|
Author
|
Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Who cares how evolution works, but answering questions about change (Evo), will lead eventually to its natural conclusion
We care about how evolution works because of its implications in agriculture, medicine, etc. Anything to do with the origins of the chemicals has much less practical value.
Dawn Bertot writes: If I am required to show how order mplies design, the certainly you would need to show that evo does not have a designer
Nope. As others have told you, even if we did conclude that evolution had a designer, that information would be of little value. We care how it works, like we care how a car works.
Dawn Bertot writes: if knowing the initiation source of design is irrelevant, by any test, then showing how order leads to design is not necessary either
You have that backwards. We don't care as much about origins as we do about mechanics because the mechanics have useful applications. You, on the other hand, want to overturn the accepted paradigm, so you most certainly do have to show your work.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Ringo, you are rquiring me to show how design is demonstrated by order and then you turn right around and say its not necessary for you t show evos origination source because it doesnt matter
I'm not requiring you to show anything about origins. I'm requiring you to show exactly what science has already shown - how it works. We know quite a bit about how evolution works but you haven't even provided a clue about how your "designer" works. You haven't even demonstrated a workable method for detecting design.
Dawn Bertot writes: Ringo if it doesnt matter, then order is enough to demonstrate design, because just like you observe evolution and its origin doesnt matter, I observe order without knowing its origination
Try to keep up. Nobody is arguing against order. If order "demonstrates" design, then you should be able to suggest an experiment to actually do that demonstration. Yet, you keep running away from any real-world test of your idea.
Dawn Bertot writes: so does design matter to order or not?
Of course not. We already know how order works. We don't need an extraneous entity to expalin it.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Evolution is NOT a conclusion of a physical property, DESIGN IS.
On the contrary, evolution is the conclusion that scientists have derived from all of the physical observations available. Design is an untested proposition that you are (supposedly) trying to support in this thread but you doggedly refuse to link it to any physical properties.
Dawn Bertot writes: Show me how science has demonstrated its origin, or its origination point, then i will be impressed
As I've said, we're not interested in origins or in impressing you. It would be nice to learn more about origins but evolution is about everyday mechanics and their practical applications. If you want to attack evolution, you need to drop the whole idea of origins.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 283 of 648 (587713)
10-20-2010 11:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 261 by dennis780
10-20-2010 3:22 AM
|
|
dennis780 writes: In order for the car to function, scientists and engineers must know everything about the materials used.
All the engineers need to know is how to manipulate the materials. You can build a log cabin without knowing anything about botany and you can build a car without knowing anything about chemistry.
dennis780 writes: Your example is also very poor, since the only way for the 'physical reality' of an automobile to even be possible is through intelligent designers.
And all that any of those designers ever do is manipulate existing physical processes.
dennis780 writes: Evolution explains the origin of species, up to the first organism, so the question does not question the TOE, but does have validity, and requires a response.
You answered your own question. Evolution goes back to the first organism just like cars go back to the first car. Anything before that is irrelevant to questions like, "Why won't the car start?" or "How does cancer work?"
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 261 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 3:22 AM | | dennis780 has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 284 of 648 (587716)
10-20-2010 11:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 262 by dennis780
10-20-2010 3:35 AM
|
|
dennis780 writes: So you want Dawn to show you an experiment of something being designed?
No. I want Dawn to show us an experiment that will demonstrate whether something has been designed or not. How do you tell whether a pile of sand is designed or is just a function of the shape of the sand grains? How do you tell whether patterns in snow were caused by the (more-or-less) random motions of hundreds of skiers or by one artist? Other IDers have at least used the lame excuse that they know design when they see it. Dawn refuses to even look.
dennis780 writes: How do you KNOW?
That's what I'm asking: HOW do you know? Show us the experiment(s) that you use to distinguish one oddly-shaped piece of stone from another.
dennis780 writes: So you don't mind explaining how order is gained, and maintained naturally.
In chemistry, for example, order depends on the shape and electronic configuration of molecules. Hydrogen and oxygen fit together nicely to form orderly water molecules. No designer can change that.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 262 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 3:35 AM | | dennis780 has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 310 of 648 (587813)
10-21-2010 1:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 305 by dennis780
10-21-2010 12:33 AM
|
|
dennis780 writes: I build a car. Would you drive it? Would you take your family on vacation in it?
That's exactly how cars used to be built. Some guy did it. The knowledge about the materials was accumulated slowly as needed. They didn't study the materials first because they didn't know what meterials they were going to use. They didn't sit down and design a car with airbags and crumple zones. The car evolved.
dennis780 writes: ringo writes: And all that any of those designers ever do is manipulate existing physical processes.
Where on earth is fossil fuels compressed to cause useful function of a large metal object? I'm pretty sure this is a new, man-made, DESIGNED process.
The fossil fuels were formed by natural processes. The metal ores were formed by natural processes. The combustion of hydrocarbons and the melting of metals are natural processes. There are no man-made processes. There is only manipulation of existing processes.
dennis780 writes: So you don't believe in anything before evolution.
I didn't say any such thing. I said that we don't need to know where the atoms came from to understand evolution.
dennis780 writes: You dodging Dawns question doesn't mean it doesn't require a response.
I'm not dodging anything. I've responded extensively. The answer is basically that origins of materials are irrelevant to understanding how the materials are used. If anything, you and Dawn are dodging the question of how you connect those materials to a designer.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 305 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 12:33 AM | | dennis780 has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 314 of 648 (587819)
10-21-2010 1:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 306 by dennis780
10-21-2010 12:47 AM
|
|
dennis780 writes: Because if you look at the garage and hammer and assume design, then you are just as lame as us.
I don't "assume" design. I know that the hammer and garage were designed. That doesn't give me an excuse to assume design in other situations where I don't know. Suppose you find a piece of stone, pointed on one end, with sharp edges. But the sharp edges seem to be worn down on the blunt end as if maybe, possibly, they were deliberately "designed" to be tied to a stick to make a spear. How do you decide whether that piece of stone was designed or just happens to appear like it might possibly have been designed?
dennis780 writes: ringo writes: I want Dawn to show us an experiment that will demonstrate whether something has been designed or not.
First, Dawn needs a time machine, or supernatural powers...
Don't be silly. Scientists learn about the past from artifacts that exist in the present. Why can't IDists learn to do the same?
dennis780 writes: But if you came to my backyard, and sat in the sandbox, you would assume the sand was naturally occuring, when it ISN'T (yes, I have a sandbox full of frac sand). This is a perfect example of a person misreading the physical evidence to assume natural origin.
You're projecting. I don't go around making assumptions willy-nilly. Yes, I would need some physical evidence to indicate that the sand was man-made. That's exactly what I'm asking you and Dawn Bertot for - some physical means of detecting design.
dennis780 writes: Dawn is arguing that because there are natural laws and properties (natural laws), this is evidence of a designer.
And the counter-argument is that because of those natural laws and properties, there is no need for a designer in the equation. A rock's natural properties will allow it to roll downhill without the aid of an Intelligent Roller. If you want to claim that there is "evidence" of a designer/roller, you have to actually show the evidence. Dawn Bertot has militantly refused to do so. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quotes.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 306 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 12:47 AM | | dennis780 has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
dennis780 writes: If intelligent design over time is evolution, then I'm an evolutionist.
So you're halfway there. Now, all you need to do is either show some evidence of design or acknowledge that the designer is superfluous.
dennis780 writes: ringo writes: The fossil fuels were formed by natural processes.
I don't get what you are saying exactly...materials that had previous different functions (if any at all) are changed to have new designed function.
The "function" of fossil fuels is to burn. That function has been put to different uses by designers but the process remains the same. The process is natural.
dennis780 writes: ringo writes: I didn't say any such thing. I said that we don't need to know where the atoms came from to understand evolution.
That is by far the best answer I have ever heard from you. You don't know.
Read. I said we don't NEED to know. Even though we do know in some detail about the origin of atoms, we don't NEED that knowledge to understand evolution.
dennis780 writes: I too can concede that even though the Bible teaches how life began, I cannot explain how, since there are no natural experiment that can be performed to recreate something such as instant creation.
Nobody's asking you to duplicate fiat creation. All we're asking for is any evidence at all, just one little piece of evidence that a designer is in any way responsible for life as we know it. We've even suggested the first step: Just show us how you can detect design reliably.
dennis780 writes: If you don't take the origin of matter seriously, how can you expect me to take your beliefs on the origin of life seriously?
I couldn't care less what you take seriously. If you're trying to replace science with a design paradigm, you're the one who needs to worry about being taken seriously. (Associating yourself with a whacko like Dawn Bertot isn't exactly helping your credibility.)
dennis780 writes: If you can conveniently shrug off an important unknown so easily, then how can I possibly know you wouldn't do the same for other aspects of your beliefs?
It has nothing to do with beliefs. It's just a matter of relevance.
dennis780 writes: ringo writes: If anything, you and Dawn are dodging the question of how you connect those materials to a designer.
So now because you cannot explain the origin of matter, you ask me to explain it.
Read. I'm not saying I can't explain the origin of matter. I'm saying it's irrelevant to understanding how matter works. And I'm not asking you to explain the origin of matter. I'm asking you to connect matter in some way to your proposed designer, in the real world, today.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 319 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 2:32 AM | | dennis780 has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 355 of 648 (587899)
10-21-2010 11:10 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.
No. Both examples that I gave are still unknown as to purpose/intent. I asked you to look at patterns in the snow and explain how you would distinguish random patterns made by skiers from an intentional work of art made by a designer. I asked you to look at a pile of sand and explain how you would distinguish a natural phenomenon like a sand dune from an intentional pile-up by a building contractor. Either example might have purpose or it might not. The question is: When you see the evidence, what does purpose look like? What instrumentation do you use to detect intent?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| 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 |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 356 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 11:20 AM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Just being real writes: Therefore, I think that we would both safely agree that the odds of 10 to the 45th to one are impossible.
For the sake of perspective, if 6 x 10 23 molecules of water weigh 18 grams, how many molecules are there in the ocean?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Just being real writes: ringo writes: For the sake of perspective, if 6 x 10 23 molecules of water weigh 18 grams, how many molecules are there in the ocean?
I wouldn't even begin to guess. But since we are putting things in perspective, consider the fact that most common estimates of the total number of atoms available in the entire universe are around 10 80, while most common estimates of the odds of generating one protein by unguided forces is one in 10 130.
The point of my question was that your "impossible number", 10 45 is a pretty small number when you consider the number of molecules available and the amount of time available for interactions between them. Far from "impossible", the reaction is virtually inevitable.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 454 of 648 (588117)
10-22-2010 10:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 424 by dennis780
10-22-2010 5:43 AM
|
|
dennis780 writes: snowflakes are very complex
Thats debatable, since snowflakes are nothing more than water molecules aligning themselves to maximize attractive, and minimize repulsive forces, and the shape of a snowflake is based on nothing more than temperature, humidity, and air currents.
DNA molecules also align themselves to maximize attractive and minimize repulsive forces and their shape is based on nothing but chemistry.
dennis780 writes: They do not perform any intelligent function, and only appear ordered because they have six sides, and the human brain interprets that as ordered.
The same is true of DNA. You're just begging the question by assuming "intelligent function".
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 424 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 5:43 AM | | dennis780 has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 501 of 648 (588239)
10-23-2010 12:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 490 by dennis780
10-22-2010 11:44 PM
|
|
dennis780 writes: They [snowflakes] do not perform any intelligent function, and only appear ordered because they have six sides, and the human brain interprets that as ordered.
ringo writes: The same is true of DNA.
Not with the genetic material used for your grey matter, agreed. But if DNA has no function, how are you reading this, interpreting this, and responding to this?
As you should have noticed, if you had quoted me accurately, I didn't say that DNA has no function. I said that it has no "intelligent function", no more so than a snowflake. The function of DNA is to act as a template, as it were, for the production of proteins. It has the same function in bacteria, squid, giraffes, etc. It has nothing to do with intelligence.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 490 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 11:44 PM | | dennis780 has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Look if your going to change your avatar please dont go from one extreme to the other, I cant handle that ugly freak.
It's the same avatar, just different lighting.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 521 by AZPaul3, posted 10-23-2010 9:38 AM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Just being real writes: If the total number of atoms available in the entire universe are around 10 80, while most common estimates of the odds of generating one protein by unguided forces is one in 10 130, that means there are not enough atoms existing in all of the universe let alone on earth to generate one protein by chance.
Don't pretend that the number 10 130 is a "common estimate". It's a deliberate misrepresentation, a lie. It's the odds of a protein coming together from individual atoms in one step. No schoolchild would be foolish enough to think that chemistry works that way. If you want to calculate the real probability of a protein assembling spontaneously, you need to calculate the probability of each individual step in the process. To do that, you need to know the pathway. And if there is a pathway, the process is possible. Ergo, if you can calculate the probability of a protein assembling spontaneously, you've already conceded that it's possible. And as somebody else pointed out, if there are 10 80 atoms available and a huge number of interactions between those atoms every second of every day of every year of every millennium, your so-called "impossible" number of 10 45 is flooded into oblivion. The reaction is inevitable. No intelligence is required. Edited by ringo, : Fixed superscript. It's all about the math, baby.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
™ Version 4.2