Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
barbara
Member (Idle past 4801 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 633 of 648 (588686)
10-27-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 598 by Coyote
10-26-2010 5:15 PM


Re: Summation
There is decision making in nature and there is creativity in the biodiversity of life. Proteins that produce materials and how it rearranges those ingredients to produce different outcomes in the phenotype is being creative. From scales to skin like ours and every variation in between is the same as a chemist in a lab experimenting with different chemicals to produce different outcomes.
There are natural laws in nature in that while prokaryotes are allowed the freedom of HGT between themselves, this is prevented in eukaryotes that have a nucleus that prevents us from HGT from swapping with other eukaryotes.
If this restriction was not in place we could obtain every trait that is unique in other creatures and become superhumans with all the advantages combined in nature in one being.
If breeding barriers were not in place and we could reproduce with any other creature on the planet what do you think would eventually happen?
The food web would never work if we did not have a nucleus that prevents HGT and if all creatures did not have reproduction barriers. The DNA pool would end up producing one super creature competing with other super creatures that all looked like each other.
A catastrophic scenario that would have prevented life in the beginning if decision making was not employed at different forks in the road. We have a tree with branches that supports different alternatives that separates us into groups.
The food web can only be successful since its origin in the way it was designed with natural laws in place. You have to be a total idiot if you can't observe this in nature.
Chemical reactions alone cannot produce all of the biota today and if it did everything would look the same without imagination in its creatures appearance or specific features that make them unique.
This planet sustains life through recycling the elements by chemical conversions and this is an automated process from single celled organisms to humans in order to be considered "alive". The creativity in appearance in each phenotype is represented by the imagination of a unknown mechanism using the same principle of recycling is evident in all creatures.
The food web uses a predator/prey method that allows the recycling of life to continue is evidence of collective intelligence that makes it successful. The fact that life forms are viewed as "put together just good enough" and not perfected in design is reasoned by: Why would you spend time on perfecting the critters form if its only going to end up on the dinner menu of another critter?
The idea that they are made good enough to reproduce offspring is the goal of a successful food web. Looking at the whole picture of life does reveal there is a method to this madness. Black and white concepts do not exist in reality. Evolution that insists nothing is directed while religion is the opposite is a black and white bias way of thinking. Leave out their titles and its illusion of how it is defined and the similarities are evident in both sides of the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by Coyote, posted 10-26-2010 5:15 PM Coyote has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 634 of 648 (588726)
10-27-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by Percy
10-27-2010 11:16 AM


Re: Complaint time
Post 627 is a clear response to a post of mine, after being told not to respond to anyother posts
do I get a response or is there going to be further special treatment, for only the favored children. Really percy you should atleast try and be honest and upfront with your dealings
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by Percy, posted 10-27-2010 11:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 635 of 648 (588739)
10-27-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by Nij
10-23-2010 8:33 AM


I clicked your map (sorry, busy at work these days). You can't hardly see any detail at all. My link was much better, plus my map was of the Gulf of Aqaba, where the Bible says the crossing happened, a gulf that is part of the Red Sea.
Forbidden
About 15% of the way down is a depth chart of the possible crossing site.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Nij, posted 10-23-2010 8:33 AM Nij has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 636 of 648 (588740)
10-27-2010 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Omnivorous
10-23-2010 8:35 AM


Re: Literalism
quote:
I've already looked at charts, maps and satellite photos. I don't need to look for another. I know what is there. You don't.
Okay.
Forbidden
Around 15% of the way down the page. The Sea of Aqaba, a part of the Red Sea, is the possible crossing site. If you guys used google for all of 5 minutes you could find this stuff.
quote:
Not only is there a trench in your putative sandbar's way, there are no significant currents in the northern Red Sea with which to form massive sandbars.
Since the sand bar is already there, I wouldn't require one to be built.
quote:
But why do you care? Why do you need the sandbar?
I don't. But the Israelites would have. Even if God did part the waters, each individual crossed by choice, and on their own strength. It would seem unlikely that they would cross deep waters, that were too sloped, as this would cause injury leading to eventual death. Also the egyptians pursued the Israelites, and were swallowed up by the waters, if the slopes were too steep, the fall would have killed them, not the waters.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Omnivorous, posted 10-23-2010 8:35 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2010 11:35 PM dennis780 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 637 of 648 (588742)
10-27-2010 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 636 by dennis780
10-27-2010 11:26 PM


Re: Literalism
The Sea of Aqaba, a part of the Red Sea, is the possible crossing site.
Except that there's no sandbar there. That's kind of the point. You can draw all the lines on all the maps you want and label them all "sandbar", but there's no sandbar across the Red Sea.
If you guys used google for all of 5 minutes you could find this stuff.
Well, but that's the point - we're doing research and you're not. You're just taking sympathetic claims at face value without doing any of your own research to verify them. That's why we know there's no sandbar, and you're under the mistaken impression that there is.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by dennis780, posted 10-27-2010 11:26 PM dennis780 has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 638 of 648 (588743)
10-27-2010 11:44 PM


SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY!
Per Admin's message 620.
I've just added the "- AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY" to the topic title - No more excuses for replying to messages when you shouldn't be doing such. Doing such may trigger extreme administrative action.
This is in the "Free For All" forum, but even in the FFA we do strive for staying on-topic. I very much doubt that things Red Sea are on-topic.
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 639 of 648 (588746)
10-28-2010 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by Granny Magda
10-23-2010 8:49 AM


quote:
so making arguments for a designer based on such odds is meaningless.
Nonsense. It's because there are so many variables that make it functional, and stable, that the probability of design is very high. Making the arguement that it happened by accident is meaningless.
quote:
Fine, you consider it plausible that life was designed; I do not object to this, you are entitled to your opinion. I am merely trying to point out that odds-based arguments for such a designer fall down on a number of points.
So if it's plausible that life was designed, then isn't it possible that everything around us was designed as well? Odds apply alot less if a higher being is involved. If I needed a hammer, I could put a piece of wood and metal on the ground, and wait for it to become a hammer, or I could build it. The odds of it becoming a hammer if I build it is extremely likely, since I have the ability. So if there is a higher being of some kind, the question would be, would he have the ability to accomplish designing earth and the universe.
quote:
possible to create water from hydrogen and oxygen
Possible, and plausible? Now where did you get the hydrogen and oxygen for the formation of water?
quote:
if there were no water on Earth, would we be having this conversation? No, of course not.
If you mean because of the butterfly effect, then no, we wouldn't. We probably wouldn't be born. But if evolution is true, and water didn't exist, who is to say life could not arise using some other abundant source of nutrients, that is stable??
quote:
I have no idea. That doesn't mean though, that we should simply throw up our hands and give up on trying to find a natural explanation.
Of course not. Even from a christian perspective, information gives rise to better understanding. Even if the ToE were to fall apart, I wouldn't expect mankind to simply give up on a natural explanation of life, and I don't think they would.
quote:
By "you guys", I meant creationists. You guys brighten up my days, you really do.
I was meaning to be funny. I am more white than rice. I understood who you meant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Granny Magda, posted 10-23-2010 8:49 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 640 of 648 (588750)
10-28-2010 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 624 by Modulous
10-27-2010 9:03 AM


Re: Summary
I disputed that this is so and have challenged Bertot to provide the kind of evidence in this thread that put it on equal footing with the kind of evidence I put forward in the thread that I linked to that Bertot has refused to post in for nearly two years. (Confidence in evolutionary science)
Bertot kept repeating the claim, and not supporting it. I take this as evidence of Bertot's failure to support the POINT.
I was hoping for a bit of good faith debate, not repetition with CAPS LOCKS - but two years is clearly not enough to bring (intelligent) Design on an equal footing with evolution
It has only recently dawned on me that even the professed intellectuals here really do not understand, the basics of the reasoning process
There is another alternative to my wonderment however, and that could be that they are either playing the dumb card or have no actual answer. It is hard at times to decide which, depending on which person is responding
The principle of design, in a logical and physical methodology is so easy to understand, that one wonders what card the opposition is actually playing
What my opponents have missed, is that order and purpose are automatically indications of design. Nothing in any logical form was EVER offered to counter this simple fact and that is what the whole argument, since time began, has rested upon
The most important thing or item that my opponents missed, is that
Ones disapproval or ones approval of design, is not necessary for it to be obvious and true in both a logical and physical representation
While purpose is obvious in a physical manifestation, it is also obvious that a complaint that, it is not purpose, cannot be demonstrated in ANY PHYSICAL FASHION, if the result of the item, such as the eye can be demonstrated as producing sight.
Complaints in a negative, would need to show that such are not the result of the eye, for its complaint to make any sense. they have missed this simple point
My opponents have also mistaken complaint and assertion for arguments against such a simple conclusion, which is both irrefutable and complete
No actual, formal argument was ever offered to refute its conclusions
My opponents have asked for tests in an area where tests are not required, outside of a simple experimentation and observation. After design passes this obvious test, they say, Oh but we need more tests.
Further, the tests they require cannot be conducted past a certain point. And in the meantime and at the same time, they ignore the fact that the scientific method and evolution, cannot be subjected to the same tests they require, because that information (the origin of its source), no longer exists
Yet, these simple people cannot see that they require of Iders, what they do not require of themselves, specifically direct evidence, linking the clear purpose of and reality of design, to a designer
While all the time, moronically claiming that there is no need to know if matter is eternal to demonstrate the factual nature of evolution, in ITS conclusions and presumptions
If one position requires ultimate answers, then of course the same would be required of the other side
The fact of the matter is, that evolution has conclusions and derives its limited and tentative factual data from the same source as does the design argument, present limited data.
While the scientific method has certain applications, it falls well short of any answers concerning origins. In its arrogance, along with exponents, it ignores its obvious limitations and shortcomings. Perhaps this fault is by those that employ it and not the method itself
The oppositions willful and deliberate ignoring of the fact that even evolutions has conclusions, the likes of which, are, the origin of its components, demonstrates that the opposition in no way intends to be objective concerning these matters
In this debate I was specifically ordered to not invoke such issues concerning the conclusions of evolution and the fact that matter, that if it was not designed, had to be a result of itself. These issues of course are vital to such a discussion.
Limiting their usage, as I was instructed was probably a deliberate attempt to quiet the force of the argument
Purposely demanding that such issues not be discussed and pretending to not to understand their import, is a weakness in both the position and the person. It is also amazingly bad form
Can any person be honest with themselves and pretend to not know what the terminology eternality of matter means. I doubt it
Design and a designer, stands as it always has by simple observation, and experimentation of complex and simple organisms, completed mechanisms and purposeful usages of such items
Attempts by a few to make that which is very simple, very complicated, may work within a closed nonsensical methodology, but it does nothing to remove what is clear and obvious to rational persons
Design is now and has always been on a par with any ideology suggesting to know anything concerning the nature and order of things
Only a tyro in reason would demand that design be on a par with evolution, since design is a conclusion as is the etrnality of matter, neither of which are provable, both of which are demonstratable
Design would be a logical conclusion of evolution, as design would be a conclusion of order, they are not equivalent, therfore they do not need to be on the same par
It is 'order' and 'law abiding natual processes', that needs to be on a par with evolution and most certainly they are.
This is why I have repeadly stated that evolution offers nothing in the design argument or to the question of origins, because even if it were true, it would not dethrone the design principle
But if evolution is used as a counter example of design, even mistakenly as evolutionist do, it must past the same tests, it requires of design, to demonstrate its conclusions, beginning and end
You cant eat your cake and have it
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 624 by Modulous, posted 10-27-2010 9:03 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 641 of 648 (588754)
10-28-2010 1:15 AM


Summary
A large amount of the thread was taken up by nonsensical ramblings about the nature of science and whether it deliberately excluded some possibilities to the effect of denying the validity of said possibilities. Counterexample and argument was presented to demonstrate that the basic requirement is of consistency, which could not be met by design proponents.
Another significant amount of the thread was taken up by aforementioned proponents first providing terms, then being unable to provide a basis for the term; argument based on these terms was for all intents and purposes one of 'begging the question'.
No unequivocal evidence for design was ever presented despite multiple opportunities. Questions regarding aspects of the pro-offered arguments and evidence were virtually ignored, with accusations of either deliberate dishonesty or incidental ignorance of this "evidence" following such questions.
No system for determining design, beyond the typical "I know it when I see it" was ever presented, much less a reasonable alternate methodology, by those who were critical of the scientific method and the principle of methodological naturalism.
Examples were provided which could not be determined either designed or not. Indeed, objects which were known not to be designed could not be distinguished from those which were.
This thread once again demonstrated that 'intelligent design' is no more scientific than its ancestral creationist dogma. Its only historic purpose was to subvert science education and knowledge to a religious agenda. Nothing presented here has altered that perception of the idea at all.

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 642 of 648 (588756)
10-28-2010 1:47 AM


Summary
Dawn Bertot has certainly added something to the trivial fallacy known as the Argument From Design.
Unfortunately, that "something" is incoherence.

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 643 of 648 (588757)
10-28-2010 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 520 by Nij
10-23-2010 8:55 AM


quote:
So, DNA is what designed humans? About time we had an IDiot admit to what this mysterious designer's identity was. And all those years, it was good ol' DNA! Fancy that!
Funny.
quote:
Okay boys, pack it up, we found out the origin of life now.
I have a feeling you are leaving alone. Just a glimpse on the rest of your life.
quote:
How marvellous of our creator to not only give us life in general, but give each of us life personally and individually too!
Don't thank me, thank Him. I'll send you His email if you like.
quote:
Don't stop just because it's getting late.
I'm at work. I'm getting 65 bucks an hour to make fun of you, how could I not??
quote:
The neuron structure in your brain, for instance, was not designed.
Using evolution as a precursor, absolutely right.
quote:
Point being, storage of information does not imply design.
Sure it does. It just doesn't PROVE it.
quote:
The best any IDiot has done, even with years of research, is "I can't believe evolution did that, must'a bin' magick."
Much better than, "I can't believe in magic, musta happened by accident." You believe the largest wreck in history created something good. Ever been in a car accident with your Topaz, gotten out, and you are the proud owner of a Ferrari? Give it time, it can happen.
You carry on about how ID's, or IDiots, cannot plausibly explain a superbeing that created all life, but do nothing to explain the origins of anything yourself. Your satire remarks are funny, but show little credit with the proposed topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Nij, posted 10-23-2010 8:55 AM Nij has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 644 of 648 (588758)
10-28-2010 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by jar
10-23-2010 9:41 AM


Re: The wheels that fell off the donkey cart arrived here it seems
quote:
There is no evidence at that site
chariot wheels found in red sea - Google Search
Evidence of chariots underwater. Probably because they trained dolphins to pull them around.
Page not found – Pinkoski.com
Little over half way down, two pillars, one on each side of the crossing site both talk about waters drowning Pharoahs army.
Probably photoshopped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by jar, posted 10-23-2010 9:41 AM jar has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 645 of 648 (588812)
10-28-2010 1:19 PM


Bass Ackwards
If someone is curious about how reality works and came to be then they would start with the evidence, construct a testable explanation (i.e. hypothesis), and then make new observations that will either confirm or falsify that explanation.
This is how we approach questions of the unknown in general, be it in the scientific laboratory or in the courtroom. We form an explanation and then ask ourselves what we should and should not see if our explanation is correct. In a courtroom we predict that the fingerprints at the crime scene should match those of the defendant. If they match another person then our explanation is falsified.
IMHO, we are not dealing with curiosity in this thread. We are dealing with people who need to defend a conclusion against curiosity. The ID/Creationist crowd starts with a dogmatic, faith based conclusion that was not arrived at through testing and asking questions. Quite the opposite. They start with a conclusion that can not be questioned and arose from faith. Therefore, all observations must be forced to arrive at the conclusion, even at the price of illogical arguments and a well tossed word salad.
This is made quite clear in Dawn Bertot's continued bastardization of the words "logic" and "evidence". First, in order to guarantee that the needed conclusion is reached the conclusion is included as one of the premises. Order is defined as design, and then order is used to evidence design as one example. Nowhere does anyone explain how order evidences design. It's as if any fingerprint, no matter it's characteristics, suggests that the defendant is guilty. It's as if any DNA at the crime scene, no matter it's sequence, suggests that the defendant is guilty.
Nowhere does Dawn explain why order evidences design. It is simply asserted. Nowhere does Dawn explain why order can not arise through unintelligent processes. Nowhere does Dawn separate function from purpose. Nowhere does Dawn set out a logical argument consisting of distinct premises and a conclusion, even though Dawn claims that the argument is "logical".
Perhaps the best example of logic gone awry is this statement Dawn Bertot:
"what will the evidence and logic allow concerning the origin or design"
This is bass ackwards. It is the WRONG QUESTION. It is a question bred from starting with a conclusion and forcing the evidence.
The question should be "what evidence will the CONCLUSION ALLOW". What evidence should we see AND NOT SEE if the conclusion is correct. Dawn Bertot was never able to describe these potential falsifying observations. Dawn Bertot has it bass ackwards.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 646 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-28-2010 7:58 PM Taq has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 646 of 648 (588876)
10-28-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 645 by Taq
10-28-2010 1:19 PM


Re: One last summation
Nowhere does Dawn explain why order evidences design. It is simply asserted. Nowhere does Dawn explain why order can not arise through unintelligent processes. Nowhere does Dawn separate function from purpose. Nowhere does Dawn set out a logical argument consisting of distinct premises and a conclusion, even though Dawn claims that the argument is "logical".
Perhaps the best example of logic gone awry is this statement Dawn Bertot:
"what will the evidence and logic allow concerning the origin or design"
This is bass ackwards. It is the WRONG QUESTION. It is a question bred from starting with a conclusion and forcing the evidence.
Dawn explains everywhere and in every place why order evidences design. the best place is in the fact that the oppositon is simply to simple minded to realize, that the PURPOSE must be demonstrated to not have the results it exhibits.
These fellas simply dont understand that a complaint, is not the same as removing the result of the functioning process. This is excally what needs to be done, to demonstrate that such is not purpose and purpose with logical intent
Complaints and disagreements are not demonstrations. My simple minded opponents cannot distinguish between the two
Only a moron would suggest that Dawn needs to explain why order cannot arise through unintelligent processess, when I am the one claiming that such cannot be accomplished even in the case of design. IOWs I dont need to demonstrate the opposite position when I dont think it can be proved in design and when i think order and change are on the same level, given the amount of evidence we have
Therefore, order is based on the lone physical process and logical deductions, the same as any conclusions derived from evolution
Both positions follow the same pattern of evidence, to establish it as evidence.
Only someone that has no understanding of reason could not see this simple point
Only a tyro would assume that IDers start with a conclusion concerning design, given the amount of examples I have presented in this thread
Observable order and its mechanisms are what IDers start with and then and only then, is design concluded
The likes of which cannot be presented to be false or inapplicable
Design and its components could not be more scientific in its application and usage
"I dont like it", is not a logical and physical demonstration, in the form of a response and these fellas know it
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by Taq, posted 10-28-2010 1:19 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2010 8:08 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 647 of 648 (588878)
10-28-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 646 by Dawn Bertot
10-28-2010 7:58 PM


Re: One last summation
Oh, we're allowed to have more than one summation?
In that case:
Dawn explains everywhere and in every place why order evidences design.
This is, of course, not true --- Dawn has never explained this, which is why Dawn's pitiful attempts at creationist apologetics are such a complete and pathetic failure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-28-2010 7:58 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024