For Herepton and any others interested

if this gets promoted, put this in showcase, please? Its aimed for them, so I'd like for them to at least be able to answer the question. Also, I'm not going to get into a debate over this--I just want to know their answers, regardless of what they answer with.

Recently Herepton, you used this phrase:

Who changed the truth...." = appearance of design corresponds to invisible Designer

the key here is the phrase "appearance of design".

why is it "appearance of design"? why that word?

here's why I'm asking. what does the moon "appear" to do?
does it rotate around its axis? does it "appear" to do so?
common sense would say no, it doesn't rotate, because we always see the same face of it. logic tells us that it does actually rotate, or else those on the other side of the world would see the opposite face, and we might even eventually. it just happens to rotate once for every revolution.

appearance is a word that carries baggage of falsenss. Something "appears" to be, not necessarily "is".

I can say it "appears" that randman is crazy. He might not be. He could be.

so when you say "appearance" = (equals), or, is, you have a problem.

so why do you use "appearance of design" equals?

do you not think that it "is" designed? if so, why use a word that carries the conotations of falseness and uncertainty?

from my side of the fence, using that word in that statement is quite illogical and undefendable. I await your response.

As a reminder, I'm not here to debate. I am here to hear your answers.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

the key here is the phrase "appearance of design". why is it "appearance of design"? why that word?

Because both Creationists and Darwinists agree that organisms appear designed. Creationists and Darwinists depart in this respect: Creationists know the appearance is actual; Darwinists assert the appearance is illusory.

so when you say "appearance" = (equals), or, is, you have a problem. so why do you use "appearance of design" equals?

In this case I should have not used =/equals; it was redundant since I also used the word "corresponds."

do you not think that it "is" designed? if so, why use a word that carries the conotations of falseness and uncertainty?

This is a very good point, but I explained why above. To reiterate: I used appearance BECAUSE both camps agree with this term in this context.

If I were talking to Creationists then I would not need or use a qualifier. We bow to straight forward logic: design indicates invisible Designer. What more does God have to do?

As a reminder, I'm not here to debate. I am here to hear your answers.

Go ahead and debate if you feel like it.

Ray

We bow to straight forward logic: design indicates invisible Designer. What more does God have to do?

Evolutionism contains the approach of using semantics to by definition reclassify the straightforward obvious logic and evidence for God and claim that a priori, this evidence cannot be considered as evidence of God. It's propaganda tactics on their part.

Herepton writes: Creationists know the appearance is actual; Darwinists assert the appearance is illusory.

Actually, in a way you could say that Darwinists also believe that things ARE designed. The question is by what? Have you ever heard of the monte carlo method?

design indicates invisible Designer. What more does God have to do?

This is somewhat nonsense. Just because a program seems to be working fine with windows doesn't mean it was created by Bill Gates or Microsoft.

Like I said, in a way of speaking, evolution is all about design. The real question is by what? Creationists say the judeo-christian god designed everything. Evilutionists say a natural algorithm, if you will, designed everything.

This is somewhat nonsense.

How is design = invisible Designer nonsense?

What would you have an invisble Designer do, design a mindless process?

I notice evolutionists always dodge this question with nonsense.

Darwinists always claim to be "open" for evidence of God. The appearance of design indicates invisible Designer. We say the appearance of design logically indicates the work of an invisible Designer. Darwinists say the same characteristic indicates anti-intelligent process (NS).

Since when does design indicate antonym?

When atheist needs are present.

Again, what more does God have to do?

Ray

Herepton writes: How is design = invisible Designer nonsense?

I wasn't referring to design. I was referring to appearance of design.

What would you have an invisble Designer do, design a mindless process?

I don't know. What I do know is that the universe looks more like a clock than a simple I/O arithmetic program.

I notice evolutionists always dodge this question with nonsense.

We're not dodging. We're just saying that going from "appearance of design" to "the designer must be the judeo-christian god and the holy bible (king james version) is his living word" is quite a big jump.

Darwinists always claim to be "open" for evidence of God.

As far as I know, no scientifically minded person would ever say he is "open" for evidence of god. Science is designed to deal with purely natural phenomena. In other words, we refuse to take the "goddunit" as an explanation for the unknowns, or gaps in knowledge.

But if you will, if we had followed the path creationists suggest long ago, we would never have figured out that the solar system more closely resembled the heliocentric rather than the geocentric model. If we had followed the path creationists suggest we take, we wouldn't be having a satellite communication system at all.

Why proceed with human endeavor if we start using "goddunit" to explain the gaps? "Goddunit" does nothing to further our understanding of the universe.

The appearance of design indicates invisible Designer.

How do we measure this designer? Do we fill the room up with water and calculate the difference between the calculated volume and the measured volume?

Unless creationists can present evidence that religious inspiration can and do further human understanding of the physical universe, science stays an investigative tool purely for natural phenomena.

We say the appearance of design logically indicates the work of an invisible Designer. Darwinists say the same characteristic indicates anti-intelligent process (NS).

First of all, we don't say that the appearance of design characteristics indicate anti-intelligent process. All we are saying is that purely natural explanations seem to be adequate enough to explain the appearance of design. Again, I must point to the monte carlo method, which has very similar characteristics as random mutation and natural selection. And we look forward to purely natural explanations to fill in the gaps of knowledge sometime in the future.

But the even bigger reason why we must not and cannot accept "goddunit" as an explanation in scientific endeavor is it does absolutely nothing to further our understanding of the universe. The discovery of anti-biotics resulted directly from the theory of evolution and has saved more lives than all the faith healers ever did. No, I don't have any data to back this up, but I have studied enough history to know that if I can count more on anti-biotics than the local priest or pastor when I get a potentially life-threatening infection.

Since when does design indicate antonym?

Fortunately, science goes beyond words, otherwise we'd still believe that falling stars are actually falling stars.

When atheist needs are present.

I don't understand what you mean here.

Again, what more does God have to do?

Well, IFF there is a god, and IFF god created everything and intended for us to find him/her/it, nothing at the moment.

How big do you suppose the universe is? How many "natural laws" do you think we haven't discovered yet? Admittedly, I haven't quite hit the big 30 yet, but I do know that what we don't know is a hell of a lot more than what we do know.

Take a look at it this way. When you were little, did your father ever hid easter eggs for you to find? If not, just imagine it. Just imagine a loving father hiding easter eggs around the yard and around the house. Imagine how disappointed he would be if you, as a little child, refuse to go around finding the eggs and declare that all the eggs to be found are in daddy's possession.

Now, imagine how disappointed god would be if we simply throw up our hands and declare "goddunit" to explain every natural phenomenon we discover, especially after he/she/it went through the trouble of creating this vast universe with all the natural algorithms just sitting there waiting for us to discover.

Do you think at the moment it is more emotionally satisfying for daddy for you to find the eggs or for you to just sit there, worship daddy, and declare that all the eggs are in his possession?

I must confess that I gave up on believing in a god some years ago. But if you really believe in god and love him/her/it, the more sensible thing for you to do is start investigating natural phenomena out there and try to find explanations for them other than "goddunit". In other words, if you really love daddy, go around and hunt for the eggs :)

why does the designer have to be invisible?

design = invisible Designer

the second does not naturally follow the first. it makes more sense to leave out the word invisible.

and then, what do you mean by designer? evolution has a design process called natural selection. that is the designer of evolution. i don't think that's the designer you mean.

Edited by kuresu, : changed "designer" to "invisible", in the sentences following the quotebox.

---

Question. Always Question.

" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I'm in shock. No replies from either Herepton or Randman? Knowing you guys as I do (mostly from lurking in your threads), you usually don't let people like Kuresu and me off that easily. What gives?

Even a false argument needs to be cogent to blast it.

As far as I know, no scientifically minded person would ever say he is "open" for evidence of god.

What is your argument? That no scientists can or would discuss the idea that evidence points to God due to the rules of secular science? In other words, damn the evidence, we are rejecting any notion of God whatsoever.

After awhile, there is no need to refute you since your words effectively make the same argument we are making, if someone is intelligent enough to really weigh what you are saying.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : corrections

randman writes: Tazmanian Devil writes: As far as I know, no scientifically minded person would ever say he is "open" for evidence of god. What is your argument? That no scientists can or would discuss the idea that evidence points to God due to the rules of secular science? In other words, damn the evidence, we are rejecting any notion of God whatsoever.

I agree that TD is making the wrong argument. Scientists should be open for evidence of anything. The qualifier is that the evidence, if we're talking about scientific evidence, must be objectively and repeatably observable. Objective means that the observation is unaffected by observer bias, and observable means both directly or indirectly observable, meaning that instruments like telescopes, microscopes, thermometers, spectrographs and stethoscopes are valid means of making objective observations. Depending upon the phenomena under study, experiments may need to be very carefully designed.

--Percy

randman writes: What is your argument? That no scientists can or would discuss the idea that evidence points to God due to the rules of secular science? In other words, damn the evidence, we are rejecting any notion of God whatsoever.

Perhaps I should have been more clear on this point.

In another part of my post you were referring to, I specifically stated that science isn't equipped to deal with anything beyond the natural. God, by your very own definition, is supernatural, which, by your own words, couldn't be tested or measured. By claiming something as evidence of a supernatural being, you are essentially admitting that we are dealing with an unknown that can't possibly be tested or measured by any conventional mean. How does that further our understanding of the universe?

After awhile, there is no need to refute you since your words effectively make the same argument we are making, if someone is intelligent enough to really weigh what you are saying.

After a while? I think this is the first time I've ever engaged in a direct conversation with you.

Percy writes: Scientists should be open for evidence of anything.

I have no argument with this statement. However, so far the only evidence presented of "god", is essentially non-evidence. For example, how many times have we seen the creationist/IDist make the argument that life is made up of irreducibly complex systems and this is evidence of a creator. Further more, how many times have we seen the creationist make the argument that the judeo-christian god is the one true god because the bible says so and we know the bible is god's true word because god says so?

When I said no scientifically minded person should ever consider the so-called "evidence for god", I was referring to the non-evidence evidence.

But don't mind me. I'm willing to sit back and wait for any creationist or IDist to present at least an outline of how god can be tested or measured. No, the holy spirit doesn't count.

Objective means that the observation is unaffected by observer bias, and observable means both directly or indirectly observable,

I agree and thanks for the post. Probably where we don't agree is thinking that we look at the natural world's design and infer a Designer. In other words, the design itself is an indirect observation of an invisible Designer.

On a more specific note, but not to delve into here, I think there are aspects of QM that relate to immateriality and design in the formation of all physical things which show promise as far as ID theory....but we can leave that alone for this thread.

God, by your very own definition, is supernatural,

That's not true. You may have heard me throw out the word, supernatural,....I don't know, but I have consistently argued that if we are using a definition of natural as essentially "real", from a scientific perspective, God is then natural and part of the natural or real world of the universe. Now, whether all of God can be thought of as such, I agree is perhaps unknowable, but biblical concepts of God include an immanent aspect of God's being as the foundation for physical and all reality. There is an interconnectedness between God and the physical world.

Paul said it this way.

In Him, we live and move and have our being.

He was in Athens and referenced a specific Greek philosophy on this point as accurate.

So there is no reason to think science cannot test for God or spiritual dimensions and things like that. Imo, we already are testing for aspects of interactions with spiritual dimensions in quantum mechanics. Spiritual is just a word referring to a dimension of reality.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.