|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The burden of proof for a designed universe is on the claimant. I agree but I have made no such claim. Jar made the claim that no designer would design such a thing and so the burden is his to support the claim. My fairly narrow point is that sometimes design looks like this
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
My fairly narrow point is that sometimes design looks like this
Curiously I have always thought it makes more sense to think of the designer as an artist not as an engineer. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yet is that an example of design or another example of simple evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Jar writes: Yet is that an example of design or another example of simple evolution. Dull answer but what it actually is is an example of what happens if a system is designed, then left to go to pot. What's happening is that when there's a fault it's faster and cheaper to run a new cable leaving the original in place than attempt to find and fix it.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Je suis Mancunian. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Yet is that an example of design or another example of simple evolution. That is a good question and are the 2 mutually exclusive?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PT writes: That is a good question and are the 2 mutually exclusive? Yes, and no. That is a designer can use the process we label evolution but the end product is not that of the designer but rather just the process. But again, even in such cases the only evidence of any designer is the presence of the designer. No one has ever presented any evidence of any designer when it comes to living things beyond the few examples of forced breeding as with domesticated animals. There two the evidence of the designer is not in the resultant product but rather in the presence of the designer. When it comes to live in general, No Designer need apply and no Designer has ever applied. There is no value in supposing life as we see it is designed beyond mental masturbation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
You're going to have to be more specific. "Nuh-uh," is not a satisfactory response. No. Jar's argument is faulty for the same reason. I've shown that your argument is the same argument that IDist use, that has been refuted umpteen times. If you think that also impugns jar's argument, you'll have to explain.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Ringo writes:
I've shown that your argument is the same argument that IDist use, that has been refuted umpteen times. If you think that also impugns jar's argument, you'll have to explain. Ringo writes: The whole premise of the ID movement is that if something "looks designed" it must be. Why not use the same argument against ID? If it looks like nobody with half a brain would design it that way, it most likely wasn't designed. This is jar's argument exactly or at least the point that I am arguing against. The idea that reproduction is so messed up that no one would design it that way. It is the same argument as saying that because something looks designed then it must be.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PT writes: The idea that reproduction is so messed up that no one would design it that way. But that is an argument that no one is making. Rather what is being argued is that reproduction shows variety that if designed would show a piss poor designer. No one is saying that no one would design it that way. Rather what has been said is that there is NO evidence of design or of any designer and so no designer need apply.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
The point that you're arguing against seems to be a strawman.
This is jar's argument exactly or at least the point that I am arguing against.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
PT writes: The idea that reproduction is so messed up that no one would design it that way. jar writes: Rather what is being argued is that reproduction shows variety that if designed would show a piss poor designer. Not really much substantive difference between those two statements is there? edit; The order and predictable nature of the universe compels many to infer design as those are legitimate indicators of design. The fact is that order does not always indicate design. The inverse is true about apparent disorder and this is my point. Apparent disorder does not count against the idea of a designer any more than order supports the idea. Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, there is a significant difference between the two statements.
The first says that it could not be design while the later says design is possible if the designer is ignorant, inept, incompetent, ineffective ... The point is until there is at least some evidence that there is some designer no designer need apply. Speculating on design when discussing biological things is simply mental masturbation and of no worth or value.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The order and predictable nature of the universe compels many to infer design as those are legitimate indicators of design. The fact is that order does not always indicate design. The inverse is true about apparent disorder and this is my point. Apparent disorder does not count against the idea of a designer any more than order supports the idea. You're not wrong, but I think you might be missing a part: When talking about the Christian god as the designer, the would-be nature of his design wouldn't fit with his claimed characteristics because his design would be pretty stupid and he's supposed to be pretty smart.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The first says that it could not be design while the later says design is possible if the designer is ignorant, inept, incompetent, ineffective ... Well ok but could an inept designer design the universe? Your msg 1 claimed that it was evidence that life is not designed and isn't that the point that you were originally trying to support using the variety and shot gun approach of reproductive methods as evidence?
The point is until there is at least some evidence that there is some designer no designer need apply. I agree that it is wrong to conclude that there is a designer but I also think that the question is a valid one. What I see is that we can not decide the question because we are missing the crucial element of motive, objective or intent. Of course, if we had that then the question would be settled. So if we were in a designed universe where the designer was absent how could we tell? What would qualify as evidence of design?
Speculating on design when discussing biological things is simply mental masturbation and of no worth or value. First of all, is masturbation really a bad thing and B) is it ever of any value to consider the question of design?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PT writes: Well ok but could an inept designer design the universe? Your msg 1 claimed that it was evidence that life is not designed and isn't that the point that you were originally trying to support using the variety and shot gun approach of reproductive methods as evidence? My point was to start a discussion about the actual evidence that is the variety of reproduction methods found as well as the characteristics of those methods. Designers are utterly irrelevant and simply fantasy. There does not seem to be any design involved in the universe and so again, no designer need apply. Folk can believe there was a designer or creator but such beliefs are of no value or relevance. AbE:
PT writes: I agree that it is wrong to conclude that there is a designer but I also think that the question is a valid one. What I see is that we can not decide the question because we are missing the crucial element of motive, objective or intent. Of course, if we had that then the question would be settled. But what question? Why is it valid? There are already explanations available and so no designer needs to be considered. Why add some unnecessary and untestable entity? Edited by jar, : see AbE:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024