|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
And the best interpretation is determined by further experimentation and observation producing more empirical evidence. You don't get to cling to your pet interpretation after it has been refuted. If you want to challenge the accepted interpretation, you have to produce more empirical evidence, not just make excuses for why there isn't any. But the same empirical evidence is often interpreted differently, depending on the hypothesis. You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
quote: Buz, evidence is not simply some fact. Evidence is a fact that supports a particular conclusion. For the evidence to be meaningful or substantial, it should support the particular conclusion while not supporting an incompatible conclusion. If there in indeed a "large delta which is Nuweiba beach at Aqaba" something that I don't believe was even established during the discussion, that could be evidence of something. But it wouldn't seem to support the existence of an ancient land bridge any more than it would support the non-existence of an ancient land bridge. So despite the fact that an observation of a delta is empirical, it still is not evidence for your conclusion. We're probably way off topic here. If you want to present some of what you consider evidence of design, I could at least respond without going off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I propose that populations (in specific environments) of very genetically similar but very morphologically different creatures (eg. dogs) would indicate design. Some morphologies would be well adapted to the given environment, while others would be poorly adapted.
I also wonder about the "fingerprints" left when cross-species or cross-genus genetic engineering is done. Would examination of the product genome show the "fingerprints" that something outside of natural evolution has happened? Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Buzsaw writes: But the same empirical evidence is often interpreted differently, depending on the hypothesis. Such is the case in interpreting what formed the large delta which is Nuweiba beach at Aqaba or what formed the Grand Canyon, as examples. You appear to be making the same claims regarding evidence for design that you're making over in the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread concerning evidence for the Exodus. If you like you could propose a new thread to discuss your ideas about evidence, but please keep these ideas out of other threads like this one. If you can describe what evidence for design would be in concrete terms then please do so. If you want to discuss your ideas about the nature of evidence, what constitutes valid evidence, how evidence builds to make a case, etc., then please propose a new thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Minnemooseus writes: I propose that populations (in specific environments) of very genetically similar but very morphologically different creatures (eg. dogs) would indicate design. Some morphologies would be well adapted to the given environment, while others would be poorly adapted. I also wonder about the "fingerprints" left when cross-species or cross-genus genetic engineering is done. Would examination of the product genome show the "fingerprints" that something outside of natural evolution has happened? Moose Would those be other examples of what I described in the OP, based on our experience of known human design? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Coyote writes: The same goes for Biblical advocates. The more aggregate corroborative evidence supportive to the Biblical record, the more each account in the record is corroborated. But how do you count aggregate negative evidence? Global flood? Young earth? Talking snakes? Or do you just ignore that negative evidence? Imo, BB singularity and multi-verse theories have more negative aspects than the above. What is empirical, supportive or what ever will be determined relative to one's ideology. Do you agree with NoNukes that all evidence must be empirical in order to be considered evidence? Evidence Buz. Do you have anything related to the topic? So what exactly is this "Evidence of Design" that Creationists and Intelligent Design marketeers assert is there? Do you have anything other than word salad? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The evidence of design - awesomeness, as in "Wow! That's awesome; Evolution is refuted."
Actually, I think that ID is taken as an a priori truth, with no need for evidence. Evidence is taken as that which you use to persuade doubters of what is obviously true. And the ID folk often use awesomness as an indicator of evidence. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
nwr writes: The evidence of design - awesomeness, as in "Wow! That's awesome; Evolution is refuted." Actually, I think that ID is taken as an a priori truth, with no need for evidence. Evidence is taken as that which you use to persuade doubters of what is obviously true. And the ID folk often use awesomness as an indicator of evidence. "ID is taken as an a priori truth, with no need for evidence" That is certainly possible, but then ID becomes simply another unsupported assertion, irrelevant. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Biblically, humans are designed after the likeness of their designer, unlike brute beasts. This is evidenced in the huge intelligence and reasoning gap between the most intelligent animal and human kind. Among all of the animals, there is no really significant intelligence and reasoning gap, such as is observed between animals and humans.
Biblically, intelligent humans were determined by the designer to rule over the animal kingdom. This has all been observed throughout recorded human history. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Biblically, humans are designed after the likeness of their designer, unlike brute beasts. This is evidenced in the huge intelligence and reasoning gap between the most intelligent animal and human kind. Among all of the animals, there is no really significant intelligence and reasoning gap, such as is observed between animals and humans. Biblically, intelligent humans were determined by the designer to rule over the animal kingdom. This has all been observed throughout recorded human history. Evidence Buz. What is the evidence of design, not just some vague assertion. Evidence of design. Go back and reread the original post. I point out specific tests I can use to show design. What tests do you use to show design? No more word salad or simple assertions. Show us how you determine design? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
So if I understand your line of thought then a mouse has no significant difference in intelligence or ability to reason compared to a chimp or bonobo?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
fearandloathing writes: So if I understand your line of thought then a mouse has no significant difference in intelligence or ability to reason compared to a chimp or bonobo? Please folk, don't let Buz's rabbit holes attract you. What IS evidence of design? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
How about this: designed artefacts are identifiable because they have been shaped to assist a known third part with identifiable influence on the artefact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: How about this: designed artefacts are identifiable because they have been shaped to assist a known third part with identifiable influence on the artefact. Not sure what that even means? Can you expand it for me? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Okay, I'll expand (and refine a little, thinking about it)
An artefact can be identified as designed if: 1. It can be identified as having a purpose or function to a third party2. That third party influenced the form of the artefact 3. That influence was intentional So an object that has no obvious function cannot be described as designed - an amorphous lump of rock is not designed, for example (fails on 1). Whereas as elephant poo could be said to have a function to a dung beatle but the dung beatle is incapable of influencing the elephant poo in any way, so elephant poo is not designed (passes 1, fails 2). Criteria 3 is there to root out symbiosis, and co-evolution - aphids did not design Buchnera, Buchnera did not design aphids. (Oh, and I see I missed the 'y' in party off my previous post, oops)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024