|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Percy writes: I already said Dembski only thinks he can detect design. What you said previously was this:
quote: I took that to mean that Dembski had a mathematical definition for design. Clearly, you did not mean that at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Removed by author
Edited by NoNukes, : Going into lurk mode for this thread. Don't want to dogpile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
[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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
quote: 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...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024