|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,886 Year: 4,143/9,624 Month: 1,014/974 Week: 341/286 Day: 62/40 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4804 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: No. As I have said in many messages before, I'm an oilfield man. But it's precisely for this reason that I am in favour of a designer. I do have some background in molecular biology, a requirement for my current position, though not to the extent that most others have, and I am convinced that I could spend my entire life attempting to understand DNA's inner workings completely. It can at LEAST be considered plausible that an intelligent designer was behind something this complex (complexity being that I could not begin to fully understand it, even with my small schooling on the subject).
quote: Formation of water, and any other matter by natural process is a requirement if there is no deity, leaving evolution aside. This forum is for evidence of a designer. I am saying that all the elements on earth are a prime example of a designer, being that water is the source of almost all life, and it is the most abundant fluid on the planet. Random accident?
quote: Good, then we can start by asking, again, how did complex structures, DNA to be specific, arise naturally?
quote: My stupid questions have betrayed failure? They have betrayed failure...think about that...
quote: You guys? What do you mean, you guys? You saying that cause I'm black?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4804 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: I'm not sure who got the link, but there is a specific link on the map of the Red Sea that shows depths. You are wrong, I just don't care to find it...it's 5am here. Go find the link and look at the picture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4804 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Sure it does. Though it is chemically driven and follows certain rules, it created you, top to bottom. DNA created your brain, which has intelligent and unique thought processes. DNA has design, function, and purpose. It falls under the same principles as anything else designed, such as a hammer, or a car. Though DNA is not supernaturally guided, neither are humans, yet humans design.
quote: But isn't that the point? All complex things that are designed have blueprints, or a storage of information. BTW, not all DNA codes for proteins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined:
|
I'm not sure who got the link, but there is a specific link on the map of the Red Sea that shows depths. You are wrong, I just don't care to find it...it's 5am here. Go find the link and look at the picture.
You mean a link like here? I found that link, I looked at that picture. It says what you are being told by everyone else.Good thing it's only 1:30am here, otherwise I would not have been able to examine the first page of hits for the phrase "red sea topogrpahy" on Google Image search, huh? We now direct the jury's attention to exhibit A. See that big shiny strip right down the middle? It's dark blue and purple. We now observe exhibit B, a chart showing what depth is related to each colour.Lo and behold, dark blue/purple is not representative of shallow waters. It is in fact, indicative of the exact opposite: deep, deep water. So deep that the weight of the water could crush you to death should you go even halfway down without a submersible vehicle. At no point on the topography can one find any supposed "sand bar" in any location that would be considered valid as a crossing point. There is a fuck-off huge trench right down the middle* of the Red Fucking Sea. There is no sand bar across this trench. There was no crossing. So no sir, you are wrong, and quite emphatically so at that. Do you care to concede the point, or at the very least stop trying to fool people with the exact same internet capability as you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
dennis780 writes: Omni writes:
I'm not sure who got the link, but there is a specific link on the map of the Red Sea that shows depths. You are wrong, I just don't care to find it...it's 5am here. Go find the link and look at the picture. Well, no, a central median trench with depths in excess of 7000' runs the length of the Red Sea. I'm not wrong, no matter what time it is there. The Red Sea is evolving into an ocean, pulling apart from a central median trench which has a maximum depth of more than 7000'. I've already looked at charts, maps and satellite photos. I don't need to look for another. I know what is there. You don't. Not only is there a trench in your putative sandbar's way, there are no significant currents in the northern Red Sea with which to form massive sandbars. But why do you care? Why do you need the sandbar? Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given. Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi Dennis,
As I have said in many messages before, I'm an oilfield man. But it's precisely for this reason that I am in favour of a designer. I do have some background in molecular biology, a requirement for my current position, though not to the extent that most others have, and I am convinced that I could spend my entire life attempting to understand DNA's inner workings completely. Right. None of us has a complete understanding of the precise sequence of events that led to the formation of the first DNA, the first proteins, the first life. Given this, we can't meaningfully perform any calculations on the odds. To calculate the odds of a real event, you need to know all the variables. We don't know all the variables, so making arguments for a designer based on such odds is meaningless.
It can at LEAST be considered plausible that an intelligent designer was behind something this complex (complexity being that I could not begin to fully understand it, even with my small schooling on the subject). Fine, you consider it plausible that life was designed; I do not object to this, you are entitled to your opinion. I am merely trying to point out that odds-based arguments for such a designer fall down on a number of points.
Formation of water, and any other matter by natural process is a requirement if there is no deity, leaving evolution aside. Yes, I agree. Of course, it is possible to create water from hydrogen and oxygen, with no designer required, only physical and chemical forces, so this does not seem like a problem to me.
I am saying that all the elements on earth are a prime example of a designer, being that water is the source of almost all life, and it is the most abundant fluid on the planet. Random accident? Not at all. But ask yourself this; if there were no water on Earth, would we be having this conversation? No, of course not. We find life where there is water simply because it cannot arise anywhere else. It's like asking why we only find Birch Bolete mushrooms under birch trees. Coincidence? No, we find that to be the case simply because Birch Boletes cannot grow anywhere else apart from under birch trees. It's not a coincidence, but a requirement. This argument is fully answered by reference to the Anthropic Principle. Good, then we can start by asking, again, how did complex structures, DNA to be specific, arise naturally? I have no idea. That doesn't mean though, that we should simply throw up our hands and give up on trying to find a natural explanation. Once, people had no understanding of the natural mechanisms behind thunder, so they assumed that thunder was the province of a thunder god. They were wrong and I suspect that you are wrong to place your faith in a DNA god. It's only a matter of time before science steals his thunder as well.
You guys? What do you mean, you guys? You saying that cause I'm black? I hope you're joking. I have no idea who you are and have no way of knowing whether you are black, white or otherwise. For that matter, you don't know that I'm not black, other than me saying I'm not. By "you guys", I meant creationists. You guys brighten up my days, you really do. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Again, the sand bar runs the length of the Red Sea, underwater. I think you mean the Gulf of Aqaba (the area marked "A" on the top left map)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Though DNA is not supernaturally guided, neither are humans, yet humans design
So, DNA is what designed humans? About time we had an IDiot admit to what this mysterious designer's identity was. And all those years, it was good ol' DNA! Fancy that!Okay boys, pack it up, we found out the origin of life now. You can probably expect your Nobel Prize in the next couple of years, Dennis, once someone has checked the working. I wonder, would it be chemistry or medicine; possibly even physics? Heck, why not two at the same time. It is a pretty major discovery after all. But isn't that the point? All complex things that are designed have blueprints, or a storage of information
Another brilliant discovery! Not only did DNA design humans, the DNA itself is the design for humans! How marvellous of our creator to not only give us life in general, but give each of us life personally and individually too! I reckon your Babble was onto something with the whole "I am everywhere with you" thing.Crikey, Dennis, you're on a roll with this! Don't stop just because it's getting late. BTW, not all DNA codes for proteins
Not all of your car is used for moving you around the place, yet would you say the point of the car is to cool you down or provide you a comfortable seat?The other parts that help with doing the main job don't change what the main job is. DNA codes to (eventually, following the whole tRNA/mRNA thing) form proteins. That is its job. But isn't that the point? All complex things that are designed have blueprints, or a storage of information
And many complex things that were not designed contain a storage of information. The neuron structure in your brain, for instance, was not designed. Pretty damn sure that would count as complex if we looked at the myriad connections and functions, though.Point being, storage of information does not imply design. Nor does complexity. That's one reason to dismiss your argument as unreasonable right there. But continuing: By stating first that "if something is complex and designed, it has a storage of information or blueprint" then observing that DNA "stores"* "information"* and deriving the conclusion that therefore DNA was complex and designed, you commit a basic error. You're affirming the consequent; this is a logical fallacy.So not only can you not conclude what you have based on the argument you have used, doing so is actually wrong in itself. And yes, the entire first half of the post was bitter satire. For fuck's sake, I managed to seriously justify the proposition of a designer using evidence, despite it being a parody. The best any IDiot has done, even with years of research, is "I can't believe evolution did that, must'a bin' magick."Does it not strike you -- and here I add the general challenge: or any ID supporter at all -- as odd that a joke version of your own hypothesis has better support than the real thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
It's the same avatar, just different lighting. Fortunately my coffee cup was still in front of my face when I saw this. And so early in the morning! I'm going to giggle at this all day. Ringo, you are an absolute delight. Thank you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Thanks for that link because it is a great example of what problems you face.
There is no evidence at that site, in fact it is absolutely nothing but more examples of how Creationists simply copy from each other, never try to verify their claims and how the Christian Cult of Ignorance simply accept crap like that site and Ron Wyatt's Archeological Research without question. I did not go off topic, I replied to yet another false assertion that you made; and it is on topic because it once again demonstrated that you have no idea what evidence even is and so are totally clueless about how to even go about supporting design or some designer. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You just love being wrong don't you?
Look at the maps in your link. They are yet another great example of the ignorance of so many Biblical Literalists. Note where it says:
quote: First, anyone that has even basic geography knowledge of the area can see that the lower map is NOT of the Red Sea but of the Gulf of Aqaba. Second, there is NO sandbar shown, and the dotted line someone just added. Note that they also omitted the legend that shows how depths are shown. The reality is that the depth of the Gulf of Aqaba is between 400 and 1800 METERS. Learn what evidence really is. Stop just accepting the nonsense these folk are selling you. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Order does produce clear and visible purpose And yet you couldn't provide Mod with the clear and visible (and don't forget, demonstratable) purpose for life.
One can dispute purpose and find relative reasons or funtions in some designed items. But one cannot realistically dispute the order itself, therfore the conclusion of design remains as valid as ever. How can you not see the obvious circular reasoning in what you wrote? Geez You can dispute the purpose of a designed item, but you can't dispute the order that the designed item was placed in - therefore concluding design is valid? No shit?! You already state it was a designed item - OF COURSE the conclusion is design!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
So then you agree that purpose or specificity can be created by random processes?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
As you noted, law and order alone is insufficient to conclude design. And you seem to be suggesting that the evidence you have favours both hypothesis equally, which would essentially imply it is not evidence for your position at all. Unfortunately - the fact that no evidence says "Almost certainly designed with forethought" and a lot that suggests "Not designed with forethought" would mean that "Designed with forethought" is not on equal footing with "Not designed with forethought." In order to get them even we'd have to ignore the rest of the evidence, rather than merely considering some ambiguous subset. Your rambling my friend, I never said law and order were insufficient to conclude design, I said they were insufficient to prove design. Concluding as you have verbally that they are not on equal footing in verbage and demonstrating that logically is ofcourse, is another. It seems almost arrogance that you could attempt such a feat Here is why. Order and purpose are evidential from a physical standpoint. Even if purpose is a conclusion it is demonstratble in the eye. Its functions and results end in a clear and visible purpose That is positive evidence of purpose, thus design. Now watch pay close attention. While I can test this theory in a positive way, the negative of it, that is not purpose can ONLY be theorized. How will you test a claim where the results are to clear (no pun intended) to miss. Even if one theorizes evo, the purpose of the eye remains in a physical testable way simply by the results of the physical evidence All you can do is suggest that it may not be purpose or design, you have no physical way to demonstrate otherwise. How could you possibly demonstrate the clear purpose of the eye is not what it is designed to do, your position seems impossible beyond belief. Have at it Thats like saying I know someone is in front of me and Im talking to them and all the evidence points to it, but Idont really believe they are there. You only have ideologies and theories concerning order, purpose and design where I have all of those and physical data as well Please demonstrate me wrong concerning thes matters Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
And yet you couldn't provide Mod with the clear and visible (and don't forget, demonstratable) purpose for life. You simplistic comedian. Just like the eye, I provided him with a clear purpose for life, which is testable against reality. objection to reality thus purpose is not an answer tothat evidence, its simply an objection with no testable evidence. The purpose of life are its results, having followed a clear and present order. This is testable because it happens and is visible. The negative that it is not order and PURPOSE, now watch, is not testable, where the result is toeasy to miss. How would you determine that the eye, IS NOT doing what it is actually doing, that seems silly even to approach as an philosopjical idea, much less a practicle one How would you demonstrate the result of the eye that provides sight, is not its PURPOSE. The negative claim cannot be tested where the evidence is obvious. The eye sees,that is its order, purpose and design The negative claim resides in complain, philosophy and ideology, and cannot refute obvious physical observation Geez indeed Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024