Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,798 Year: 4,055/9,624 Month: 926/974 Week: 253/286 Day: 14/46 Hour: 0/2


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Free For All ⇒

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

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
ringo
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 530 of 648 (588282)
10-23-2010 12:10 PM 		Reply to: Message 515 by dennis780
10-23-2010 8:29 AM

dennis780 writes:
​
Though it [DNA] is chemically driven and follows certain rules, it created you, top to bottom. DNA created your brain, which has intelligent and unique thought processes.
What does that have to do with intelligent design? The DNA molecule follows exactly the same principles to form me as water molecules follow to form snowflakes. No intelligence required, just chemistry.
​
dennis780 writes:
​
All complex things that are designed have blueprints, or a storage of information.
No, not all designed things have blueprints. An artist creates a painting without a blueprint, often without a plan of any kind.
​
And no, a template is not a blueprint. A DNA molecule is to a protein as a beaver's teeth is to the chips of wood that he makes. The shape of the teeth/DNA determines the shape of the chips/proteins. The chips aren't intelligently designed. Why would you think the proteins were?
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by dennis780, posted 10-23-2010 8:29 AM dennis780 has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 545 of 648 (588324)
10-23-2010 7:38 PM 		Reply to: Message 544 by Dawn Bertot
10-23-2010 7:21 PM

Dawn Bertot writes:
​
This would be proof positive ABSOLUTLEY to YOU that he actually commited the crime, there would be no need for you to conclude this on SOMEOTHER INDIRECT YET CONVINCING EVIDENCE, correct?
No. Not to me, it wouldn't. If there was somebody standing beside me, the first thing I'd ask him would be, "Did you see that?"
​
To somebody with a scientific mindset, no eyewitness is to be trusted, not even oneself. Corroboration by somebody else or even better, by physical evidence, is a far more reliable method for reaching conclusions than our own senses.
​
As Richard Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
​
You've fooled yourself into thinking that your ramblings are "logical" and that everybody but you is wrong. That's the antithesis of objectivity and science.
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-23-2010 7:21 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 552 of 648 (588359)
10-24-2010 11:32 AM 		Reply to: Message 551 by Dawn Bertot
10-24-2010 10:57 AM

Re: Do even you know what you're trying to say?
Dawn Bertot writes:
​
Here I gave an illustration in the example of a murder, to which only Ringo replied with a response that made little or no sense, or at best unbelievable
​
Since Ringo attempted a response it should be obvious that people understand what I mean, only that they have no valid response
My response was essentially that your example was invalid and I explained why it was invalid. If you think my response was invalid, explain why.
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-24-2010 10:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-24-2010 4:01 PM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 555 of 648 (588379)
10-24-2010 4:49 PM 		Reply to: Message 554 by Dawn Bertot
10-24-2010 4:01 PM

Dawn Bertot writes:
​
ringo writes:
​
If you think my response was invalid, explain why.
it assumes that even an eyewitness examination of a specific thing is not proof of a thing, atleast to that person .
It isn't an assumption. It's a conclusion. We know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. That's why science requires repeatability and consensus. That's why a personal "feeling" that something is designed is not evidence of design.
​
That's why everybody has been asking you to show evidence of design that everybody can see. That's why experiments are necessary, so that others can repeat the observation.
​
Dawn Bertot writes:
​
ringo writes:
​
As Richard Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
Why dont you present this comment in the context it was written and lets see if fits the bill to being an eyewitness, with no visual or mental problems
If you think I'm using the quote out of context, go ahead and show it.
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-24-2010 4:01 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-25-2010 9:17 AM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 560 of 648 (588410)
10-25-2010 11:08 AM 		Reply to: Message 557 by Dawn Bertot
10-25-2010 9:17 AM

Dawn Bertot writes:
​
If Iam standing in front of an individual and I watch him kick a football ball, in person, I dont need to conduct tests to see if that is what happened. It is proof positve that it did happen, if it happened only to myself
Something observed by you but not by the people standing next to you is called a hallucination. That's why tests are necessary, to distinguish the real observations from the unreal.
​
You can believe you saw what you saw but your belief is of no value to anybody else.
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-25-2010 9:17 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 589 of 648 (588524)
10-26-2010 11:30 AM 		Reply to: Message 587 by Son
10-26-2010 10:49 AM

Son writes:
​
You already have fundings (all those megachurches) and plenty of motivated people to do this.
The people may be motivated but they're motivated not to look at the evidence. If they already know the weather by their "logic", why would they spoil it by looking out the window at reality?
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Son, posted 10-26-2010 10:49 AM Son has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by dwise1, posted 10-26-2010 3:45 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 438 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 632 of 648 (588683)
10-27-2010 12:42 PM

Bottom Line
You can logically "prove" that there must be a designer but without some connection to reality, all the logic in the world is useless.
​
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Prev123
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024