|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The purpose of a watch is to allow the designer to tell the time. Wearer to tell time? The designers purpose was to create a product to sell. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Wearer to tell time? The designers purpose was to create a product to sell. It appears that your purpose on these threads is to be pedantic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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? When you have magical poofing as your primary mechanism it is a bit hard to stand on your own as a science. What they are hoping to do is tear down all competing theories (by whatever means necessary) and hope that no one notices that the Emporer has no clothes. Even when we ask for experiments that could test ID we instead get experiments that are meant to test evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I don't mean to seem pedantic but Dawn and Dennis are pretty loose in actually defining purpose. The point I am trying to make is that the watch itself has NO purpose. The designer had a purpose and the wearer has a purpose but both are totally independent of the watch itself and in fact, the purpose of both the designer and the wearer could be fulfilled even if the watch did not exist. The designer is doing a job to earn money. It could be designing watches or tailfins. The wearer could look at the sun or stars or a sundial or use any of the myriad other methods developed to tell time.
Dawn and Dennis are just making stuff up and trying to lead folk off down those very attractive rabbit holes. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Of course there is something better and its called order and law. Why are they better? Why does order and law evidence design?
Until you have done this design is a reasonable and logical assumption, the conclusion of whichis irresistible.
Why is it a logical and reasonable assumption?
Since in anyother given situation an item with order and purpose would imply design, Except in the case of life where order is produced through unintelligent processes. You don't get to dismiss falsifications of your claims so easily.
Science can PROVE nothing concerning matter swhere there is limited or unavailable evidence, like that of natures initiation source. But we can test hypotheses. You always seem to ignore this fact.
Atheism has offered nothing to suggest or indicate this conclusion is not warrented, sepecially when tied in with Gods Word. Negative argument fallacy. It is up to you to support your claims, not for your challengers to disprove. It appears that you need to brush up on the use of logic.
It is thereofre unresonable for science or evos to request of us what they cannot provide themselves. We can provide testable hypotheses as to how life gains order through the process of evolution. Where are your testable hypotheses?
However none of this removes the MORE valid conclusion that design implies a designer So the cuboidal design in a salt crystal imply that a designer placed each and every atom in a cuboidal arrangement? Or did this design occur through unintelligent mechanisms? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: For the sake of perspective, if 6 x 1023 molecules of water weigh 18 grams, how many molecules are there in the ocean? 5.9 1045 molecules --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
5.9 1045 molecules --Percy Talk about a thread-killer. Sheesh. Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2900 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
Damouse writes: To get a positive change, any of those authors must find an improvement. Any negative changes will die off. Actually negative changes will tend to impair the carriers, but they will not necessarily die off. That is very context sensitive, and assuming the negative aspect is not immediately life threatening, it could be some generations before any effect was seen. The point being that neutral and mildly negative mutations can and will exist in the population, adding to the variability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
The point being that neutral and mildly negative mutations can and will exist in the population, adding to the variability. Yes, you're right. However, statistically speaking, every negative change that isnt fatal has the same chance of occurring as every positive change that isnt overwhelmingly positive. All of the fatal changes are fatal; all of the beneficial changes that are remarkably beneficial quickly catch to the species as a whole in following generations. The concept of positive evolution is possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Which ocean was being asked about? I calculated 4.5 x 1046 molecules for all five oceans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
hooah writes: Buz, you realize you are playing for our team when you wholeheartedly admit ID is creationism, right? I'm not sure if you know this, but ID hasn't publicly come out of the closet. They still deny their religious ties...... Keep it up, buddy. We appreciate it. Lol, Hooah. ID serves as an adjective of the noun creationist in my sentence. I happen to be of the ID version of creationist and/or the creationist version of IDist. Creationists aren't the only IDists. ID is not creationism perse. Get it? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Nuggin writes: Can you point to a single verified, undisputed point....... LoL. No creationist or IDist value gets by undisputed in this town, no matter how much solid evidence is cited.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
LoL. No creationist or IDist value gets by undisputed in this town, no matter how much solid evidence is cited. Can you point to a single verified bit of "solid evidence"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
ID is not creationism perse. Well let's test that claim. "Design Proponent" replaces the word "Creationist" in text books in all sentences without any change in context. If two terms have the exact same meaning - doesn't that mean that both terms have the same definition? Further, Intelligent Design was invented BY Creationists who have admitted that they made up the term to get around the legal actions which prevented them from using the term "Creationist". So, since THEY admit they are the same. And the terms have the same definition. Can you point to a way in which Intelligent Design and Creationism are different?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No creationist or IDist value gets by undisputed in this town ... Golly, you noticed. Did you also see the sign on the door as you came in? You know, where it says "EvC"? The "C" stands for "creationism" and the "v" stands for "versus". I forget about the "E".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024