Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 11:54 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,807 Year: 11,843/19,786 Month: 1,624/2,641 Week: 133/708 Day: 67/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 890 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 15 of 185 (485244)
10-06-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 2:30 PM


Hi, Doubting Too.

DT, message #10, writes:

Whether or not anthropic reasoning or the reverse is true do you agree that the distance of the earth to the sun is just right so that life could exist?

Nobody on this thread has agreed with this so far. People on this thread have shown you how the distance between the Sun and the Earth varies by thousands of kilometers with the seasons and other cycles, and how they can go upstairs to use the restroom without burning to death. This means they disagree with you.

Most of us would likely say that colder worlds would produce life that is better suited to the cold; warmer worlds would produce life that is better suited to the heat; darker worlds would produce life that is better suited to the dark; etc.

There is no "perfect distance" for life to appear because life must adapt to whatever conditions it is provided.

DT writes:

You want the readers to believe that they should differentiate "design" and "appearance of design". But, is it not also true that if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and do all the things a duck do...then it must be a duck!

No, this is not true.

Look at the pictures on This Wiki page about the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland. It looks like somebody was sculpting the rocks into geometric shapes, doesn't it? Well, that's not what happened. It only looks like somebody carved it: in reality, it's a natural feature.

So, if this feature looks designed to you, then you should probably admit that there is a difference between "looking designed" and "having been designed."


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 2:30 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 4:19 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 890 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 25 of 185 (485257)
10-06-2008 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 4:19 PM


Hi, Doubting Too.

DT writes:

Don't you agree with what Parasomnium wrote...

Parasomnium writes:

if the earth had been too close to the sun, or too far away from it for life to rise, then life would obviously not have arisen on earth and we would not be having this conversation

?

Yes and no. I agree that life as we know it would not have arisen if the earth were too close to the Sun, but I do not agree that another form of life couldn't have arisen if the earth were too close to the Sun for our kind of life to arise.

DT writes:

Bluejay writes:

Look at the pictures on This Wiki page about the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland. It looks like somebody was sculpting the rocks into geometric shapes, doesn't it? Well, that's not what happened. It only looks like somebody carved it: in reality, it's a natural feature.

I believe this is a way of diverting the topic.

How is this diverting the topic? Do you believe that the Giant's Causeway was designed? It certainly looks designed.

DT writes:

Why is it hard for you to believe that if one looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, does the thing of a duck... then it must be a duck?

This wasn't in response to ducks quacking and swimming and looking like ducks. It was in response to your using this analogy as if design works the same way.

I have seen insects that look and move like sticks... but, obviously, they are not sticks. A loon looks, acts and swims like a duck, but is not a duck. Some actual ducks do not quack like other ducks, but they are still ducks.

I have seen pictures of a rock formation that looks like it was carved into geometric shapes by skilled craftsmen, but it was actually formed by natural, non-intelligent processes. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, but it's not a duck.

Oh, wait: I'm diverting the thread again.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 4:19 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 5:24 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 890 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 86 of 185 (485658)
10-10-2008 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by NOT JULIUS
10-08-2008 11:43 PM


Re: Is Life the Result or the Goal
Hi, Doubting Too

DT writes:

CS writes:

Just like when you put water into a pothole, it results in a puddle.

Then, that is already by design--the putting of water on the pothole

You're really quibbling the analogy. The analogy is about the shapes of the water and the pothole, not about how it was made or filled. What you have done is the equivalent of arguing that, in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, a person who has repented after a lifetime of wickedness is represented by the fatted calf that the father killed.

I'm beginning to think you're intentionally playing dumb in an effort to prolong the debate.

DT writes:

I am arguing that a combination of factors--the right distance of the earth from the sun, AND the right condition of the earth, among others--is towards a GOAL, Life.

I am arguing that a combination of factors--the right size of the pothole, AND the right conditions of the pothole, among others--is towards a GOAL, the puddle.

Same argument.

-----

The conditions on the Norwegian coast are perfect for the formation of fjords: the right rock formations, the perfect distance from the ocean, the right latitude for glaciers to form... that must mean that the purpose of Norway is to produce fjords. In other words, Norway "is towards a GOAL": fjords.

And, since all the continents in the northern hemisphere are in the perfect positions for Norway to be at the right latitude and have the right ocean currents for the perfect weather for fjord formation, the entire northern hemisphere was designed with the goal of making fjords on Norway's coast.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 11:43 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019