Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 166 of 377 (608192)
03-09-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by ringo
03-09-2011 10:47 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by ringo, posted 03-09-2011 10:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 03-09-2011 11:28 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 167 of 377 (608193)
03-09-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Taq
03-09-2011 11:02 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 11:02 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 11:31 AM jar has 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

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


Message 169 of 377 (608195)
03-09-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by NoNukes
03-09-2011 11:16 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 11:16 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 11:30 AM jar has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 170 of 377 (608197)
03-09-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by jar
03-09-2011 11:13 AM


jar writes:
Sometimes we may not be able to tell, and in that situation the default should be to attribute it to nature.
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.

You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 11:13 AM jar has not 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

havoc
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 172 of 377 (608200)
03-09-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by jar
03-09-2011 11:15 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 11:15 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 11:34 AM havoc has replied
 Message 174 by Coyote, posted 03-09-2011 11:36 AM havoc has not replied
 Message 177 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 11:48 AM havoc has not replied
 Message 178 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 11:51 AM havoc has replied

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


Message 173 of 377 (608201)
03-09-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by havoc
03-09-2011 11:31 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 11:31 AM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 1:41 PM Taq has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 174 of 377 (608202)
03-09-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by havoc
03-09-2011 11:31 AM


Designed?
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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by fearandloathing, posted 03-09-2011 12:58 PM Coyote has 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

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


Message 176 of 377 (608204)
03-09-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by NoNukes
03-09-2011 11:30 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 11:30 AM 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

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


Message 178 of 377 (608207)
03-09-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by havoc
03-09-2011 11:31 AM


Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 11:31 AM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 1:18 PM jar has replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 179 of 377 (608211)
03-09-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Coyote
03-09-2011 11:36 AM


Re: Designed?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Coyote, posted 03-09-2011 11:36 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 03-09-2011 3:50 PM fearandloathing has not replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 180 of 377 (608212)
03-09-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by NoNukes
03-09-2011 11:37 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 11:37 AM NoNukes has seen this message but 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