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

Of course there is something better and its called order and law. You simply asked me what is its purpose. Ther better you seek is the order it follows. To reason past this that it does it by itself, you would need to demonstrate the eternality of matter.Until you have done this design is a reasonable and logical assumption, the conclusion of whichis irresistible.So the question then goes way past evos or sciences ability to explain present conditions and materialsSince in anyother given situation an item with order and purpose would imply design, it is more reasonable conclude that the intricacies in nature are therefore designed.You disapproval doesnt change this factScience can PROVE nothing concerning matter swhere there is limited or unavailable evidence, like that of natures initiation source.Atheism has offered nothing to suggest or indicate this conclusion is not warrented, sepecially when tied in with Gods Word.It is thereofre unresonable for science or evos to request of us what they cannot provide themselves.However none of this removes the MORE valid conclusion that design implies a designerDawn Bertot

This is because you implied that purpose is a result of the order, and that we must first define the purpose so as to imply order and design. Surely, if I wanted to argue the self-organisational properties of matter I'd just need to demonstrated its self-organisational properties. I fail to see what the temporality (or lack thereof) of matter has to do with this. I'm willing to run with you here, but I need to know what the clear purpose of life is before I'm happy concluding that it is something that has been designed with that purpose in mind (ie forethought). I'm perfectly happy to conclude that life is designed, and to say 'because it is incredibly good at what it does, as if it had been optimised for the task'. It's not exactly science, but I'm happy to run with it. But if that purpose is to do what it does, that implies a recursive nature - which is what we'd expect if it was designed by evolution.So unless there is some purpose behind life doing what it does, above and beyond it doing - then we need not posit an intelligence that designed it with said purpose in mind. Surely then, your design argument - striving to have a mindful designer, undermines itself.Until you can tell me what clear purpose the designer had in mind when it designed life - how can I judge how fit it is to that purpose? To see if life is optimised to achieve that purpose 'as if it were designed to do so'.

On the contrary, exactly like with Creationism/ID the mere fact that I've SUGGESTED that this is the correct answer means it has exactly as much evidence. I really hate it when idiots use terms they don't understand. No, I did not post a single straw man.Instead I offered three VERY REAL, VERY POSSIBLE counter solutions to the exact same problem you are trying to solve with the answer "A Jewish Wizard".If you want to set the policy of writing off examples because one or more people thinks they are "silly", then guess what's gonna happen to your "Jews have Magic!" claim? Really? Can you point to a single verified, undisputed point which points ONLY to a magical Jewish Wizard and not the Invisible King of the Dark Smurfs et al?Didn't think so.Here's the problem with playing make believe. The threshold for entry is EXTREMELY low. Anyone can make up ANYTHING and it's JUST as valid as your claims.

Nice try. Are you a creationist because you can not prove how matter came about? No. You are a creationist because of beliefs as to how that matter came about, and those beliefs are religious in nature. You can not equate this to a person who holds beliefs that matter did not have a supernatural origin since it does not involve the supernatural. The whole point of religious beliefs is that they center around the supernatural. To try and force non-supernatural beliefs under the religious heading is just ludicrous.Why is it that creationists want science to be a religion?

Seems like you've now changed your original stance that order is evidence for design to, order AND purpose are evidence for design. Well, of course they are, that IS the definition for design.But order alone isn't evidence for design, you need purpose, which you have not demonstated there to be any, as Modulous has pointed out.- Oni

What originally created forest? Evidence please. What are these phenotypes and why do they suggest design? Also, what phenotypes, if found, would disprove design? Can you please tell us why unintelligent natural processes can not produce specific purpose? If we observe a naturally occuring mutation producing an enzyme that has a purpose does this falsify design? But we have observed new organisms coming about through natural and unguided processes. You have been taught about the birds and the bees, have you not? How so? How do we know that particularized function is evidence of design? If you took that same bag of calculators, dumped them on your front lawn, and then asked a class of high school students to find the designed things would they pull up clumps of grass or grab for the bugs crawling through the lawn? No. They would grab the calculators and ignore all of the life around the calculators. Shouldn't that tell you something?

Bullshit.To get ANY improvement of ANY kind does not require "several correlated changes" nor does it require them to happen "at the same time" or in "just the right place".An example:
A gene can be duplicated in one generation, then mutate several times over the next 100 generations before ultimately resulting in something beneficial. During the interim, the original gene still exists and still serves it's function. No need for "instant" change to the 2ndary gene. So, no "at the same time".Further, the duplicate gene doesn't have to have mutations occur in "just the right place" since changes to it have no effect on the original gene.Additionally, your example of tossing coins is based on a single coin tosser tossing coins once.Yes, in order for the Jewish Wizard to Poof a man out of clay, all the DNA would have to line up in "one toss".However, evolution doesn't predict that - creationism does.You wanna run the math, here's the REAL scenario.Goal:
Get all 150 coins to come up heads.Event:
1) First thrower tosses coins.
2) Count the number of heads.
3) Add one thrower for each coin which came up heads. Put that many heads up coins on the ground in front of them.
4) Have them each toss a number of coins equal to the number of tails.
5) Repeat 2-4 until 4 results in 0 coins.First throw: 1 thrower, results 75/75
Second throw: 76 throwers, best result 105/45
Third throw: 178 throwers, best result 140/10
Fourth throw: 255 throwers, best result 150/0Hardly "impossible".

Why is order evidence of design?

Irrelevant. You asked to proved the design of something i ALREADY know i was designed. The point of the first method is to show how silly that is.Its easy to prove something was designed when you begin with the assumption that it was designed. This is what you do. This is just how stupid it looks like when you do it. The difference is AGAIN that i can look at other watches which i know were certifiably made by humans.My assumption that only humans have developed a letter system is because i've seen human letter systems. You have never seen a tiger that you know, beyond a doubt, was made by god.So, no. Wrong. Then the chain of the pocket watch.Its impossible to find a small strip of cow leather that has been treated so the protein structure of the leather is permanently changed, that has been treated with tannin, that has been dried, and that has "naturally occuring" stitching on its sides. What? Its a splotchy, random set of lines that differ with every tiger. Why the hell would i assume its too complex to be naturally occuring? Water runoff on dirt is striped and random, as well. Should i assume someone made it, rather than assume it was water + gravity?This is not a logical assumption. Its one to suit your own needs. You didnt specify. I was assuming an average watch. AGAIN. I have seen complexity from humans before, for sure. You have never, without a logical doubt, seen complexity from your god. My assumption holds, yours does not. They do, actually. Its called growing up. And here we come to the problem. You state your conclusion as a premise. Why even bother with the first two points? Just say the last two. Its the only argument you have.

quote:

---

-Assume the Tigers were both designed
Conclude the Tiger was made.

---

You aren't smart enough to realize it doesnt make sense.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

Do you believe that lightning is supernatural in origin?
Do you believe that earthquakes are supernatural in origin?
Do you believe that rainbows are supernatural in origin?
Rain? Clouds the look like things? Comets? Volcanoes?The list of things which religious people claimed were "supernatural" in origin and which are now demonstrated to not be supernatural is VERY VERY long.The list of things which religious people claimed were "supernatural" in origin and which are now demonstrated to actually be "supernatural" is EMPTY.So, you are asking us to accept your belief as being AS valid as our belief based on a track record of being wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME for the ENTIRE HISTORY of the WORLD.If you owned a baseball team and had one player who had batted .000 for 2000 years, at what point would you say: "You're off the team"?

@buz pathology
3. A departure or deviation from a normal conditionDictionary, my friend.@ JBR Dennis doesnt know what a train station is. It's beyond him. From Dictionary:

quote:

---

impossible- adj.

​

1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.

---

Impossible is something that CANNOT happen. Ever. Period.I understand what you're saying in terms of common sense impossible, and i agree. But in the scientific world, speaking in absolutes, something is not impossible only if it is improbable. This is the first place where you are clearly wrong.Evolution has positive and negative reinforcement to changes. Positive changes are accepted and quickly spread to the entire population. Negative changes stop right there. Your metaphor doesn't take that into account. No. First of all, every member of the species is it's own "author," as per your metaphor. To get a positive change, any of those authors must find an improvement. Any negative changes will die off. Any improvement will spread through the population in relatively quick time on an evolutionary basis.The probability is not therefor (chance of a change)*(chance that change is good) - (chance of a change)(chance that change is bad)It is (chance of a change)(chance that the change is good)(members of the population)

Here is an example of a specific antenna arrangement that was not designed. NASA settled on this arrangement through the process of an evolutionary algorithm where different arrangements were tested to see which gave the best results, then those were combined randomly to arrive at new arrangements which were tested to see which gave the best results which were then combined randomly, etc.Let me try to put it into simpler terms. Are you familiar with the term "trial and error?" In essence, it's someone trying to get to a solution testing a number of different options until he stumbles upon the one that works best. No intelligence need go into the process; simple random examination of various possibilities will eventually arrive at a workable solution. That's evolution in a nutshell. Billions upon billions of different organisms with billions upon billions of different combinations over millions upon millions of years, resulting in nature as we see it today. No need for any intelligent input of any sort. This is simply not true. All that is necessary for evolution to proceed is for one small change to take place that gives one individual a competitive advantage over others. That individual will produce more offspring, and more of its genetic information will appear is succeeding generations. It really is just that simple. If you disagree, please explain why.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

No, you dont. You can easily use inductive reasoning on a set of items without having to know where they came from.I dont understand why this is a hard point to understand. No, again. We are talking about current evidence and current purpose. The origins of everything have no bearing on this. Wherever they came from, they are here now. That is the argument on hand.You are deflecting. Should we prove that current purpose is not designed? Evidence is readily available. take a look at it.Prove design is intentionally designed. That is all that is asked from you. Nothing about the origins of matter. That is only a valid conclusion to you because you, like your friend, begin with the assumption that you are designed and then seek the same conclusion you started with.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

Am I the only one who is not surprised that this thread, entitled "evidence for design and a designer", has devolved into what evolution does, all the while failing to even work out what can be called evidence for design? When-oh-when will ID/creation attempt to stand on it's own merit?

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Can you point to something of human designs whose only purpose is itself?The purpose of a watch is not to be a watch. The purpose of a watch is to allow the designer to tell the time. The purpose of designed things is related to the designer, not the design. The purpose of designed things is to benefit the designer. Characteristics in life only benefit that life. Big difference.Can you point to a single characteristic in a single species that solely benefits another species?