Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


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
Panda
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 237 of 648 (587609)
10-19-2010 6:22 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by onifre, posted 10-19-2010 6:31 PM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 244 of 648 (587624)
10-19-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by onifre
10-19-2010 6:31 PM


onifre writes:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm doing it just to piss you off.
It annoys me more that you are allowed to post under 2 different accounts.
I will ask the moderators to merge your Onifre and Dawn Bertot accounts.
Edited by Panda, : added quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by onifre, posted 10-19-2010 6:31 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by onifre, posted 10-19-2010 7:34 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 276 of 648 (587695)
10-20-2010 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 2:56 AM


Re: Logical Fallacy
Dawn Bertot writes:
Oni, order is evidence of order.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Since order implies order and demonstrates it through natural order...
Dawn Bertot writes:
Its not circular reasoning...
LOL?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 2:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 354 of 648 (587897)
10-21-2010 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by Buzsaw
10-21-2010 9:53 AM


Re: Does Purpose And Intent Relate To Science?
Buzsaw writes:
The difference is that intelligently designed things serve the purpose and intent of the designer, whereas your example/model has no purpose or intent.
Design things which have purpose and intent tend towards ordered complexity relative to the purpose and intent of the intelligent designer whereas random design does not.
Intelligent design - as opposed to...? Let's just call it 'design'.
Design (by definition) has a purpose.
Intent means purpose.
Random design means having no purpose
Buzsaw writes:
The difference is that things with a purpose serve the purpose and purpose of the purpose creator, whereas your example/model has no purpose or purpose.
Things with a purpose which have purpose and purpose tend towards ordered complexity relative to the purpose and purpose of the purpose creator whereas things with no pupose do not.
Tautology much?
Edited by Panda, : missed a bit
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Buzsaw, posted 10-21-2010 9:53 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 438 of 648 (588084)
10-22-2010 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Just being real
10-22-2010 5:13 AM


Just being real writes:
(alidyupoaijgflaeijrllzkxclaijtlakjfdpkuahflakmjnjfpiajdgkajiofija)
It can be said to be very complex. Each "place" in the line holds a total possible of 26 different letters that could appear there. And there are 65 different places in the line. It can be said that since this is one out of many different possibilities that could have appeared there, this line is very unique. However, to us the observers, it is simply unintelligible gibberish. Merely random key strokes on the key board. However if in the line you saw these letters:
(exceptamanbebornagainhecannotseethekingdomofgodforthatwhichisborn)
Now they trigger a recognition response from an independent experience, and the letters perform a specific function. Each line carries the same amount of complex information, but only the latter one carries specific information. When we see a tree branch we see an object that was formed by natural unguided processes (perhaps complex) but not specific. However when we see an arrow, it triggers our recognition from a previous experience and we call the arrow "specific."
So - a simple test for you:
Does this line have specificity?
(pakaddandumaarmandudedanaadanpratiyogitaLakdikephalakshetrapeletakaatakdetakaatak)
If not, why not?
Does this line have specificity?
(kaalloopehakeriklaaootjerleemarthwejiolramaheiuiresjghaxirhhalwlmfbaieiwwoeekalabonoad)
If not, why not?
Edited by Panda, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Just being real, posted 10-22-2010 5:13 AM Just being real 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