|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: Where Dembski is right, in my view, is in thinking that the problem must be approached mathematically. Why? For example I looked at the three pictures you presented up thread and can see ways to determine which are design without any math at all. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: Hmmm. Without reading back, didn't you already agree that you hadn't defined design? Maybe not, but otherwise isn't what you're doing is identifying things done or made by people? --Percy Yes, I agree that we have not defined design and in fact go so far as to say it is irrelevant and very likely impossible to define design. I think what can be done is identify where there was some influence and interference from some intelligent entity and that to do that it is necessary to determine the actual entity and possible methodology. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Perdition writes: Perhaps there is a definition that we might agree on for the purposes of debate here. But there don't seem to be any ID proponents participating in this thread. Par for the course. Most IDists tend to scatter once we star asking for specifics. Either that, or they ignore those requests and keep making bald assertions. I have to admit, I'd much rather they stop talking rather than ignore our questions, but I'd love it if one of them would have the courage of their convictions and stick around honestly. I think this has actually been productive. Sure we can argue whether the Beaver wanted to design a Damn or just create a pond where he could be safe, we can argue if the termite wanted to create a home of just built what worked, BUT, in every case so far we have been able to specify the entity involved and the method/model used to create the artifact. It's that step, identifying the entity and the method/model that the Creationists and ID supporters seem to lack. If they could present similar evidence of the entity that we can produce for beavers or termites or humans, and models similar to what we have for a beaver damn or termite mound or Stonehenge, then their might be something worth discussing. Until then, Creationism and Intelligent Design will simply remain jokes and fantasy. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes: I Think you are going in the wrong direction in this discussion. The issue is not if there are designed things that can look just like undesigned things, but if there are specific attributes that you will only ever observe when looking at something that was designed. This is not saying, of course, that all designed things have these attributes, but rather that if you do observe one, then it was designed. One such criteria that was proposed by the ID movement was irreducible complexity, another was specified complexity. I have seen other criteria proposed such as emergent properties but it was a bit ill-defined. The basic idea was that if a certain numbers of pieces were arranged in a specific way in order to have a new property emerge (such as the arrangement of metal that makes a plane fly), then it was designed. So it not really what characteristic do all designed thing have in common, but rather what characteristic can identify something as designed if it is present. So give us the way that you can identify Specified Complexity or why Irreducible Complexity would indicate design. I can assure you that so far no one in the ID cult has done so. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes: What about the IC systems that we do not know the origin of? How does IC evidence design in these instances? You can inductively conclude design in those instances. HUH? How? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024