Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 273 of 648 (587689)
10-20-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 2:56 AM


Still confusing words
Since order implies order and demonstrates it through natural order,it more than establishes design without even going any further, from a logical proposition.
As my post points out, the only reason your logic points to order establishing design is that you use the same definition for order and design.
You are clearly confused.
Order doesn't have purpose, designs do. If you define order as something arranged with a purpose, then you haven't defined order at all, but are instead describing something designed.
It is that word confusion that has pushed you into a logical fallacy.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

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 293 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:04 PM onifre has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 274 of 648 (587692)
10-20-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Buzsaw
10-20-2010 8:46 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
As a rule of thumb, you've lost the debate when you start listing multiple posts and replying to them all with one "Nuh-uh!"
Buzsaw writes:
The evidence for ID creationism lies in evidence of the existence of the ID creator by observation of phenomena supportive to that entity.
After all your posts and all your words, your evidence still amounts to "it looks that way to me."
I can replicate and verify the scientific evidence for evolution; there is so much evidence, though, that it would take a life-time.
All you can do is point and say, "If you believed what I believe, the world would look designed to you, too."
That's not evidence, that's just another unsupported claim.
Buzsaw writes:
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
That teeny little pea brain on this itty bitty speck is the most complex object in the observed universe. Maybe if you had more respect for your own, you'd use it better.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2010 8:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Buzsaw, posted 10-21-2010 8:33 AM Omnivorous has not replied

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


Message 275 of 648 (587693)
10-20-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Buzsaw
10-20-2010 8:46 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
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.
fossils- tones of them what is wrong whit that, al dated milions of years old
living alleged extinct things- what is wrong whit that so science cant ever be wrong on that sorry we missed some living examples of that species
arheological reserch - um yea all of it pointing to an old erth, no GLOBAL flood ....
social/curtural phenomena - um like muslims killing themselves whit others so they can go to allah, or buddist in india that where walking twords english soldies whit their hands behind therir back getting shot and killed until the english stopped shooting
fulfilled prophecy - shure i prophesised that obama would win the election those that make me a prophet
and history - like the arrival of atheism 2500 years before christ
so all of this points to god you say.
p.s. sorry abbout the spelling im in a rush gona spell check later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2010 8:46 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 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

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 277 of 648 (587697)
10-20-2010 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 2:09 AM


it strongly points to a design by a designer
No it doesn't.
Where did the material that made it a seed come from and then beyond that
As soon as you describe your process, we can continue. Unless you plan on saying "I don't understand evolution so it MUST be design" because that is exactly what it looks like. You continually duck and dodge and try to respond to our questions by asking us questions. Nice try, but no thanks.
How will my observations in the park tell what happened before Time zero, is there just more time to infinity, or did it just pop into existence.
What does this have to do with "The evidence for design and a designer"? Remember, YOU started this thread and have yet to explain, well, anything. Furthermore, do you plan on discussing life as we see it NOW or how it came into existence? I feel that discussing both won't fit too well in one topic as it is a VERY broad scope....
{abe}
Having said the above statement and thought about it, it would appear to me that you think your "logical order something something logic order order is logical yada yada" encompasses everything from pre-big bang all the way to modern medicine, all the while remaining as vague as possible. You can't give us a single experiment (hell, you say you don't NEED experiments), yet you basically wish to replace or compete with almost ALL of natural science.
Once you can take a deep breath and have someone else take over your account that isn't a fucking moron, I think we can continue.
I need a test
Yes. You need a mental capacity test.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : added some mumbo jumbo

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 2:09 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 278 of 648 (587698)
10-20-2010 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 1:55 AM


Re: The third possibility
Dawn Bertot writes:
No one but you has ever even mentioned "the eternality of matter" whatever that even means.
Its a natural conclusion of your position, genius. Its something that needs to be addressed.
If I am required to show proof of my design, which is obvious order, what is your conclusion of your studies and how in this world do you demonstrate it. Would your claim be matter eternal or what? What would your choice be
avoiding this very valid point wont help you
Let me repeat. No one but you has asserted or even mentioned "the eternality of matter" whatever that even means. Of course matter is not eternal, we can see examples of it being created or destroyed all the time.
Second, no one has asked you to show proof of your design, they have asked you to show evidence of the design and explain how to differentiate between something designed or not designed.
My conclusion from my studies is that the things we can observe, totally natural processes can explain the world we see around us.
So far no other model has ever been presented.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Oh yeah before I forget, are you going to explain in detail the other possibilites outside the two, Im still waiting
But I have explained them in as much detail as has been offered for any other possibilities.
I listed other possibilities.
If you ask me to show evidence for the other possibilities I listed I would have to reply "Just as there is no evidence for design or some designer, I see no evidence for any of the other possibilities or that any of the other possibilities explain anything better than the conventional theories."
And you in turn still avoid the real question.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 279 of 648 (587701)
10-20-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Buzsaw
10-20-2010 8:46 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
The evidence for ID creationism lies in evidence of the existence of the ID creator by observation of phenomena supportive to that entity.
Are you being ironic? Are you perhaps spoofing Creationist idiocy with this post?
This is a Russell's law situation where I literally can't tell if you are presenting a Creationist argument authentically or if you are deliberately posting something dumb in order to make Creationists look stupid.
I'm going to demonstrate why the sentence I quoted makes no sense by replacing "ID Creationism" with any other word involving magic.
The evidence for UNICORNS lies in evidence of the existence of the UNICORN by observation of phenomena supportive to that entity.
The evidence for SMURFS lies in evidence of the existence of the SMURFS by observation of phenomena supportive to that entity.
The evidence for HARRY POTTER lies in evidence of the existence of HARRY POTTER by observation of phenomena supportive to that entity.
When asked for evidence of something, you can't say that the evidence in support of your claim is the "evidence". You ACTUALLY have to give someone the evidence.
If evidence for ID is the evidence of ID then ID doesn't exist because there's simply no evidence. Period.
Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2010 8:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Buzsaw, posted 10-21-2010 9:40 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 280 of 648 (587705)
10-20-2010 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 3:06 AM


Order is a mechanism like evo I observe, it is not the conclusion, design is
When you look at "order", how do you conclude "design".
For example, I present you with two piles of pebbles at the bottom of a cliff.
Both are conical in shape. One was made by erosion knocking bits off the cliff. The other was made by me.
How do you determine which of the two piles is "designed" and which is naturally occurring as a result random erosion and non-intelligent selection by gravity and the rocks on the cliff face?
Same question with clearly "designed" oxbow lakes.
Same question with volcanic ash cones.
Same question with crystals in a cave.
If these things which _CLEARLY_ demonstrate "order" are not "designed", then how can you determine about anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 3:06 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 281 of 648 (587709)
10-20-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 3:06 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 3:06 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 282 of 648 (587712)
10-20-2010 11:35 AM


Idiot Lights
We all have idiot lights on our mental dashboard such as "I'm brilliant" and "I'm attractive," and we decide how much credibility to give these idiot lights by feedback from reality.
Dawn Bertot's mental idiot lights for "I'm right" and "I'm making perfect sense" and "These guys are idiots" are glowing brightly right now, and there's really not much anyone can say that can change that.
--Percy

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 12:33 AM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 12:47 AM ringo has replied
 Message 351 by Buzsaw, posted 10-21-2010 9:53 AM ringo has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 285 of 648 (587718)
10-20-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 1:55 AM


Re: The third possibility
Its a natural conclusion of your position, genius. Its something that needs to be addressed.
I have addressed it in several of my posts in this thread and you have ignored it each time.
If I am required to show proof of my design, which is obvious order,
Why is order proof of design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 12:52 AM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 286 of 648 (587719)
10-20-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 2:09 AM


Where did the material that made it a seed come from and then beyond that
We don't need to know that in order to conclude that a seed can and does grow into a tree without any observable input from an intelligent being during the process, wouldn't you agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 2:09 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 287 of 648 (587721)
10-20-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 2:19 AM


But you cannot tell me how, when and where the unintelligent mechanism got thier start
Sure we can. The mechanisms of evolution got their start as soon as there were imperfect replicators that competed for limited resources on Earth.
Obvious order and law is what I use to determine an origination point of those unintelligent mechanisms
How so?
If yours is not, can you demonstrate matter eternal, OR HECK ANYTHING ETERNAL
Why would we need to do this? What is your point?
what is your test to determine why anything is here or where it came from
Depends on the thing. Different tests for different things.
You need to follow the same rules you set out for me, OK?
Our rules are that explanations must be testable and potentially falsifiable. It would really help if you would stick to these rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 2:19 AM Dawn Bertot 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