|
Author
|
Topic: Why only one Designer
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Parsimony?
More utter nonsense, but maybe I can salvage something out of it.
quote:
Let me give you an example. Suppose I suggested that in the Andromada galaxy there's a race of superintelligent beings resembling beach umbrellas. Now, as I have no evidence for this, you would adopt the negative as the default position.
No, I'd simply laugh. Please read back through the thread and try to figure out what I have been saying. If you can't then fine. I can also live with that. Edited by jar, : No reason given.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2011 8:58 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 108 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2011 4:34 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
kbertsche writes:
A cause-effect chain is a causal sequence. I think the only alternative to a "first cause" would be an infinite sequence. As Craig and other philosophers have argued, one cannot have an infinite sequence of actual events. Of course you can as long as they are separate and unique. But it's all just silly anyway. Maybe fun to play with but in the end, irrelevant. Designer is pointless and utterly irrelevant even if true except as a historical footnote or in the case of product liability. Talking about one designer versus many designers is just mental masturbation and as pointless as some imagined first cause.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 103 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 9:02 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 115 of 377 (612506)
04-16-2011 1:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by SavageD
04-16-2011 1:48 PM
|
|
Re: common design
SavageD writes: Well If you take it from the view of similar design, it would probably make sense. Example: if were to start my own line of designer clothes, for each garment I make I would probably leave my signature on it to symbolize that the garment was fashioned by me. It would then be natural to think that there was probably one designer or one mind behind the design upon seeing my signature left on my product. Similarly every living thing contains some sort of signature (eg. dna). Why does every living thing require dna, why not some other mechanism for information? Probably evidence for common design. The biological system also exhibits an intricate system (ecosystem). plants depend on insects & animals animals depend on insects & plants insects depend on animals & plants Every-things intertwined, if you remove one of these, the entire ecosystem falls apart. This would then be evidence for a common designer since there was probably common thought used in designing the system. It may be possible that there were more than one designers, but that would be undermining the principle at hand, "life as we know it was possibly designed". The amount of designers won't really matter. How is the existence of DNA evidence of design at all? Why is the signature different on every critter? Edited by jar, : add question 2
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by SavageD, posted 04-16-2011 1:48 PM | | SavageD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 116 by SavageD, posted 04-16-2011 2:20 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 117 of 377 (612509)
04-16-2011 2:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by SavageD
04-16-2011 2:20 PM
|
|
Re: common design
SavageD writes: jar writes:
How is the existence of DNA evidence of design at all? Why is the signature different on every critter? I'm not here to argue about dna being evidence of design, however if you can prove to me how something as complex & intricate as dna could appear in nature purely through natural processes, I'll be happy to have a conversation with you on this matter. as to why the signature is different on every critter, my point is not the dna molecule on a whole but the mechanism for which it is used. For example: every individual has a certain dna structure however no two person may have the same exact dna; But the dna sequence may be used to determine skin color, eye color hair length, etc etc It is mainly the 'mechanism' for which it is used that represents the signature, not the mere presence of it in an organism. Why not use another way for determining phenotypes & genotypes? It would then be clear that there were more than one designers since no two people think the same. Again, that is not what you said. DNA is not the same, just as two peoples signature is not the same. The fact that their is a mechanism "DNA" does not offer any support that there is some designer, and in fact would support there being a different designer for each unique signature using your argument as presented above. Intelligent design is simply a really stupid idea and all the evidence shows that if there was some designer he is nothing but an on the job training apprentice who has not yet reached journeyman status.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by SavageD, posted 04-16-2011 2:20 PM | | SavageD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 121 by SavageD, posted 04-16-2011 3:17 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 126 of 377 (612522)
04-16-2011 4:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by SavageD
04-16-2011 3:17 PM
|
|
Re: common design
SavageD writes: jar writes:
Again, that is not what you said. DNA is not the same, just as two peoples signature is not the same. The fact that their is a mechanism "DNA" does not offer any support that there is some designer, and in fact would support there being a different designer for each unique signature using your argument as presented above. Intelligent design is simply a really stupid idea and all the evidence shows that if there was some designer he is nothing but an on the job training apprentice who has not yet reached journeyman status. 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. I'm not even gonna try to explain this simple concept to you any more. There is no evidence which supports dna appearing in nature through natural processes. The mere intricacy of dna speaks volumes of there probably being a designer. Your telling me that "Intelligent design is simply a really stupid idea"? are you saying that there's no such thing as a designer? That design is simply a figment of our imagination? The computer your using is a product of a designer.
Utter bullcrap. You claimed that DNA was the signature of the designer. If so then there have been a near infinite number 0of designers. Of course there is evidence of DNA being of natural origin, in fact there is NO evidence of anything that is NOT of natural origin. I'm saying that when it comes to biology and living things, the Intelligent Design concept is nothing but a cheap carny con designed to get around the SCOTUS, and even if it were true is of absolutely no worth or value beyond being a historical footnote or in the case of a product liability suit. The Intelligent Design movement is simply dishonest, irrelevant, worthless and stupid.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by SavageD, posted 04-16-2011 3:17 PM | | SavageD has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 140 of 377 (612595)
04-17-2011 12:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by SavageD
04-17-2011 12:32 PM
|
|
Re: common design
How do you know that a car is designed?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:32 PM | | SavageD has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 146 of 377 (612700)
04-17-2011 6:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 145 by SavageD
04-17-2011 6:46 PM
|
|
Re: common design
But of course we can and did learn how to make DNA and we make it using only natural processes, no magic involved.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 6:46 PM | | SavageD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 147 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 6:56 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 148 of 377 (612703)
04-17-2011 7:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by SavageD
04-17-2011 6:56 PM
|
|
Re: common design
And the mechanisms are all natural, no magic need apply. Sorry but the idea of some designer is simply stupid, and I will ask you yet again, how do you know a car is designed? That is the first baby step towards understanding how stupid an idea Intelligent Design really is when it comes to living critters.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 6:56 PM | | SavageD has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 156 of 377 (612767)
04-18-2011 4:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 155 by SavageD
04-18-2011 4:49 PM
|
|
Re: common design
SavageD writes: Catholic Scientist writes: The selective process did not come from something, its simply inherent to imperfect replication in a competitive environment. Does that make sense? I already know what natural selection is and no, your not making sense. Your claiming that, \\the selective process did not come from something//...in effect what YOU are saying is: Natural selection is simply there because it is there, there are no means through which this mechanism originated. It is simply passed on, so no it did not result from chance...This is a logical fallacy. Your not even attempting to say how the system for this selection could have arose. From the evolutionist stand point natural selection arose through chance processes and thus depends on accumulative chance occurrences. Thus making natural selection a mechanism of chance on a whole. This kind of thinking is both irrational and illogical.
My point: Natural selection is a mechanism resulting from design, as it is the only other alternative to explaining how such a complex & intricate mechanism can arise. Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in. Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 155 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 4:49 PM | | SavageD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 158 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:03 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 161 of 377 (612775)
04-18-2011 5:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 158 by SavageD
04-18-2011 5:03 PM
|
|
Re: common design
SavageD writes: jar writes:
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in. Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm. 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. Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in". Again, get your definitions correct. Natural Selection is just the filter, it is the world and environment we live in. It really is that simple.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 158 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:03 PM | | SavageD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 163 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:15 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 168 of 377 (612784)
04-18-2011 5:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 163 by SavageD
04-18-2011 5:15 PM
|
|
Re: common design
SavageD writes:
"get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition? Natural Selection is only the filter. It is the environment critters live in. If the critter lives long enough to reproduce it gets through the filter and passes on its genes.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 163 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 5:15 PM | | SavageD has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Dembeski is just trying to palm the pea and con the rubes.
kbertsche writes:
You should know that Dembski's math PhD was related to signal processing, and to the way that SETI looks for signs of intelligence in signals from space. SETI is looking for positive evidence of intelligence. Dembski and others have been trying to apply similar arguments to ID. Not exactly. What Dembski and others are doing it to try to convince the rubes the the two searches have some correspondence, which of course is patently absurd. SETI is looking for entirely natural sources of signals created by a life form similar to us and on approximately the same technological scale. That is a reasonable if somewhat unlikely search based on the fact that we know with 100% certainty that there is at least one entirely natural life form that has produced and broadcast electronic signals. What Dembeski is trying to imply is that the SETI effort could also be applied to their search, but that claimed correspondence totally fails examination. While there is evidence that at least one species of critter has broadcast electronic signals into space, there is NO evidence that there is some designer. Even if we did find some signs that appeared to be not natural in origin there is absolutely no reason to attribute them to some designer unless and until they present evidence that a designer exists that is comparable to the evidence we have that critters have sent electronic signals into space.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by kbertsche, posted 04-20-2011 2:33 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 246 of 377 (613276)
04-24-2011 9:23 AM
|
|
|
Summary and the real story
Looking at biological critters as designed (a really stupid idea in the first place) can only lead to the conclusion that it was not a designer or even designers but rather committees (not singular but plural) and that the designer or designers were the lowest, least important, least respected and least powerful of any of the committees. It appears that even when the designers came up with a good idea, the cost cutting committee went through the design and substituted whatever pieces parts were already in production regardless of whether or not the substituted part was optimal. If it could be made to work, use it again. Then after the cost cutting committee did the numbers, the PR folk took charge and did the visuals. Likely they had focus groups for some (which eyes make you want to cuddle that bear? ) or in many cases simply had a contest among third graders and the best ten drawings went into production. Sure there might have been designers but it's obvious that it was the committees not the designers that were important.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 371 of 377 (762292)
07-10-2015 12:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 370 by Rocky.C
07-10-2015 12:45 PM
|
|
Rocky writes: We want the inaccuracies and outright frauds supporting evolution removed. We want the kids to be taught the truth: that evolution is just a theory, and a poor one at that, of explaining the origin and vast diversity of life. How could any well-meaning, and honest individual object to this? We object because to claim that "We want the inaccuracies and outright frauds supporting evolution removed. We want the kids to be taught the truth: that evolution is just a theory, and a poor one at that, of explaining the origin and vast diversity of life." is quite frankly a lie and a really silly one at that. The Theory of Evolution is not just well supported, it is the ONLY theory that explains the life we see today and in the past.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 370 by Rocky.C, posted 07-10-2015 12:45 PM | | Rocky.C has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2