Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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)
havoc
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 181 of 377 (608213)
03-09-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jar
03-09-2011 11:51 AM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
If we cannot identify something as designed then we must say sorry, there is no evidence that it is designed.
What level of certainty would you say is required before you could say something is designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 11:51 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 1:32 PM havoc has replied
 Message 183 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 1:34 PM havoc has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 182 of 377 (608215)
03-09-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by havoc
03-09-2011 1:18 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
What level of certainty would you say is required before you could say something is designed?
That level of certainty depends on the evidence. So what is the evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 1:18 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 1:48 PM Taq has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 183 of 377 (608216)
03-09-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by havoc
03-09-2011 1:18 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
havoc writes:
If we cannot identify something as designed then we must say sorry, there is no evidence that it is designed.
What level of certainty would you say is required before you could say something is designed?
I would need a very high level of confidence, near 100%.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 1:18 PM havoc has not replied

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


Message 184 of 377 (608218)
03-09-2011 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Taq
03-09-2011 11:34 AM


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.
Taq:
What if you found a rock that looked just like an arrow head but lacked the other forensic evidence that you point out. No tooling marks no other arrow heads around. My point is that I don’t think we need to know exactly how a thing was made to know that it was made. We don’t have to know its maker (although it makes it nicer) to know it has one.
Edited by havoc, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 11:34 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 1:48 PM havoc has replied

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


Message 185 of 377 (608220)
03-09-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Taq
03-09-2011 1:32 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
That level of certainty depends on the evidence. So what is the evidence?
Why? The evidence should lead to your level of certaity. I mean if you could quantify it would you be happy to say some thing was designed if you were mostly certain.
At some point the odds of something happening randomly are so small they should be discounted. So if you are observing something that is not random and is not ordered by natural law then odds are it is designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 1:32 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 1:51 PM havoc has replied
 Message 188 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 2:02 PM havoc has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 186 of 377 (608221)
03-09-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by havoc
03-09-2011 1:41 PM


What if you found a rock that looked just like an arrow head but lacked the other forensic evidence that you point out. No tooling marks no other arrow heads around. My point is that I don’t think we need to know exactly how a thing was made to know that it was made. We don’t have to know its maker (although it makes it nicer) to know it has one.
Without the tool marks it would not look like an arrowhead. Also, arrowheads do not reproduce all on their own and evolve. Life does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 1:41 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:03 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 187 of 377 (608222)
03-09-2011 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by havoc
03-09-2011 1:48 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
The evidence should lead to your level of certaity.
Right. So what is the evidence?
At some point the odds of something happening randomly are so small they should be discounted. So if you are observing something that is not random and is not ordered by natural law then odds are it is designed.
So how do you tell the difference between something ordered by natural law and something that is designed? With evolution we have a natural law that produces non-random DNA sequences. So how do we differentiate between non-random evolution and design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 1:48 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:07 PM Taq has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 188 of 377 (608226)
03-09-2011 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by havoc
03-09-2011 1:48 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
havoc writes:
At some point the odds of something happening randomly are so small they should be discounted. So if you are observing something that is not random and is not ordered by natural law then odds are it is designed.
Why?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 1:48 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:18 PM jar has replied

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


Message 189 of 377 (608228)
03-09-2011 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Taq
03-09-2011 1:48 PM


Without the tool marks it would not look like an arrowhead. Also, arrowheads do not reproduce all on their own and evolve. Life does.
Certainly there must be examples of arrow heads where the tooling marks have been eroded by water or wind and sand. But since all known Arrow heads have been designed and have a creator I would say it is likely designed and likely has a creator.
Evidence of design:
Life does not occur by chance. There is no known natural law that causes non living matter to become living matter. So there is very little chance that life and the genetic code are not designed. So at this level of certainty I am quite comfortable in saying that life was designed. Same goes for the unmarked arrow head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 1:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 2:11 PM havoc has not replied
 Message 199 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 3:38 PM havoc has replied
 Message 200 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 3:40 PM havoc has replied
 Message 219 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 5:23 PM havoc has not replied

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


Message 190 of 377 (608230)
03-09-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Taq
03-09-2011 1:51 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
Right. So what is the evidence?
Why do I have to give you this evidence? Are you saying there is no evidence for design? My point is no evidence is 100% so at what point do you make the leap to say it is designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 1:51 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 2:15 PM havoc has replied
 Message 198 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 3:34 PM havoc has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 191 of 377 (608231)
03-09-2011 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:03 PM


no evidence is ... no evidence
havoc writes:
Without the tool marks it would not look like an arrowhead. Also, arrowheads do not reproduce all on their own and evolve. Life does.
Certainly there must be examples of arrow heads where the tooling marks have been eroded by water or wind and sand.
If the evidence is not there then we cannot say it is an arrowhead.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 192 of 377 (608233)
03-09-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:07 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
havoc writes:
Right. So what is the evidence?
Why do I have to give you this evidence? Are you saying there is no evidence for design? My point is no evidence is 100% so at what point do you make the leap to say it is designed.
There is no evidence of Biological Design.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:07 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:27 PM jar has replied

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


Message 193 of 377 (608235)
03-09-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
03-09-2011 2:02 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
Why?
I think that covers most options.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 2:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 2:33 PM havoc has not replied

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


Message 194 of 377 (608236)
03-09-2011 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by jar
03-09-2011 2:15 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
There is no evidence of Biological Design.
So Im assuming that you think that there is evidence for non biological design. Can you objectively observe a non biological thing and make a determination as to whether it is designed or not? Does this same evidence apply to biology? If not why not? Do you accept the same evidence in one case but not in the other?
I think the evolutionist thought goes like this. Life is not designed so there is no evidence of design in life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 2:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 2:38 PM havoc has replied
 Message 197 by Coyote, posted 03-09-2011 2:46 PM havoc has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 195 of 377 (608238)
03-09-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
havoc writes:
Why?
I think that covers most options.
That does not answer the question.
Why should we discount something based only on fictitious and unsupported odds?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:18 PM havoc 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