|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dawn Bertot writes: And i have evidence of order We agree with you that there is evidence of order. The question is what kind of order are you talking about why do you think it is evidence for design.
You observe change and I observe order, both are science. I presume you also observe change? Anyway, if by change you're referring to evolution then you're making the same mistake Tesla did. Evolution and change are not synonyms. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: I looked up 'order' in the dictionary. You observe change and I observe order, both are scienceThere were over 21 different definitions. Could you please clarify what you mean by order, so that we aren't all talking across each other?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It's even funnier when you actually read what he wrote and you quoted.
Dawn Bertot writes: change, natural selection, etc are not answers, they are observations, the same as design, whic observes ORDER and LAWS Design observes order and laws? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
they just dont know how to pin your ears to the wall, I do For as many times that you have alluded to your abilities, you have failed to live up to them. You have 2k+ posts at EvC and have, so far, failed to make a case for anything. Just to stay on topic and not get accused of being inflammatory:
the same way an eternal existence of mattter is the conclusion of Evo, wehther you ackowledge it or not. Please explain this one. What does evolution say about the "eternal existence of matter"? "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
We have evidence for change, natural selection, etc. in science. We do not have evidence for "design." We can't even get creationists to come up with definitions and criteria to differentiate design from non-design. The best we have seen is "I know it when I see it." That's not science. Face it, the whole ID movement is religion with the serial numbers filed off in hope of fooling the school boards and the courts. Hasn't worked out too well, has it? And i have evidence of orderIts not simply a matter of design. Design is the conclusion, the same way an eternal existence of mattter is the conclusion of Evo, wehther you ackowledge it or not. You observe change and I observe order, both are science You are right that design is a conclusion, but it is one without supporting evidence or standardized method to get there. It is a conclusion because it is based on religion. You can't point to a specific item and say it was designed, or not, using any specific criteria. We have shown that over and over in these threads. It is design because, "I know design when I see it!" That doesn't make it in science. If you want to establish a scientific field of "design" a good start would be a reliable definition of what is designed and what is not. That definition will have to separate things that are clearly natural from things that are clearly designed, and it will have to make a good start on determining whether those things which are borderline are designed or not. If you can come up with rules which make a good start in these determinations, then we have something to work with. So far creationists haven't even tried to come up with such rules.
We are are on the same playing field as evidence goes. Ithas nothing to do with religion, so yes it is going just fine.
ID has everything to do with religion. And nothing to do with science. Just look at the folks pushing design. They are virtually all fundamentalists with religious beliefs which overshadow any scientific training they might have had. They are not scientists producing peer-reviewed papers for scientific journals.
Testa and others are on the right track, they just dont know how to pin your ears to the wall, I do As long as you are pushing fundamentalism and avoiding what the evidence actually shows, and as long as I can provide evidence for what I claim, I don't consider my ears pinned anywhere. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
We agree with you that there is evidence of order. The question is what kind of order are you talking about why do you think it is evidence for design. I am usually happy to respond to all posts, I simply dont have enough time. I suggest a one on one debate with the person of your choice, anybody but Jar, someone rational How about it Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dawn Bertot writes:
So here's what you do. You reword that to:And i have evidence of order Its not simply a matter of design. Design is the conclusion, ... "And i have evidence of order Its not simply a matter of ngised. Ngised is the conclusion, ..." You use a new word (it is actually "design" spelled backwards, but that doesn't matter. So you have come up with a way of identifying a new property ngised. So now you must set about demonstrating that, using this newly found property, you can make better predictions than can be made by people who don't work with this property. If you can make clearly better predictions, then people will begin to take you seriously. If you cannot make better predictions, you will be ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So you're saying that order is evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of order you're thinking about. Is a crystalline structure evidence of design? You're also saying that laws of nature are evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of law you're thinking about? Is the law of gravity evidence of design? No a crystalline is the result or design of an already existing order in the form of its substructure, molecules, etc The kind of law that produces a result that is identifiable, ie, sight, hearing, taste, etc. The individual parts operate in an orderly fashion to produce a usable function. Or they operate in an orderly fashion to produce the clear and evident result, that is visible and observable its the conclusion of such law (however) that I want to demonstrate in a logical fashion, that is really at issue. Whether you believe it is evidence of design is not, is not what is at stake, but rather will the evidence allow it from a logical and philosophical standpoint. It most certainly will IOWs, the evidence supports the conclusion as much as any physical observation will allow, in your case evolution or change, in my case order and design Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The question is what kind of order are you talking about why do you think it is evidence for design. Order is always evidence of order and design, whether it actually is or not. We are not talking about what is provable only that which is evidentially acceptable, from a logical standpoint Now watch you query in reverse. If order, from a logical perspective, is not evidence of possible design or design, then it would follow that change is not the result of macro evolution exclusively. It could have had another initiator or mechanism, regardless of what the present evidence may or may not suggest Now notice, I said from a logical and evidential perspective, not stricly from a contrived scientific method. There is a difference. The logical one covers all areas Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
It could have had another initiator or mechanism, regardless of what the present evidence may or may not suggest That is possible, which is what the ID crowd should be looking for, not bashing evolution. One overturns a scientific Theory with a better theory, based on evidence. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Could you please clarify what you mean by order, so that we aren't all talking across each other? properties working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to produce a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose, or even an appaernt purpose Question, are the definitions you looked up valid as defined and testable against natural properties. IOWs is order identifiable from atleast those definition ? Where do you suppose those authors derived those definitions? Im going to bet reason and natural properties Remember our belief as to whether order is order, is not necessary for it to be valid as a logical, natural and verifiable Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
Please explain this one. What does evolution say about the "eternal existence of matter"? Please tell me your overall thinking is atleast better than the question you posed. Every position or belief that attempts to explain physical realities, or even the mechanism itself, is forced to the logical implication of its origin or initiation. Your suppression of this indirect implication, doesnot mean that it does not exist as a logical conclusion of your position on and about evolution. Every position must face such a question when dealing with physical realities, especially when we attempt to explain them to begin with Whether in evolution or design, we are forced by logic and reason to ask where the process came from, thatprovides the mechanism So, whether evolution "says anything about the eternal existence of matter", is is a logical conclusion of its tenets and cannot be seperated, except by avoidance Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you want to establish a scientific field of "design" a good start would be a reliable definition of what is designed and what is not. That definition will have to separate things that are clearly natural from things that are clearly designed, and it will have to make a good start on determining whether those things which are borderline are designed or not. If you can come up with rules which make a good start in these determinations, then we have something to work with. So far creationists haven't even tried to come up with such rules. Your rules are your own, they fly in the face of that which is simply reasonable. "A definition of what is designed and what is not", is primarily determined by logic and observation of order in natural properties. it doesnt need your approval to be reasonable,logical and demonstratable. Your arrogance assumes as much. All I need to do is establish that is orderly, logical and law abiding, for it to be designed, or the possibility of design. it follows the same rules exacally as any explanation of a mechanism or its conclusions, whether direct or indirect
As long as you are pushing fundamentalism and avoiding what the evidence actually shows, and as long as I can provide evidence for what I claim, I don't consider my ears pinned anywhere. Ill skip most of your post, it is nothing more than a irrational and emotional response Ill try and salvage from the above comment. I am pushing reason and reality, not fundy or religion The evidence actually shows we are on the same playing field and we use the same rules for our conclusions and initial observations. Unless you are prepared to show me where my logic is faulty Your "evidence", and its conclusions are exacally the same as mine Unless you are prepared to show me wheremy reasoning is invalid Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
That is possible, which is what the ID crowd should be looking for, not bashing evolution. One overturns a scientific Theory with a better theory, based on evidence. You fellas need to get a grip on reality and your emotions. Evolution is what it is. But that is just the point Bluescat, the scientific theory allows both positions to be plausible and atleast demonstratable, without fear of contradiction, presently Evos are afraid of design because of its implications. Unfortunatley they cannot do anything abouts is connection to , order, reality, reason and properties, the conclusionof which design is as reasonable and plausable as any conclusions derived by science Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
You fellas need to get a grip on reality and your emotions. Evolution is what it is. But that is just the point Bluescat, the scientific theory allows both positions to be plausible and atleast demonstratable, without fear of contradiction, presently well creation has one tiny hole in it it assumes a desighner the theory whit the least assumptions is usually correct, unless you find new data that disproves the theory. EDIT: in short you want to kill 2 birds whit one stone, prove god, and prove that he desighned us, whit out god there is no desighn possible, and whit out desighn there is no prof of god. First prove god then we will talk about desighn. After that we may talk about the name of god and witch religion suits him. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024