Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


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
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 261 of 648 (587666)
10-20-2010 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by ringo
10-20-2010 2:21 AM


quote:
Nonsense. A physical reality like a car can be "dealt with" without knowing anything about the smelting of iron or the mining of iron or the geology of iron formations or the origin of iron atoms. A mechanic can formulate a theory of why an engine doesn't run without such extraneous details. The same is true for understanding the day-to-day workings of evolution.
If the car is to have any sort of useful purpose, then you are exactly wrong. In order for the car to function, scientists and engineers must know everything about the materials used. Your example is also very poor, since the only way for the 'physical reality' of an automobile to even be possible is through intelligent designers.
All living and non-living things are made up of matter. Their origin is about as unimportant as an eskimo and a jacket. Evolution explains the origin of species, up to the first organism, so the question does not question the TOE, but does have validity, and requires a response.
Hurry ringo, it's getting cold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 2:21 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 11:37 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 262 of 648 (587668)
10-20-2010 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by ringo
10-20-2010 2:56 AM


quote:
I'm not requiring you to show anything about origins. I'm requiring you to show exactly what science has already shown - how it works. We know quite a bit about how evolution works but you haven't even provided a clue about how your "designer" works. You haven't even demonstrated a workable method for detecting design.
Let me step in here if I may. Lets find out what physical observations point to design. I'll use your car, since you like cars.
Cars are designed by engineers. They have blueprints. They have function.
All life have blueprints. All life has function.
This is a very generic response, but this seems to be what Dawn is getting at.
quote:
If order "demonstrates" design, then you should be able to suggest an experiment to actually do that demonstration.
So you want Dawn to show you an experiment of something being designed?? Go to your garage, and look at that car you like so much.
If you were walking through the woods, and you found an arrow. You pick it up, and immediately assume design, because arrows have a function and purpose, and 99.999% of the time, straight barkless sticks don't grow onto rocks shaped like a triangle. But you didn't see anyone make that arrow. How could you possibly know that it was designed, without seeing it? Maybe it evolved over millions of years, and it's actually a seed of a tree that drops arrows on animals as they pass by. How do you KNOW?
Let me tell you. YOU DON'T. You make a logical assumption based on the physical evidence available.
quote:
Of course not. We already know how order works. We don't need an extraneous entity to expalin it.
Oh good. So you don't mind explaining how order is gained, and maintained naturally. Since you know. Anyone can say 'we know'. You ask Dawn for experimental evidence, but you offer none in response. I'm going to need evidence to support your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 2:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 3:48 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 267 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2010 5:03 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 284 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 11:48 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 265 of 648 (587674)
10-20-2010 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by frako
10-20-2010 3:48 AM


quote:
umm so what is the function and pupose of humans. and what is the function and purpose of amebas, and viruses?
To live for the Lord. Haha.
This is a philosophy question. The answer to your unwritten question, is your eyes have function and purpose, as do your legs, brain, hands, fingers, toes, ears, etc.
You have no purpose, because you aren't livin for the Lord baby. Haha. I'm in a weird mood right now.
The function of all animals/bacteria is survival of the individual and of the group, always.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 3:48 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 4:45 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 268 of 648 (587679)
10-20-2010 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by frako
10-20-2010 4:45 AM


quote:
but what is their purpose you can say that god gave us cows for milk, horses to ride on, why has he given us the ameba ?? What is the purpose of the ameba?
Amoeba's are major consumers of bacteria in soil ecosystems and are believed to occupy the same key role there as flagellates do in aquatic ecosystems (recycling bacterial productivity and nutrient regeneration/continued functioning of the ecosystem). They eat algae and other protozoans (though they
can also be parasitic), and thus help play a part in regulation of these ecosystems as well.
In short, regulatory, and FOOD.
NEXT!
quote:
um what if you have no purpose too cause you are not living for Allah.
You could be right. But that would mean that I would have to attack the infidels...or more specifically...me. I don't want to attack me, so I choose my God...by default, so I don't have to die early (though any time I die would be too early for me).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 4:45 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 5:52 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 269 of 648 (587680)
10-20-2010 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Wounded King
10-20-2010 5:03 AM


quote:
After all if you find an arrow with no bow and don't know what either is then what function do you know of for it?
So because you don't understand it, it has no function? Or it has a function that is not understood by the individual?
quote:
To do so they have to make a vast array of assumptions about the designer and the capabilities of evolution, and they tend to do this based on little to no evidence whatsoever.
Are there any assumptions in the theory of evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2010 5:03 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2010 6:19 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 303 of 648 (587804)
10-20-2010 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by frako
10-20-2010 5:52 AM


quote:
well there are tones of other species that do that
Thats right. It's called a food web. Without these organisms, even though they are microscopic, the worlds climate could change dramatically, since algae release oxygen both directly, and indirectly through chloroplasts, as well as fix CO2.
They also help repair metal damaged ecosystems, reduce atomspheric Co2, and production of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) involved in the regulation of UV radiation, ozone concentration, and global warming. The amoeba is a vital part of the earths ecosystem.
quote:
so why this 5t wheel on our car.
No idea what you are getting at here.
quote:
why do you think anything has a purpose?
If nothing had purpose, then everything would do nothing. The ability for an organism to survive is based off of the ability to function and survive in a given environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by frako, posted 10-20-2010 5:52 AM frako has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 304 of 648 (587805)
10-21-2010 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Wounded King
10-20-2010 6:19 AM


quote:
You were the one suggesting that thinking the arrow had a function was part of our process in infering design, and you further emphasised function as one of the physical observations pointing to design.
Correct, but understanding of function is not the only clue that can lead to assume design. Using the arrow, being that it is straight, barkless, and tied to a rock, one can still assume design, without knowing function. The physical arrow looks designed. If it were natural, it would have distinct disadvantages, being that it doesn't have bark for protection, it is small and leafless, and has no roots. Since you as a person have seen many different kinds of trees, and all (generally) follow the same physical properties (roots, leaves, bark, trunk, etc.), you can assume that this is NOT a natural tree, and that it was made by a designer. The same can be said for a watch. If you found a watch in the sand at the beach, you would assume design, but watches are far less complex than living organisms.
quote:
This depends exactly what you mean by 'the theory of evolution'. There are quite a lot of assumptions in our current understanding of the history of life on earth, some with more supporting evidence than others.
You mean like there are no full ape fossils (minus orangutan fossil #151 in Thailand), but there are thousands of plant fossils, that have no natural evolutionary trend. I'm with you.
quote:
The basic underlying mechanisms of evolution on the other hand, mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc ... are so well established empirically that they can hardly be considered assumptions.
I agree with that. I was actually against some aspects of genetic mutational gain of information, but in my debates with Dr. Adequate in a different thread, I learned that it is entirely possible for random genetic mutations to produce new information. Now the question is, I suppose, are these mechanisms plausible explanations for the beginning of life (though I know that is what evolutionary scientists do every day).
Which reminds me, do you WK, or anyone else have a good link to some websites that keep up with new discoveries in the ToE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2010 6:19 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 2:10 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 335 by Wounded King, posted 10-21-2010 3:40 AM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 305 of 648 (587806)
10-21-2010 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by ringo
10-20-2010 11:37 AM


quote:
All the engineers need to know is how to manipulate the materials. You can build a log cabin without knowing anything about botany and you can build a car without knowing anything about chemistry.
It's plausible at best. But lets say you are right, and I build a car (I'm an oilfield worker, so I have some experience with oil and gas, but none with mechanical or civil engineering). I build a car. Would you drive it? Would you take your family on vacation in it? No. Because it's a prime example of POOR design. I COULD build a car, but it would probably kill everyone in it within the year. I could also build a log cabin, but over time, termites and carpenter ants, and rot would eat away at the wood, and kill everyone inside. This would be best case scenario, since I could build the cabin out of Pecan trees, and the wood would collapse before the cabin was even finished. One could easily argue that design and knowledge of a product is far more important than building the actual product. Otherwise cars would not have airbags, anti-lock brakes, and traction control. Or far more simple design improvements such as car bumpers, crumple zones, etc.
quote:
And all that any of those designers ever do is manipulate existing physical processes.
Where on earth is fossil fuels compressed to cause useful function of a large metal object? I'm pretty sure this is a new, man-made, DESIGNED process. If you are saying that for something to be designed, you cannot use any existing materials, then NOTHING is designed, which makes you galatically stupid, since even my 2 year old can design a super car on paper, and know that the wax on the crayon did not cause it to exist.
quote:
You answered your own question. Evolution goes back to the first organism just like cars go back to the first car.
So you don't believe in anything before evolution. You simply believe there was a first organism, and it got complex over time and caused all diverse life today. No big bang? No abiogenesis? You don't believe life started, or that matter got here through any natural process. There was just a first organism. If you honestly do not hold a position or personal belief on anything before the ToE, then why am I even talking to you? What a waste of time. You dodging Dawns question doesn't mean it doesn't require a response. It means you are showing weakness, and probably don't have a response.
If you don't know, just say so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 11:37 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by ringo, posted 10-21-2010 1:16 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 306 of 648 (587807)
10-21-2010 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by ringo
10-20-2010 11:48 AM


quote:
Other IDers have at least used the lame excuse that they know design when they see it.
So when you borrow your dads hammer from the garage, you first assume that the garage was naturally occurring and the hammer was the result of a viral infection in a tree? Because if you look at the garage and hammer and assume design, then you are just as lame as us.
quote:
I want Dawn to show us an experiment that will demonstrate whether something has been designed or not.
First, Dawn needs a time machine, or supernatural powers...
quote:
How do you tell whether a pile of sand is designed or is just a function of the shape of the sand grains?
Sand is shaped by erosion processes, that are natural. Frac sand, that it made, is ceramic, and perfectly round however (frac sand is used on gas wells to open the formation better, and allow for better gas flow). But if you came to my backyard, and sat in the sandbox, you would assume the sand was naturally occuring, when it ISN'T (yes, I have a sandbox full of frac sand). This is a perfect example of a person misreading the physical evidence to assume natural origin.
quote:
In chemistry, for example, order depends on the shape and electronic configuration of molecules.
You are giving an example in favour of Dawns arguement, ringobingo. Dawn is arguing that because there are natural laws and properties (natural laws), this is evidence of a designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by ringo, posted 10-20-2010 11:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 1:30 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 314 by ringo, posted 10-21-2010 1:35 AM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 307 of 648 (587808)
10-21-2010 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Taq
10-20-2010 11:58 AM


Re: The third possibility
quote:
Why is order proof of design?
It's not proof. It's evidence of. Putting aside both views, order IS evidence of design for ANYTHING. If I write 1234567890 on your fridge with a marker, you wouldn't assume that it was due to a natural process (supposing you didn't see me write it). The same goes even if the numbers are mixed up, but in a logical recognizable order, such as a phone number 555 384 2301. No order, but understood none the less.
She isn't saying it's PROOF of design, she's saying it is overlooked as evidence for...I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Taq, posted 10-20-2010 11:58 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 1:24 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 317 by Damouse, posted 10-21-2010 2:12 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 370 by Taq, posted 10-21-2010 1:16 PM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 308 of 648 (587810)
10-21-2010 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Modulous
10-20-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Clear purpose
quote:
Since you want to talk about origins, could you tell me what the clear purpose of life is?
Origins have nothing to do with purpose, if you are asking for a christian perspective. It's not where you've been, it's where you're going. Which I suppose answers the purpose question.
Strictly naturally speaking, the purpose of life is survival. Continued existance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2010 1:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Modulous, posted 10-22-2010 4:28 AM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 316 of 648 (587826)
10-21-2010 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Nuggin
10-21-2010 1:05 AM


Re: Clear purpose
quote:
Fire begets heat. Heat causes more fire. Is that purpose?
No, that is a byproduct of a chemical reaction. But heat itself can have purpose.
quote:
Mass begets gravity which collects mass which attracts more gravity... Is that purpose?
No. And no one knows what causes gravity, only that it acts on mass. Mass doesn't cause gravity, gravity acts on mass. Just like wood doesn't cause heat, heat acts on wood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Nuggin, posted 10-21-2010 1:05 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Nuggin, posted 10-21-2010 3:54 AM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 319 of 648 (587830)
10-21-2010 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by ringo
10-21-2010 1:16 AM


quote:
That's exactly how cars used to be built. Some guy did it.
Wrong. For the internal combustion engine alone there were over 14 accredited designers dating back from 1680 to 1890, including inventors, physicists, and engineers from all over the world. Someone did not just throw a hunk of metal together, then throw gas in it, light it, and run.
quote:
They didn't study the materials first because they didn't know what meterials they were going to use.
Wrong. Henry Ford and Wilhelm Maybach both converted engines to run on many different fuels, including kerosine and stove gas. Gasoline was chosen before the first cars were put to market, after years of prototypes.
quote:
The car evolved.
If intelligent design over time is evolution, then I'm an evolutionist.
quote:
The fossil fuels were formed by natural processes.
I don't get what you are saying exactly...materials that had previous different functions (if any at all) are changed to have new designed function.
quote:
I didn't say any such thing. I said that we don't need to know where the atoms came from to understand evolution.
That is by far the best answer I have ever heard from you. You don't know. I too can concede that even though the Bible teaches how life began, I cannot explain how, since there are no natural experiment that can be performed to recreate something such as instant creation. See? Look how well we play together.
quote:
The answer is basically that origins of materials are irrelevant
If you don't take the origin of matter seriously, how can you expect me to take your beliefs on the origin of life seriously? It shouldn't matter, right? If you can conveniently shrug off an important unknown so easily, then how can I possibly know you wouldn't do the same for other aspects of your beliefs? You have an ice cream attitude, you only like the good stuff, but completely ignore vanilla.
I love vanilla ringo. Love it. Love. It.
quote:
If anything, you and Dawn are dodging the question of how you connect those materials to a designer.
So now because you cannot explain the origin of matter, you ask me to explain it. Since you know that the origin by my belief is supernatural, and cannot be proven, you think that you will be right, because I can't prove origins.
Hmm....but if neither of us can prove the origin of matter....aren't we both religious to some extent?
BELIEF - Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
OOPS. I win.
Dennis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by ringo, posted 10-21-2010 1:16 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Damouse, posted 10-21-2010 2:59 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 327 by ringo, posted 10-21-2010 3:09 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 366 by Taq, posted 10-21-2010 1:02 PM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 372 by Nuggin, posted 10-21-2010 1:19 PM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 320 of 648 (587832)
10-21-2010 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2010 1:24 AM


Re: The third possibility
quote:
And if I see a living organism, such as a tiger, I correctly "assume" that it was the product of a natural and unintelligent process
Natural yes. Unintelligent? Are you calling Tigers dumb? Though you are right, the question is not do animals produce after their kind, because they do. The question is where did Tigers come from? Mommy and daddy tiger came from somewhere too, right? Their parents made sweet sweet tiger 'lurve', and so did their lines for generations back.
But looking at the tigers themselves, they have specific physical properties that indicate design. They eat meat, and yet have the claws, teeth, speed, and instinctive behavour to hunt. Much like your car has the right equipment to drive (steering wheel, gas pedal, brakes, etc.), the tiger has the required equipment to survive.
Just because cars don't make sweet 'lurve', doesn't mean that anything that does is not designed. Robots make robots. Are they reproducing? Making sweet sweet Irobot 'lurve'?
quote:
Well, just saying so, even if you do it over and over again, isn't going to cut it with me.
So just saying so doesn't count? Okay. But didn't you just argue that tigers evolved, didn't you just say so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 1:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 3:37 AM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 321 of 648 (587834)
10-21-2010 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2010 1:30 AM


quote:
We don't look at the garage and the hammer and assume design. We have evidence for design. No-one ever assumes design ... except creationists.
Okay. So explain your position then. You have a watch. Explain your evidence for design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 1:30 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Damouse, posted 10-21-2010 2:50 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 332 by Damouse, posted 10-21-2010 3:24 AM dennis780 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024