Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 26 of 648 (584272)
10-01-2010 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dawn Bertot
10-01-2010 2:22 AM


Re: What requirements?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Hence Larni, you have a requirement for the design camp that one does nto have for themeself.
No we don't, snice we don't postulate something "made" the universe, the universe simply is the universe.
Therefore, all things being equal larni, we can only deal with the present physical evidence. evolution draws its conclusions about Macro change from the present limited evidence. If its going to require a designer designing or indicate that we need to see the designer
Then I must require the TOE, to provide evidence that someone or something DID NOT provide the materials in the first place.
No. You are the one making that claim, therefore you are the one that needs to provide evidence for it.
If neither of us require such conclusions about our respective tenets, then the present physical evidence will support the design principle soley by the available evidence
And it would still violate parsimony, and is therefore bad science.
To suggest otherwise would be presumpsuous and ILLOGICAL
No, it would be following the rules of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-01-2010 2:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 352 of 648 (587894)
10-21-2010 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Buzsaw
10-21-2010 9:40 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Buzsaw writes:
Nuggin writes:
The evidence for HARRY POTTER lies in evidence of the existence of HARRY POTTER by observation of phenomena supportive to that entity.
No evidence ever cited.
Are you kidding me Buz? There are books upon books with cited evidence of Harry Potter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Buzsaw, posted 10-21-2010 9:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 420 of 648 (588058)
10-22-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by Just being real
10-22-2010 5:20 AM


Just being real writes:
To me, the very notion of "Out from the pool of goo, came me and you," is the real fairy tail here.
Since nobody says humans came out of a pool of goo, I wonder why you think this is waht happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Just being real, posted 10-22-2010 5:20 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Just being real, posted 10-22-2010 5:40 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 425 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 5:49 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 427 of 648 (588069)
10-22-2010 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Just being real
10-22-2010 5:40 AM


Just being real writes:
...just exactly why was Miller shooting electrical arcs through his special sauce anyway?
To create amino acids, the building blocks of life. You think he wanted to create a human?
Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Just being real, posted 10-22-2010 5:40 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Just being real, posted 10-22-2010 8:03 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 428 of 648 (588070)
10-22-2010 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by dennis780
10-22-2010 5:49 AM


dennis780 writes:
Complete rubbish and total hearsay. You are saying that no one believes in the hot pool theory. So you speak for the world now too?
Yes, I don;t think you'll be able to produce anyone who believes in evolution, who thinks humans came from pools of goo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 5:49 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 10:47 PM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 444 of 648 (588096)
10-22-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by Just being real
10-22-2010 8:03 AM


Just being real writes:
There ya go...
Huh? Are you of the conviction that amino acid are human?
He was trying to recreate the conditions believed to exist in the "primordial soup" just like I said.
You didn't say that, you said "To me, the very notion of "Out from the pool of goo, came me and you," is the real fairy tail here.". You didn;t even mention any conditions that existed in the "primordials soup", nor can anything that came out of that soup be said to be human.
"Out of the pool of goo came me and you."
Exactly, nobody thinks that. So why do you pretend like we do think that?
But if you don't care for that cliche I am willing to tone it down to "molecules to man."
Nobody believes humans sprang from "molecules" either. Insofar of course that all living things are made of molecules. So if you mean that, since everything is made from molecules, humans being born is "molecules to man", I agree, if not, then nobody thinks what you are proposing.
Either way still sounds like a fairy tail.
Could that be a reason why nobody thinks that happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Just being real, posted 10-22-2010 8:03 AM Just being real has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024