Is my rock designed?

Each time I made a post it would seem that I would also attract "a lot of people" to my conversations. So, Whats wrong with asking to have a conversation with one person?

SavageD, I am also a creationist/IDst. The best way I have found to respond to the numerous responses in various posts, is simply extract out of each one what is important and worthy of attention

If you see the same arguments you have already addressed in a previous post, reproduce that reference or simply remind them it has been addressed

It is also helpful to remind them of what they have failed to address, which happens quite often.

Stick with it and dont get frustrated. The usual MO of these fellas is to berate, belittle and pretend they have addressed all the issues at hand. Ignore those tactics and press forward

Regardless, I see no point in revealing why "something" could be the product of an intelligent agent...It would only fall on deaf ears.

However did you notice the place up top where it points out how many visitors are on the site. Your words may not be falling on deaf ears

Keep going, dont give up

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Then the ID you don't have a problem with is a strawman because it's never been philosophical anything, it's ALWAYS been an attack on science. Not a single CID Propontist has EVER provided a working study. Let's get a working physical test before we wander into the mess that is philosophy.

Only the sheerist stupidy would make and involve themselves with such idiodic comments as those I have quoted above

Philosophy, real philosophy, is both reality and logic based. All "working physical test" begin and end with a logic and philosophical approach

it still hasnt Dawned on any of you fellas that ID and Creationism dont begin with the relative design involved in any living thing. 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

This is all the argument from desing needs to make it VALID. It doent need to produce a designer, it doesnt need A TRADEMARK on it.

Its not necessary to PROVE design is true, for it to be compltely valid as an explanation, the likes of which are irrefutable.

Now that I have established what it is, let the person that believes he can refute this proposition step up to the plate and do so

As I go to Yahoo and watch and read the numerous, so called fallicies of creation and ID, I weary for one skeptic to actually present what the argument from design is actually

Not understanding what is involved in ID or Design, goes a long away in misunderstanding and misrepresenting the whole position to begin with

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Try that again. This time in English.

Playing the dumb card or commedy card wont help your cause and it makes your position look weak in front of our viewers

Are you saying you cant answer the argument?

You and your friends have started with a false presupposition and ran with it, this is why it is so easy to refute what is not true to begin with

Come on Hooah, give it a shot

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

it's that your handle on the English language is that of a 4 year old Swedish kid.

What do you have against sweedish children, are they less intelligent than anyother four year old?

It's not that you are making these astounding arguments that baffle me and amaze me

It looks as though DWIII understands the points and has made a rational response and request

He doesnt seem to be scared of the argument

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed.

Very nice post, I will get to it as soon as I can give it the attention it needs

Dawn Bertot

Ts writes

I'm guessing that will be sometime around the twelfth of never.

Actually no, but that is very funny "twelfeth of never". thats commical

As you know the EVC is very addicting and one could spend countless hours at an unending process, point counter point

Anyway lets see

DWIII writes

Please show how this procedure applies to the rock in question, and estimate its probability of having been designed.

Since we dont derive the idea or conclusion of design from a designer or the idea of a designer, but from how something is put together, it makes perfect sense to apply the same reasoning and equation to any property in nature that exhibits the same properties of organization and purpose

When viewing any man made property, we rarely consider who put it together, brfore we subconsously understand its obvious organization, function and purpose

Who, when and where is usually an after thought of an already eixsting precondition of the thought process when confronted with obvious design

While design is both relative and a relative term, that doesnt mean that overwhelming organization should be discarded, simply because it is relative in appearance

Shape size and apprearance of say, just humans, is a relative design, because each one is different to a certain degree

If you look deeper however and more specific the organization and detail becomes more appearent

Using a single rock is simply not a valid approach to the principle of design

While probabilty is a consideration, it still does not remove the visible evidence of things working in harmony to affect a clear purpose

Again, whether something was designed and whether we decide that it was designed, is not what makes the design principle valid

Its valid because of its organization and harmony to a clear purpose

I simply dont see how that simple yet recognizable principle can ever be avoided or ignored, unless one really works hard to do so

We simply dont, recognize design by WHO might have put something together, but by its existing organization, function and purpose

This is why the design argument can never be overturned or refuted

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

et 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.

Sorry I havent got to these any quicker, many things going on. I have already typed out responses just need to get them on the site

Dawn Bertot

What prevents you from looking deeper into a single rock? If you cannot adequately handle the simpler cases, how can we trust that you can handle the more complex cases?

What is complicated about recognizing order and purpose. The point is that design is established by the order not the presence of a designer

A. Is orderly function observable or not?. Yes or no?

B. Do I need to see a designer for the argument to be valid

So why are you so afraid to apply these three (presumably measurable) criteria to any specific object?

Fear has nothing to do with simple logic. If we were to break down the rock we could easily see the order and structure in the molecular structure of the rock itself to know it was designed

If we take the process that formed the rock, break down those individual process that contain both order and law, then it is easy to see the rock was designed

Is there order and law in the rocks basic structure?

Does the process that formed the rock show order, law and purpose?

Sadly, I see essentially no design exhibited in this bizarre section of prose, since it clearly lacks both function and organization. (I can't speak to the alleged purpose, however...)

Your opinion does not matter, only that which is logically demonstrable by both evidence and logic

When has it been necessary to see the guy that put my car together to know it demonstrates order law and specific purpose

Once you remove you feelings and view it as both a physical and logical proposition

Does order, law and purpose exist or not?

Dawn Bertot

Dawn, the crux of the design argument is that ID-ists infer the existence and the intelligence of a designer from the observation of apparent design. They do concentrate on who and not so much on how. They see organization, function and purpose, and conclude that it must have been put together by someone - and a very specific someone too, even if they don't always admit it openly.

Para, you missed and skipped the point altogether. It is not necessary to infer anything about the design theory, for it to be valid. Its not a theory. It is what it is, order law and purpose

Do you deny that these things exist in real it and in physical properties?

Scientists too see organization, function and purpose, but they conclude it must have been put together somehow, not necessarily by someone.

Your conclusions are not necessary for the proposition to be valid as an argument

It only matters if order law and purpose are present

So your above comment validates at least the validity of the design argument. So when your and mine opinions are put aside, the argument is valid, correct?

And those are just a few possible explanations if we entertain the thought of intelligence being involved. Since intelligence itself is a rather complex phenomenon, which demands an explanation of its own, it might serve us well to look for other, simpler explanations. The mindless process that ensues when organisms with varying heritable traits compete for scarce resources, i.e. the process of evolution, is a very viable candidate in that respect. It accounts for (self-)organization, function, and purpose just as well as intelligent design, and it has the added benefit that it also accounts for apparent blunders and other mishap, while obviating the need for the involvement of intelligence. Occam would be pleased.

Now whois special pleading. You've gone beyond the basic argument into speculation. the design argument does not need opinion or speculation

Just demonstrate both from a physical and logical standpoint why the argument is not acceptable or valid

Conclusions are not necessary for the argument to be valid

You have no where to go

Dawn Bertot

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

Well not to be cruel or abusive but you don't seem to understand evidence or argumentation

Larni, if I use physical properties (PHYSICAL EVIDENCE), to demonstrate order, law and purpose, then that is all the physical evidence I need to establish such a valid argument, correct?. If I correctly evaluate the order, complex order and obvious purpose, I need no other evidence to know that design is present, even without the presence of a designer

The argument is valid, because the physical evidence warrants design

What other physical evidence do I need?

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'.

Again with respect, you don't understand argumentation. There is no such thing as More Evidence for the design argument to be true.

Example, you could provide no more evidence that your car was NOT designed, because you were not there for its creation. However that is not necessary because its organization provides all the evidence necessary to know it was designed

The design argument does not need to know, who, when, where or why for it to be valid

So from a logical standpoint, show why and how you need more evidence to know it was designed

Your opinion does not count as evidence

IOWs, it is not possible for design to NOT exist. IOWs there is no probability that design is not present or valid

If you don't believe me. provide any physical biological property that does not exhibit design at its core

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.

You have no test because you do not understand what constitutes evidence and your argumentation skills are invalid, faulty and inaccurate

If you don't believe please demonstrate with more physical evidence that your particular car was NOT designed. Show me the specific people, place and time, in Real Time, that it was designed and by who

Have fun

You fellas will get this after while, I promise you

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Sorry for the lateness of these responses, I promise you I am not trying to avoid any questions or arguments. My computer is on the fritz and other obligations are weighing down

Ive finished a response to DWIII's latest post and just saw Para's.

Ill try to get them done as quickly as possible

Thanks again

Dawn Bertot

With regard to crystalline structure, some geologic processes produce more order (e.g., large uniform crystals such as quartz) than other geologic processes (e.g., amorphous glasses such as obsidian). So, as far as crystalline structure is concerned, do igneous rocks composed of quartz show more evidence of design than igneous rocks composed of obsidian?

I find it interesting that you can recognize complex and simple order but not design. What is the criteria that you use to recognize and define order? How do you come to that conclusion

As I read your post I see you havent been here that long, as such are unfamiliar with what I am actually arguing.

perhaps you could explain why it would help the argument, if certain biological properties exhibit more or less design, if all of them have the same basic substructure, ( atoms, molecules, cells) that exhibit the same order, overall for all existence

These all have the same, ordered, harmounious and consistent sub-structure, which exhibit incredible design, wouldnt you agree

Even if one could find, what one considers relative design in nature, this point is secondary to the consistent ordered and harmounious natue of all things, especially at thier basic structure

So as far as crystaline structures are concerned, igneous rock composed of quartz are all the same at thier substructure and are ordered designed and created by the same process, regardless, if one can see more or less design, in its finished product. Wouldnt you agree?

Suppose that a given sedimentary rock was produced by the slow orderly accumulation of water-deposited particles over hundreds of thousands of years, producing a very orderly banded appearance. Another sedimentary-type rock laid down over a span of a single year by a chaotic flood-like disaster is less likely to show as much regularity

Would'nt you agree that the substructure of any or all the processes you describe are exacally the same, regardless of any relative design in its finished product

Wouldnt you agree that in any of the processes you describe, we are still going to find destailed order and purpose, regardeless of our conclusions of how the process was formed?

How the process took place is secondary to overwhelming display of order itself, which actually formulates the design argument. Our conclusions of whor or why are not necessary for the argumnent to be valid, correct?

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?

When you can produce any example in biological processes that do not exhibit, consistent, ordered and harmonious structure, especially at thier core, then you can speak to the question of outward, relative design.

The rock/s you speak of were first formed at thier substructure, where the process is not questionalble or relative

Again, can you provide any biological process that is NOT both ordered and the same at its substructure

When you can do this, then you you may have a place to start to demonstrate that biological processes are random or chaotic

If the finished or outward processes dont convince you of order, purpose and eventually design, then look deeper at thier substructure, which is always consistent

One must however remove all of the overwhelming evidence of law and order in nature, before he actually has any kind of real impact on removing the argument of design

For now and as always it stands as an overwhelming task to anyone to remove the force of its argument

Assuming that complex order does not exist, is not the same as demonstrating it

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Dawn, a few posts ago you mentioned organization, function and purpose. Now you've shifted your position to order, law and purpose. You are not moving goal posts, are you? Because if you are, I predict you'll get short shrift from a lot of people here. Most of them do not take kindly to this kind of tactic.

Im not seeing any real difference in these words, but if it makes you feel better Ill try and use the same words in the future

Let me put my argument this way: I completely agree with you that we see organization, function and purpose (I'll stick with your original goal posts) in living nature. I would even go so far as to call it 'design' in a certain sense of the word. The sense of 'design' I'm talking about is the same as when we would speak of how wind and water had 'sculpted' a rock into a peculiar shape. It is very important to keep this in mind when we talk about design. So I would, for example, not hesitate to say that an eye was 'designed' for vision, in the 'sculpted' sense of 'design'.

Unfortunately this definition of design ignores complex order, which is present in both detailed substructures and may finished complex processes. Your definiton is to loose to be taken seriously

So who designed it all? Well, before I go into that, let me say that I think it's a loaded question. It presumes that design can only originate from an intelligent entity, a person who plans it all in advance, and who has certain goals in mind. I think that's not the case when we are dealing with life. To find out what happened we should ask which kinds of process could possibly have designed - 'sculpted' - life. So we should ask "who or what designed it all?" One candidate would indeed be a process involving an intelligent designer, but that's by no means tho only possibility.

I agree. However, who or what is not necessary to make the argument valid or the process demonstratable

The process of evolution is another way of 'sculpting' life into its myriad forms. It does so by trying lots of variations and remorselessly selecting only the best improvements, simply by having too many individual organisms for the environment to sustain them all. Under those circumstances significantly more will survive and procreate, who have what it takes to do so. They're the ones who pass on their winning variations. The comparison with the sculpting of a rock by wind and water is an apt metaphor, if only because of the comparable time scales.

Unfortunately the process you describe doesnt start far enough back. the basic element of the universe or life had a beginning, all of which at its core, still has complex order, evenin the smallest elements

Who or what is not necessary for the design argument to be both valid and acceptable as a scientific demonstration of design

So, we see organization, function and purpose in nature. But is it evidence of planned design by an intelligent designer? Or is it evidence of relentless 'sculpting' by mindless natural processes? Modern science has found many, many clues that support the latter, and none that compels us to assume the former.

Yes it is evidence of an intelligent designer, especially at its core. If all of this happened in the blink of an eye (no pun intended), you would still have those denying that it was the product of an intelligent designer

Only the complex order is necessary for the argument to be valid and demonstratable

Modern science has ignored the overwhelming evidence of complex order, because it assumes that life anywhere, especially in its beginning could actually get started itself

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

You assume by your above statement that you have a definate answer for that beginning, but ofcourse you do not and that is the point of and how evidence works, atleast in these instances, correct?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Larni you should have atleast made an attempt at responding to my arguments, you look foolish in front of your veiwers

When all else fails and the opponents wont or cant respond to simple set out argument, questions and queries, have the admin buddies boot them off

So much for debate

Dawn Bertot

You had the opportunity to discuss your ideas about "order, law and purpose" in the Intelligent Design vs. Real Science and Does ID follow the scientific method? threads. We will not be discussing them again in this thread, so please stop posting here. Thanks.

With respect there was absolutely no one responding to this thread for weeks. I thought any kind of related material might move the subject and thread along

As far as the thread you mentioned is concerned,I saw no adequate responses to the arguments there so i saw no harm in advancing them in a dead thread

As you wish however

Dawn Bertot