|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
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: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
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.
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 Dawn Bertot writes:
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.
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 Dawn Bertot writes:
Of course not. We already know how order works. We don't need an extraneous entity to expalin it. so does design matter to order or not? "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: 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 theycan also be parasitic), and thus help play a part in regulation of these ecosystems as well. In short, regulatory, and FOOD. NEXT!
quote: 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: So because you don't understand it, it has no function? Or it has a function that is not understood by the individual?
quote: Are there any assumptions in the theory of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024