Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
68 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), Phat, Tangle (4 members, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,117 Year: 4,229/6,534 Month: 443/900 Week: 149/150 Day: 3/16 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 377 (612107)
04-13-2011 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
04-12-2011 5:24 PM


The Fewer the Merrier
So why do you assume that only one designer designed a universe as complex as ours [?]

If you can 'explain' it with one designer, why try to explain it with one thousand?

Jon

Edited by Jon, : typ0


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 5:24 PM frako has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 04-13-2011 11:01 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 377 (612118)
04-13-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
04-13-2011 11:01 AM


Re: The Fewer the Merrier
As frako already said, they're using human design as an analogy. For all intents and purposes, that's the only argument they have.

Indeed, but that is driven by the limitations of a single human doing the designing, and the fact that there are more than enough humans to do the collaborating.

From what I can tell, there are two ways that the designing could take place: a single, rather powerful, designer working alone; or a group of less powerful designers working together.

I think the human analogy only goes so far; if we can look at the nature of the 'design', we should be able to figure out the competence of the designer(s) and from there make a rough guess as to how many there were(/are).

I think...

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 04-13-2011 11:01 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 04-13-2011 12:05 PM Jon has taken no action

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 377 (612143)
04-13-2011 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
04-13-2011 12:39 PM


Ahem...
... and yet no atheist/evolutionist here bothered to tell you you were wrong.

Ahem:

quote:
Jon in Message 7:

If you can 'explain' it with one designer, why try to explain it with one thousand?


Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 12:39 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 377 (612263)
04-14-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
04-14-2011 10:15 AM


But a "first cause" is not simply the cause of any specific item. Rather, it is the first, ultimate cause in a cause-effect chain, and is itself uncaused..

Even if a 'first cause' can only be singular by some definition, how does that exempt ID/Creationism from having to address whether there was a 'first cause' proper or a set of causes, since either scenario could just as well explain a created world.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 10:15 AM kbertsche has seen this message

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 377 (612519)
04-16-2011 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by crashfrog
04-16-2011 2:59 PM


A Funny Backstitch
But what if you were the only person who had ever learned, or ever would learn. how to make clothes? Is there really still a need for you to "brand" your products? I mean, just the fact that they're clothes would be proof that you made them, because you're the only tailor who has ever existed and will ever exist.

Well, it doesn't have to be a signature for the sake of brand recognition; it could be a signature that all the products share by virtue of having been designed by that one designer.

If we took all of the products and compared them, if such a signature existed, it would show itself as being a commonality present in every product designed.

Well, not every living thing requires DNA. There are RNA viruses, for instance, that have no DNA at all.

Perhaps we can come up with a counter argument involving something that is more clearly 'living' than an RNA virus.

The signature definitely has to be present in any product that is clearly clothing, while it may or may not (by accident) be in anything that was not designed by the designer—this could include things whose status as clothing is difficult to determine: a pocket watch, for example.

The question then is: Can a commonality in all life be seen as the mark of a single designer, and if so, do we see such a commonality?

I think that if we accept the rest of the design argument just for the sake of playing along, then sweeping commonalities in living things certainly would seem to indicate a single designer (at least for life). The next part of the question, though, is whether such commonalities exist and whether or not they are strong enough to point to a single designer; for example, 'covers the body' is a pretty weak commonality for arguing that all clothing is designed by a single designer. So the commonality should be something too great to have arisen by chance and should certainly not involve traits that are defining characteristics of the product (e.g., 'covers the body' for clothing, 'living' for life).

Just watching the wildlife outside my window, though, has me rather convinced that such required commonalities do not exist. Analysis of life forms at a deeper level, however, might show me to be mistaken.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2011 2:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2011 3:58 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 377 (612520)
04-16-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by SavageD
04-16-2011 3:17 PM


Re: common design
What isn't what I said??? I've already mentioned that dna is not the same for any two individuals, and as said before, it is the mechanisms for which dna is used that provides the signature & not the mere presence of dna itself.

Is DNA and the 'mechanisms for which DNA is used' a defining characteristic of life?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by SavageD, posted 04-16-2011 3:17 PM SavageD has taken no action

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 377 (612523)
04-16-2011 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
04-16-2011 3:58 PM


Re: A Funny Backstitch
Could you identify Dean Kamen's signature in these three products? Please be specific.

I don't even know if there is one; but Dean and his products are irrelevant to the discussion.

I would say that the sweeping differences indicate multiple designers - clearly the guy who did "plants" wasn't on the "mammals" team.

Seems that way for now, until Savage can offer up some evidence to the contrary.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2011 3:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2011 6:13 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 377 (612547)
04-16-2011 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
04-16-2011 6:13 PM


Re: A Funny Backstitch
As an immediate and more approachable example of common design of disparate functions, it's entirely relevant and probative.

But we're only talking about one type of design: life.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2011 6:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 04-17-2011 11:33 AM Jon has seen this message

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 377 (612594)
04-17-2011 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by SavageD
04-17-2011 12:32 PM


Re: common design
Contrary to the evolution theory, I am not claiming that dna conveniently appeared in nature, I'm saying that it is a product of design. There are no observations of anyone making dna, however there is evidence which suggests that it was designed.

If I've never observed anyone creating a car and later came across one in some other country, does that mean the car was not created by some designer, that it simply arose through super natural means? No.

Just like a car exhibits a level of functionality, intricacy / complexity & structural integrity as evidence it was designed, so does dna. This is my evidence.

Is DNA and the 'mechanisms for which DNA is used' a defining characteristic of life?

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:32 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:49 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 377 (612597)
04-17-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by SavageD
04-17-2011 12:49 PM


Re: common design
I would say the mechanisms and roles for which dna & or 'rna' are used are the defining characteristics of life.

But not DNA itself?

I would probably go deeper into this but for now I have to go, I'm quite busy.

Take your time; I'm simply trying to understand your position.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:49 PM SavageD has taken no action

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 377 (612779)
04-18-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by SavageD
04-18-2011 5:15 PM


Re: common design
"get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition?

It's not the definition of 'natural selection'. And, jar already defined 'natural selection', so a comparison of your definition and his should give you some indication as to where you went wrong.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:15 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:24 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 377 (612782)
04-18-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Straggler
04-18-2011 5:15 PM


There is at Least One Creator
You are making a distinction between designers and creators that doesn't apply to any religious context.

Ringo has done absolutely no such thing. At all.

So parsimoniously we conclude no designers. Which in a religious context is functionally the same as no creators.

This isn't the topic. The assumption of there being a creator/designer is laid out in the OP:

quote:
frako in Message 1:

Using ID and creo logic .


It is very clear that we aren't here to debate whether or not there is a designer, even though some have dragged the thread off in that direction. The topic is: Assuming life was created, why should we conclude that it was created by only one creator?

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2011 5:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2011 6:03 AM Jon has seen this message

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 377 (612783)
04-18-2011 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by SavageD
04-18-2011 5:24 PM


Re: common design
Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms.

That's not natural selection. Natural selection can easily be defined using only one word from that sentence:

Environment.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:24 PM SavageD has taken no action

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 377 (612890)
04-19-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Straggler
04-19-2011 3:06 PM


Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
But it should be recognised that any the argument you make on that basis have little bearing on designers which are also being posited as some sort of ultimate first cause creator.

But IDists don't really posit their designer as some sort of 'ultimate first cause'. There is no reason why an ID designer could not have itself been caused by something else. The ID argument breaks down to simply be: life's too complicated to evolve; life must have been designed.

Obviously, anything designed has at least one designer. The issue, however, is that many IDists assume there is only one designer. As frako pointed out, and as ringo has shown, there is good reason to suspect that if life was designed, it was designed by multiple designers. Everything we know about designing tells us that more than one designer is the norm. Everything we know about the Universe tells us that pluralities are the norm.

Without some really good support, there's little reason to concluding only one designer, especially if we take other aspects of the ID argument itself into consideration, which pretty much makes multiple designers the only sensible conclusion.

Jon

Edited by Jon, : brevity


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2011 3:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by kbertsche, posted 04-19-2011 11:09 PM Jon has replied
 Message 185 by frako, posted 04-20-2011 6:49 AM Jon has seen this message
 Message 219 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 6:25 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 377 (612907)
04-19-2011 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by kbertsche
04-19-2011 11:09 PM


Re: UNNECESSARY Plurality and Parsimony
William Lane Craig certainly posits the designer as a "first cause." Don't you consider him to be an IDist?

I should have been more careful in my wording. IDist arguments for a designer do not require that the designer be a first cause or even singular. They simply require that at least one designer existed.

There are many IDists who go for the stupid First Cause, Words of Christ designer crap; but they do so on purely religious grounds, and not based on any of their 'evidence' for a designed world.

And that's the entire purpose of this thread: The 'evidence' IDists give for there being a designer tells us there should be multiple ones; yet they routinely conclude there is only one. The reason they do this is solely religious favoritism.

Thus, ID ultimately fails in its mission of providing some pseudo-science cloak for introducing religious indoctrination into the school system. Even if you take the whole ID argument as solid, you still don't have the indoctrination; you still have to invoke religion to get to that final conclusion, and religion and public schools don't mix.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by kbertsche, posted 04-19-2011 11:09 PM kbertsche has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022