Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 258 of 648 (587663)
10-20-2010 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 2:41 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 2:41 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 3:06 AM ringo has replied
 Message 262 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 3:35 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 259 of 648 (587664)
10-20-2010 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by onifre
10-19-2010 6:20 PM


Re: Logical Fallacy
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.
Your kidding right, please tell me you are kidding.
Oni, order is evidence of order. order is obvious, it is demonstratable, visible and measurable.
before one even implies that order does not imply design, he first needs to remove that order exists to begin with, which is impossible. You fellas are jumping the gun
Since order implies order and demonstrates it through natural order,it more than establishes design without even going any further, from a logical proposition.
a persons approval is not necessary for this to be valid
Your disortation about my usage of words is irrelevant to this proposition alone
Its not circular reasoning where this definition of order can be observed in physical properties
Design is a valid conclusion of not only a word but its application to the natural world
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by onifre, posted 10-19-2010 6:20 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 3:45 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 273 by onifre, posted 10-20-2010 8:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 276 by Panda, posted 10-20-2010 9:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 288 by Taq, posted 10-20-2010 12:09 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 260 of 648 (587665)
10-20-2010 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by ringo
10-20-2010 2:56 AM


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.
Wow,you really dont understand do you?
Ringo pay attention, YOU MIXING UP TERMS. Evolution is NOT a conclusion of a physical property, DESIGN IS.
Evolution is a mechanism to explain immediate and visible properties, the conclusion of which is its orgination point, ie matter eternal or design
Order is a mechanism like evo I observe, it is not the conclusion, design is
Ringo science hasnt shown anything about origins and thats what we are after, not how evolution works, who cares how it works, it has nothing to give me about origins
Show me how science has demonstrated its origin, or its origination point, then i will be impressed
Mine is design, yours is _________________________, fill in the blank
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 2:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Nuggin, posted 10-20-2010 10:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 281 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 11:26 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 289 by Taq, posted 10-20-2010 12:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 261 of 648 (587666)
10-20-2010 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by ringo
10-20-2010 2:21 AM


quote:
Nonsense. A physical reality like a car can be "dealt with" without knowing anything about the smelting of iron or the mining of iron or the geology of iron formations or the origin of iron atoms. A mechanic can formulate a theory of why an engine doesn't run without such extraneous details. The same is true for understanding the day-to-day workings of evolution.
If the car is to have any sort of useful purpose, then you are exactly wrong. In order for the car to function, scientists and engineers must know everything about the materials used. 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.
All living and non-living things are made up of matter. Their origin is about as unimportant as an eskimo and a jacket. 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.
Hurry ringo, it's getting cold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 2:21 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 11:37 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 262 of 648 (587668)
10-20-2010 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by ringo
10-20-2010 2:56 AM


quote:
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.
Let me step in here if I may. Lets find out what physical observations point to design. I'll use your car, since you like cars.
Cars are designed by engineers. They have blueprints. They have function.
All life have blueprints. All life has function.
This is a very generic response, but this seems to be what Dawn is getting at.
quote:
If order "demonstrates" design, then you should be able to suggest an experiment to actually do that demonstration.
So you want Dawn to show you an experiment of something being designed?? Go to your garage, and look at that car you like so much.
If you were walking through the woods, and you found an arrow. You pick it up, and immediately assume design, because arrows have a function and purpose, and 99.999% of the time, straight barkless sticks don't grow onto rocks shaped like a triangle. But you didn't see anyone make that arrow. How could you possibly know that it was designed, without seeing it? Maybe it evolved over millions of years, and it's actually a seed of a tree that drops arrows on animals as they pass by. How do you KNOW?
Let me tell you. YOU DON'T. You make a logical assumption based on the physical evidence available.
quote:
Of course not. We already know how order works. We don't need an extraneous entity to expalin it.
Oh good. So you don't mind explaining how order is gained, and maintained naturally. Since you know. Anyone can say 'we know'. You ask Dawn for experimental evidence, but you offer none in response. I'm going to need evidence to support your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 2:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 3:48 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 267 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2010 5:03 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 284 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 11:48 AM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 263 of 648 (587669)
10-20-2010 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 2:56 AM


Re: Logical Fallacy
before one even implies that order does not imply design, he first needs to remove that order exists to begin with, which is impossible. You fellas are jumping the gun
so tossing a coin 1000 times gets you 500 heads and 500 tails that shows order and that proves that god is using his power to make it so.
and if you mount 2 poles on a frame, and add one pole to each pole in a way that they can all rotate. Every time you lift the poles to the top and drop them they will rotate differently, in a different manner. that is dissorder or unpredictable so god has nothing to do whit that.
do i understand you correctly ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 2:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 12:46 PM frako has not replied

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


Message 264 of 648 (587671)
10-20-2010 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by dennis780
10-20-2010 3:35 AM


You pick it up, and immediately assume design, because arrows have a function and purpose
umm so what is the function and pupose of humans. and what is the function and purpose of amebas, and viruses?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 3:35 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 4:36 AM frako has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 265 of 648 (587674)
10-20-2010 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by frako
10-20-2010 3:48 AM


quote:
umm so what is the function and pupose of humans. and what is the function and purpose of amebas, and viruses?
To live for the Lord. Haha.
This is a philosophy question. The answer to your unwritten question, is your eyes have function and purpose, as do your legs, brain, hands, fingers, toes, ears, etc.
You have no purpose, because you aren't livin for the Lord baby. Haha. I'm in a weird mood right now.
The function of all animals/bacteria is survival of the individual and of the group, always.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 3:48 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 4:45 AM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 266 of 648 (587676)
10-20-2010 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by dennis780
10-20-2010 4:36 AM


The function of all animals/bacteria is survival of the individual and of the group, always.
but what is their purpose you can say that god gave us cows for milk, horses to ride on, why has he given us the ameba ?? What is the purpose of the ameba?
You have no purpose, because you aren't livin for the Lord baby.
um what if you have no purpose too cause you are not living for Allah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 4:36 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 5:19 AM frako has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 267 of 648 (587677)
10-20-2010 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by dennis780
10-20-2010 3:35 AM


All life have blueprints. All life has function.
No they don't.
A genome is not a blueprint. You seem to have confused an analogy for a 1 to 1 correspondence. As to function you seem to have defined it so broadly that anything which exists and does anything could be said to have a function. After all if you find an arrow with no bow and don't know what either is then what function do you know of for it?
Let me tell you. YOU DON'T. You make a logical assumption based on the physical evidence available.
But that evidence includes a wealth of experience with designed objects. And the fact is natural things don't have these hallmarks of human design with which we are familiar, which is why IDists and creationists have to make up abstruse and fuzzy properties like irreducible complexity and complex specificity to try and shoehorn living things into the set of designed things. To do so they have to make a vast array of assumptions about the designer and the capabilities of evolution, and they tend to do this based on little to no evidence whatsoever.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 3:35 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 5:23 AM Wounded King has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 268 of 648 (587679)
10-20-2010 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by frako
10-20-2010 4:45 AM


quote:
but what is their purpose you can say that god gave us cows for milk, horses to ride on, why has he given us the ameba ?? What is the purpose of the ameba?
Amoeba's are major consumers of bacteria in soil ecosystems and are believed to occupy the same key role there as flagellates do in aquatic ecosystems (recycling bacterial productivity and nutrient regeneration/continued functioning of the ecosystem). They eat algae and other protozoans (though they
can also be parasitic), and thus help play a part in regulation of these ecosystems as well.
In short, regulatory, and FOOD.
NEXT!
quote:
um what if you have no purpose too cause you are not living for Allah.
You could be right. But that would mean that I would have to attack the infidels...or more specifically...me. I don't want to attack me, so I choose my God...by default, so I don't have to die early (though any time I die would be too early for me).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 4:45 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 5:52 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 269 of 648 (587680)
10-20-2010 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Wounded King
10-20-2010 5:03 AM


quote:
After all if you find an arrow with no bow and don't know what either is then what function do you know of for it?
So because you don't understand it, it has no function? Or it has a function that is not understood by the individual?
quote:
To do so they have to make a vast array of assumptions about the designer and the capabilities of evolution, and they tend to do this based on little to no evidence whatsoever.
Are there any assumptions in the theory of evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2010 5:03 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2010 6:19 AM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 270 of 648 (587683)
10-20-2010 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by dennis780
10-20-2010 5:19 AM


Amoeba's are major consumers of bacteria in soil ecosystems and are believed to occupy the same key role there as flagellates do in aquatic ecosystems (recycling bacterial productivity and nutrient regeneration/continued functioning of the ecosystem). They eat algae and other protozoans (though they
can also be parasitic), and thus help play a part in regulation of these ecosystems as well.
In short, regulatory, and FOOD.
well there are tones of other species that do that, some way better than the amoeba, so why this 5t wheel on our car. And what purpose do viruses have?
why do you think anything has a purpose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 5:19 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 11:58 PM frako has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 271 of 648 (587685)
10-20-2010 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by dennis780
10-20-2010 5:23 AM


So because you don't understand it, it has no function? Or it has a function that is not understood by the individual?
You were the one suggesting that thinking the arrow had a function was part of our process in infering design, and you further emphasised function as one of the physical observations pointing to design. So clearly if we don't understand somethings function how can we infer that it has a function and is therefore designed?
Otherwise we are just making up 'functions' ad hoc the way you do for the amoeba, you describe what it does and then say that is its function. You might as well say that the function of Liberty Island is to hold the Statue of Liberty up, or that the function of the Amazon cardboard box on my desk is to keep my monitor at the right level.
Are there any assumptions in the theory of evolution?
This depends exactly what you mean by 'the theory of evolution'. There are quite a lot of assumptions in our current understanding of the history of life on earth, some with more supporting evidence than others. In terms of common descent of multicellular animal life from some unicellular ancestor there is very compelling evidence requiring no assumptions other than that genetics were not radically different from what we observe today. Further back it looks likely that the genetics were radically different, which is why more assumptions are needed when we start dealing with early cellular and pre-cellular life scenarios like the RNA world hypothesis, the transition from that to a more DNA based genetic system and the establishment of the separate domains of life.
The basic underlying mechanisms of evolution on the other hand, mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc ... are so well established empirically that they can hardly be considered assumptions.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 5:23 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 12:15 AM Wounded King has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 272 of 648 (587688)
10-20-2010 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Omnivorous
10-19-2010 7:00 PM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Message 240 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2010 7:00 PM
Message 241 by jar, posted 10-19-2010 7:01 PM
Message 242 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2010 7:10 PM
Message 243 by ringo, posted 10-19-2010 7:13 PM
Omni, Jar, Dwise and Ringo; One answer fits all. The evidence for ID creationism lies in evidence of the existence of the ID creator by observation of phenomena supportive to that entity.
In the first place, the Biblical example of the creator did involve energy, matter, work, plan and process as per Genesis one where energy was applied to matter and work on the matter was effected over a period of time. It was not just a matter of zapping things into existence by fiat command.
Secondly, Evidence has been debated relative to scientific research, fossils, living alleged extinct things, archeological research, social/curtural phenomena, fulfilled prophecy, and history etc. relative to the existence of a higher intelligence than that observed on itty bitty speck, Planet Earth, by relatively teeny little pea brain human creatures.

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 240 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2010 7:00 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Omnivorous, posted 10-20-2010 9:04 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 275 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 9:08 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 279 by Nuggin, posted 10-20-2010 10:35 AM Buzsaw has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024