Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9077 total)
648 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (5 members, 643 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,035 Year: 5,147/6,534 Month: 567/794 Week: 58/135 Day: 4/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6738
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 311 of 377 (613912)
04-28-2011 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by SavageD
04-28-2011 10:03 PM


Re: Evidence for an Only Designer
The evidence for the one designer scenario are mainly these:

1) Signatures (dna etc): all living organisms require dna & or rna to determine their distinguishing features, live and adapt....Including rna viruses. Imagine taking away dna from every living thing....what organisms will these kinds of viruses be left with to reproduce & survive?

2) Noticed similarities (common design): Everything requires mechanisms to utilize water & or sunlight to live.

3) The intricacy of the ecosystem: All Organisms depend upon each other to both regulate the environment in which they live and survive.

I'm having trouble seeing how any/all of these negate multiple designers.

As for #1: if DNA is a signature, since we know there are at least three different structures for DNA does this evidence three designers?

For #2: I fail to see how the fact that most cars have wheels, lights, windshields, engines, seats and radios equates to there only being one designer of cars. Isn't similarity of design rather than exact replication of design a hallmark of additional designers?

#3: This seems to me to have PCC (Project Coordinating Committee) written all over it. How does the complexity and intricate interweaving of an ecosystem evidence one designer over a coordinated effort of many?

Would you elaborate on these for me please?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by SavageD, posted 04-28-2011 10:03 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by SavageD, posted 04-29-2011 2:09 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6738
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 314 of 377 (613967)
04-29-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by SavageD
04-29-2011 2:09 AM


Shared Designs
... It is more likely that if there were many designers they would all think of different mechanisms (other than dna) in several living things.

It is more likely that if there were many designers they would all think of different mechanisms for sustenance in several living things.

The complex and intricate interweaving of the ecosystem (i.e. Life sustains life.) serves as a another sign of "common thought" in relation to the first two points.

So the theme here is that common principles, common energy sources and common thoughts or ideas give evidence to there being only one designer.

The problem is that our experiences with designs and designers negate this theme.

One example among thousands. There are literally hundreds of disperate designs of internal combustion engines by hundreds of different designers all using the same principles, energy sources and common ideas for turning gasoline into motive power.

I cannot see where any of your three points is exclusive to a one-designer hypothesis when our own experiences indicate otherwise.

What am I missing? Is there more?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by SavageD, posted 04-29-2011 2:09 AM SavageD has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6738
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 318 of 377 (613998)
04-30-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by SavageD
04-29-2011 10:28 PM


Re: Evidence for an Only Designer
It is not 'definitive' evidence of a single designer, but the odds / probabilities are in favor of these exhibited commonalities being the idea of solely one designer.

Is this your opinion or are these odds/probabilities demonstrable in some manner?

Sorry to keep dragging this out, SavageD, but your answers seem to be no more than suppositions without any separation of what would be 0ne- or multiple-designer evidence. Again, taking the human design/designer experience as our guide there doesn't seem to be anything in your points that in any way negates a multi-designer scenario.

Unless there is something compelling in the odds/probability analysis you mentioned then I'm afraid your evidence for a one-designer hypothesis is not sufficient.

Do you have a probability analysis you could share? Though not stellar in all areas, my math is more than sufficient to comprehend probability theory. Feel free to get as detailed as you think is necessary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by SavageD, posted 04-29-2011 10:28 PM SavageD has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022