|
Author
|
Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 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 |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 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: 10085 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 |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 198 of 377 (608248)
03-09-2011 3:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 190 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:07 PM
|
|
Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
Why do I have to give you this evidence? You don't have to if you don't want to. However, if there is no evidence then I can not be certain that there is design in biological organisms.
Are you saying there is no evidence for design? Not at all. I am saying that I have yet to see any.
My point is no evidence is 100% so at what point do you make the leap to say it is designed. What evidence allowed you to make the leap, and why?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 190 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:07 PM | | havoc has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 199 of 377 (608250)
03-09-2011 3:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:03 PM
|
|
Life does not occur by chance. Evidence please.
There is no known natural law that causes non living matter to become living matter. There is no known law that prevents it.
So there is very little chance that life and the genetic code are not designed. The genomes and species we see now are the product of evolution, not abiogenesis. Evolution is a non-random process. So how do you differentiate between a non-random natural process that shapes genomes and design?
So at this level of certainty I am quite comfortable in saying that life was designed. What certainty? All you have is baseless claims.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 189 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:03 PM | | havoc has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 203 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 4:38 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 202 of 377 (608256)
03-09-2011 4:00 PM
|
|
|
Designed?
If you saw this laying on the sidewalk would you think it was designed?
Doesn't look like an arrowhead, that is for sure.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 205 of 377 (608271)
03-09-2011 4:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by havoc
03-09-2011 4:38 PM
|
|
Pasteurization So if life does not appear in a bottle of milk in the matter of weeks this means that life can not appear in volumes the size of the oceans over millions of years across billions of planets? I think you are a bit off on this one.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 4:38 PM | | havoc has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 210 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 5:02 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
First of all, the burden of proof is on those who claim life can arise through natural processes. No more so than those who claim it came about by design.
Second, the fact that despite all our efforts we fail to find life elsewhere . . . Seriously? What percentage of planets in the universe have we thoroughly searched for life? We haven't even checked all of the planets and moons in our own solar system.
Life isn't just chemistry, it is an emergent property of the atoms when arranged in a very specific way. The same could be said for any non-living matter made up of more than one atom.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 4:49 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 212 of 377 (608284)
03-09-2011 5:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 210 by havoc
03-09-2011 5:02 PM
|
|
Pasteurization is experimental, operational science. So where in this experiment does it demonstrate that life can not come from non-life?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 210 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 5:02 PM | | havoc has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 227 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:15 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
Koch, A.L., Enzyme evolution: I. The importance of untranslatable
intermediates, Genetics 72:297—316, 1972. Can we see the quote in context with the rest of the text? Also, do you have a source that is a little more recent than 39 years ago?
It becomes a matter of chance if some good combination of mutations happened during that time.
It is not a matter of chance that these fortuitous mutations are passed on at much higher rates than other mutations to the point that they become common within the population. It is also not a matter of chance that this process is iterative and is working on millions of mutations in parallel.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:00 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
This is not a coherent logical argument, as the conclusion does not followfrom the premises. It is no different than your inductive proofs.
Once again, that conclusion would not follow from the premises. So you are saying that humans have been around since the beginning of life? Remember, the only known origin of IC systems is humans.
I have done so here Message 149. No, you didn't. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: All IC systems of known origin were produced by humans. If you disagree, then please show a counterexample.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 213 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:11 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 260 of 377 (608432)
03-10-2011 10:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 217 by slevesque
03-09-2011 5:19 PM
|
|
You cannot ask him to prove a universal negative. I can ask that arguments not be based on universal negatives.
It is the same as if I asked you evidence if you claimed ''supernatural creation is impossible''.
I am very careful to never make that claim. However, "IC can not evolve" is the basis for evidence in ID. ID is nothing more than negative arguments, false dichotomies, and arguments from incredulity.
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. How did you determine that life is only found on Earth?
I think that's the basic idea behind the fallacy of composition. In fact, my biology textbook when I was in Cegep would consistently emphasize that a biological system was more then it's individual components.
Emergence is a property of many non-living systems. The property of "wetness" is an emergent property of many water molecules interacting. I would say that emergence is a poor way to differentiate between living and non-living chemistry.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 217 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:19 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 261 of 377 (608434)
03-10-2011 10:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by havoc
03-09-2011 5:35 PM
|
|
Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
Explain color vision in the terms of slight changes required by Darwin.
This thread is asking for evidence of design, not evolution. It is incumbent on you to explain color vision in terms of design, and the evidence that supports it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 220 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 5:35 PM | | havoc has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 262 of 377 (608435)
03-10-2011 11:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 224 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:02 PM
|
|
Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
I dont think evolution could ever lead to this level of design. Reality is not forced to conform to your incredulity. Please provide evidence, not opinion. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 224 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:02 PM | | havoc has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
|
|
Message 263 of 377 (608436)
03-10-2011 11:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 235 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:57 PM
|
|
Sure it is. His experiment proved Non life can not become life spontaniously did it not? How did his experiment show this?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 235 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:57 PM | | havoc has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
