|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Don't you remember that arguments that evolution is incomplete because it doesn't deal with the origin of the universe are off-topic in this thread? See Message 31, here's an excerpt: Again this is not an assault on evolution, but an attempt to demonstrate that design follows all the rules any study does, to evaluate the available evidence and show what we can know from such evidence. If for example the available evidence allows for (at present) two very real choices, then those choices should be presented as available evidence The tenets of evolution and the conclusions from order, have to examined, initially from a logical and physical perspective, before such 'conclusions" can be accepted as even valid
So order that emerges from a lower level order isn't evidence of design? But the lower level order in molecules and atoms *is* evidence of design? True, because while crystals or snowflakes may always have the same certain amount of points, the shape is always different or relative, with no one standard, such as the order the molecules demonstrate, to consitently produce a crystal or its numerical denomination, which is always the same The order is primarily in its consistent substructure. Some design will be obvious on the outside, but it will also exhibit RELATIVE design with no consistent standard, as in the shape of snowflakes
So sight, which is based upon an internal order of molecules and atoms, is evidence of design, but crystals, which are also based upon an internal order of molecules and atoms, are not evidence of design? There are different types of sight, colored blind, for example, but sight nonetheless. Sight is the design evidence of a substructure order, with relative affects of the same obvious order, which is observable in a consistent pattern Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Evos aren't afraid of design. We oppose the design concept do to the lack of evidence. As I said show some evidence that design is correct. An idea does not become a theory on rhetoric alone. Fortunately, Logic and physical properties are not rhetoric. We only know a certain amount of things concerning the nature of things and thier existence When we break down what we know, there remains only a certain amount of verfiable logical possibilities. But those possibilites are testable against both logic and the natural world We have to go with what those properties will allow. No theory or information will controvert the only two logical possibilites Finally, it is evidence as far as evidence will allow. Design by observation of order, cannot be dismissed simply because you dont like it. It must be demonstrated to be invalid and illogical for it to be discarded Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
You have completely ignored the effects that pre-design have. True, because while crystals or snowflakes may always have the same certain amount of points, the shape is always different or relative, with no one standard, such as the order the molecules demonstrate, to consitently produce a crystal or its numerical denomination, which is always the same The order is primarily in its consistent substructure. Some design will be obvious on the outside, but it will also exhibit RELATIVE design with no consistent standard, as in the shape of snowflakesWhile your arguments appears to have 'outward' logical beliefs, it still lacks any 'inward' ones Your search for the first occurance is consistantly balanced on your ability to look forwards and backwards (and even sideways) at the physical area
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
This is where you are having problems. Your definition of what is designed is no more than, "I can tell it when I see it." Wrong
"Orderly, logical, and law abiding" can describe the formation of crystals, ice, stalactites, "silk frost" formations, earth hummocks, and hexagonal clay shrinkage cracks. Right. and it also explains in a logical and demonstratable fashion the probability of a designer. A designer designing or some
What is your rule for determining whether these types of things are designed or not? Without some rule, you are left only with the useless "I can tell it when I see it" definition. Here is your problem. "I can tell it when I see it", is not a substitute for rational and logical observations, the conclusions of which needs to be demonstrated as false. You can do this by SIMPLY showing that your process (whatever that is or is implied by it), is the only logical possibility. Hmmmmm? My guess is that you cannot do this Since both our positions are unprovable, all thats left is the probable, correct son That probabilty however, is rooted, based and centered in all the same methods you use to establish your case BTW, theres my rule, since you asked Dawn
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
You make a post with various statements and then vaguely point at it and say "Somewhere in there is my rule." BTW, theres my rule, since you asked Please be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You have completely ignored the effects that pre-design have. While your arguments appears to have 'outward' logical beliefs, it still lacks any 'inward' ones Your search for the first occurance is consistantly balanced on your ability to look forwards and backwards (and even sideways) at the physical area Instead of attacking my position with rhetoric, attack its tenets, Jr, then you will impress me. Show me where my logic is faulty Show me specifically what I have 'ignored', Careful, you could be in for quite a ride Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You make a post with various statements and then vaguely point at it and say "Somewhere in there is my rule." Come on now you can do better than that. Lets see some logic, not verbage. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You should know very well (since you are such a seasoned public debater in the evo-creo arena) that evolution has fuck all to do with origins. If you knew so much about evolution, you would know that it could occur whether there was a magic sky daddy farting atoms into existence, abiogenesis occurring, transpermia etc. So you say it does have to do with origins, Percy and others say it does not. Let me know when you come to a consensus on this, so i will know which road to take Since you say it does have to do with origins, can you show me its ultimate initiation point or how those things came to be in the first place?
Nope, not at all. You see, different fields of science have a neat way of not trying to overlap one another. The field of, let's say: Evolutionary Biology, has no business in bothering with where it all came from or "the eternal existence of matter". Cosmology is the field that is trying to work that out. Nor does the Theory of Evolution have any say so on the origins of matter. Let me know when they get that "worked out", Ok
While, yes, you could have a discussion about the origins of matter when dealing with someone who accepts evolution as opposed to ID and ask them where they think matter came from, it would have absolutely NO BEARING on evolution whatsoever. Since this is not a discussion on evolution, I agree. Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You are arguing for design from the standpoint of intelligent design. You ARE taking the ID standpoint. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can we expect you to be honest with us? Logic and and observable physical properties are as HONEST as it gets. What I can determine from thos aspects, is as Honest as it gets. Creation, ID and evo are conclusions from logical and physical demonstrations. Logic first, conclusions second Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
So you say it does have to do with origins, ..... English isn't your first language, is it? You will notice that I said it has "FUCK ALL" to do with origins, meaning it has nothing to do with origins. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
English isn't your first language, is it? You will notice that I said it has "FUCK ALL" to do with origins, meaning it has nothing to do with origins. Sorry, I missed that, Potty mouth is not my first or second language. My mistake potty mouth Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
So, now that you understand that evolution has FUCK ALL to do with origins, do you plan on recanting your drivel about the "eternal existence of matter", since it has nothing to do with anything currently being discussed.
From your Message 146:
Logic and and observable physical properties are as HONEST as it gets. What I can determine from thos aspects, is as Honest as it gets. Creation, ID and evo are conclusions from logical and physical demonstrations. Logic first, conclusions second You have yet to provide any sort of mechanism with which to test for the design you tout. All you have done is shout "look, I'm logical. It's logical!. It's logical!" without saying much of anything else. How do we know what is designed and what is natural? Like your title implies, where is the evidence for design? p.s.: You might try growing up so you're not so easily offended by words, pussy face. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Come on now you can do better than that. Lets see an answer. Come on now you can do better than that. Lets see some logic, not verbage.What is your rule? And this time: be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well kiddo, your position is what you are advocating - that is why I am 'attacking' it. Instead of attacking my position with rhetoric, attack its tenets, Jr, then you will impress me. Show me where my logic is faultyIf your position is untenable, then I suggest you correct it. Dawn Bertot writes:
I already gave a reasonable precise description of where you went wrong. Show me where my logic is faulty Show me specifically what I have 'ignored',Rather than me repeating it, I suggest you read it. Dawn Bertot writes:
Don't worry, I've read your posts: I know you have nothing. Careful, you could be in for quite a ride Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
I'm unable to reach any firm conclusions concerning why we're having so much difficulty obtaining a clear statement of your ideas, but I've suspected for a while now that it might be due to your unfamiliarity with the English language, and this clinches it for me:
Dawn Bertot writes: You should know very well (since you are such a seasoned public debater in the evo-creo arena) that evolution has fuck all to do with origins. If you knew so much about evolution, you would know that it could occur whether there was a magic sky daddy farting atoms into existence, abiogenesis occurring, transpermia etc. So you say it does have to do with origins, Percy and others say it does not. Hooah was stating in the strongest terms possible that evolution has nothing to do with origins, yet you concluded he was stating the opposite. This continual language confusion convinces me that Free For All is the best place for this thread. If at some point some clarity emerges I will move the thread back here. Those who decide to continue participation in this thread should be aware that there is no moderation over at Free For All. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024