Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
49 online now:
AZPaul3, Tangle, xongsmith (3 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,278 Year: 924/14,102 Month: 327/597 Week: 105/96 Day: 0/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
DWIII
Member (Idle past 535 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


(1)
Message 124 of 219 (639377)
10-31-2011 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dawn Bertot
10-31-2011 1:34 AM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:


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

We may have something here which may lead to a usable metric. Let's assume that the probability that a specific thing was designed (design probability: DP) is correlated to a suitable combination of:

a) How well it works in an orderly fashion,
b) How much coherent harmony exists among its parts, and/or
c) The degree to which its purpose is verifiable.

Let's call this combination of those three ingredients DP(a,b,c) such that

where 0 stands for impossibility, 1 stands for certainty, and 0.5 would be the probability of a coin flip.

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

Edited by DWIII, : typo-fix


DWIII

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 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-31-2011 8:33 AM DWIII has acknowledged this reply
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-03-2011 12:43 AM DWIII has responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 535 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 130 of 219 (639699)
11-03-2011 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dawn Bertot
11-03-2011 12:43 AM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:


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

This is precisely what we are asking you to do, "to apply the same reasoning and equation to any property in nature that exhibits the same properties of organization and purpose". Why won't you do so?


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

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?


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

You are the one who mentioned "probability", which itself is a well-defined mathematical concept (ranging from 0 = impossible to 1 = certain).


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

You keep repeating yourself. I had already noted (extracted and paraphrased from one of your uncharacteristically coherent statements) that

quote:

... the probability that a specific thing was designed (design probability: DP) is correlated to a suitable combination of:

a) How well it works in an orderly fashion {function},
b) How much coherent harmony exists among its parts {organization}, and/or
c) The degree to which its purpose is verifiable {purpose}.


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

Dawn Bertot writes:


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

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...)


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

Actual science does not fear falsifiability.


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-03-2011 12:43 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:27 PM DWIII has responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 535 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 152 of 219 (640680)
11-11-2011 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Dawn Bertot
11-11-2011 2:27 PM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:


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

There are, of course, several different processes which form rock; you may want to refer to Dr Adequate's Introduction To Geology.


Is there order and law in the rocks basic structure?

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?


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

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.

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?


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-11-2011 2:27 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2011 6:07 PM DWIII has not yet responded
 Message 159 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2011 7:18 AM DWIII has responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 535 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


(1)
Message 175 of 219 (641282)
11-18-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Dawn Bertot
11-16-2011 7:18 AM


Re: is my rock design
Dawn Bertot writes:


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

I haven't come to any conclusion yet; I was asking if you yourself believe that a crystal exhibits more order than an amorphous material; yes or no?

But... if you really want my input on this, consider the following:

One possible way to quantify simplicity/order vs complexity/disorder is Kolmogorov complexity; in particular, the length of a description (in a suitable symbolic language) necessary to fully describe the positioning of each atom in a sample. For example, given sufficiently-large sample sizes, specifying the regular lattice (built up of repeated unit cells of silicon atoms and oxygen atoms) of a perfect quartz crystal would take far less data than to specify the individual positions of every one of those same atoms in a disorderly arrangement, such as obsidian.


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

I have been lurking at EVC for a number of years now, so I am quite familiar with the arguments of many of the cdesignists here. Even so, it's always been quite difficult for me to make heads or tails of most of what you yourself put forth, given that you seem to have a remarkable talent for mixing up and equivocating your chosen set of magic words almost at random(!).


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

...

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?

...

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

What's there to agree with if you cannot even get your $#@#$%$%@ grammar straight???


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?

Suppose we do find exactly the same "detailed order and purpose" in every single thing produced by every single process? If there are no viable examples of non-design for comparison, or alternatively no conceivable method of measuring the amount of design, how could you then even hope to objectively recognize design in the first place?

Sorry, but "I knows it when I sees it" is just not good enough.


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?

Then, as far as science is concerned, the design argument is essentially worthless, and at best a dead end. Learning the "how" or the "why" (or even possibly the "who") that lies behind any given phenomenon is exactly what science is all about.

Since you (apparently) have been booted from this subforum, I suppose there is no point in continuing.


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2011 7:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 535 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 202 of 219 (642584)
11-29-2011 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Robert Byers
11-29-2011 7:48 PM


Robert Byers writes:


Design always means the fantastic complexity of nature.
Not rounded stones.
Design is where a human being understands that such a complex thing could only of come from complex processes.

Then perhaps we have a poor choice of terminology here. If your definition of "design" must include complexity, I suggest we simply call it "cdesign" to help avoid confusion.


Design equals complexity equals complex processes.
Sum. God plus his mechanisms.

Tell me, are mere humans capable of producing full-blown cdesign, as opposed to ordinary run-of-the-mill design?


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Robert Byers, posted 11-29-2011 7:48 PM Robert Byers 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 © 2021