Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 1:46 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,019 Year: 9,055/19,786 Month: 1,477/2,119 Week: 237/576 Day: 40/98 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 123 of 153 (587133)
10-17-2010 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 3:06 AM


Re: qRe: Evidence
Hi Dawn,

Don't you remember that arguments that evolution is incomplete because it doesn't deal with the origin of the universe are off-topic in this thread? See Message 31, here's an excerpt:

Admin writes:

If you would like to discuss how the various fields of science outside of cosmological investigations of origins are incomplete if they don't include how the universe originated then you'll have to propose a new thread.

I'm having trouble sorting out what you mean in your Message 115:

Dawn Bertot writes:

Percy writes:

So you're saying that order is evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of order you're thinking about. Is a crystalline structure evidence of design?

You're also saying that laws of nature are evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of law you're thinking about? Is the law of gravity evidence of design?

No a crystalline is the result or design of an already existing order in the form of its substructure, molecules, etc

So order that emerges from a lower level order isn't evidence of design?

But the lower level order in molecules and atoms *is* evidence of design?

You go on:

The kind of law that produces a result that is identifiable, ie, sight, hearing, taste, etc. The individual parts operate in an orderly fashion to produce a usable function. Or they operate in an orderly fashion to produce the clear and evident result, that is visible and observable

So sight, which is based upon an internal order of molecules and atoms, is evidence of design, but crystals, which are also based upon an internal order of molecules and atoms, are not evidence of design?

About usable functions, how do you conclude that crystalline salt does not have a usable function while sight does?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 3:06 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 11:31 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1877 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 124 of 153 (587135)
10-17-2010 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 2:53 AM


Re: Evidence
properties working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to produce a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose, or even an appaernt purpose

working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to produce
this whole phrase means:
produce

"a clearly visible, demonstratable" "or even an appaernt"
this means:
detectable

So, in summary:
Order is: properties producing a detectable purpose.

Please describe how it is possible for a property (i.e. weight) to produce a purpose (e.g. cure a headache).
Maybe some examples would help clarify things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 2:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 125 of 153 (587137)
10-17-2010 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 11:40 PM


Re: Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:

Order is always evidence of order and design...

"Order is always evidence of order..."???

Really?

Anyway, assuming that what you really meant to say is that order is always evidence of design, then you're contradicting what you say in Message 115 where you draw a distinction between order in a crystal versus order in things like sight and hearing. How is the order in a crystal not evidence of design while the order in a gloppy mess like the gall bladder *is* evidence of design?

You asked to go one-on-one earlier. Before I'd consider that I'd move this thread back to Proposed New Topics so you can clarify your position and define your terms.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 11:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 126 of 153 (587140)
10-17-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Dawn Bertot
10-16-2010 11:27 PM


The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Dawn Bertot writes:

Percy writes:

.......Is a crystalline structure evidence of design?.......

No a crystalline is the result or design of an already existing order in the form of its substructure, molecules, etc

Dawn, where you're in trouble here is that you're obfuscating/confusing the role the Biblical designer. All existing order in the entire universe has been designed by Jehovah, including all forces and observed phenomena, including the formation of crystals.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-16-2010 11:27 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by hooah212002, posted 10-17-2010 10:18 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 137 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 11:05 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2354 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 127 of 153 (587145)
10-17-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 3:40 AM


Re: Evidence
Evos are afraid of design because of its implications.

Evos aren't afraid of design. We oppose the design concept do to the lack of evidence. As I said show some evidence that design is correct. An idea does not become a theory on rhetoric alone.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 3:40 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:03 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 128 of 153 (587151)
10-17-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 3:24 AM


Re: Evidence
If you want to establish a scientific field of "design" a good start would be a reliable definition of what is designed and what is not. That definition will have to separate things that are clearly natural from things that are clearly designed, and it will have to make a good start on determining whether those things which are borderline are designed or not. If you can come up with rules which make a good start in these determinations, then we have something to work with. So far creationists haven't even tried to come up with such rules.

Your rules are your own, they fly in the face of that which is simply reasonable. "A definition of what is designed and what is not", is primarily determined by logic and observation of order in natural properties. it doesnt need your approval to be reasonable,logical and demonstratable.

Your arrogance assumes as much. All I need to do is establish that is orderly, logical and law abiding, for it to be designed, or the possibility of design. it follows the same rules exacally as any explanation of a mechanism or its conclusions, whether direct or indirect

This is where you are having problems. Your definition of what is designed is no more than, "I can tell it when I see it."

"Orderly, logical, and law abiding" can describe the formation of crystals, ice, stalactites, "silk frost" formations, earth hummocks, and hexagonal clay shrinkage cracks.

What is your rule for determining whether these types of things are designed or not? Without some rule, you are left only with the useless "I can tell it when I see it" definition.

Do you have any rules or not?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 3:24 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:22 AM Coyote has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 129 of 153 (587154)
10-17-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 3:06 AM


You should know very well (since you are such a seasoned public debater in the evo-creo arena) that evolution has fuck all to do with origins. If you knew so much about evolution, you would know that it could occur whether there was a magic sky daddy farting atoms into existence, abiogenesis occurring, transpermia etc.

Whether in evolution or design, we are forced by logic and reason to ask where the process came from, thatprovides the mechanism..

Nope, not at all. You see, different fields of science have a neat way of not trying to overlap one another. The field of, let's say: Evolutionary Biology, has no business in bothering with where it all came from or "the eternal existence of matter". Cosmology is the field that is trying to work that out. Nor does the Theory of Evolution have any say so on the origins of matter.

While, yes, you could have a discussion about the origins of matter when dealing with someone who accepts evolution as opposed to ID and ask them where they think matter came from, it would have absolutely NO BEARING on evolution whatsoever.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 3:06 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:36 AM hooah212002 has responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 130 of 153 (587156)
10-17-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Buzsaw
10-17-2010 8:51 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Dawn, where you're in trouble here is that you're obfuscating/confusing the role the Biblical designer.

....but but but DB isn't advocating for a biblical designer, Buz. DB is an IDist...... They claim there is a difference.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 10-17-2010 8:51 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Buzsaw, posted 10-17-2010 10:51 AM hooah212002 has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 131 of 153 (587161)
10-17-2010 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by hooah212002
10-17-2010 10:18 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
hooah writes:

Buzsaw writes:

Dawn, where you're in trouble here is that you're obfuscating/confusing the role the Biblical designer.

....but but but DB isn't advocating for a biblical designer, Buz. DB is an IDist...... They claim there is a difference.

Ah, thanks, Hooah. I forgot about that. No wonder Percy's point pevailed over DB, the deist. The unique Biblical model remains the only logical and prevalent alternative for the enormity of design observed.

Edited by Buzsaw, : fix quotes


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by hooah212002, posted 10-17-2010 10:18 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by hooah212002, posted 10-17-2010 11:23 AM Buzsaw has responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 132 of 153 (587164)
10-17-2010 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Buzsaw
10-17-2010 10:51 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
DB, the deist.

No, Buz. IDist, not deist. BIG difference. ID pays lip service alone to claiming themselves separate from religionists. They claim the designer is not "god", or that they don't know who or what the designer is (even though we know full well they are creationists in disguise).


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Buzsaw, posted 10-17-2010 10:51 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 1:15 PM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 134 by Buzsaw, posted 10-17-2010 1:53 PM hooah212002 has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 133 of 153 (587180)
10-17-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by hooah212002
10-17-2010 11:23 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
but but but DB isn't advocating for a biblical designer, Buz. DB is an IDist...... They claim there is a difference.

No, Bertot is neither in this instance, he is a rational thinker, Deism or ID is not rquired to establish my position, only reality and rational thought applied to physical properties

Its the simplest of all propositions

I will get to the other post as quickly as I can today, very busy.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by hooah212002, posted 10-17-2010 11:23 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by hooah212002, posted 10-17-2010 3:22 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 134 of 153 (587186)
10-17-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by hooah212002
10-17-2010 11:23 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
hooah writes:

No, Buz. IDist, not deist. BIG difference. ID pays lip service alone to claiming themselves separate from religionists. They claim the designer is not "god", or that they don't know who or what the designer is (even though we know full well they are creationists in disguise).

Oh, so according to the Online Dictionary we have some deists on this board who are disquising themselves as pseudo-ID creationists. Interesting.

Online Dictionary; #1 Noun definition; deist:

deist - a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it
freethinker


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by hooah212002, posted 10-17-2010 11:23 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by hooah212002, posted 10-17-2010 3:19 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 135 of 153 (587193)
10-17-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Buzsaw
10-17-2010 1:53 PM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
What are you smoking, Buz? There are only 2 members on this board that I can think of off the top of my head who claim to be Deists: RAZD and Percy (correct me, Percy, if I am wrong). You are the only one conflating the two terms, since you are the one who brought it up. You DO know what ID is, correct? You DO know what the ID movement is, correct?

As far as the definition you quoted, it is far more widely accepted that Deists do not ascribe to "god" as YOU know it. It is more of a belief in "A" god. If you wish to start a thread wherein you conflate the terms further, I (and a few others I am sure) would be glad to participate.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Buzsaw, posted 10-17-2010 1:53 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 136 of 153 (587195)
10-17-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Dawn Bertot
10-17-2010 1:15 PM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
You are arguing for design from the standpoint of intelligent design. You ARE taking the ID standpoint. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can we expect you to be honest with us?

Deism or ID is not rquired to establish my position,

So now you are also going to conflate the two terms as well?


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-17-2010 1:15 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-18-2010 8:41 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 137 of 153 (587241)
10-17-2010 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Buzsaw
10-17-2010 8:51 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Dawn, where you're in trouble here is that you're obfuscating/confusing the role the Biblical designer. All existing order in the entire universe has been designed by Jehovah, including all forces and observed phenomena, including the formation of crystals.

I agree and I am saying the samething you are from a more basic level. I dont need the conclusions 0f design, evolution, ID and creationism to demonstrate a point so simple it cannot be missed unless one is being deliberately evasive, such as our friends here

The relative shape a crystal becomes is not DECIDED by a geometric standard, because there is none. Its substructure in the form of molecules can be observed and evaluated in the order of thier performance, which is always the same to produce a RELATIVE shape, BUT the substructure is always the same and that is where you observe the continual and consistent order

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 10-17-2010 8:51 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019