The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

Oh goodness. Thats a myth? How very disappointing.I retract the lemming example. Shame on me for not checking my own examples.

I'm calling tiger sex dumb. When two tigers make out, is this because they have made an intelligent decision to have cubs?But if you want to quibble about this, then how about flowers? Does a daffodil produce pollen with the conscious intention of impregnating a lady daffodil? You seem to have answered your own question so thoroughly that there is no need for me to comment. But this is exactly the proposition that you need to prove.You know for a fact, just as I do, that any particular tiger was produced by a natural process and was not made in a tiger factory. You know that.And yet, being a creationist, you seem to want to advance it as a general principle that the world just doesn't work that way. Well, apparently it does. Actually, no I didn't. What I said, and I shall gladly repeat it, is that every time we know how a tiger occurred, it turns out that it did so as a result of a natural process.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Just one small point, don't you believe that the tree was a product of design?Isn't that your whole argument? That living things are a product of intelligent design? You seem to me to be telling me how I can know that an arrow is a product of intelligent design and a tree isn't, and I agree with you completely. indeed you are echoing what I said about familiarity with products of human design allowing us to recognise further examples of the same kind.TTFN,WKP.S. I'll try and address more of your post later.

You, my jolly friend, are quite something special.I answered your question. How can i say this more clearly? Pop an adderall, put on your reading glasses, and focus. Im providing comments directly following your own quotes. The only way you can get lost is if you can't understand what you yourself are saying.First of all, i can say gotchya because a logical proof doesnt require input from you. We can argue about triangles all day, but the moment i whip out my pythagorean proof, its over.Same goes for what i said earlier.

quote:

---

Putting aside both views, order IS evidence of design for ANYTHING.

The infinite monkey theorem disagrees with you. If youve never heard of this, its the whole "monkey at a desk writing Shakespeare" bit. If you havent, just take it on faith : )

​

You can actually mathematically prove that with enough time, a conceivable but statistically improbable even will occur.

​

You said order means design, EVERY TIME. A random act of chance will eventually yield something that is ordered, but was not designed. Therefor, your point is disproved.

---

1. You stated Order is evidence of design every time.
2. I can prove that order can result from utter randomness.Therefor, your claim is disproved. Its really not that hard to follow....

I have no idea what your point is. People have failed to kill themselves and have tried again, so that part's out. People who have succeed have successfully devoted their time and energy into NOT living and have succeeded, contrary to what you said. This is called evolution. Do you need help spelling it out? Sounds like you should get an edumacation, cletus. You cant invalidate my points by not knowing big enough words.Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other. Google correlation versus causation. As it pertains to the conversation, just because life spends its time trying to live doesnt prove that it's purpose is to live. What if i believe the purpose of life is to laugh, and trying to live longer is just so we can laugh longer? I would have just as much proof of that as you do. I spend a lot of energy and time laughing. Havent you been saying that all these inanimate objects' purpose is immediately obvious from their function? Oh, my bad. So your cross doesnt have a purpose or a function. Love, not being a living thing, has no purpose. A gun has no function.Honestly, do you read the things you write? You may be the infinite monkey here, in person.

Are you now stating for the record that there are no chemical reactions involved in the generation of life?It's ALL chemical reactions, products and byproducts.To exclude the fact that fire can cause more fire as being insignificant because it doesn't fit well into your religious dogma is the height of hypocracy.Either:
A) Anything which causes anything was design specifically to do that by the Jew Wizard
-or-
B) You are picking and choosing without any criteria.Pick one and stick to it. Jumping back and forth is childish. You can not say that mass doesn't cause gravity a sentence after claiming that no one knows what causes gravity.Gravity doesn't work on mass. Gravity is created by mass.Kinetic energy works on mass. A mass by itself doing nothing does not generation kinetic energy.A mass by itself DOES generate gravity.So, does the accumulation of random masses into large lumps of mass have a specifically designed purpose?Are you saying that ANY TWO objects in the ENTIRE universe which happen to get close to each other are all part of the Jew Wizard's master scheme?

Fire has a purpose and a function.
Mass has a purpose and a function.
Ignorance has a purpose and a function.Why are these things not on equal footing?Until you can adequately define your terms, I'm just going to keep giving you examples that not only fit your criteria but are BETTER than your example.Fire, for example, NEVER decides not to reproduce.Ignorance not only breeds ignorance, it actively goes out and trying to convince people that science is false and make believe is real.

quote:

---

Method 1:
-Turn the watch over. Look at the name on the back.
-Call the company, ask them if they made this watch with the provided serial number.
-Conclude that the watch was human made.

---

Okay, go call evolution quick and see if they are responsible for life today. I'll wait right here...Getting a busy signal? Next.

quote:

---

Method 2:
-Look at the face of the watch.
-Make the reasonable assumption that only humans have the ability to work in such detail, and more importantly have created a number system.
-Assume that lettering doesnt naturally occur in nature
-Conclude that because this looks like a watch youve seen before and it has lettering unique to the human race, it was made by humans.

---

I'll do a tiger.-Look at the DNA strand.
-Make a reasonable assumption that only God has the ability to work in such detail, and more importantly have created complex code system.
-Assume that striping does not occur randomly, but has a specific purpose.
-Conclude that because this tiger looks like a tiger I have seen before and it's striping is unique to tigers, it was made by God.

quote:

---

Method 3:
-Look at the band of the watch.
-Assume that the treated leather is like all the other treated leather youve seen.
-Assume treated leather and stitching is unnatural.
-Assume humans are the only ones who treat leather and make it shiny.
-Conclude that the watch was human-made.

---

First, who is to say the band is made of leather, or for that matter that there is a band at all? It could be a pocket watch. Nonetheless, leather is nothing more than cow skin, that has oil applied to it. Is it naturally impossible to find a strip of leather that has oil on it, anywhere in the world at any time, naturally?-Look at the fur of the Tiger
-Assume that the fur is like all other fur from tigers you have seen.
-Assume that striping of fur is too complex to have happened naturally undirected.
-Assume God is the only one who could know what the eyes of a Tigers prey would and wouldn't be able to see, and that color was irrelevant.
-Conclude that God made the Tiger.

quote:

---

Method 4:
-Break the watch. Look at the insides.
-Assume that no other animal species has the ability to work metal.
-Assume that quartz and batteries don't self-assemble themselves in nature.
-Conclude that the watch was made.

---

First, who said the watch had batteries?-Kill the Tiger, and look at the insides.
-Assume that no other being has the ability to create something this complex.
-Assume that Tigers don't self-assemble themselves in nature.
-Conclude that God made the Tiger.

quote:

---

Method 5:
-Look at your watch while looking at the strange watch.
-Notice that the difference between the little hand moving is about the same, assume that the concept of a second is therefor shared between the watches.
-Assume your watch was designed.
-Assume the concept of a second is unique to humanity.
Conclude the watch was made.

---

-Look at two tigers.
-Notice that the way they move and act is about the same, assume that the concept of instinct and survival are shared between the tigers.
-Assume the Tigers were both designed
Conclude the Tiger was made.

* sighs *But the evolutionists claim that life was not designed. Our claim is that there is no firm we can telephone.Getting a busy signal? Then we are right. It's if you ever get through that we might be wrong. Petitio Principii. Now being sold under the new brand name I Can't Believe It's Not A Real Argument.Were you dropped on your head as a kid? I try to be kind, but seriously ... you don't see the problem here?The rest of your nonsense is the same. About the fourth time you wrote it, didn't you start to see the problem?

Hi WK, I believe you are confusing two separate concepts here. It is true that trees are the offspring of the original created forests, and there are features that creationists would point to within their phenotypes that suggest a designer. However I think since we see trees only doing what there genetic DNA tells them to do, we would have a difficult time using them as evidence for design. What Dennis seems to be saying is that an object like an arrow is particularized for a specific purpose. Where trees on the other hand just appear to randomly grow where ever the ground and light is best.We have never seen anything like an arrow form from natural unguided processes. I tried to explain this over in another thread. When an observer recognizes information performing either a particularized function or communication from a previously completely independent source, he can be sure he is detecting design. The trees growth and behavior are all based on genetic programming and environment. However at a micro-level, the DNA molecules themselves display a very abstruse particularized communication code (apc code). The more particularized something is the more we can be sure we are detecting design.Look at it this way. If I threw a big bag full of pocket calculators out on the floor, you would not say that the pile itself appeared to be designed. But you could sat that the objects that make up the pile are very much designed. That is because we (the observers) could look closely at all the parts and make up of each calculator and see that they perform particularized functions. Particularization that we have only ever observed coming from an intelligent source. We would recognize each of those functions from previously independent experiences. Likewise with a tree. The "pile" itself may not necessarily display any particularization that we could recognize, but the make up of the microscopic components are a different story.Therefore the parts of the tree are fulfilling highly particularized functions for the life and growth of the tree. But the tree itself may not necessarily display any obvious design features.

How is that in any way different from a human being?Be specific.

Given that you couldn't explain your concept of APC coherently on that other thread I'm not sure we need it intruding into this one.And once again, just repeating something over and over again doesn't make it a better argument. Why don't you try explaining why you believe that DNA is an abstruse particularised communication code from an independent source, i.e. provide some evidence supporting this. And so the intelligent designer of the gaps retreats further. So many creationists are happy to go no further than Paley's watch, indeed Denis just brought it up, which was certainly not an argument formulated on the molecular level. And having failed to make a convincing argument for organismal design they now retreat to the molecular/genetic level to try and spin enough FUD there that they can slip some ID in.But the genome shows as little evidence of intelligent design as the whole organism does. Instead we see patterns consistent with a wide variety of well established natural mechanisms and with a history of common descent. If you want to keep pushing your intelligent designer down through the gaps until he hits the quantum foam go ahead, you wouldn't be the first.Once again the ID argument boils down to nothing but a claim that you know intelligent design when you see it, even if you can't coherently describe how it can be reliably identified.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Haven't fully caught up in this thread yet, but there's all this discussion about purpose, so I thought it might be worth noting that purpose is a human construct. Purpose implies intent, and there is no purpose or intent in science, unless the science is human psychology.Speaking of psychology, the only practical information I can see emerging from this thread is a better understanding of the relevant pathologies, if someone were inclined toward exploring in that direction.--Percy

You had better reread. My evidence amounts to the evidence of a designer. Once you establish the existence of the designer, you have the evidence for design by designer. I can replicate and verify the scientific evidence of a designing designer. I can take a pile of sand, mix it with the right stuff and build a set of steps via work. That's because humans are intelligent designers, modeled after Jehovah, the Biblical god who took elements from the earth and designed things via work. The universe is full of evidence of design. Chaos does not tend towards order/design, just as sand and assorted elements do not tend toward designed functional objects. Then you didn't read my posts objectively.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This doesn't affect your point, but it might be more accurate to say that gravity is a property of mass. Because of the Einsteinian mass/energy equivalency, it might be even more accurate to say that it is a property of energy, since concentrations of energy have been found to exhibit gravitational attraction. Quantum gravity may be an even more accurate way of thinking about it, where gravity is a property of quantum fields.I don't pretend to know a lot about this, maybe Cavediver will chime in, but on the other hand, it isn't particularly relevant to the thread's topic.--Percy