Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 151 of 377 (612751)
04-18-2011 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by SavageD
04-18-2011 12:52 PM


Re: common design
since we know such objects are near impossible to come about through chance. for example, a watch
Of course, one significant difference between a watch and a DNA molecule is that a watch is composed of smaller parts that do not come together by themselves naturally whereas the smaller parts of a DNA molecule do combine together naturally by themselves.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 12:52 PM SavageD has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 152 of 377 (612752)
04-18-2011 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by SavageD
04-18-2011 12:52 PM


Re: common design
SavageD writes:
Because I observe all other lifeless planets, I personally have reason to believe that life forms are in some way, synthetic.
Yes, life forms are synthetic, synthesized by a natural process of mutation and selection.
SavageD writes:
To say that these complex mechanism's came about through a cycle of chance & selection would be irrational.
Not irrational. Scientific. We know a lot about those mechanisms through observation.
SavageD writes:
If the cycle is guided by chance then whats selecting?
Selection is a simple process. A lion "selects" the zebra that he can catch. The one he eats can't pass its genes on to the next generation, so any mutations that it carried are "selected out" of the gene pool.
But this topic isn't about design per se. The OP suggests that if life was designed, it was probably by a group of designers instead of one - i.e. the design hypothesis points away from the Christian God.
Edited by ringo, : Fixed tense: "is designed" --> "was designed".

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 12:52 PM SavageD has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 377 (612760)
04-18-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by SavageD
04-18-2011 12:52 PM


Re: common design
To say that these complex mechanism's came about through a cycle of chance & selection would be irrational.
If the cycle is guided by chance then whats selecting? If you are then asking whats selecting, you are then going to ask, where did this mechanism to select come from? You would have to conclude that it came about by chance, thus making the process start all over again. This is illogical, its called circular reasoning.
The selections happened through chance and chance occurrences happens through selection.
If you were to say that the mechanism to select did not come about by chance, then that would leave the only other alternative,
the mechanism is a probably a product of design.
This shows a misunderstanding of how natural selection works. Would you like explanations of those misunderstandings or are you just going to push back harder against them?
For example,
If you are then asking whats selecting, you are then going to ask, where did this mechanism to select come from?
The selective process did not come from something, its simply inherent to imperfect replication in a competitive environment. Does that make sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 12:52 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 377 (612762)
04-18-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


Just about everything designed that we see is designed by lots of designers and the more complex it is the more designers we have. So why do you assume that only one designer designed a universe as complex as ours your own logic points to there being tones of designers some designers designed stars, some rocks, some planets, some plants, some bacteria, some animals .......
Simply following the ID logic, one is not lead to a single designer.
To get to the single designer, they use the uncaused first cause argument.
All of it, though, is simply post-hoc rationalizations of pre-conceived monothesim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 5:24 PM frako has not replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3751 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 155 of 377 (612766)
04-18-2011 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by New Cat's Eye
04-18-2011 3:13 PM


Re: common design
Catholic Scientist writes:
The selective process did not come from something, its simply inherent to imperfect replication in a competitive environment. Does that make sense?
I already know what natural selection is and no, your not making sense. Your claiming that, \\the selective process did not come from something//...in effect what YOU are saying is:
Natural selection is simply there because it is there, there are no means through which this mechanism originated. It is simply passed on, so no it did not result from chance...This is a logical fallacy. Your not even attempting to say how the system for this selection could have arose.
From the evolutionist stand point natural selection arose through chance processes and thus depends on accumulative chance occurrences. Thus making natural selection a mechanism of chance on a whole. This kind of thinking is both irrational and illogical.
My point: Natural selection is a mechanism resulting from design, as it is the only other alternative to explaining how such a complex & intricate mechanism can arise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2011 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 04-18-2011 4:51 PM SavageD has replied
 Message 169 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2011 6:14 PM SavageD has not replied

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


Message 156 of 377 (612767)
04-18-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by SavageD
04-18-2011 4:49 PM


Re: common design
SavageD writes:
Catholic Scientist writes:
The selective process did not come from something, its simply inherent to imperfect replication in a competitive environment. Does that make sense?
I already know what natural selection is and no, your not making sense. Your claiming that, \\the selective process did not come from something//...in effect what YOU are saying is:
Natural selection is simply there because it is there, there are no means through which this mechanism originated. It is simply passed on, so no it did not result from chance...This is a logical fallacy. Your not even attempting to say how the system for this selection could have arose.
From the evolutionist stand point natural selection arose through chance processes and thus depends on accumulative chance occurrences. Thus making natural selection a mechanism of chance on a whole. This kind of thinking is both irrational and illogical.
My point: Natural selection is a mechanism resulting from design, as it is the only other alternative to explaining how such a complex & intricate mechanism can arise.
Nonsense.
Utter nonsense.
Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in.
Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 4:49 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:03 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 157 of 377 (612769)
04-18-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ringo
04-15-2011 12:24 PM


Re: I Agree With Slevesque
But if you think that all scams involve selling you Brooklyn bridge you will fall for all manner of scams that having nothing to do with selling you Brooklyn bridge.
Brooklyn bridge scams are a subset of scams.
Biblical creationists are a subset of those who believe in Intelligent Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ringo, posted 04-15-2011 12:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 04-18-2011 6:45 PM Straggler has not replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3751 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 158 of 377 (612771)
04-18-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by jar
04-18-2011 4:51 PM


Re: common design
jar writes:
Nonsense.
Utter nonsense.
Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in.
Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm.
Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms.
Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in".
Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 04-18-2011 4:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 04-18-2011 5:08 PM SavageD has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 159 of 377 (612773)
04-18-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Taq
04-15-2011 11:07 AM


Re: I Agree With Slevesque
Taq writes:
The beginning of any ID investigation starts with a person's religious beliefs and never strays far from them.
OK. But that doesn't mean that IDists are biblical creationists does it?
Taq writes:
But it is inherently creationist, no matter what the religious flavor is.
Jar believes in a creator of "all that is seen and unseen". Is he a creationist? Is he an IDist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Taq, posted 04-15-2011 11:07 AM Taq has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 160 of 377 (612774)
04-18-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
04-15-2011 4:34 AM


Re: Parsimony?
Straggler writes:
You have asserted that parsimony has "nothing to do with reality" but beyond that assertion you haven't said anything at all to counter the following:
1) The more parsimonious a proposal is the less likely it is to be wrong because the fewer assumptions it contains that are unsupported.
2) The no designer proposition is the most parsimonious.
Do you have any counter-arguments? Or just your already stated assertion?
jar has acknowledged this reply
I guess that says it all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2011 4:34 AM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 161 of 377 (612775)
04-18-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by SavageD
04-18-2011 5:03 PM


Re: common design
SavageD writes:
jar writes:
Nonsense.
Utter nonsense.
Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in.
Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm.
Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms.
Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in".
Again, get your definitions correct. Natural Selection is just the filter, it is the world and environment we live in. It really is that simple.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:03 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:15 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 162 of 377 (612777)
04-18-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ringo
04-15-2011 11:04 AM


Re: Parsimony
ringo on parsimony writes:
As I said, my understanding is that that applies to different kinds of entities, not multiple instances of the same kind.
Where are you getting that from? Regardless - Zero designers remains the most parsimonious conclusion.
Ringo writes:
Straggler writes:
Surely you agree that zero unevidenced designers is the most parsimonious proposition. This really is incontrovertible isn't it?
That isn't the topic here.
All hail the precise wording of the topic.
Ringo writes:
We're considering the hypothetical if there is at least one designer.
We are considering why many rather than one. Or indeed none. You are making a distinction between designers and creators that doesn't apply to any religious context.
Ringo writes:
In the case of life on earth, we have evidence of common descent. In the case of phantom designers, we don't.
Exactly. So parsimoniously we conclude no designers. Which in a religious context is functionally the same as no creators.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ringo, posted 04-15-2011 11:04 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Jon, posted 04-18-2011 5:25 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 171 by ringo, posted 04-18-2011 6:57 PM Straggler has replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3751 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 163 of 377 (612778)
04-18-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
04-18-2011 5:08 PM


Re: common design
jar writes:
SavageD writes:
jar writes:
Nonsense.
Utter nonsense.
Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in.
Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm.
Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms.
Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in".
Again, get your definitions correct. Natural Selection is just the filter, it is the world and environment we live in. It really is that simple.
"get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 04-18-2011 5:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Jon, posted 04-18-2011 5:19 PM SavageD has replied
 Message 168 by jar, posted 04-18-2011 5:31 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 377 (612779)
04-18-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by SavageD
04-18-2011 5:15 PM


Re: common design
"get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition?
It's not the definition of 'natural selection'. And, jar already defined 'natural selection', so a comparison of your definition and his should give you some indication as to where you went wrong.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:15 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:24 PM Jon has replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3751 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 165 of 377 (612781)
04-18-2011 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Jon
04-18-2011 5:19 PM


Re: common design
Jon writes:
"get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition?
It's not the definition of 'natural selection'. And, jar already defined 'natural selection', so a comparison of your definition and his should give you some indication as to where you went wrong.
Jon
Wait I'm confused, where did I go wrong with my definition?
Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms.
Enlighten me o_o...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Jon, posted 04-18-2011 5:19 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Jon, posted 04-18-2011 5:26 PM SavageD 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