Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 3:50 PM
28 online now:
DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, Larni, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,181 Year: 12,217/19,786 Month: 1,998/2,641 Week: 507/708 Day: 66/135 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 8 of 219 (481483)
09-11-2008 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by BVZ
09-10-2008 5:55 AM


The best thing that you could do would be to look for evidence of design.

If you can find evidence of design then you construct a test to accurately assess whether it was in fact designed.

Welcome to EvC, by the way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BVZ, posted 09-10-2008 5:55 AM BVZ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by BVZ, posted 09-12-2008 1:27 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 13 of 219 (481677)
09-12-2008 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by BVZ
09-12-2008 1:27 AM


BV writes:

It's just a rock. What should I be looking for?

Sigh. Evidence of design?

BV writes:

Okay. How does ID propose I go about doing this?

Well, if it is too ordered (that is to say too much specified complexity) to have appeared by chance we must infer design. Sound logic.

Really, I don't understand the problem: I don't think any cdesign proponentist could give a more clear and less evasive answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by BVZ, posted 09-12-2008 1:27 AM BVZ has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 92 of 219 (638555)
10-23-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by SavageD
10-23-2011 3:38 PM


Re: is my rock design
Houses show evidence of design.

Rocks, puddles, cows, or trees don't.

What is your specific point?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by SavageD, posted 10-23-2011 3:38 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 100 of 219 (638567)
10-23-2011 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by SavageD
10-23-2011 4:24 PM


Re: is my rock design
Typical creo tactic to not supply evidence.

Same avoidance, different creo poster.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by SavageD, posted 10-23-2011 4:24 PM SavageD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Panda, posted 10-23-2011 6:31 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 134 of 219 (639744)
11-03-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dawn Bertot
10-31-2011 1:34 AM


Re: is my rock design
It begins with the a logical proposition, that states because things work in an orderly fashion, in coherent harmony with its parts, to a verifiable purpose, design is a very real probability

So now you need to supply some physical evidence for design.

Design being true could have a probalility of being zero. The more evidence you can provide to support design being true (e.g. a test to identify when something is designed and when it isn't [the purpose of this thread]) the more we have to accept the probability is approaching '1'.

As yet we have no test for what is designed and what is not (hence this thread) so we can't currently say that 'things being designed' is anythning more than wishful thinking.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 1:34 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-08-2011 6:40 PM Larni has responded
 Message 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:54 PM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 136 of 219 (640345)
11-08-2011 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dawn Bertot
11-08-2011 6:40 PM


Re: is my rock design
Erm. Why bother posting if you have nothIng to say?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-08-2011 6:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by subbie, posted 11-08-2011 11:16 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(3)
Message 154 of 219 (640754)
11-12-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dawn Bertot
11-11-2011 2:54 PM


Re: is my rock design
Poor, deluded Dawn.

You have neither the wit, guile, spelling or grammar to be cruel to me.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 161 of 219 (641073)
11-16-2011 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dawn Bertot
11-11-2011 2:54 PM


Re: is my rock design
Larni, if I use physical properties (PHYSICAL EVIDENCE), to demonstrate order, law and purpose,

Looked through this thread and the thread where you first wrote you order, law and purpose idea and I have yet to see any evidence that you have presented that could support this idea.

Please could you link me to where you use physical evidence to demonstrate that order, law and purpose can be used to infer design.

DWIII writes:

The first sedimentary rock exhibits some evidence of design, having been produced by an orderly process. The second sedimentary rock exhibits virtually no evidence of design, having been produced by a disordered lawless supernaturally-caused global flood. Can we conclude, then, that the first sedimentary rock was designed, and the supernaturally-flood-produced sedimentary rock was not designed?

Why won't you just answer the question, Dawn.

You won't because you can't.

Since neither of us were there to witness the event, evidence falls to what is demonstratable in physical and logical form.

You have done neither.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:54 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 10:31 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 165 of 219 (641165)
11-17-2011 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Dawn Bertot
11-17-2011 10:31 AM


Re: is my rock design
So now we are down to me being stupid and not understanding and me being a bully and getting my 'admin buddies' to wade in.

Well done.

Back to to my question from Message 161:

Why won't you just answer the question, Dawn?

You won't because you can't.

You have ran away from me before, Dawn: gonna run again?

ABE: I've just realised that you are accusing me of getting my admin buddies to boot you off!

The idea that I hold sway over admins here is laughable and insulting to all concerned.

I would like you to retract your comment and offer apologies to all concerned: that kind of baseless acusation is beneath you, Dawn.

ABE: after reading admins post I'll retract my demand for evidence as s/he is no longer able participate in this thread.

I still want an apology for the suggestion of malfeanse.

Edited by Larni, : splellink

Edited by Larni, : righteos indignation, after the fact.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 10:31 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Admin, posted 11-17-2011 10:49 AM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 7:00 PM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 174 of 219 (641249)
11-18-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dawn Bertot
11-17-2011 7:00 PM


Re: is my rock design
In Message 80 you said

Are you sure your goal is not to represent us in a certain light?

Which implies my intent in the debate is less than honourable.

I replied in Message 95

Quite sure. My interest here lies in the fact that creo posters on this site have a trend towards writing things that only they understand.

This is indicative of not being clear as to the points they are attempting to make.

This is one of the advantages of the science crowd: using precise and nice vocabulary that is understood universally.

Have I made myself clear? Even if you disagree with my position you should understand what I'm getting at.

It would have been so nice if you had acknowlede the fact that my intentions were, in fact honourable.

But no, you skulked off; only to repeat your accusations of debating in bad faith here (calling in my admin buddies).

Bit of a pattern forming, eh?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 7:00 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 178 of 219 (641738)
11-22-2011 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by SavageD
11-21-2011 11:07 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
But that is the whole flaw in the inference of design.

It has not yet been shown by any CDesign proponetist that there is a reliable way to detect design without things like brand names, factory of origin stamps, etc.

it would only be logical to conclude that it was spat out by the sun

Only if one was an idiot.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by SavageD, posted 11-21-2011 11:07 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 9:25 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 185 of 219 (641871)
11-23-2011 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by SavageD
11-22-2011 10:25 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
Larni writes:

things like brand names, factory of origin stamps, etc.

SavageD writes:

How would you know that the hypothetical space ship was designed by some intelligence and not spat out by the sun?

Already answered that one, mate.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 10:25 PM SavageD has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 198 of 219 (642461)
11-29-2011 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Portillo
11-29-2011 12:37 AM


The same way the archaeologist does it.

So anything that was was not designed by peolpe (with an illustrious history in and known mechanisms of, design) would be labled 'not designed'.

I guess we can all be happy with that.

End thread?

Edited by Larni, : spelling


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Portillo, posted 11-29-2011 12:37 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 215 of 219 (642831)
12-02-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Moon-Ra
12-01-2011 10:20 PM


Re: Is the question too difficult?
Don't forget that this does not apply to Yahweh. He created himself. And no, it's not special pleading because Yahweh can by definition do anything.

Hope that sorts things out for you.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Moon-Ra, posted 12-01-2011 10:20 PM Moon-Ra 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