Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 377 (608062)
03-08-2011 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
03-08-2011 9:53 AM


Re: Defining design.
Percy writes:
I already said Dembski only thinks he can detect design.
What you said previously was this:
quote:
Dembski at least has a (claimed) mathematical definition.
I took that to mean that Dembski had a mathematical definition for design. Clearly, you did not mean that at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 03-08-2011 9:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 03-09-2011 8:41 AM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 377 (608090)
03-08-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by slevesque
03-08-2011 4:19 PM


slevesque writes:
Still, I guess you could tell me the problem you see with irreducible complexity, since I do think that claims that it has been ''completely and utterly demolished'' are far from the actual reality of it.
I've never seen a convincing argument that the presence of IC or specified complexity indicate design. I'm curious as to why you think that they do. In particular I find it interesting that anyone who could not check Behe's work for themselves would believe anything he had to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 4:19 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 5:14 PM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 377 (608104)
03-08-2011 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by slevesque
03-08-2011 5:14 PM


Removed by author
Edited by NoNukes, : Going into lurk mode for this thread. Don't want to dogpile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 5:14 PM slevesque has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 377 (608163)
03-09-2011 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by slevesque
03-09-2011 2:39 AM


Bad inductive reasoning
Let's rewrite your inductive argument to more accurately reflect what we actually know and what we want to prove.
Then new inductive argument becomes:
All non-biological IC systems whose origins we know are designed by humans.
A biological system not designed by humans shows IC
The biological system was designed by a non-human intelligent agent.
The above is still an attempt at generalization, but surely it is a lot weaker form than the one you were using. Your argument would be helped immensely by observation of some number of biological systems which are known to be designed. But we don't have any of those. I think Jar was correct in calling you on extending your "proof" to biological systems.
slevesque writes:
Let's try to clear up all the logical steps leading to IC maybe being a candidate for identifying designed systems before going into counter-examples.
Is there really any point to going further if you cannot deal with counter-examples to your initial premise?
What ID proponents do in order to make this work is to make non-rigorous arguments to the effect that nature cannot produce IC systems. But no real evidence is given to support this claim.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 2:39 AM slevesque has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 377 (608164)
03-09-2011 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by slevesque
03-08-2011 7:00 PM


slevesque writes:
it does give the impression that you are retarded (no offense)
Or perhaps the poster is not a native speaker of English. Nothing wrong with asking for coherency, but the "retarded" crack was uncalled for, your faux disclaimer not withstanding. I'll bet you would never call an adult with a cognitive disability retarded to his face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 7:00 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:04 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 154 of 377 (608173)
03-09-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
03-09-2011 8:41 AM


Re: Defining design.
NoNukes writes:
I'm not sure what the problem is
C'mon Percy. I am trying to drop this.
I understood a statement in your message 82 to mean that Dembski had a mathematical definition for design. In response I asked you for pointers to that definition, and of course I did not get any such thing. Your later messages have made it clear that I missed your intended meaning.
There is no problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 03-09-2011 8:41 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 377 (608181)
03-09-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by havoc
03-09-2011 9:46 AM


[qs=havoc]It takes an act of will to design a thing.So an accidental rock slide causing a water dam is not designed but a beaver dam is.[/quote]
Beavers intentionally build dams, but I'm not convinced that beavers design dams.
Is the act of will enough to establish design? If I am told to draw a 3 inch circle and I do so using a compass, did either I or my instructor design the circle? Is a definition of design that excludes things like the circle example reasonable.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 9:46 AM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:43 AM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 377 (608186)
03-09-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by havoc
03-09-2011 10:23 AM


Self Evident??
havoc writes:
That is exactly what I think. From reading this board it sounds like most of the Darwinists on this board will admit design is self evident when it is the result of a human act.
What you think as expressed above is not correct. Essentially all of us, including regardless of our opinions of Behe's or Dembski's theories, accept that we can establish whether an object has been designed when we know the processes by which the objects are made and the intent of those involved.
On the other hand, at least some proponents of ID believe that we can determine design without knowing or even speculating about process, intent, or even the nature of the designer. I would not call myself a Darwinist, but I am skeptical that such a thing can be done. In particular, I think Behe's approach is complete bullocks.
I don't see anything the least bit inconsistent with those positions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:23 AM havoc has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 377 (608194)
03-09-2011 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by havoc
03-09-2011 10:43 AM


havoc writes:
Nonukes writes:
Beavers intentionally build dams, but I'm not convinced that beavers design dams
What do you mean? Is it a question of understanding why you are doing a thing?
I'm sure beavers know what they are building and why.
In my opinion the question is whether beavers make intelligent, conscious choices that affect the structure or functioning of the dam. Perhaps you know whether beavers do that and maybe I just don't know enough about beavers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:43 AM havoc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 11:18 AM NoNukes has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 377 (608198)
03-09-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
03-09-2011 11:18 AM


jar writes:
They know enough to recognize changes in the sound of water running over or through the dam and take action to fix the leak or damage.
That "knowledge" might be mere instinct. If so would that still constitute design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 11:18 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 11:44 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 377 (608203)
03-09-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by havoc
03-09-2011 10:50 AM


quote:
I think the circle question is more conceptual ie: Who is responsible for the design? Which designer gets credit for the circle?
I'm not sure either party has designed anything. The answer to my question depends on your definition of design. Do you have a definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 10:50 AM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 1:13 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 377 (608206)
03-09-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by havoc
03-09-2011 11:31 AM


Made by humans.
Now my point was that and arrow head is accepted as designed by evolutionists because they know the maker ie: man.
That's going to be wrong every time you say it. Knowing who made something can help us to determine that something is designed, but it is not enough alone. One thing we do know about humans, is that they don't have very many instinctive behaviors.
And yes, at some point, we can make statements about arrowheads generally. Nobody is saying that induction never works. But generalizations are not justified simply because they are presented in inductive form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 11:31 AM havoc has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 377 (608294)
03-09-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:03 PM


havoc writes:
There is no known natural law that causes non living matter to become living matter.
What a silly thing to say. Living things accomplish this all of the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:03 PM havoc has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 377 (608302)
03-09-2011 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by slevesque
03-09-2011 5:19 PM


slevesque writes:
All I'm saying is that, if anything, the fact life is only found on earth can only be seen as evidence against life arising naturally. In no circumstances can this be taken as evidence that it can.
The fact that life is only found on earth is equally good evidence against the creation of life by ________ (fill in the blank). This form of argument would not seem to be all that helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:19 PM slevesque has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 377 (608310)
03-09-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by slevesque
03-09-2011 5:43 PM


Finding life elsewhere
quote:
If I speak for myself yes it would. I probably would not feel that it is conclusive evidence, but it would certainly be evidence for a naturalistic origin of life over any ad hoc explanation I could come up with as a christian.
You've said this before, and I believe you are completely sincere about it. I've always found such statements quite curious. The Bible is of course completely silent about any activities God may have undertaken elsewhere in the universe. I cannot imagine any discovery man could make with a telescope that would undermine my Christian faith.
I can imagine discoveries using a time machine that might be problematic...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:43 PM slevesque 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