|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
before one even implies that order does not imply design, he first needs to remove that order exists to begin with, which is impossible. Baloney. You claim that order evidences design. This is your claim. Either support it or withdraw it. Claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
Since order implies order and demonstrates it through natural order,it more than establishes design without even going any further, from a logical proposition. Please show how order establishes design. Without this demonstration your claims will be rejected, and rightly so.
a persons approval is not necessary for this to be valid However, evidence is required for which you have supplied zero.
Design is a valid conclusion of not only a word but its application to the natural world Based on what evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Evolution is NOT a conclusion of a physical property, DESIGN IS.
Evolution is an explanation for the observations made in the field of biology. Evolution explains why shared characteristics amongst multicellular life fall into a nested hierarchy. Evolution explains why humans and chimps share the same ERV's at the same location in our genomes. Evolution explains why we find fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammalian features. So how does Design explain these observations? If Design can not explain these observations in a testable and falsifiable manner then what use is it?
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 How evolution works is a part of how nature works. You want to claim that a Designer is at work in nature, but every time we study nature we observe unintelligent mechanisms at work, not a Designer. That seems to be a very seriously problem for your touted conclusion.
Show me how science has demonstrated its origin, or its origination point, then i will be impressed We can look at the origin of an ordered crystal, and that origin does not require a designer. Therefore, order is not evidence of design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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 ? Can any of that which you desribe above happen without the YOU , you keep mentoning in your paragraph. Your illustrations concerning order are silly because there is a designer in your scenerio. How do I respong to that type of silliness. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Can any of that which you desribe above happen without the YOU , We can describe the orderly formation of crystals without using a "you" so does this mean that order is not evidence of design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What Dawn Bertot seems to forget is that the crystals grow based on the very same natural processes even if YOU keep your eyes shut tight and yet forget to repeat "I do believe in Designers, I do believe in Designers."
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. Wrong again. The fact that you are able to compose an idea concerning these matters is due to the fact that the order in your body and brain allows it, or produce such a result by complicated order That is demonstratable and convincing as to the fact that order, exists. The result of the order is a CLEAR PURPOSE. Only an idiot would not acknowledge something so simple. Once the purpose is defind and recognized, design is a logical conclusion of that intricate design, as decribed by the make-up of the brain. Your approval is not necessary for that conclusion to be valid
You are clearly confused. Hardly
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. Now pay close attention. Your above comment is based in jargon and philosophical nonesense. My conclusions are based in reality and physical properties. The eye has a definate purpose. Your approval of it as a purpose is not necessary for it to have clear purpose. Its purpose is sight to funtion is a physical world Can you refute that that result of the eye is not a purpose How would you do that.
It is that word confusion that has pushed you into a logical fallacy. As you can SEE, (no pun intended) I am not confused at all Man Im good Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The result of the order is a CLEAR PURPOSE. Only an idiot would not acknowledge something so simple. Once the purpose is defind and recognized, design is a logical conclusion of that intricate design, as decribed by the make-up of the brain. Since you want to talk about origins, could you tell me what the clear purpose of life is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
We can describe the orderly formation of crystals without using a "you" so does this mean that order is not evidence of design? Arent you getting tired of being wrong all the time. .Taq, DESRIBINING HOW SOMETHING WORKS, is not the same as showing its parts origination point. I desribe how a atom works, but showing where its part or parts originated is another thing You would need to demonstrate that matter is eternal to know the YOU is not a probablity absolutely. For now the complicated order is suffiecient to support design without your disapproval Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Since you want to talk about origins, could you tell me what the clear purpose of life is? Captain DDo you mean from a philosophical, physical or Biblical perspective? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Do you mean from a philosophical, physical or Biblical perspective? From the perspective of someone trying to define and recognize purpose in order to attempt to logically conclude design. I could define the purpose for the origin of the hand-drill. People want to drill holes, so they needed a tool to do this. They invented the hand drill, whose purpose is to drill holes. I could in principle come upon a drill having never seen one and deduce its purpose and its fitness for it before potentially concluding that the implement was designed. So now to life...what is its clear purpose in the same way the drill's purpose was clear?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
That is demonstratable and convincing as to the fact that order, exists. No one has disputed this.
The result of the order is a CLEAR PURPOSE. And again, that is because you continue to confuse the word order and design. Order is NOT defined as having purpose, and you don't get to change that definition to whatever you want it to be. This is the basis for your circular reasoning.
Your above comment is based in jargon and philosophical nonesense. Not at all, it is based on the common use and definition of the two words.
Can you refute that that result of the eye is not a purpose Actually, no, I like your take on it: Nature constructed the eye through an evolutionary processes of selection to sense light for the purpose of sight (in a variety of different ways found throughout nature.) --- We're in agreement. However, the points being disputed aren't about purpose or function, it's about your example of design in nature. You stated that the evidence for design is order. You went on to define order as something arranged for a purpose. And the problem continues to be that your definition of order is not correct, you are actually defining something designed, which does have a purpose. So there in lies the logical fallacy of circular reasoning based on an incorrect definition of the word order. Define order correctly and you'll find that it doesn't logically conclude design. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
DESRIBINING HOW SOMETHING WORKS, is not the same as showing its parts origination point. Describing how something comes to be is showing its origination point. The process by which ordered crystals come to be can be described without invoking any intelligent causes. Therefore, order is not evidence of a designer since order does not require a designer.
You would need to demonstrate that matter is eternal . . . No I don't. All I need to know is how something originated, as you stated quite clearly. I know how an ordered crystal originates, and it does so without any observed designer as part of the process. As for matter, there was no matter as we know it at the beginning of our universe. Matter condensed from energy just as we observe in particle accelerators across the globe. No need for a designer here either. Matter spontaneously condenses from energy without the need for any designer in the process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
The result of the order is a CLEAR PURPOSE. So if we find order that has no purpose would this falsify design? Also, can you please tell us why purpose requires a designer?
Your above comment is based in jargon and philosophical nonesense. Physician, heal thyself.
My conclusions are based in reality and physical properties. Actually, they are based on jargon and philosophical nonesense.
Its purpose is sight to funtion is a physical world Can you refute that that result of the eye is not a purpose "DESRIBINING HOW SOMETHING WORKS, is not the same as showing its parts origination point."--Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I desribe how a atom works, but showing where its part or parts originated is another thing You are trying to imply that because something (an atom) works therefore a Wizard must have been involved to create it. But you haven't provided any EVIDENCE for the existence of a "Wizard" apart from your own conclusion. Can you demonstrate the difference between something which "works" and "requires" a wizard and something which "doesn't work" and therefore doesn't "require" a wizard? Or, is your argument, that ALL things, no matter HOW they appear/interact/whatever, are evidence of the Wizard because the Wizard is the source of ALL things? If "The Wizard created all things therefore all things are evidence of the Wizard" is your argument, then how do you counter the argument "The Dark Smurf King created all things therefore all things are evidence of the Dark Smurf King"? Or the argument: "The FSM created The Wizard and therefore is the true creator of all things"? After all, in cases of both arguments, ALL the evidence supports my claim over yours because I define evidence as ALL things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
From the perspective of someone trying to define and recognize purpose in order to attempt to logically conclude design. I could define the purpose for the origin of the hand-drill. People want to drill holes, so they needed a tool to do this. They invented the hand drill, whose purpose is to drill holes. I could in principle come upon a drill having never seen one and deduce its purpose and its fitness for it before potentially concluding that the implement was designed. So now to life...what is its clear purpose in the same way the drill's purpose was clear? Since your illustration assumes a designer, to me, I should assume you intended this or not? Next ,I would ask based upon your above illustration, from whos perspective are you asking what the purpose is or is not, the designer, or the one looking for a designer Lets assume you mean from a naturalistic standpoint, ok To answer your question directly however, the clear purpose of life is TO LIVE. Since even in inanimate objects there are atoms and the such like all performing thier functions, the purpose of any life, would be to fulfill those functions as they have been designed When we observe those functions, they operate in an orderly fashion, which like the drill was created to serve a specific purpose. Life begats life, its purpose is to live Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024