Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,618 Year: 4,875/9,624 Month: 223/427 Week: 33/103 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
Drevmar
Junior Member (Idle past 4846 days)
Posts: 24
From: Spokane, WA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2011


Message 361 of 377 (608725)
03-13-2011 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Percy
03-12-2011 7:12 AM


Re: Design Evidence
About 21 years old. You might be talking about the Mark 45 which is a five inch gun. I did not serve on this ship, but I really like the picture of the missile that is being fired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Percy, posted 03-12-2011 7:12 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 362 of 377 (608735)
03-13-2011 7:04 AM


Summary
After 360 posts, and a fair amount of diversion, we're left pretty much where we started: without knowing the designer and their methods we are unable to distinguish design.
ID proponents seek to use design to evidence God but their method fails because without showing God they are unable to provide credible evidence for design.

Percy
Member
Posts: 22612
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 363 of 377 (608737)
03-13-2011 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Dawn Bertot
03-12-2011 11:39 PM


Re: Summary
Hi Dawn,
You've come too late to the party. Please see Message 349.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-12-2011 11:39 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 364 of 377 (608742)
03-13-2011 8:56 AM


Re: Intelligence Gap
I was hoping, before the closing of the thread, I'd get some response to my Message 33, culminating an exchange between Fearandloathing and me concerning the huge intelligence gap observed, relating to humans and other creatures. I alluded to evidence that throughout human history, mankind has ruled over the brute beasts as per Genesis.
No gap between other species even approaches the gap between humans and other creatures, relative to reasoning, creativity, logic, spiritual, control, travel, and cultural, etc.
I see this as evidence of design attested to by recorded history.
You can follow the short debate between us to follow it.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by fearandloathing, posted 03-13-2011 9:16 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 368 by jar, posted 03-13-2011 11:11 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 365 of 377 (608744)
03-13-2011 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Buzsaw
03-13-2011 8:56 AM


Re: Intelligence Gap
Buzsaw writes:
I was hoping, before the closing of the thread, I'd get some response to my Message 33, culminating an exchange between Fearandloathing and me concerning the huge intelligence gap observed, relating to humans and other creatures. I alluded to evidence that throughout human history, mankind has ruled over the brute beasts as per Genesis.
No gap between other species even approaches the gap between humans and other creatures, relative to reasoning, creativity, logic, spiritual, control, travel, and cultural, etc.
I see this as evidence of design attested to by recorded history.
You can follow the short debate between us to follow it.
I think everyone would agree with me when I said that the difference between a mouse and a chimp is far greater than us and a chimp, well most of us. Chimps can learn language, they use and fashion tools and have complex social groups. Similarities closer to man than to a mouse in intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2011 8:56 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2011 10:51 AM fearandloathing has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 366 of 377 (608751)
03-13-2011 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by fearandloathing
03-13-2011 9:16 AM


Re: Intelligence Gap
fearandloathing writes:
Buzsaw writes:
I was hoping, before the closing of the thread, I'd get some response to my Message 33, culminating an exchange between Fearandloathing and me concerning the huge intelligence gap observed, relating to humans and other creatures. I alluded to evidence that throughout human history, mankind has ruled over the brute beasts as per Genesis.
No gap between other species even approaches the gap between humans and other creatures, relative to reasoning, creativity, logic, spiritual, control, travel, and cultural, etc.
I see this as evidence of design attested to by recorded history.
You can follow the short debate between us to follow it.
I think everyone would agree with me when I said that the difference between a mouse and a chimp is far greater than us and a chimp, well most of us. Chimps can learn language, they use and fashion tools and have complex social groups. Similarities closer to man than to a mouse in intelligence.
LOL, Fearandloathing. When you cite evidence that chimps write books, build skyscrapers, worship in synagogues designed and built by them, capture, control and incarcerate humans in zoos designed and built by them for all chimps to observe, design craft to fly around the world and to the moon, plant, cultivate gardens and fields, create and use surgical instruments, do science, operate universities of learning design and build techy stuff like computers and manufacture instruments to play composed music in orchestras, etc, etc, get back to me.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by fearandloathing, posted 03-13-2011 9:16 AM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by fearandloathing, posted 03-13-2011 11:11 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 367 of 377 (608753)
03-13-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Buzsaw
03-13-2011 10:51 AM


Re: Intelligence Gap
you do same thing to everyone, you twist their words or your use of English differs so greatly from mine that no meaningful debate could take place. Some great apes have tested with an IQ of 70+. Yes I know these test vary from researcher to researcher, but all would agree the Great apes are intelligent, JUST GOOGLE IT!! Lots of CREDIBLE research along with plenty of ID sites spreading their view on it also. You have taken a simple statement and twisted it around. All of what you said is a politicians answer.You side step with other irrelevant questions?? I could say more but you bore me with "the party line of creation, you cant prove none of it....THATS WHY ITS CALLED FAITH AND NOT FACT.
By the way, how many of the things mankind can do have you done or are capable of doing,,performed surgery??composed a song??play an instrument or made one,LOL Yes this is going no where and has nothing to do with anything...kind of like your statement.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2011 10:51 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34058
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 368 of 377 (608754)
03-13-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Buzsaw
03-13-2011 8:56 AM


Yes, it seems there is an Knowledge Gap
Buzsaw writes:
I was hoping, before the closing of the thread, I'd get some response to my Message 33, culminating an exchange between Fearandloathing and me concerning the huge intelligence gap observed, relating to humans and other creatures. I alluded to evidence that throughout human history, mankind has ruled over the brute beasts as per Genesis.
No gap between other species even approaches the gap between humans and other creatures, relative to reasoning, creativity, logic, spiritual, control, travel, and cultural, etc.
I see this as evidence of design attested to by recorded history.
You can follow the short debate between us to follow it.
It is NOT evidence of design Buz. Once again you simply show everyone that you are clueless what evidence really is.
If you want that to be evidence of design you must at least provide levels of evidence comparable to what is presented in the OP. Show use verifiable evidence that the entity doing the design exists and the model/methods used by that entity to effect change.
Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2011 8:56 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 369 of 377 (608761)
03-13-2011 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Drevmar
03-13-2011 12:51 AM


Re: Design Evidence
Hi Drevmar,
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I appreciate your taking the time to respond in full. I would also like to apologise to you for the tone of my previous message. Hopefully we can move beyond that and into some constructive future discussions. Sadly, the admin team have decided to close this thread for now, so I'm not going to be able to address your points in full; not on this thread anyway.
If you would like to discuss some of the issues raised in your messages though, there are a number of open threads where such discussions would be on topic;
  • What prevents micro evolution from becoming macro evolution challenges creationists to explain exactly what barrier prevents micro-evolutionary change from adding up to macroevolution over the long-term.
  • Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? takes a look at the differences between species and focusses in particular upon one clear example of macroevolution; the evolution of the horse from small, dog-like ancestors.
  • Animals with bad design. sees one of your fellow creationists, Aaron, trying to answer charges of apparent bad design in nature. Along the way, we have focussed quite a bit on whale evolution, another good example of macro-evolutionary change.
  • And although you mention it only as a side point, The Bible's Flat Earth challenges the assumption that the Bible does not describe a flat Earth. Although you are correct in so far as that the Bible never explicitly describes world as flat, I believe that some books, such as Genesis, were written from a flat-earth perspective.
If you want to join in the discussion on any of those threads, I would be glad to participate.

A general summary;
I don't think that any creationist participant in this thread has provided any positive evidence of design. Probably the person who has come closest to doing so would be Slevesque, with his advocacy of Irreducible Complexity. I see two major problems with that argument.
Firstly, Behe's examples of IC systems in biology have all fallen apart. Good evolutionary models exist for all of them. Some, such as the bacterial flagellum, were well understood even before Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box. Given that not a single IC biological system has been identified, I can't help but doubt the usefulness of the idea.
Also, I think that the way that Behe's examples have been shredded speaks of the difficulties in actually identifying an IC system, both in practise and in principle. Behe thought he had found several, but he was wrong. If the diagnosis of IC is this shaky and if false positives are so clearly possible, then I don't see how we can ever have much confidence in claims of IC. If even the originator of the concept can be so badly deceived, then a diagnosis of IC seems an extremely shaky foundation upon which to challenge so well evidenced a theory as the ToE.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Drevmar, posted 03-13-2011 12:51 AM Drevmar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-13-2011 4:35 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 370 of 377 (608767)
03-13-2011 2:50 PM


Automated Thread Summation Enforcement
I'm really looking forward to when I'll have time to implement automated thread summation enforcement. When an admin puts a thread into thread summation mode it will work like this:
  1. Replies to specific posts will be disabled.
  2. Each participant will be able to post only once.
  3. Non-participants won't be able to post at all.
But you scofflaws have nothing to worry about in the short term. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, so enjoy yourselves while it lasts!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2011 6:42 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4837 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 371 of 377 (608770)
03-13-2011 3:15 PM


A few examples of evidence for design.
The genetic code. The fact that it is a code. It seems as though some evolutionists here want to say that it is non informational that it is only physical. I think the burden is on you to prove that. How do different condons code for the same amino acid? Why does the mitochondrial code differ, even though it consists of the same nucleotides?
AUA: methionine (isoleucine in nuclear DNA)
AGA: terminator (arginine in nuclear DNA)
AGG: terminator (arginine in nuclear DNA)
UGA: tryptophan (termination in nuclear DNA)
So if it is a code then I would say all codes require a mental source. Falsification would be a code that does not come from a mental source.
Irreducible complexity. It seems to me that there are two answers to this question posed by evos. One is that nothing is irreducibly complex. This would be consistent with Darwin’s falsification of his theory that nothing that could not occur by small gradual steps. So if an example such as the flagellum (numerous others) is purposed as having many individual parts that have to be complete and working in order to function it should be answered to show why it is not IC. How mutation and natural selection could achieve this end product. This is after all your hypothesis that nothing is IC. Under this hypothesis if something could be determined to be IC it should be considered proof of design.
The second theory advanced is that evolution can make multiple steps at once. This seems to be without merit and looks to me that it violates Darwin’s falsification. It would be beneficial for some evos here to expound on this.
Specified Complexity. A theory that states that outside of randomness and order (as a result of natural law) you are left with design. Evolutionists seem to attack Dembski but fail to offer counter evidence to show him wrong. This is the basic theory behind the SETI research. They are looking for signals that are not random (background noise) and not ordered by natural law (pulsar) what you are left with is a designed signal. If such a signal was found (doubtful) most of you would be shouting it from the roof tops. But when Dembski purposes the same thing in relation to biology you scoff and engage in ad hominem attacks. I’m not sure what Dembski lays out in regards to falsifying his claim but it seems to me that showing his theory incorrect would be simple. An example that is non random not the result of a natural law and not designed.
One more thing, the whole you need to prove God to prove design is faulty logic. Absolutely nothing would be proof for most of you. Think about it, how would eyewitness accounts work for you? (They are mistaken or liars) How about a video? (A forgery) How about a personal vision? (I need to see a psychologist) Would SETI have to prove who the designer of the signal was to prove there was a designer?

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Son, posted 03-13-2011 4:43 PM havoc has not replied
 Message 374 by Phage0070, posted 03-13-2011 6:13 PM havoc has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 166 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 372 of 377 (608777)
03-13-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Granny Magda
03-13-2011 1:51 PM


Re: Design Evidence
A general summary;
I don't think that any creationist participant in this thread has provided any positive evidence of design. Probably the person who has come closest to doing so would be Slevesque, with his advocacy of Irreducible Complexity. I see two major problems with that argument.
As I beg Percys indulgence to offer a summation of sorts, the type of evidence needed has been indirectly implied in this thread. It has been indirectly implied that while we may not see a designer and we cannot see a designer designing, that is not necessary for order, to be ACTUAL solid evidence of design
All that is required is that order exists the same as the principles of gravity exist for us to observe and evaluate its effects and ultimately its valid conclusions. The "evidence" exists in what is valid and demonstratable
The question is not is order evidence of a DESIGNER, but is order evidence of DESIGN and ofcourse it is from every possible angle, physically, logically and evidentially. there is no other category where it can be scrutinized or evaluated
Anyone beliving that a valid "problem" exists with such reasoning or its conclusions is free to demonstrate otherwise
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2011 1:51 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3913 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 373 of 377 (608779)
03-13-2011 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by havoc
03-13-2011 3:15 PM


I know it's summation time but when we talked about evidence, we talked about the same kind you see everywhere else in science. The kind you can use to predict things for example and give a model of what it describes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by havoc, posted 03-13-2011 3:15 PM havoc has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 374 of 377 (608790)
03-13-2011 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by havoc
03-13-2011 3:15 PM


havoc writes:
It seems as though some evolutionists here want to say that it is non informational that it is only physical. I think the burden is on you to prove that.
Why would it be? Your primary issue seems to be a deep misunderstanding of how the flow of proofs and claims work.
You are making a claim, something like "DNA is a code, codes must be designed by minds, therefore DNA was designed by a mind." As you are making that claim you have the burden of proof to support it.
The "evolutionists" you speak of are simply taking a default position; the vast majority of things which exist are assumed to be naturally occurring. Stars, planets, dirt, trees, light, sound, wind, water, air, et c... it is only a very small percentage of things which can be ascribed to the actions of an intelligence. Since DNA began to exist at a time which we currently have no reason to think an intelligence existed, and in fact appears to be a prerequisite for any mind we are familiar with, the assumption of its natural origin seems reasonable so far.
havoc writes:
How do different condons code for the same amino acid?
This isn't at all an indication of design. True, a language can convey the same concept through different words. But physical processes can yield the same result through different methods; for instance a simple V-shaped valley can put a rock slide in the same place if it fell on either of two hills. Or a plant can break a stone apart in the same way that freezing water could, or wind erosion.
havoc writes:
Why does the mitochondrial code differ, even though it consists of the same nucleotides?
Why not? We have already established and observed methods by which DNA can be altered in spontaneous, natural methods. If it works... it works.
havoc writes:
So if it is a code then I would say all codes require a mental source. Falsification would be a code that does not come from a mental source.
This is called "Begging the Question". You are assuming your conclusion in your premise. You define DNA as being a code, and define codes as being only designed by minds, and then conclude that DNA must have been designed by a mind. Yet you haven't proved that DNA was designed by a mind or that it is a code, you have simply asserted those as premises.
A word carved into a stone can convey a concept when viewed by a mind. Thats an example of a code. A rock precariously balanced at the top of a hill such that a gust of wind will send it hurtling down the mountain *might* also be viewed as indicating a concept, but the moving stone isn't a code: it is simply a physical process obeying natural forces. DNA is simply chemicals reacting the way they naturally do, obeying the natural forces that govern their interaction. It *might* be the case that they were originally arranged to convey a concept, or fulfill a purpose.. but you have to prove that first.
havoc writes:
Irreducible complexity. It seems to me that there are two answers to this question posed by evos. One is that nothing is irreducibly complex.
Wrong, there are many things which are irreducibly complex. What you don't seem to understand is that this is completely consistent with evolutionary theory, and is an expected state of affairs.
havoc writes:
This would be consistent with Darwin’s falsification of his theory that nothing that could not occur by small gradual steps.
Wrong on both counts: I suspect your reference to Darwin is from a popular snippet of intentional misquotation where Darwin says that it is difficult to believe, yet goes on to say it is nevertheless true. On the second count, irreducibly complex things can be produced by small, gradual steps. For example: A stone arch. Remove a stone and the whole thing comes tumbling down, yet it was made one stone at a time. What you missed was the support structure which was later removed.
And before you start crowing about the support structure being made by intelligences, keep in mind that there are natural stone arches.
havoc writes:
So if an example such as the flagellum (numerous others) is purposed as having many individual parts that have to be complete and working in order to function it should be answered to show why it is not IC.
This has already been done to death, and if you had even done an ounce of research on sites such as YouTube you would know it already. Just because a flagellum isn't beneficial to an organism as a form of locomotion does not mean it isn't useful *at all*. For example: Moving food closer to the mouth.
havoc writes:
How mutation and natural selection could achieve this end product.
Ignorance, willful or otherwise, is not an argument against evolution. Going "Hurr, I don't understand!" does not disprove anything.
havoc writes:
I’m not sure what Dembski lays out in regards to falsifying his claim but it seems to me that showing his theory incorrect would be simple.
You know what happens when you assume? It makes an ass out of "u".
havoc writes:
Absolutely nothing would be proof for most of you. Think about it, how would eyewitness accounts work for you? (They are mistaken or liars) How about a video? (A forgery) How about a personal vision? (I need to see a psychologist)
How about a testable phenomenon which can be properly witnessed by multiple independent, trustworthy sources? You know, that whole "peer review" thing which has served us so well in science. Eye witness accounts, video, or personal visions are not accepted in the scientific arena without verification so don't cry about being held to the same standard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by havoc, posted 03-13-2011 3:15 PM havoc has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 375 of 377 (608792)
03-13-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Admin
03-13-2011 2:50 PM


Re: Automated Thread Summation Enforcement
Hi Admin,
But you scofflaws have nothing to worry about in the short term. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, so enjoy yourselves while it lasts!
It was that Percy who started it. Cluttering up the board with his off-topic boat banter... Damn disrespectful is what it is. You should ban his ass.
Mutate and Survive
(Nice idea about the summation-enforcement though )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Admin, posted 03-13-2011 2:50 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024