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


Message 288 of 648 (587722)
10-20-2010 12:09 PM
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 2:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 289 of 648 (587724)
10-20-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 3:06 AM


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.

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

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


Message 290 of 648 (587730)
10-20-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by frako
10-20-2010 3:45 AM


Re: Logical Fallacy
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 3:45 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Taq, posted 10-20-2010 12:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

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


Message 291 of 648 (587731)
10-20-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 12:46 PM


Re: Logical Fallacy
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 12:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 10-20-2010 1:01 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 295 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:13 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 292 of 648 (587733)
10-20-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Taq
10-20-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Logical Fallacy
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Taq, posted 10-20-2010 12:54 PM Taq has not replied

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


Message 293 of 648 (587734)
10-20-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by onifre
10-20-2010 8:54 AM


Re: Still confusing words
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by onifre, posted 10-20-2010 8:54 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2010 1:08 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 298 by onifre, posted 10-20-2010 2:18 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 300 by Taq, posted 10-20-2010 4:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 294 of 648 (587735)
10-20-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 1:04 PM


Clear purpose
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:04 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:17 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 308 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 12:56 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 295 of 648 (587736)
10-20-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Taq
10-20-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Logical Fallacy
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Taq, posted 10-20-2010 12:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Taq, posted 10-20-2010 4:07 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 301 by Nuggin, posted 10-20-2010 4:23 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 296 of 648 (587737)
10-20-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Modulous
10-20-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Clear purpose
Since you want to talk about origins, could you tell me what the clear purpose of life is?
Captain D
Do you mean from a philosophical, physical or Biblical perspective?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2010 1:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2010 1:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 297 of 648 (587739)
10-20-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 1:17 PM


Re: Clear purpose
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:17 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 11:35 PM Modulous has replied

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


(3)
Message 298 of 648 (587744)
10-20-2010 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 1:04 PM


Re: Still confusing words
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 299 of 648 (587752)
10-20-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 1:13 PM


Re: Logical Fallacy
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:13 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 300 of 648 (587754)
10-20-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 1:04 PM


Re: Still confusing words
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 301 of 648 (587755)
10-20-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Dawn Bertot
10-20-2010 1:13 PM


Re: Logical Fallacy
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:13 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 302 of 648 (587802)
10-20-2010 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Modulous
10-20-2010 1:32 PM


Re: Clear purpose
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2010 1:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Nuggin, posted 10-21-2010 1:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 312 by onifre, posted 10-21-2010 1:26 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 318 by Damouse, posted 10-21-2010 2:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 349 by Modulous, posted 10-21-2010 9:40 AM Dawn Bertot 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