Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
74 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 24 of 638 (713743)
12-16-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by PlanManStan
12-15-2013 9:07 AM


but I will operate as though it is not, because I have not seen the evidence,

I wonder how far you actually take that approach.

Let's say that you're walking down a dark alley in a big city at night. Are you really totally fearless of being mugged, or do you still kinda get scared a bit? What if you hear the sound of a can being kicked? Do you still operate as if you're alone, because you don't have evidence that you're not?

And when a guy jumps out and says "I have a gun, gimme your money?" Do you really tell him that you don't believe him unless you actually see the gun?

I'd bet that you don't really operate under the approach that something doesn't exist until you have evidence for it, but rather, it is just a point to make for the question of god's existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PlanManStan, posted 12-15-2013 9:07 AM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 26 of 638 (713780)
12-16-2013 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PlanManStan
12-16-2013 2:42 PM


I would be scared (with a liberal definiton of scared, of course) because I would know that someone who looks like him or be in his situation might definitely carry a gun, but I would resist until I was shown the gun.

Of course you'd be scared.

And that fear of the unknown that we all get from time to time, is us not operating as though something does not exist until it is shown that it does.

We just don't work that way. When considering gods in online discussions, people like to act like they disbelieve stuff until it's shown to them, but out in the real world we just don't act like that.

We've evolved such that a "noise in the bush" generates a response rather than not, because running away from a bird that sounded like a lion kept our ancestors alive and sticking around and waiting to see that it was actually a lion left people dead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 2:42 PM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 638 (713788)
12-16-2013 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PlanManStan
12-16-2013 3:40 PM


In the big city, I would have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a person nearby, as I detailed in my post before.

Well its my scenario so I get to make up the details. It was actually a cat that knocked the can off a trash bin.

What is your point?

You don't really operate as though something doesn't exist until you've seen the evidence for it.

That position works in an online discussion about the existence of god, but out in the real world people just don't behave that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 3:40 PM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 638 (713792)
12-16-2013 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PlanManStan
12-16-2013 3:55 PM


The details of the scenario are irrelevant. Its beside the point.

The point is that people don't always operate as though something doesn't exist until they've seen the evidence for it.

The point is how you find your answer, based on reason and math and science or based on "well it could go either way..."

We don't always have the luxury of having good data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 3:55 PM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 638 (713794)
12-16-2013 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by PlanManStan
12-16-2013 4:10 PM


You're right we don't.

ABE: wait, upon re-reading I think that you might be saying that I was right that we don't have the luxury of good data, rather than saying I was right that we don't always operate as though things don't exist until shown otherwise. That's why its a good idea to use the quote function.

That's all I was trying to get you to acknowledge.

You said that you operate as if something does not exist until you have evidence that it does. That's all fine and dandy for online discussions about the existence of god, but I was trying to get you to see that it doesn't really apply that well out in the real world.

I think what you are saying is that i had no evidence to think that there was a man behind me, but I acted as such. I've already outlined the evidence for why it was a good guess that a man was behind me. What is the problem, again?

A good guess isn't evidence. But the details of the scenario don't really matter. I was just trying to get you to see that sometimes we act on little to no evidence in ways that are counter to disbelieving that something is there until shown otherwise.

I thought if I could walk you through a scenario where you'd be afraid of the unknown, then you would see what I was talking about.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:10 PM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 638 (713797)
12-16-2013 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by PlanManStan
12-16-2013 4:27 PM


Well, I can't think of any language I could use to more explicitly state my point, and I don't feel like you've actually addressed it. So I guess I'll just try to state it again:

Out in the real world, people don't operate as though things don't exist until they are shown that they do. That position is used in online discussion about the existence of god, but that's not how people actually behave.

Acting on little or no evidence...do you mean like our fight-or-flight instinct?

I mean like when you get scared in a dark alley even though you don't have any evidence suggesting that there is something there.

Nobody walks around like a boss without any fear. People behave as though there may be something there despite the lack of evidence that there is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:27 PM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 36 of 638 (713800)
12-16-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PlanManStan
12-16-2013 4:36 PM


I understand your point. What my point is is that, whether we are aware of it or not, there are underlying and rational reasons for what we think.

Even for the belief in god?

Too, there's underlying irrational reasons.

And where did the whole "no evidence that someone was there" come from? What about the can?

The can was part 2. Part 1 was just:

quote:
Let's say that you're walking down a dark alley in a big city at night. Are you really totally fearless of being mugged, or do you still kinda get scared a bit?

.

Even without the can, our culture and our movies have so ingrained in us the eerieness and terror of a dark alleyway that we begin to feel it in the real world.

Our culture also has ingrained in us the belief in god. Would you say that belief in god is an evidenced postion as well then?

I suppose you wouldn't. Why then does it count for the dark alley? Seems contradictory to me.

I mean, sure, there's reasons for being scared of an empty dark alley, but in that sense there's reasons for believing in god.

Given that there's no evidence for god, and thus you have disbelief in its existence, then given that there's no evidence for anything in the alley, you should be free from fear because you'd disbelieve that there's anything there.

But you won't be free from fear, because people don't operate under the position of disbelieving that something is there until evidence shows otherwise. That's my point.

I am only saying that, whether I am aware of it or not, I don't feel unwarented fear.

So now its a questions about how belief is warranted, regardless of the evidence.

So are you saying that you will believe in something without evidence if it is warranted?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:36 PM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 5:10 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 638 (725012)
04-23-2014 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Ed67
04-23-2014 10:30 AM


Re: Is There a Legitimate Argument for Design?
the arrangement of nucleotides on DNA/RNA molecules IS a design plan for the organism. It is a 'recipe' written in base-4 digital code (because of the 4 possible bases in each position, as opposed to binary, which has only 2). Like any recipe, this one had to have an intelligent source, as it was 'written' some time BEFORE life started. Evolution could not have an effect until life began as a whole phenomenon.

You berate people for just writing assertions and you ask people to cite their sources when they tell you something, and then you go and crap out a bunch of unsupported assertions.

And then you have the gall to ask us to provide some intelligent comments.

Tsk tsk.

You have no idea what you are talking about with DNA. Its just chemistry. There is no code. There is no need for intelligence to design it.

Did you see my post about growing salt crystals?

Its just chemistry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 10:30 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 638 (725019)
04-23-2014 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:43 PM


Re: Is There a Legitimate Argument for Design?
It doesn't look very alive to me...

DNA isn't alive either. Its just chemicals. No less than the calcium in your bones is just a metal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:43 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 190 of 638 (725043)
04-23-2014 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Ed67
04-23-2014 2:25 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Here's some other stuff from that page:

quote:
In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom." Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.

quote:
Crick was especially critical of Christianity:

"I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about."

Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."



This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 2:25 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 207 of 638 (725091)
04-24-2014 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:01 AM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
A segment of ATCG specifies the details of a cell-building program,

No, it doesn't. They cause RNA to build proteins by making amino acids. All the reactions occur spontaneously according to the laws of chemistry.

There is no specification, no details, no program... its all just chemistry.

Ringo, do you really not understand that the code embedded in the DNA is the instructions for building the cell?

There is no code, and there are no instructions. Its a series of spontaneous chemical reactions and the compounds in those reactions are notated with letters. When you look at them from afar, as a string of letters, its easy to think that there is a code in there. But there isn't.

You say the code in DNA is "NOTHING THAT EVERY OTHER MOLECULE DOESN'T CARRY?"

Well, he didn't shout. And you should use bolding instead of retyping peoples' stuff in caps. Type [b]bolding is easy[/b] to get bolding is easy.

Anyways, we can notate any chemical with letters and make a "code". DNA is no different. Check it out:

NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H2O

Would you say that sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid contain a code for the production of salt?

ATCG are just notations for the compounds involved in the chemical reactions, just like the Na represents sodium.

Sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid are not a code for creating salt, its just a chemical reaction that happens spontaneously. The same goes for the compounds in DNA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:01 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 638 (725228)
04-24-2014 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Ed67
04-24-2014 7:29 PM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
frako writes:

Where do you see the code?


The same place Watson and Crick saw it, silly.

I don't believe you. And you didn't actually answer the question. Where, exactly, did you see it?

And how do you know that this is where Crick saw it, specifically?

You've quoted them using the same words as you, but you seem to be using them in a completely different manner. I honestly don't see you saying the same thing as them.

If you could be more specific about how you think you're saying the same things, then you might make more sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 7:29 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 239 of 638 (725273)
04-25-2014 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Ed67
04-24-2014 11:55 PM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
If you don't believe that,

He testified in court, under oath, that ID is not science. How can you think he's seeing the same thing as you?

there's nothing i can do for you.

Try writing a coherent argument that explains what you mean.

If you can't make sense of what I've said so far, nothing I say will make sense to you.

So you've reached your limit? Honestly, you've been very unimpressive. Its like you're hardly trying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:55 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 310 of 638 (725601)
04-29-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by mike the wiz
04-29-2014 8:09 AM


If it has the elements that make it designed, it is logically designed.

Yeah, animals have all kinds of awesome designs that they evolved into.

Natural Selection provides a great pressure on the ever-changing genomes that results in all kinds of ingenious adaptations and niche-fillings that makes all kinds of cool designs.

But the design that this thread was asking about, was intelligent design. And animals don't show any evidence of that.

Neither does identifying your "logically" designed stuff suggest that the designing was done by intelligence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2014 8:09 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 323 of 638 (733232)
07-15-2014 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by FLRW
07-15-2014 11:09 AM


I say there is not a legitimate argument for design. 3% of humans are born with a major defect. Toyota has a better QC program than this.

If that number was 0%, would you then think that was evidence of design?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by FLRW, posted 07-15-2014 11:09 AM FLRW 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