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

The drill is simple, for two reasons. First of all, you know what drills do and you know that they were made for the specific purpose of drilling. Easy-peasy.How do you know that life's purpose is to live? Im willing to accept the argument the argument that purpose hints at design, for now. Ill run with the drill metaphor.ABE: Or that you have a purpose at all?
How do you know what your purpose is with any certainty at all?Edited by Damouse, : Hmm.

quote:

---

That's exactly how cars used to be built. Some guy did it.

---

Wrong. For the internal combustion engine alone there were over 14 accredited designers dating back from 1680 to 1890, including inventors, physicists, and engineers from all over the world. Someone did not just throw a hunk of metal together, then throw gas in it, light it, and run.

quote:

---

They didn't study the materials first because they didn't know what meterials they were going to use.

---

Wrong. Henry Ford and Wilhelm Maybach both converted engines to run on many different fuels, including kerosine and stove gas. Gasoline was chosen before the first cars were put to market, after years of prototypes.

quote:

---

The car evolved.

---

If intelligent design over time is evolution, then I'm an evolutionist.

quote:

---

The fossil fuels were formed by natural processes.

---

I don't get what you are saying exactly...materials that had previous different functions (if any at all) are changed to have new designed function.

quote:

---

I didn't say any such thing. I said that we don't need to know where the atoms came from to understand evolution.

---

That is by far the best answer I have ever heard from you. You don't know. I too can concede that even though the Bible teaches how life began, I cannot explain how, since there are no natural experiment that can be performed to recreate something such as instant creation. See? Look how well we play together.

quote:

---

The answer is basically that origins of materials are irrelevant

---

If you don't take the origin of matter seriously, how can you expect me to take your beliefs on the origin of life seriously? It shouldn't matter, right? If you can conveniently shrug off an important unknown so easily, then how can I possibly know you wouldn't do the same for other aspects of your beliefs? You have an ice cream attitude, you only like the good stuff, but completely ignore vanilla.I love vanilla ringo. Love it. Love. It.

quote:

---

If anything, you and Dawn are dodging the question of how you connect those materials to a designer.

---

So now because you cannot explain the origin of matter, you ask me to explain it. Since you know that the origin by my belief is supernatural, and cannot be proven, you think that you will be right, because I can't prove origins.Hmm....but if neither of us can prove the origin of matter....aren't we both religious to some extent?BELIEF - Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.OOPS. I win.Dennis.

quote:

---

And if I see a living organism, such as a tiger, I correctly "assume" that it was the product of a natural and unintelligent process

---

Natural yes. Unintelligent? Are you calling Tigers dumb? Though you are right, the question is not do animals produce after their kind, because they do. The question is where did Tigers come from? Mommy and daddy tiger came from somewhere too, right? Their parents made sweet sweet tiger 'lurve', and so did their lines for generations back.But looking at the tigers themselves, they have specific physical properties that indicate design. They eat meat, and yet have the claws, teeth, speed, and instinctive behavour to hunt. Much like your car has the right equipment to drive (steering wheel, gas pedal, brakes, etc.), the tiger has the required equipment to survive.Just because cars don't make sweet 'lurve', doesn't mean that anything that does is not designed. Robots make robots. Are they reproducing? Making sweet sweet Irobot 'lurve'?

quote:

---

Well, just saying so, even if you do it over and over again, isn't going to cut it with me.

---

So just saying so doesn't count? Okay. But didn't you just argue that tigers evolved, didn't you just say so?

quote:

---

We don't look at the garage and the hammer and assume design. We have evidence for design. No-one ever assumes design ... except creationists.

---

Okay. So explain your position then. You have a watch. Explain your evidence for design.

quote:

---

How do you know that life's purpose is to live?

---

Because even if life came from evolution or creation, every organism instinctively works to survive from birth. If time and energy are devoted almost entirely to living, then this is the primary function of life, to LIVE.

This example has the misfortune to actually include an item that we all know was designed. Kinda steals the thunder away from your challenge : PLets try with something else. Gravity? Or even better, applied gravity: Black holes. What is your reasoning behind the belief that black holes are created, based on their purpose or design?Also, i noticed you haven't responded to my last post on the previous page. Are you just conceding the point, or have you missed it?

Lemmings? Heroin addicts? Suicidal people? All counterpoints. This is a correlation without any mechanism hinted at. It also happens to be a logical fallacy.You said that because we spend time living, our purpose is to live. In other words, we live so we can live. The drill drills so it can drill. Fire burns so it can burn.You're begging the question a wee bit.

This is by far one of the stupidest and misinformed things i have ever heard from a theist.Beliefs dont make you a theist.Belief and faith are NOT exclusively tied to religion. The difference between belief and knowledge is a hotly debated topic in philosophy.Everyone has many more beliefs than they do knowledge. For example, you do not know that your watch will fall when you drop it. You believe you do. I believe it too. You also don't know if it will break. You don't know if you'd die if you'd decapitate yourself. These are all beliefs.I believe the universe around me exists. I do not know. I cannot know.

quote:

---

This example has the misfortune to actually include an item that we all know was designed. Kinda steals the thunder away from your challenge

---

Hahaha, thats the point. To take something that is designed, and explain why you know it is designed. Don't jump in, I want to hear what the Dr. orders.

quote:

---

Also, i noticed you haven't responded to my last post on the previous page. Are you just conceding the point, or have you missed it?

---

Missed it, or skipped it. From the sounds of this post, I skipped it.

So you're halfway there. Now, all you need to do is either show some evidence of design or acknowledge that the designer is superfluous. The "function" of fossil fuels is to burn. That function has been put to different uses by designers but the process remains the same. The process is natural. Read. I said we don't NEED to know. Even though we do know in some detail about the origin of atoms, we don't NEED that knowledge to understand evolution. Nobody's asking you to duplicate fiat creation. All we're asking for is any evidence at all, just one little piece of evidence that a designer is in any way responsible for life as we know it. We've even suggested the first step: Just show us how you can detect design reliably. I couldn't care less what you take seriously. If you're trying to replace science with a design paradigm, you're the one who needs to worry about being taken seriously. (Associating yourself with a whacko like Dawn Bertot isn't exactly helping your credibility.) It has nothing to do with beliefs. It's just a matter of relevance. Read. I'm not saying I can't explain the origin of matter. I'm saying it's irrelevant to understanding how matter works. And I'm not asking you to explain the origin of matter. I'm asking you to connect matter in some way to your proposed designer, in the real world, today.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

As you wish. Its not that difficult.Its much more difficult to do as i asked and to prove what purpose something has based on it's function that is fundamental the the universe, like gravity. But we all pick our battles. That tends to happen when you tell someone "GOTCHYA!" Not sure why....Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

---

This statement is false.Tell the blunt, honest truth in the starkest, darkest way. And what will be, will be. What will be, should be.

quote:

---

Lemmings? Heroin addicts? Suicidal people? All counterpoints.

---

Lemmings absolutely. They are required to work extra hard due the the extreme temperature conditions they live in.Heroin unbalances the natural thought process of the mind. But it's funny. Heroin addicts still eat...Ask anyone who has tried to kill themselves and failed if they want to live. And those that succeed don't count, because they're dead, HAHA.Just because an individual doesn't understand the function, does not change the primary function.Many animals are born with defects that can alter their minds or physical abilities. If one does not seek out food, they die, and those that do, live. Still making the primary function of life, to LIVE.

quote:

---

This is a correlation without any mechanism hinted at.

---

I have no idea what you just wrote, but it sounds like you grabbed a science dictionary and typed some big words.Why is my statement a logical fallacy?

quote:

---

In other words, we live so we can live. The drill drills so it can drill. Fire burns so it can burn.

---

A drill left running uncontrollably is not serving a purpose, only performing a function. The same is true for the fire. Fire is not alive, and cannot direct itself. Neither is the drill. Both can be used for function by intelligent people though.You honestly have no idea what to say, do you? Just saying random stuff about fires and drills. Your just off in the twilight zone looking for people to respond to your nonsense.LIVING things have purpose and function, don't write back about your drills, cars, etc. They all require an intelligent user to have purpose and function. They also far exceed your purpose.

quote:

---

As you wish. Its not that difficult.

---

If it's not that difficult, then why didn't you answer the question.

quote:

---

That tends to happen when you tell someone "GOTCHYA!" Not sure why....

---

Probably because your catchphrase is used prematurely, and you say random things until people can't keep up with the topic anymore. You're like the Joker from the batman movies. No one knows what you're talking about but you.

Don't actually commit mass suicide, so far as anyone knows.

I couldn't resist.The goal is to prove that this watch was designed.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.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.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.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.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.Edited by Damouse, : Clarification.