The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

The infinite monkey theorem disagrees with you. If youve never heard of this, its the whole "monkey at a desk writing Shakespeare" bit. If you havent, just take it on faith : )You can actually mathematically prove that with enough time, a conceivable but statistically improbable even will occur.You said order means design, EVERY TIME. A random act of chance will eventually yield something that is ordered, but was not designed. Therefor, your point is disproved.

The drill is simple, for two reasons. First of all, you know what drills do and you know that they were made for the specific purpose of drilling. Easy-peasy.How do you know that life's purpose is to live? Im willing to accept the argument the argument that purpose hints at design, for now. Ill run with the drill metaphor.ABE: Or that you have a purpose at all?
How do you know what your purpose is with any certainty at all?Edited by Damouse, : Hmm.

This example has the misfortune to actually include an item that we all know was designed. Kinda steals the thunder away from your challenge : PLets try with something else. Gravity? Or even better, applied gravity: Black holes. What is your reasoning behind the belief that black holes are created, based on their purpose or design?Also, i noticed you haven't responded to my last post on the previous page. Are you just conceding the point, or have you missed it?

Lemmings? Heroin addicts? Suicidal people? All counterpoints. This is a correlation without any mechanism hinted at. It also happens to be a logical fallacy.You said that because we spend time living, our purpose is to live. In other words, we live so we can live. The drill drills so it can drill. Fire burns so it can burn.You're begging the question a wee bit.

This is by far one of the stupidest and misinformed things i have ever heard from a theist.Beliefs dont make you a theist.Belief and faith are NOT exclusively tied to religion. The difference between belief and knowledge is a hotly debated topic in philosophy.Everyone has many more beliefs than they do knowledge. For example, you do not know that your watch will fall when you drop it. You believe you do. I believe it too. You also don't know if it will break. You don't know if you'd die if you'd decapitate yourself. These are all beliefs.I believe the universe around me exists. I do not know. I cannot know.

As you wish. Its not that difficult.Its much more difficult to do as i asked and to prove what purpose something has based on it's function that is fundamental the the universe, like gravity. But we all pick our battles. That tends to happen when you tell someone "GOTCHYA!" Not sure why....Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

---

This statement is false.Tell the blunt, honest truth in the starkest, darkest way. And what will be, will be. What will be, should be.

I couldn't resist.The goal is to prove that this watch was designed.Method 1:
-Turn the watch over. Look at the name on the back.
-Call the company, ask them if they made this watch with the provided serial number.
-Conclude that the watch was human made.Method 2:
-Look at the face of the watch.
-Make the reasonable assumption that only humans have the ability to work in such detail, and more importantly have created a number system.
-Assume that lettering doesnt naturally occur in nature
-Conclude that because this looks like a watch youve seen before and it has lettering unique to the human race, it was made by humans.Method 3:
-Look at the band of the watch.
-Assume that the treated leather is like all the other treated leather youve seen.
-Assume treated leather and stitching is unnatural.
-Assume humans are the only ones who treat leather and make it shiny.
-Conclude that the watch was human-made.Method 4:
-Break the watch. Look at the insides.
-Assume that no other animal species has the ability to work metal.
-Assume that quartz and batteries don't self-assemble themselves in nature.
-Conclude that the watch was made.Method 5:
-Look at your watch while looking at the strange watch.
-Notice that the difference between the little hand moving is about the same, assume that the concept of a second is therefor shared between the watches.
-Assume your watch was designed.
-Assume the concept of a second is unique to humanity.
Conclude the watch was made.Edited by Damouse, : Clarification.

Oh goodness. Thats a myth? How very disappointing.I retract the lemming example. Shame on me for not checking my own examples.

You, my jolly friend, are quite something special.I answered your question. How can i say this more clearly? Pop an adderall, put on your reading glasses, and focus. Im providing comments directly following your own quotes. The only way you can get lost is if you can't understand what you yourself are saying.First of all, i can say gotchya because a logical proof doesnt require input from you. We can argue about triangles all day, but the moment i whip out my pythagorean proof, its over.Same goes for what i said earlier.

quote:

---

Putting aside both views, order IS evidence of design for ANYTHING.

The infinite monkey theorem disagrees with you. If youve never heard of this, its the whole "monkey at a desk writing Shakespeare" bit. If you havent, just take it on faith : )

​

You can actually mathematically prove that with enough time, a conceivable but statistically improbable even will occur.

​

You said order means design, EVERY TIME. A random act of chance will eventually yield something that is ordered, but was not designed. Therefor, your point is disproved.

---

1. You stated Order is evidence of design every time.
2. I can prove that order can result from utter randomness.Therefor, your claim is disproved. Its really not that hard to follow....

I have no idea what your point is. People have failed to kill themselves and have tried again, so that part's out. People who have succeed have successfully devoted their time and energy into NOT living and have succeeded, contrary to what you said. This is called evolution. Do you need help spelling it out? Sounds like you should get an edumacation, cletus. You cant invalidate my points by not knowing big enough words.Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other. Google correlation versus causation. As it pertains to the conversation, just because life spends its time trying to live doesnt prove that it's purpose is to live. What if i believe the purpose of life is to laugh, and trying to live longer is just so we can laugh longer? I would have just as much proof of that as you do. I spend a lot of energy and time laughing. Havent you been saying that all these inanimate objects' purpose is immediately obvious from their function? Oh, my bad. So your cross doesnt have a purpose or a function. Love, not being a living thing, has no purpose. A gun has no function.Honestly, do you read the things you write? You may be the infinite monkey here, in person.

Irrelevant. You asked to proved the design of something i ALREADY know i was designed. The point of the first method is to show how silly that is.Its easy to prove something was designed when you begin with the assumption that it was designed. This is what you do. This is just how stupid it looks like when you do it. The difference is AGAIN that i can look at other watches which i know were certifiably made by humans.My assumption that only humans have developed a letter system is because i've seen human letter systems. You have never seen a tiger that you know, beyond a doubt, was made by god.So, no. Wrong. Then the chain of the pocket watch.Its impossible to find a small strip of cow leather that has been treated so the protein structure of the leather is permanently changed, that has been treated with tannin, that has been dried, and that has "naturally occuring" stitching on its sides. What? Its a splotchy, random set of lines that differ with every tiger. Why the hell would i assume its too complex to be naturally occuring? Water runoff on dirt is striped and random, as well. Should i assume someone made it, rather than assume it was water + gravity?This is not a logical assumption. Its one to suit your own needs. You didnt specify. I was assuming an average watch. AGAIN. I have seen complexity from humans before, for sure. You have never, without a logical doubt, seen complexity from your god. My assumption holds, yours does not. They do, actually. Its called growing up. And here we come to the problem. You state your conclusion as a premise. Why even bother with the first two points? Just say the last two. Its the only argument you have.

quote:

---

-Assume the Tigers were both designed
Conclude the Tiger was made.

---

You aren't smart enough to realize it doesnt make sense.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

@buz pathology
3. A departure or deviation from a normal conditionDictionary, my friend.@ JBR Dennis doesnt know what a train station is. It's beyond him. From Dictionary:

quote:

---

impossible- adj.

​

1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.

---

Impossible is something that CANNOT happen. Ever. Period.I understand what you're saying in terms of common sense impossible, and i agree. But in the scientific world, speaking in absolutes, something is not impossible only if it is improbable. This is the first place where you are clearly wrong.Evolution has positive and negative reinforcement to changes. Positive changes are accepted and quickly spread to the entire population. Negative changes stop right there. Your metaphor doesn't take that into account. No. First of all, every member of the species is it's own "author," as per your metaphor. To get a positive change, any of those authors must find an improvement. Any negative changes will die off. Any improvement will spread through the population in relatively quick time on an evolutionary basis.The probability is not therefor (chance of a change)*(chance that change is good) - (chance of a change)(chance that change is bad)It is (chance of a change)(chance that the change is good)(members of the population)

No, you dont. You can easily use inductive reasoning on a set of items without having to know where they came from.I dont understand why this is a hard point to understand. No, again. We are talking about current evidence and current purpose. The origins of everything have no bearing on this. Wherever they came from, they are here now. That is the argument on hand.You are deflecting. Should we prove that current purpose is not designed? Evidence is readily available. take a look at it.Prove design is intentionally designed. That is all that is asked from you. Nothing about the origins of matter. That is only a valid conclusion to you because you, like your friend, begin with the assumption that you are designed and then seek the same conclusion you started with.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

Talk about a thread-killer. Sheesh.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

Yes, you're right. However, statistically speaking, every negative change that isnt fatal has the same chance of occurring as every positive change that isnt overwhelmingly positive.All of the fatal changes are fatal; all of the beneficial changes that are remarkably beneficial quickly catch to the species as a whole in following generations.The concept of positive evolution is possible.