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024