|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is my rock designed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Try that again. This time in English.
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Try that again. This time in English. Playing the dumb card or commedy card wont help your cause and it makes your position look weak in front of our viewers Are you saying you cant answer the argument? You and your friends have started with a false presupposition and ran with it, this is why it is so easy to refute what is not true to begin with Come on Hooah, give it a shot Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
No, seriously. You make absolutely no sense. You are rambling in typical Dawn Bertot fashion. It's not that you are making these astounding arguments that baffle me and amaze me, it's that your handle on the English language is that of a 4 year old Swedish kid.
Try again, in English that we can all understand."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1780 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes:
it still hasnt Dawned on any of you fellas that ID and Creationism dont begin with the relative design involved in any living thing. It begins with the a logical proposition, that states because things work in an orderly fashion, in coherent harmony with its parts, to a verifiable purpose, design is a very real probability
We may have something here which may lead to a usable metric. Let's assume that the probability that a specific thing was designed (design probability: DP) is correlated to a suitable combination of: a) How well it works in an orderly fashion,b) How much coherent harmony exists among its parts, and/or c) The degree to which its purpose is verifiable. Let's call this combination of those three ingredients DP(a,b,c) such that
where 0 stands for impossibility, 1 stands for certainty, and 0.5 would be the probability of a coin flip. Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed. Edited by DWIII, : typo-fixDWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
it's that your handle on the English language is that of a 4 year old Swedish kid. What do you have against sweedish children, are they less intelligent than anyother four year old?
It's not that you are making these astounding arguments that baffle me and amaze me It looks as though DWIII understands the points and has made a rational response and request He doesnt seem to be scared of the argument Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed. Very nice post, I will get to it as soon as I can give it the attention it needs Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
What do you have against sweedish children, are they less intelligent than anyother four year old? What language do they speak? Are you that dense that you didn't comprehend what I was saying?
It looks as though DWIII understands the points and has made a rational response and request I don't give a fuck if you think he understood it or not. If you wish to address ME you should expect to make your argument that I can understand it if I so request, which I did. You will also notice that DWII didn't actually address any specific piece of drivel that you typed. So, instead of blathering on about some nonsense: is the rock designed? How can you tell? Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2936 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined:
|
quote: I'm guessing that will be sometime around the twelfth of never. Edited by ts, : No reason given. Edited by ts, : quote tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Ts writes
I'm guessing that will be sometime around the twelfth of never. Actually no, but that is very funny "twelfeth of never". thats commical As you know the EVC is very addicting and one could spend countless hours at an unending process, point counter point Anyway lets see DWIII writes Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed. Since we dont derive the idea or conclusion of design from a designer or the idea of a designer, but from how something is put together, it makes perfect sense to apply the same reasoning and equation to any property in nature that exhibits the same properties of organization and purpose When viewing any man made property, we rarely consider who put it together, brfore we subconsously understand its obvious organization, function and purpose Who, when and where is usually an after thought of an already eixsting precondition of the thought process when confronted with obvious design While design is both relative and a relative term, that doesnt mean that overwhelming organization should be discarded, simply because it is relative in appearance Shape size and apprearance of say, just humans, is a relative design, because each one is different to a certain degree If you look deeper however and more specific the organization and detail becomes more appearent Using a single rock is simply not a valid approach to the principle of design While probabilty is a consideration, it still does not remove the visible evidence of things working in harmony to affect a clear purpose Again, whether something was designed and whether we decide that it was designed, is not what makes the design principle valid Its valid because of its organization and harmony to a clear purpose I simply dont see how that simple yet recognizable principle can ever be avoided or ignored, unless one really works hard to do so We simply dont, recognize design by WHO might have put something together, but by its existing organization, function and purpose This is why the design argument can never be overturned or refuted Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1780 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
DWIII writes Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed. Since we dont derive the idea or conclusion of design from a designer or the idea of a designer, but from how something is put together, it makes perfect sense to apply the same reasoning and equation to any property in nature that exhibits the same properties of organization and purpose
This is precisely what we are asking you to do, "to apply the same reasoning and equation to any property in nature that exhibits the same properties of organization and purpose". Why won't you do so?
If you look deeper however and more specific the organization and detail becomes more appearent Using a single rock is simply not a valid approach to the principle of design
What prevents you from looking deeper into a single rock? If you cannot adequately handle the simpler cases, how can we trust that you can handle the more complex cases?
While probabilty is a consideration, it still does not remove the visible evidence of things working in harmony to affect a clear purpose
You are the one who mentioned "probability", which itself is a well-defined mathematical concept (ranging from 0 = impossible to 1 = certain).
Again, whether something was designed and whether we decide that it was designed, is not what makes the design principle valid Its valid because of its organization and harmony to a clear purpose I simply dont see how that simple yet recognizable principle can ever be avoided or ignored, unless one really works hard to do so We simply dont, recognize design by WHO might have put something together, but by its existing organization, function and purpose
You keep repeating yourself. I had already noted (extracted and paraphrased from one of your uncharacteristically coherent statements) that
quote: So why are you so afraid to apply these three (presumably measurable) criteria to any specific object?
Dawn Bertot writes:
When viewing any man made property, we rarely consider who put it together, brfore we subconsously understand its obvious organization, function and purpose Who, when and where is usually an after thought of an already eixsting precondition of the thought process when confronted with obvious design While design is both relative and a relative term, that doesnt mean that overwhelming organization should be discarded, simply because it is relative in appearance Shape size and apprearance of say, just humans, is a relative design, because each one is different to a certain degree
Sadly, I see essentially no design exhibited in this bizarre section of prose, since it clearly lacks both function and organization. (I can't speak to the alleged purpose, however...)
This is why the design argument can never be overturned or refuted
Actual science does not fear falsifiability. DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Actually no, but that is very funny "twelfeth of never". thats commical The Twelfth of Never has become a catchphrase in American popular cultural. It's the title of a well known pop song first recorded by Johnny Mathis. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Fascinating...
Anyway - back to the OP - "How can I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?" If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes: We simply dont, recognize design by WHO might have put something together, but by its existing organization, function and purpose This is why the design argument can never be overturned or refuted Well, that's settled then: the design argument is not science. If it were, it would have to be falsifiable, which you just proclaimed it isn't. Dawn, the crux of the design argument is that ID-ists infer the existence and the intelligence of a designer from the observation of apparent design. They do concentrate on who and not so much on how. They see organization, function and purpose, and conclude that it must have been put together by someone - and a very specific someone too, even if they don't always admit it openly. Scientists too see organization, function and purpose, but they conclude it must have been put together somehow, not necessarily by someone. True, an eye is highly organized, it is functional in various ways, and it clearly serves the purpose of providing vision to its owner. But how does that indicate there can only be one explanation for the way it came to be? Even if we were to accept that intelligence must be involved, there would still be room for more than one explanation. The specifics of various eyes, if considered thoroughly, do not really indicate brilliant design. On the contrary, if anything, they could indicate incompetent design, or mis-communication among a team of designers, or multiple cases of plagiarism among competing designers, et cetera. If we look beyond eyes and consider, for example, malaria, we might even be tempted to conclude the existence of an evil designer, or a blundering designer, who let a dangerous experiment escape the lab. Or, at best, a benign designer who happens to give the interests of Plasmodium falciparum precedence over those of Homo sapiens. And those are just a few possible explanations if we entertain the thought of intelligence being involved. Since intelligence itself is a rather complex phenomenon, which demands an explanation of its own, it might serve us well to look for other, simpler explanations. The mindless process that ensues when organisms with varying heritable traits compete for scarce resources, i.e. the process of evolution, is a very viable candidate in that respect. It accounts for (self-)organization, function, and purpose just as well as intelligent design, and it has the added benefit that it also accounts for apparent blunders and other mishap, while obviating the need for the involvement of intelligence. Occam would be pleased."Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
It begins with the a logical proposition, that states because things work in an orderly fashion, in coherent harmony with its parts, to a verifiable purpose, design is a very real probability So now you need to supply some physical evidence for design. Design being true could have a probalility of being zero. The more evidence you can provide to support design being true (e.g. a test to identify when something is designed and when it isn't [the purpose of this thread]) the more we have to accept the probability is approaching '1'. As yet we have no test for what is designed and what is not (hence this thread) so we can't currently say that 'things being designed' is anythning more than wishful thinking.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
et we have no test for what is designed and what is not (hence this thread) so we can't currently say that 'things being designed' is anythning more than wishful thinking. Sorry I havent got to these any quicker, many things going on. I have already typed out responses just need to get them on the site Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024