Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 373 (644317)
12-17-2011 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 6:20 AM


So then there's two choices:
produced by natural unintelligent causes
Which is what you say
or
intelligent supernatural causes
Which is what I/we say
Dr Adequate writes:
If you want to argue that some DNA was made some other way, the onus is on you.
So then you're good? No need to backup how DNA or anything was produced unitelligently? The onus is on us?
How about you show how DNA was produced unintelligently out of nowhere and we'll work on showing how it was produced SN. The first one to the finish line wins.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:20 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:49 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 47 by jar, posted 12-17-2011 9:59 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2011 10:45 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 373 (644320)
12-17-2011 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 6:49 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
I don't think that it was "produced out of nowhere". I do, however, think that it was not produced supernaturally, because in my experience nothing is. Every time we manage to definitively find out the cause of something, it turns out to have natural causes
Ok, you think it was not produced SN because your experience says different. For instance a computer was not produced SN of course, is that what you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 7:10 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 373 (644323)
12-17-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 7:10 AM


A computer is just one specific case.
Well, based on my experiences, computers are designed, are they not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 7:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 7:17 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 373 (644327)
12-17-2011 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 7:17 AM


I said that they weren't supernatural, not that they weren't designed.
Ok but you agree they are designed. We can tell they were designed. Design leaves fingerprints. Can't you see intelligent design all around us? Anything? Or are we to believe it came about some other way as you suggest?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 7:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 7:39 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 12-17-2011 10:42 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 373 (647078)
01-08-2012 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Just being real
01-08-2012 3:47 AM


mike the wiz writes:
Good points you make, they will never acknowledge it though, in nine years they always give the standard answers but those answers are not satisfying. We have no reason to believe in macro-evolution.
Hi just being real. I agree with mike. You're doing a fine job on this thread here. Thanks for all the info and knowledge.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 3:47 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 6:41 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 373 (647086)
01-08-2012 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK
01-08-2012 5:20 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Paulk writes:
Berlinski has no biological qualifications either
David Berlinski: Academic career: Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University[3], and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes tudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
Mathematics and biologyBerlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics. These include A Tour of the Calculus (1997) on calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm (2000) on algorithms, Newton's Gift (2000) on Isaac Newton, and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005). Another book, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (2003), compares astrological and evolutionary[disputed — discuss] accounts of human behavior.[citation needed] In Black Mischief, Berlinski wrote Our paper became a monograph. When we had completed the details, we rewrote everything so that no one could tell how we came upon our ideas or why. This is the standard in mathematics.[6][better source needed]
David Berlinski - Wikipedia
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2012 5:20 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 5:50 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 255 by cavediver, posted 01-08-2012 6:01 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 373 (647094)
01-08-2012 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Just being real
01-08-2012 5:46 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Yeah really. Scientist' havn't studied every fossil either, but you wouldn't ever know it from the things they say about fossils.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 5:46 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 6:01 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2012 6:08 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 373 (647104)
01-08-2012 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Granny Magda
01-08-2012 6:08 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Granny Magda writes:
No-one is forcing those fossils to support the ToE. There is no conspiracy to hide the counter-examples. All it would take to completely rewrite our understanding of how evolution works would be a single Cambrian rabbit fossil. Or a Devonian ginkgo fossil. Or a Silurian albatross fossil. Or any one of an unimaginably long list of anachronistic fossils. They're never found.
Why do you suppose that is?
It appears to me that the so-called "cambrian explosion" supports Creationism with the sudden appearence of these animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2012 6:08 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 6:37 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 265 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2012 6:46 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 373 (647105)
01-08-2012 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by cavediver
01-08-2012 6:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
cavediver writes:
Part of 1971? and whose sole academic output at that time was a paper on the *philosophy* of biology. Sorry, PaulK's point stands.
Sorry cavediver but making liitle laughing smiley faces (which seems to be your trademark) does not make Berlinski's credentials any less credible. Nor does it make PaulK's point.
Give it another shot. This time without the smilies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by cavediver, posted 01-08-2012 6:01 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2012 6:38 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 266 by cavediver, posted 01-08-2012 6:49 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 373 (647119)
01-08-2012 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Granny Magda
01-08-2012 6:46 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Granny Magda writes:
It would only take one Cambrian rabbit (or equivalent) to throw a monkey wrench into the ToE; why aren't creationists out there looking for it? Could it possibly be because, deep down, they know they won't find it?
Doesn't this worry you at all?
So you want creationists to try to falsify a strawman position? By saying only one little rabbitt will falify our false theory?
If the TOE is untrue how can something that is already false be falsified?
It's setup to cover anything that would dare come againt it. Like the definition of a "scientific theory"
It leaves the door open to cover everything under the sun and whenever someone comes along with different intepretation on all the evidence available to everyone you just say we're not following the scientific method.
Well then what exactly is the scientific method. Do you agree that science follows the scientific method for the TOE?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2012 6:46 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2012 7:05 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:06 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 272 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2012 7:09 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 373 (647131)
01-08-2012 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by PaulK
01-08-2012 7:05 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
No, it's a strawman to say that a rabbit would falsify the theory, that is what i'm saying.
To say that the cambrian is "evolutions" little time period and then to say "find a rabbit in it" is misleading.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2012 7:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2012 7:23 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:28 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 373 (647137)
01-08-2012 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Dr Adequate
01-08-2012 7:28 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
outreaches your command of the English language.
Insults is your best quality. If you would like to start a thread on the english language go for it. If not leave your insults at the door Doc. It's very unbecoming of you. Well, not really... <---compliments cavediver

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:47 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 373 (647139)
01-08-2012 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Dr Adequate
01-08-2012 7:28 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Yes, a strawman is when someone misrepresents their opponents position.
Maybe that was the wrong word to use. Lie would have been better. So the TOE is a lie and made up and to boot, just find a nice little rabitt where we say it can't exist and you have falisified our lie that cannot be falisified because we wont let it be falsified with all of the false information we use to craft the theory to begin with. Like the cambrian explosion for example. How neat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:45 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 280 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2012 7:55 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 281 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2012 7:58 AM Chuck77 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