|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ringo writes: Now, what about the dam? How can you tell whether the rocks fell into the river accidentally or were thrown there by me? Sometimes we may not be able to tell, and in that situation the default should be to attribute it to nature. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Taq 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. I would call it non-controversial. When an archaeologist is digging at a site and comes across an arrowhead and an earthworm which one do you think he sends back to a museum as an artefact of intelligent engineering? I would not call it self evident, rather supported by evidence. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NoNukes writes: 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. 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. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jar writes:
Yes, if there's an overhanging unstable rock face then it would be reasonable to assume a natural fall (though the fall could still have been caused by human intent). On the other hand, if there was no source of rocks within a mile, it would be reasonable to conclude human design. Sometimes we may not be able to tell, and in that situation the default should be to attribute it to nature. You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
I would not call it self evident, rather supported by evidence So you know something is designed by the evidence of design. Now my point was that and arrow head is accepted as designed by evolutionists because they know the maker ie: man. So to them it is self evident. Maybe we don’t disagree on this point. It goes back to the inductive argument from earlier in this thread. All arrow heads are designed so this arrow head must be designed. It seems perfectly logical to me. Do you have other evidences that you are speaking of? Could you identify a thing as designed if you were unsure of its maker or originator?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
So you know something is designed by the evidence of design. Now my point was that and arrow head is accepted as designed by evolutionists because they know the maker ie: man. So to them it is self evident. Maybe we don’t disagree on this point. It goes back to the inductive argument from earlier in this thread. All arrow heads are designed so this arrow head must be designed. It seems perfectly logical to me. We can also observe designers making arrowheads, and we can even find ancient sites where the arrowheads were made complete with arrowheads that didn't make the cut and the flakes of flint left over from the process. We also observe that arrowheads do not reproduce, so they can't make themselves. Not so with life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
havoc writes: Could you identify a thing as designed if you were unsure of its maker or originator? Give it a try:
Modern art (designed) or natural? And how can you tell? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NoNukes writes: 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? As I have said several times, I don't think the term design can ever fully be defined. It does show intervention of a known entity driven by reaction to specific events and meant to produce a given outcome. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
havoc writes: I would not call it self evident, rather supported by evidence So you know something is designed by the evidence of design. Now my point was that and arrow head is accepted as designed by evolutionists because they know the maker ie: man. So to them it is self evident. Maybe we don’t disagree on this point. It goes back to the inductive argument from earlier in this thread. All arrow heads are designed so this arrow head must be designed. It seems perfectly logical to me. Do you have other evidences that you are speaking of? Could you identify a thing as designed if you were unsure of its maker or originator? Utter nonsense. I do not claim that I know design by evidence of design. The knowledge that the arrowhead is not caused naturally is NOT self evident, it is a conclusion based on knowing that humans do knap, that the characteristics of a knapped rock are different than one split naturally. That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or evolutionists and the fact that you introduce evolution simply shows that either you are woefully ignorant of evolution or are trying to mislead the audience down some rabbit hole. If we cannot identify something as designed then we must say sorry, there is no evidence that it is designed. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Coyote writes: havoc writes: Could you identify a thing as designed if you were unsure of its maker or originator? Give it a try:
Modern art (designed) or natural? And how can you tell? Looks like crystal of some sort...maybe table salt magnified?? You cant really examine it only by looking a single picture and determine. there is no perspective of size for one. It would need to be handled at the least in order to see tool marks or have many photos taken in a more scientific way. No way to say based on one picture, LOL maybe its art in the form of a picture of a natural crystal, if so then yes it, the photo, was designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
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? I gave my thoughts earlier. I agree that if you have one meaning and I have another then we are dealing with apples and oranges. Do you have a definition?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024