|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Dawn Bertot writes: No. I believe that complex order is evidence of complex order. By any reasonable rule of evidence that would be evidence to support the logical conclusion that it is designed. Coyote has several times mentioned the counterexample of the complex order of the snowflake (among other things). What is the train of logic that leads you to conclude it is not designed? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4210 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
But, now watch, it in no way points to the idea that there is no evidence for a designer, when complex order is present. Where is the order? You see order, I see chaos. The Universe, numerous galaxies randomly spaced, of different kinds and sizes where is the order? The solar system planets revolving around a star not in circular orbits bur elliptical and with different eccentricities where is the order? The earth rotates not with its axis not perpendicular to the plane of rotation but ~23 degrees from the plane. The revolution does not have an equal number of rotations where is the order? Life required nourishment to survive, it takes in food and converts this into tissue but also into energy much of which is wasted as heat, it also requires energy to break down the food (catabolism) and built up the tissue (anabolism). where is the order? all chaos. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
x
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Apparently, you are fucking dense and do not understand that I am directing you to a different topic where this discussion is ON-TOPIC. I will remind you, the thread I am directing you to is in the science section, so you need to provide evidence for your claims. I had some arrogant little turds like you in the service , you wont stop until you get your way Ok I responded to your other thread and I dont think you are going to like it. I CANNOT believe you actually made a comment orconclusion like that in post 7. That is hands down the funniestthing I have ever heard Dawn Bertot--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Actually, I do. And I also understand grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Sorry I will try and do better, Im typing without my reading glasses C writes:
You, on the other hand, seem to be grasping at straws. Speaking of straws, are these soda straws "designed?" Percy writes: Coyote has several times mentioned the counterexample of the complex order of the snowflake (among other things). What is the train of logic that leads you to conclude it is not designed? Ill answer both at the same time. I have now several times addressed this issue. That which is a result of the mechanism or in this case organisms and molecules, which arethe more complex order, is a relative representation of the visible order of the living orderely organism. the shape of the snowflake is relative, to the living ordered organism. the order of the organism is not relative, the shape it produces is Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Ill answer both at the same time. I have now several times addressed this issue. That which is a result of the mechanism or in this case organisms and molecules, which arethe more complex order, is a relative representation of the visible order of the living orderely organism. the shape of the snowflake is relative, to the living ordered organism. the order of the organism is not relative, the shape it produces is I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but that is gibberish. Just tell me, is the snowflake designed? Are the soda straws that we sometimes find in caves designed? And how do you know? Do you have a set of rules that can differentiate complex shapes that are designed from those that are natural? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Ill answer both at the same time. I have now several times addressed this issue. That which is a result of the mechanism or in this case organisms and molecules, which arethe more complex order, is a relative representation of the visible order of the living orderely organism. the shape of the snowflake is relative, to the living ordered organism. the order of the organism is not relative, the shape it produces is I can't make any sense out of this. Let me try to list and distill down what appear to be the statements of fact, followed by my questions.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
x
Edited by Admin, : Hide content of duplicate post. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but that is gibberish. Wow I was hoping for more than your inability to respond to an argument. Ill accept this as your inability to respond to the argument
Just tell me, is the snowflake designed? Are the soda straws that we sometimes find in caves designed? Bad form Coyote where I am obligated through badgering to respond to all of your questions,, but with a wave of the hand your able to simply state, "This is Gibberish" Take a lesson from Percys approach and you might learn manners and how to debate correctly For the fourth or fifth time now, the shape you see in the snowflake is a RELATIVE shape, it can have no design where the is nothing else to compare it with, UNLIKE THE ORGANISMS AND MOLECULES that make its shape, which are ordered, designed and comparative to others that do exist. Im tired of answering the same question over and over, its time for you to respond to my argument. Quit running Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Dawn Bertot writes: For the fourth or fifth time now, the shape you see in the snowflake is a RELATIVE shape, it can have no design where the is nothing else to compare it with, UNLIKE THE ORGANISMS AND MOLECULES that make its shape, which are ordered, designed and comparative to others that do exist. I'm afraid I can't make sense of this either. I'll break it down like I did before as best I can:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The snowflake is a relative shape. (Relative to what?) Isnt relative self explanatory. it cant be relative to something else if its relative. No design because it is not comparable to anything else, if all snowflakes are different, correct?
(So things that have nothing to compare with are not designed? If I have that right, how do you arrive at this conclusion?) (If there's nothing to compare a snowflake with then how can its shape be relative to something?) I didnt say there was nothing to compare a snowflake with, I said there is nothing to compare its shape to, because no snowflake is shaped the same, correct? The basic structure of the snowflake, that which is its makeup, the molecules and the such like are comparable to others in a different place and are testable to be the same order of another snowflake, even if the other produces a different relative shape
Organisms and molecules are ordered. (No problem with this.) Now you are starting to get it. While the shape is different that which makes up the snowflake is the same ordered organism and molecules, testable and comparable in another place
Organisms and molecules are designed. (Isn't this just a declaration of your conclusion?) No. this is a declaration of the testable and observable order, using a rule of evidence, the conclusionof which is demonstratable and irrefutable, but not absolutley provable Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Coyote has several times mentioned the counterexample of the complex order of the snowflake (among other things). What is the train of logic that leads you to conclude it is not designed? --Percy What are the "among other things", he mentioned, I dont remember anyother examples besides the straws anad snoflakes Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What are the "among other things", he mentioned, I dont remember anyother examples besides the straws anad snoflakes
In Message 160 I presented snowflakes, quartz crystals, stalactites, and the aurora as examples. If you don't like snowflakes because each is different, perhaps quartz crystals would be a better example, as those follow a regular pattern. Are they designed or not? And more importantly, how can you tell? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you don't like snowflakes because each is different, perhaps quartz crystals would be a better example, as those follow a regular pattern. Are they designed or not? And more importantly, how can you tell? My message 326 answers all of this in detail, all you need do is respond to it. That is if your are bound by the same rules that that I am in this forum Have at it Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sorry, I can't make heads or tails out of your argument.
You claimed snowflakes aren't designed because each is different so I provided you with the example of quartz crystals where each is essentially the same. But somehow your argument has morphed. Are you now saying that only living things are designed, and that natural objects are not? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024