|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Working in reverse it would stand to reason that anything not made by an intelligent (creature, human, animal, being, thingy kabob) is not designed. 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. Drift wood is not designed the act of displaying it is designed. The effect of erosion is not designed but the presidents in Mt. Rushmore are.
This does not mean that everything created by an intelligent being is designed. If I accidentally spill paint on canvas the resulting picture is not designed but if I intentionally pour paint on canvas the aforementioned picture is designed. So the result of an intentional act by an intelligent being is designed. This is the crux of IC and of SC. You might not like Dembski’s method of getting there but I think most would admit that if a thing has specified complexity then it is designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
I really doubt it, unless you also think that they would then go on to disagree with Dembski's assertion that there is specified complexity observable in living systems. 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. Seems to me that most here would accept specified complexity or intentional order as designed so long as we are familiar with its designer. Since they discount a creator of life out of hand then the same order seen in the living things is not excepted as designed. Edited by havoc, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
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? If so, I’m not sure of the self awareness of a beaver but I think it must know that it is building a dam to back up the water to improve its habitat. Understanding why an act was done is probably not required to determine whether it is designed or not. Certainly we could find an artifact made by an alien and without having any idea of what their level of self awareness was we could determine that it was designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
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. Im not sure who designed the circle but finding a stone tablet with a circle carved into one would be correct to assume that it was designed. I think the circle question is more conceptual ie: Who is responsible for the design? Which designer gets credit for the circle? Both interesting questions but I think they are outside of evidence of design, you have to already know that a thing was designed before you could get to your question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Why? I think that covers most options.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Life does not occur by chance. Evidence please. Pasteurization
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
What is the difference between living matter and non-living matter? Matter is made up of atoms, which form molecules, whether that form is living or not. When you get down to it, biology is just chemistry, which is just physics. Tell me what law forbids a chemical reaction from perpetuating itself if given the required components of said chemical reaction I think most people think there is a difference between living and non living.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024