Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
98 online now:
AZPaul3, Tanypteryx (2 members, 96 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,958 Year: 5,070/6,534 Month: 490/794 Week: 116/89 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 273 of 638 (725430)
04-27-2014 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PlanManStan
12-13-2013 4:31 PM


Hi Stan. I am one that accepts design, as a Christian. I appreciate that not everybody accept design, I would like to give my set of reasonings, and I have no desire to evo-bash, or attack evolution. I have respect for evolutionists in the sense that I find them to be thorough people, investigative people, intelligent people, as I do find atheists also.

Your problem is, you're basically asking ignorant people to have a go at giving you an argument from design. You have misunderstood design. You mention the "gaps", in the fossil record, I presume this is what you meant. But that has nothing to do with design, that is an argument about a lack of evidence, which is an altogether different subject.

I guess what I am asking here is how good of evidence is first-hand accounts, and how are we to treat gaps in theories, as evidence of another theory or as evidence against the theory at hand?

Let's forget this for a moment, and concentrate on design.

Let's ask the first basic question.

What is design anyway I propose that the answer can be given, BY LOOKING AT THINGS WE KNOW TO BE DESIGNED. Logically, if those elements are then present in lifeforms, then we will know if lifeforms are designed.

I would say to you, when we refer to "design" there is no argument for a Ferrari being designed. We hear of the "argument from design", and we hear of an "appearance of design", but I would propose to you, reasonably, that those terms are not relevant to "design". When something is designed, to know it is designed for sure, you just have to ruin it's construction.

A Ferrari is designed specifically because if you ruin it's construction, then what it was intended for, is gone.

So if you want to know if design exists, first realize, there is no "argument" from design. In reality, design is either there, logically, or not there, logically.

So take an eye or an ear. If you ruin it's construction, you have ruined what it was intended for. Which means that logically, an eye is made to see. You can CONCLUDE soundly, that an eye is made/designed, to see.

I have wrote several blog entries about design, some of them are very short, I hope you read them, and think carefully about my assertions;

Design Is Factually Inferred (this is a bit long this entry).

Matching Logic is Always True (this is quite long, but very easy to understand)

More About Design (this is a nice short entry)

Appearance of Design (This proves the irrelevance of the "appearance" argument.

Note that people at this forum will likely try and shoot down everything I have said. But I advise you think for yourself, you have been given a brain, therefore you have no excuse, you must use that brain as best as you can, and you have a responsibility to try and figure things out correctly, without letting others think for you.

Thanks for your time.
mike.

(p.s. remember, you probably asked unqualified people to give you answers about design, so you shouldn't dismiss design, you should actually dismiss what they have said.)

(evos, take no offense if I mention, "evolutionists" in my blogs, it does not mean you, remember there is a large span of ignoramus evolutionists I have come across, as well as Christians, so you yourself might have a far better argument I have simply not read as of yet. I appreciate there is a possibility of the odd errors in my blogs, or the odd rash remark, I am not perfect but the gist of my arguments hold water.)

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PlanManStan, posted 12-13-2013 4:31 PM PlanManStan has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2014 7:52 AM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2014 7:53 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 438 by mike the wiz, posted 09-14-2014 6:55 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 275 of 638 (725432)
04-27-2014 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Tangle
04-27-2014 3:11 AM


He's just saying that life looks designed therefore it is

Dawkins constantly says that life looks designed, only to then shoot down his strawman, but the "appearance" of design is only ever mentioned by evolutionists for the shooting down of that strawman.

For example, would I argue that a Ferrari looks designed, therefore that is why I conclude it is designed? No, but rather the point is we would examine it and find out it is designed, because the functioning particular parts and systems give it a goal/purpose. We might look for code, information, intelligent arrangements of parts. THEN if it is designed, then it is designed.

Rather I would argue, a Ferrari has everything that makes it a design, therefore that is why it "looks" designed. BUT, I would also say that it is not consequential that it looks designed.

Ferrari is designed therefore looks it.
Looks it, therefore is designed. (Affirmation of Consequent)

But as you can see, that it is fallacious, in this example is irrelevant, because we already know why it looks designed, because it simply is designed. In the same way we know that life looks designed because it is, so even if we argued the fallacy, logic itself would be irrelevant to the truth.

If life looks designed, this in itself is not all that important. But an examination of mind-blowing anatomical structures, is very relevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Tangle, posted 04-27-2014 3:11 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Tangle, posted 04-27-2014 8:57 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 278 of 638 (725436)
04-27-2014 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by RAZD
04-27-2014 7:24 AM


Re: Was some process other than chemistry was involved?
(Well spotted. ( The Ad hominem).

I would also say that I've never heard RAZD use a personal attack in my whole time at EvC, so it's even more fair to just point that out. There is a full kudos to everyone that points out the ad hominem but nnever uses it themselves!!

(please note I have not read the argument between you RAZD, and the other person you debate with. But mikey appreciates ya! Even though we wouldn't agree on things, that does not mean that I am obtuse as to the quality of your constantly high standard of posting prowess. If I was the wizard of Oz, you would certainly achieve a golden-status mikey- standard, medal.

(Don't be rude theists, mikey's turnip head has to do all the more homework just to make up for your indolence.)

(God bless.) Good to see you still keep up your mind, sheened and sharpened at such places as EvC that it might seek out and destroy all mikey-prey, and refute all deluded, ignormaus mikeysaurs!

Mikey lovs ya. (but mostly he loves everyone)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2014 7:24 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 279 of 638 (725438)
04-27-2014 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by RAZD
04-27-2014 7:53 AM


Re: the eye's have it
(Will read this in full, later mate. I can't deal with something as sophisticated as this in five minutes, I will have to study each point you make, in full. I haven't ignored you if I don't get back to you, I'm just not much of a debater, I mostly give information so that it is considered, but you are a clever person that has an alternative opinion of the same level to match mine or higher, so it is pointless for me to argue with you.

But I value your post, so I will do it justice later, at the moment, my roast spuds are nearly there so I need to eat them before they get cold.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2014 7:53 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2014 11:04 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 282 of 638 (725451)
04-27-2014 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Tangle
04-27-2014 8:57 AM


I want to respect evolution and evolutionists, by not including any talk of it, in the assessment of what makes something designed. Usually we are charged with saying, "we're designed, because look at all these problems with evolution." And sometimes we are guilty of that. So I have left out the subject of evolution. We shall leave it out, because it is extraneous to the logical assessment of knowing what makes something, "designed". Why the terms, "science" or, "evolution" should then come up as though they are relevant to a hypothetical assessment, I simply don't know. No, I am asking - what makes something a design? How can we know what a design actually is? I think it makes sense to then say that to know the answer, we should look at things we know to be designed. But I appreciate that I should perhaps not have used the word "evolutionist", that was a bit off topic for me to mention Dawkins but I remembered him so mentioned it.

Actually, Dawkins wrote a whole book about it - The Blind Watchmaker - not to introduce a straw man but to explain why the design argument is false

You've conflated two things. I said Dawkins constantly says it, you say he "actually" wrote a book about it. Nor do I recall saying that he wrote a book in order to promote a strawman.

As for his claims that the design argument is false, it is not an argument that an eye is designed to see, it is a statement of scientific fact. You can take a course in anatomy, and they will show you the functions, and how destroying the function will lead to a pointless eye. In the same way, I am not arguing that a Ferrari is designed, it simply is designed.

You and Dawkins might THINK you have refuted something, but simply stating you have, will not convince me in the least. What will convince me is the clever and wisely correct assessment of the matter, his books seldom have anything "correct" in them, they consist of anti-theist propaganda statements, and even his peers run a mile from him, and rightly so, he's an embarrassment to them. He might as well call his books, "The Chronicles of Fallacy".

It's never brought up by 'evolutionists' because they know that life evolved, obviously

Who mentioned evolution? We are talking about what design specifically is, whether life is designed. And it is brought up by evolutionists, when we mention design. I specifically recall the popular way in which they address design by stating that it is in appearance. They state this ad nauseum. A lot of them have never actually studied what makes something designed, as that is not what they were educated in. Critical thinking is not usually on the curriculum for them, when they can simply appeal to those big epithet buz-words, such as, "science", or "evolution" or "know" or, "fact".

Example:

Science agrees with you, but then shows you that the anotomical structures evolved naturally using processes

I've never been shown, scientifically, how anatomical structures evolved naturally. Indeed, I have never seen it proved that any novel morphological design has come about naturally. Nor have I seen an example whereby the evidence is incontrovertible so then if it is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, then why the attitude problem? Isn't "science" tentative by nature, confirmation evidence being thought of as VIABLE, in order to AVOID fallacious inference? Yet your attitude seems none-scientific, almost religious, "we know evolution, it is truth, end of, science says it, I needn't provide any argument, I just have to state it with gusto!"

Nevertheless, none of that matters, because my post addressed the topic of design, not evolution.

I would be impressed if, without appealing to "science" or "evolution" you could show me how an eye is not designed to see, or how it is reasonable to come to that conclusion, given an inspection of the parts of an eye. But I only offer the challenge if you don't include "evolution" or "science" because we are only discussing what makes something designed. My blogs go into detail as to what qualifies something as being designed.

Forget those subjects for a moment, and tell me, how would we know whether a lifeform is designed? That is the hypothetical discussion that is relevant to this thread. That is ALL I am assessing.

I have proposed quite obviously, that looking at things that we KNOW to be designed, is the place to start, and systematically asking if all of the elements in those known designs, are present in lifeforms. I then shown in my blogs that all the elements are there, so we can know that life is designed, through these logical steps. But it's obvious anyway, because intelligent design is nearly always overt, because of the PURPOSE or GOAL we see with our eyes. For example, we see a helicopter is designed to fly.

(I won't go into all this detail again, as obviously it's unfair considering all of the effort I went to, to create those blig entries, whereas your assertions are just bald statements, such as, Dawkins has proven", and "evolutionists know".

That would count for something if you could SHOW something....indeed, if you could provide ANYTHING, other than simply asserting things in the manner of,

"science is king of the universe, end of story, if it's in science it's true and we know it, and if you disagree, you're wrong, end of story"

Because that seems to be all I saw in your post. I know that TO YOU, this means a tremendous amount, that it is black and white, that once science accept something, it is true, but life, I find, personally, to be far more complex than that. What science "accepts" could be seen as semantics. I agree with Stephen Meyer, he said that truth should come first. If science accepts evolution because it fits with the methodological requirement but a designer doesn't then this in itself says more about PEOPLE, than it does anything else, I mean that might as well be akin to saying,

" we, humanity, kings of the universe, have DECIDED, that only a natural explanation can be accepted. "

Logically, think about it! Where is wisdom? What if the truth is not a methodologically natural answer? What would that mean for your "science"? It would mean every premise, every assumption, every conclusion, was thwarted based on that philosophical principle. And that is what I see. Naturally, there never were answers to every single thing in existence, so frankly, your appeal to "science" holds no value to me.

A lot of you guys want to get science into the equation, because it saves all of your energy, you basically can then abort any attempt to think knowing you have the full power of science behind you. "Science" is the most powerful epithet of our recent times, because of operationally proven findings. If you can get it into "science", then people will deem it to be true.

It's a little bit like being part of a gang, the most powerful gang. If you can become a member, you have gang-status, even if you are a wimp. There are a lot of anti-theist wimps, with small brains, with "science" on their side. Science thinks for them, tucks them in to bed at night, so they can sleep peacefully, and so forth. After all, is that not the aim of the whole game? To rid God, not by any great wisdom or truth, but simply by giving Him no intellectual foot in the door.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Tangle, posted 04-27-2014 8:57 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Tangle, posted 04-27-2014 1:55 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 304 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-28-2014 2:51 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 307 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-28-2014 3:26 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 283 of 638 (725453)
04-27-2014 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by RAZD
04-27-2014 11:04 AM


Re: the eye's have it
Ok RAZD, again I haven't overlooked your statements, I simply value your post more than the average posts at EvC, so I will read in full. Don't worry, I don't mind looking at it from another point of view, I can promise you I will think carefully and treat your writings justly.

I will look into that, and I'm not fobbing you off, because actually, these last few years I mostly lurk at places and read, sometimes if I read information and I not all that much "against it" so to speak, then I will tend to lay off an attempt to refute, I don't like to try and refute things just for the sake of being argumentative you see, as the NT says not to be a "debater". We present our case, have our say, then leave people to think.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2014 11:04 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 308 of 638 (725599)
04-29-2014 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Dr Adequate
04-28-2014 3:26 PM


And since it has that in common with lifeforms such as birds, bats, and bees, we can conclude that the helicopter is the product of two helicopters fucking.

I would also not conclude that bees are a product of birds, or birds, bats.

My argument is a logical comparison, more akin to the following: If you also have all of the elements that make a human, you are also "human". But that wouldn't make you my mother, as you rightly point out.

Oh, wait ... that's not the false conclusion you wish to reach, is it?

No, instead I went for the sound conclusion, that both are designed if they both share the elements of design. If you want to read WHY that is the case, here is a link;

http://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/...packed-razd.html

I think you've confused two things there, logically. To prove a helicopter is the product of reproduction, you'd have to show it had sexual parts. Whereas to find out if a bird is designed, you have to research and find out what makes a design. If it has the elements that make it designed, it is logically designed.

Of course we are all biased, and of course we are trying to all make our cases because we believe our position is right.

So your point makes it SEEM like I am arguing rhetorically, as though that is an evil motive. But even if my motive was indeed rhetorical, that would not change the fact that "design" can be established, scientifically and logically, by looking at designs. Therefore your point is MOOT.

Here is a SCIENTIFIC example I am aware of.

On the "squeaky" beeches of Britain, they wanted to show why sand squeaked. They believed that a shuffling of uniform, more equally sized grains causes a motion of a shift of layers over eachother simultaneously, rather than the uneven, different sized pieces, which doesn't cause this strange effect. So they took even, same-sized toy balls and shown that you achieve the same layering effect with toy balls, because they share the elements required. Both the sand grains and the toy balls shared two elements.

1. Uniform size, very similar.
2. Similar shaping.

The scientist then shown how all the balls move on top of each other like a blanket of balls, all moving as one. But with the uneven balls they did not move in the same way, because the uneven balls did not have the same elements.

Now he was trying to prove his case, and he would also admit he was trying to prove his case, but logically this motive is not always a cynical one. I am an honest Christian Dr A, and I admit I am trying to prove design both to myself and others, because I am driven.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-28-2014 3:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2014 9:34 AM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 311 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2014 2:16 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 317 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-30-2014 5:56 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 309 of 638 (725600)
04-29-2014 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by RAZD
04-28-2014 3:21 PM


http://creationworldviews.blogspot.co.uk/...packed-razd.html

I wrote the above blog with you in mind RAZD, but please note this is neither an attack on what you stand for, nor an attempt to argue with folk, I simply wanted to provide my explanation.

Bye for now. All the best.

(In regards to other folk, in regards to an "appearance of design", I don't know of any designists that argue it. Think about it, it would be like Dawkins saying there is an appearance of evolution. To make out we are saying things look designed, rather than they are actually being designed, is silly.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2014 3:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2014 10:50 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 438 of 638 (736867)
09-14-2014 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by mike the wiz
04-27-2014 6:32 AM


I have respect for evolutionists in the sense that I find them to be thorough people, investigative people, intelligent people, as I do find atheists also.

And I still stand by that mike. (I know my comments seem like they are towards people but they're not, I argue AGAINST what you guys believe, and I argue against it with firey determination, but that says nothing about you guys, on a personal level.)

I think a little addition, in regards to, "is there an argument for design", I would say again that it is more about assessing what known-designs are. It strikes me there is a redundant definition of design, and a genuine one.

The "design" definition used by evolutionists, tends to strike me as something like this; If you saw someone make it..

I am not arguing a strawman, I just think by implication, this is going to be a weak definition but it is the definition I "sense" is being made.

So then what are we saying then, that of known-designs such as cars, that we can't tell they're designed unless we know from history a designer? That is definitely wrong.

No but rather, to define design, you look at the elements of what makes something designed that you already know to be designed. What you will find is a list that lifeforms match on each level.

The list is:
- specifically constructed with a goal (Eye-sight,bones for girders, so forth)
- Materials that are universally common and are nearly 100% of the time, not moulded into relationships on their own. (metal in cars, same in lifeforms)
- Aesthetics or symmetry, neat packages. (helicopters, Hover-flies)
- Information. (DNA, or Binary in computers)
- Contingency plans. (blood clotting, eye-lids, repairing of skin/bones, immune system, need I go on. Or a windscreen-wipers in cars)

As you can see, "refutation" is pointless, those things simply are factual. Yes - we can conclude intelligent design ordinarily, therefore the only reason to NOT conclude it will be an ulterior motive such as a desire for God to not exist within the individual.

We see that with lifeforms, everything matches in design, the only difference is that the design is far greater than human design, which is why there is a field of science called Biomimetics. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

If we look at PARTICULAR designs, then how amazing those designs are, can't be fully expressed in words, after all, a Giraffe starts it's life as a blastocyst, a small spherical cellular blob, and so did Dreadnought-osaurus

I think you have to PAUSE and just contemplate that, before listening to the likes of Dawkins and his RLN, I mean just think of it for a moment, a Giraffe starts out as a small spherical blob, with no bones, brain, ligaments, and will end up a Giraffe, if that "isn't" miraculous then please tell me what would qualify as miraculous?. Can you imagine if someone invented a car that could regenerate itself? Remember that caption? "Einstein was here", well whoever made a car to do that would be Einstein X 50, so if it takes Einstein X 50 to create something that excellent, then logically it takes the same with the actual design of the Giraffe.

There are no genuine reasons against what I say - all you can do is say, "but evolution" - which might work for you, but an endless appeal to a mindless process nobody ever witnessed, doesn't work for me, friends.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2014 6:32 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2014 10:30 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 453 by taiji2, posted 09-14-2014 6:19 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 470 of 638 (736968)
09-15-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by Dr Adequate
09-14-2014 10:30 AM


Aaaand there you go committing petitio principii

That's not correct IMHO, with all due respect because you could say the same about a differential. You have to commit the fallacy for both or neither, as they are both clearly constructed with a goal, the arrangement of the parts are so complex that they are designed to achieve something specific. With eyes every part is constructed to deliver sight, and every part in a differential is constructed to solve wheelspin. It is the same, in that both are specifically arranged aimed at one target.

So it is special pleading to say that it doesn't follow for one but does follow for the other if it is established equally in both cases as specified construction.

I think it might appear to be circular but really it's not so perhaps it's understandable that you say it. But it's really the law of identity at play, that if P has every element that makes a human, then P is a human. It can confuse us because it looks circular if I say:

P makes Bill human, Mary has P so she is human.

But the circularity-fallacy itself becomes redundant if the elements match 100%. In this case there is no need to equivocate by saying she doesn't have a cock because one doesn't need a cock to be human.

Dr A's response: "mike, go away, you are a cock, that is for sure!!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2014 10:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2014 1:33 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 471 of 638 (736969)
09-15-2014 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by taiji2
09-14-2014 6:19 PM


Re: is there evidence of design in a hydrogen atom?
For me this is the Referee-fallacy, as I have termed it, (my own fallacy)

You might hear fans when watching football shouting, "Referee, you are an idiot, there is no way I would have made that decision, you are pathetic!"

Of course this is a fallacy to me because if they were actually put in the position of refereeing (the fans in question) they would soon find out how difficult the job is, and how good the referee is as a professional, to achieve what he achieved.

In the same way Dawkins et al, sometimes tell us what a rotten job God has done by creating things the way He created them, and they are like those fans but we have to remember Dawkins et al would not know where to begin, in making an organism, nor will they ever achieve the creation of one.

The matter used to create organisms, is dynamic to an almost infinite degree. Think of your own body, you have teeth, yet you have hair, you have hair yet you have skin, you have skin yet you have bone. Think of all of the armour of the various creatures, whether it is scales or feathers, feathers or horns, think of all of the creatures and all of the types of material, whether it be a lobster or a jellyfish.

That's my opinion, thanks for the interesting post.

Bye for now, guys.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by taiji2, posted 09-14-2014 6:19 PM taiji2 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2014 1:46 PM mike the wiz 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