Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
67 online now:
candle2, CosmicChimp, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), vimesey (6 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,040 Year: 4,152/6,534 Month: 366/900 Week: 72/150 Day: 3/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting Design
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 28 of 59 (542431)
01-10-2010 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
01-09-2010 11:15 PM


Re: identifying design based on knowledge of the designer
quote:
Whereas a nice projectile point is clearly "designed" even if you find only one, and it is away from any cultural deposit.

But do you really have evidence of design, or of manufacture that copies a design?

That's a real chicken/egg question.

Flintknapping is a very difficult trade to learn well. You have to be a designer JUST to mimic an established pattern. Each rock, each tool, each blow is going to give you different results from every other one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2010 11:15 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1721 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 40 of 59 (542578)
01-11-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tanndarr
01-10-2010 6:46 PM


Re: identifying design based on knowledge of the designer
I'm getting the feeling that a part of detecting design is having a large body of evidence that is carefully examined and re-examined to identify features and patterns indicating design.

What I've been pointing out on a different thread is that you can't really detect design unless you know the mechanism of design.

In the case of stone tools, we can only determine if they are designed because we know how rocks smash together and what happens.

If I were to present you with a material you'd never seen before you couldn't determine if it was natural or manipulated because you'd have no concept of how it could be manipulated.

I think the ID proponents have been ignore this KEY aspect of the debate.

If you can't tell me HOW design was implemented, you can't possibly detect whether or not it was implemented.

The not above about prime sequences in the DNA is a good argument against what I'm saying, however it's still just a mathematical pattern - I'm sure similar patterns can be found in seashells or crystals or butterfly wings, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tanndarr, posted 01-10-2010 6:46 PM Tanndarr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tanndarr, posted 01-11-2010 6:45 PM Nuggin has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022