Is there a legitimate argument for design?

Hi, RAZD. I'm donning my Devil's Advocate cap.It seems to me that your why is simply an infinitely reiterative how: the notion of a First Cause, a Prime Mover, is implicit in your argument. That argument turned out a poor proof of God, since one has no reason to stop anywhere in the causal chain.Consider Picasso: Picasso created art. As a creator, he performed this action in one of two ways--either he was an automaton, merely acting out the sum of his antecedents, or he was, in a free-will sense, a creator.In the former case, the only obstacle to understanding why he painted the face blue is some necessary sum of data and calculating power. As a thought experiment, I can envision compiling all that can be known about Picasso and using quantum computer-level power not only to explain why he felt like it, but to predict what he felt like next; even what he would have felt like had some inputs differed--or if he had not died; we might even calculate the Picasso canvases-that-never-were. If that calculation entails spooling back to the Big Bang, that is just a larger calculation, not a qualitatively different one.In the latter case, Picasso as an authentically free creator, your teleological why is instantly satisfied; he felt like it becomes the only possible solution: what series of hows and whys could take you any further? As a being capable of authentic creation, he embodied the why you seek. We could frog-march how all the way back to God and get no better answer.I should note that Picasso the Creator might well provoke a search for the Creator of Picasso, but then again, where would one stop? If the Tao moved on the face of the nothingness, whence came those? We are, as we have been before, left with gods nested like those little Russian dolls.Seeking the why, the purpose, occurs to us because we are creatures and thus things to whom purpose is evident and attractive. The ancients lived in a mythopoeic space, where every object and event was purposive. We still exhibit that ancient mind-set when we curse what stubbed our toe or embrace the genetic fallacy on a dark and stormy night...Purpose is for the living: I think you wish to deny science the power to answer the why because it appears to create space for the deus of the Deist. I don't mind that, but I see no reason to believe it, either.You say that science cannot answer the question; I don't see why science, reason, or logic should pose it.You pose it for the same reason Picasso painted that face blue.AbE: You say science cannot answer why: I think it's the only chance we've got.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

Do they make an inference or have the formed their opinion in some way that really does not constitute a logical inference? Some example logic from one person rather than a claim to billions would be pretty persuasive.

You made a point which made me stop, think and retract my comment as stated. i did not make my original comment dishonestly. I had not thought as deeply as you.On further reflection I do not believe billions of people make unguided inference of design from chance observation. In my opinion, the closer truth is the vast majority of people are too intellectually lazy to make an inference on their own.I find it more likely, as you suggest, that the large population is guided to an opinion more often than not. People as a group often seem comfortable receiving their logic from others.All that said, I am not sure it negates my conclusion of a large population of observers gathering evidence.Even if guided by some other's logic to consider design in a maple leaf or an ant hill, is it illogical to assume that the observer, once guided to observe, would not make their own judgement of the evidence or lack?Does being guided to consider presume being guided to a conclusion? I concur that the observer will probably have been influenced by the cues of the guide. The cues probably come as guide conclusions. I will have to think more on this. thanks

No. In their own words everyone has said the same thing about scientific tentativity. Wherever you obtained the 92% figure, you can be sure it has changed and will continue to change. Wikipedia has an article on Noncoding DNA. And Ringo looked up "fanciful" for you in Merriam-Webster and found that it *did* reference "evidence" in his Message 541:

quote:

---

1: marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience link

---

Every time someone uses different terminology you seem to get lost.--Percy

We only need one or two. Does not matter what everyone else does. So where are the one or two? What is the logic behind citing large numbers of people who accept a proposition vs one or two pieces of evidence? You've already acknowledged that the bulk of those people are not looking at evidence,

Perhaps you are right. The needs for answers for large populations is perhaps the subject of a separate debate. I accept the idea that volume of evidence does not necessarily trump quality of evidence. "does not matter" is a broad brush I think, but agree it does not matter for our conversation here. If you are happy with one, then I am an observer gathering evidence. That is a fact as I understand the definitions of fact and observe and gather and evidence. If large numbers of people think they are seeing evidence, it begs the question (to me) whether something is there to investigate. I have no problem with the one or two pieces of evidence approach if that can get you to the truth. Perhaps I did not communicate well. My recollection is that is not what I said. I acknowledged that in my opinion most people are intellectually lazy and in my opinion many people are led to ideas. I never said those people are not looking at evidence. If I did, I retract. If you could stick to what I actually say rather than your characterization of what I say, we could save some time.As to characterizations, I am willing to let it slide on occasion, we all slip into that sort of thing without thinking. Too much of it, however, might lead me to believe you are using what I construe as an intellectually dishonest debate tactic. Edited by taiji2, : pasted in wrong reply

Perhaps you can highlight or color code the word for me. I still do not find the word evidence in what ringo provided.[/qs] In my opinion, diferent terminology is not allowed when someone claims anything "by definition". In my opinion, the definition should include what is claimed. In this case it does not. You can argue inference, but inference is not definition.The rest of your comment appears(to me) to be your observation on my competency or character. I will revisit readings on what is considered intellectually dishonest debate tactics. For the moment I will allow that may not be what you intend.Edited by taiji2, : No reason given.

Now you're just being picky. Suppose I said "By definition, a vegetarian does not eat the flesh of animals". This is true; and the fact that you can't find a dictionary which specifically uses the phrase "the flesh of animals" rather than "meat" in its definition is irrelevant. And if you think it is relevant, then you should not forget that there are no rules restricting who can write a dictionary, I could turn out a very short one myself. A lot of words would be missing, but you'd find at least one entry under V.

In my opinion, that is your opinion. I have no problem if that is what you think, but I do not see how your opinion of me furthers the debate. Please stop throwing me straw men that I must respond to. Thank you for this excellent opportunity to manifest truth.
I googled Merrian-Webster for definitions of the words vegetarian and meat. I could print the definitions out for you, but that would make for a long post.Merrian-Webster does indeed specify a person who does not eat meat as the definition of vegetarian, giving no reference other than to the word herbivore.Merrian-Webster provides a lengthy definition of meat which includes "the edible part of something" as distinguished from its covering. Webster went on to specify nuts as an example.It is a fact that if I took meat, by definition, and referred to the definition of vegetarian in the same source, I could be led to believe that vegetarians did not eat nuts. That is untrue in most instances based on my personal experience with vegetarians.My conclusion is that the definition of vegetarian in Merrian-Webster is flawed. If truth is that vegetarians do not eat the flesh of animals, then that is what the authoritative source should have said. The definition they gave is misleading. Meat is by definition not only the flesh of animals. asked and answered I cited Merrian-Webster because of the assumption that Merriam-Webster would be viewed as an authoritative source without challenge. I do contend that in the general population Merrian-Webster as an authoritative source is accepted, seldom with challenge. Your offer to write a dictionary I see as just being arbitrary and argumentative.

In the vast majority of debates I have seen on this site, over a number of years, it is creationists who want to change standard scientific terms and who will go on at length in an effort to do so.It becomes very boring, the more so because it is unnecessary.

Since you are responding to my post, I presume this vague reference to your past has to do with me.The reference I presume you are making is to the use of the word fanciful.I did not realize fanciful was a standard scientific term. And no, I do not wish to pursue this further because it is boring and unnecessary. And yes, if you will give me the ISBN number of a book of scientific terms that should not be changed, I will abide with that........ maybe not.

Here is what you said. So even if they saw the evidence, such evidence is not the source of their opinion. They are not looking at the evidence when they form their opinion.Here is the characterization you are complaining about: I doubt you could slide an oiled playing card between the words you chose and my characterization. Why even pick silly nits like this? Do you have support for your position or don't you?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I wonder what you mean by that? That is because its authority is not usually leant on by people saying "Such-and-such a thing cannot be definitionally true of x because when I look in the Merriam-Webster dictionary under x I don't see the exact phrase you used." However authoritative it is, it doesn't have enough authority to let you do that.

The word meat has, in addition to the meaning you are using to make this ridiculous argument, another meaning, namely "the flesh of an animal used as food".The dictionary is just fine. Its limitation are that it does not have infinite prevention against deliberate misuse. Of course no reference is proof against this kind of foolishness.Perhaps you can use a more meaty argument?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Instead of making up lots of silly rules and arguing silly points, why don't you try discussing the topic?Your claim is that there are things we can know that science can't study, i.e., things which have no evidence. That makes no sense to us, and so we ask you questions like, "How is your idea about something that has no evidence any less fanciful than unicorns?"This is what you have yet to explain, so why not get on with it?--Percy