13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are trying to change the subject -I am not making any claiming or saying anything about “women in child birth dying”. It is only the first part of that video here that is relevant to the discussion here -the bit where he says about the Newscientist magazine talking about “design flaws” and “BLIND design” -I was just demonstrating that the term “blind design” is in common scientist usage -that is all!
I listened to the start of it, and what? To begin with the issue he was
complaining about women in child birth dying, had more to do with the
modern medical practices of the day than the brain which he was going
on about. Doctors didn't think about washing their hands a few years
ago after they would do surgery, examine corpses, or when they would
move ...[text shortened]... a snow flakes design that
is more about the pattern it has than the process of design.
Kelly
…With respect to a snow flakes design that
is more about the pattern it has than the PROCESS OF DESIGN.
…(my emphasis)
So how was that pattern physically created? Answer: by “ PROCESS OF DESIGN” -so the fact remains it was still “designed” -and this is an example of “blind design”-yes? -no intelligence involved - thus proving nature CAN and DOES design things without the need of intelligence.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYOU GAVE me a link and told me to watch the first part, and I did!
You are trying to change the subject -I am not making any claiming or saying anything about “women in child birth dying”. It is only the first part of that video here that is relevant to the discussion here -the bit where he says about the Newscientist magazine talking about “design flaws” and “BLIND design” -I was just demonstrating that the term “b ...[text shortened]... ence involved - thus proving nature CAN and DOES design things without the need of intelligence.
You brought that up not I.
Kelly
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo, a pattern does not require a designer and we call patterns a
You are trying to change the subject -I am not making any claiming or saying anything about “women in child birth dying”. It is only the first part of that video here that is relevant to the discussion here -the bit where he says about the Newscientist magazine talking about “design flaws” and “BLIND design” -I was just demonstrating that the term “b ...[text shortened]... ence involved - thus proving nature CAN and DOES design things without the need of intelligence.
design; however, the process of design requires a designer they are
two completely diffrent things altogether.
Kelly
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou really are a true believer in your faith.
You are trying to change the subject -I am not making any claiming or saying anything about “women in child birth dying”. It is only the first part of that video here that is relevant to the discussion here -the bit where he says about the Newscientist magazine talking about “design flaws” and “BLIND design” -I was just demonstrating that the term “b ...[text shortened]... ence involved - thus proving nature CAN and DOES design things without the need of intelligence.
Kelly
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou really love to equate science with faith, that all of science is nothing but a different religion. The thing that differs as we have pointed out many times is your faith never changes, our 'faith' can change daily, which makes it not faith but the result of hard work. It irritates me no end when you try to do that, and you know it which is why you do that.
You really are a true believer in your faith.
Kelly
13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse-same here.
You really love to equate science with faith, that all of science is nothing but a different religion. The thing that differs as we have pointed out many times is your faith never changes, our 'faith' can change daily, which makes it not faith but the result of hard work. It irritates me no end when you try to do that, and you know it which is why you do that.
-and I am sure there are many other people on this forums that are also irritated by this.
13 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…however, the process of design requires a designer they are
No, a pattern does not require a designer and we call patterns a
design; however, the process of design requires a designer they are
two completely diffrent things altogether.
Kelly
two completely different things altogether. …
I didn’t say nor imply the design is not different from the process that created it -you are tying to avoid the issue by trying to create a distraction from the issue by misrepresent my position -an irritating tactic that you not only employ against me but many others on these forums.
so back to the issue:
So who is the designer behind the process of design of snowflakes?
-Answer; -nobody. Thus your assertion is false.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSame here too.
-same here.
-and I am sure there are many other people on this forums that are also irritated by this.
I wrote something once, and someone said it was insulting to his faith.
I feel it insulting that someone, given so little knowledge about science, is so dead sure of what he says. He insults science because he doesn't know better.
I don't want to say his name, because he is so proud being an anti-science, by sayng his name he himself will feel insulted. Creationists are like that.
14 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseDon't read what I write than save yourself the grief, I've stopped
You really love to equate science with faith, that all of science is nothing but a different religion. The thing that differs as we have pointed out many times is your faith never changes, our 'faith' can change daily, which makes it not faith but the result of hard work. It irritates me no end when you try to do that, and you know it which is why you do that.
reading others here that I believe are a complete waist of time. I as
soon as I see their name I go on to the next post, it does tend to
lower up my grief O-meter here. 🙂
Kelly
14 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDesign equates to patterns when applied to snowflakes, it does not
[b]…however, the process of design requires a designer they are
two completely different things altogether. …
I didn’t say nor imply the design is not different from the process that created it -you are tying to avoid the issue by trying to create a distraction from the issue by misrepresent my position -an irritating tactic that you not onl ...[text shortened]... ner behind the process of design of snowflakes?
-Answer; -nobody. Thus your assertion is false.[/b]
mean the same thing when applied to designing a piece of equiptment
or CPU or some other item. That type of design requires a designer
and that is how you are using the word when you make the claim that
evolution is a designer. I am not misrepresenting your position but
you are hiding behind the double use of a single word and crying about
the fact I'm calling you on it.
Kelly
14 Oct 08
6 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…Design equates to patterns when applied to snowflakes, it does not
Design equates to patterns when applied to snowflakes, it does not
mean the same thing when applied to designing a piece of equiptment
or CPU or some other item. That type of design requires a designer
and that is how you are using the word when you make the claim that
evolution is a designer. I am not misrepresenting your position but
you are hiding behind the double use of a single word and crying about
the fact I'm calling you on it.
Kelly
mean the same thing when applied to designing a piece of equipment
or CPU or some other item. That type of design requires a designer. …
Correct -in the narrow sense you are using here that one requires an an "intelligent designer" and the other does not.
…and that is how you are using the word when you make the claim that
evolution is a designer.…
Nope -not what YOU mean by “designer” which is an intelligent agent.
Of course, I could refer to evolution as being a “mindless designer” -perhaps a slightly odd choice of words but, never a less, technically correct.
…I am not misrepresenting your position . ….
You just did.
… but you are hiding behind the double use of a single word and crying about
the fact I'm calling you on it. ...….
Nope -you just will not ever accept the fact that nature can create designs without any intervention of an intelligence -such as a snowflake.
Did the process that designed a snowflake require any kind of intelligence? -answer - no. -do you deny this?
-If you do not deny this then what is the logical problem you have with accepting the fact that evolution, which is supposed to be a mindless process, can design things? -I mean, if there is no logical problem with accepting that nature can mindlessly design one kind of thing (such as a snowflake), then why should there be a logical problem with accepting that nature can mindlessly design another kind of thing (such as a living thing)?
14 Oct 08
I figured I should throw it out here, too:
The way to scientifically argue for intelligent design: demonstrate that every "irreducibly complex system" came before the systems that biologists now consider their evolutionary precursors. E.g., demonstrate that the bacteria flagellum came before the type 3 secretion system, and that the secretory system is a degraded version of that flagellum. Do this once, it might raise an eyebrow. Do this repeatedly, and you will cause a real stir.
Until you do that, or something equally powerful, you have no scientific legs on which to stand.
14 Oct 08
Originally posted by convectThis assumes that the system being observed was not created as 'greater machine'.
I figured I should throw it out here, too:
The way to scientifically argue for intelligent design: demonstrate that every "irreducibly complex system" came before the systems that biologists now consider their evolutionary precursors. E.g., demonstrate that the bacteria flagellum came before the type 3 secretion system, and that the secretory system is ...[text shortened]... til you do that, or something equally powerful, you have no scientific legs on which to stand.
The question of ID is not how things work now, but why they work as they do. ID allows for evolution, the exact same evolution that the athiestic evolution view believes. ID just says that there is a force behind it, a clock maker if you will.
14 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarIf you water it down to such banality, then sure, there's nothing objectionable about ID except its pretense to science. A reasonable way to reconcile having faith in God with the observable Universe is either front-loading, or interventionism, or some combination of the two. Besides, if ID allows the exact same evolution as is already understood by biology, then God is unnecessary. The appearence of design has already been accounted for.
This assumes that the system being observed was not created as 'greater machine'.
The question of ID is not how things work now, but why they work as they do. ID allows for evolution, the exact same evolution that the athiestic evolution view believes. ID just says that there is a force behind it, a clock maker if you will.
My only real problem with these ideas comes when (a) they attempt to present themselves as scientific or (b) more reasonable than any other perspective. I'll admit, postulating a God (especially some sort of impersonal spiritual force) is a reasonable thing to do. The investigations of nature through the scientific method have made that God (all gods, in fact) increasingly unnecessary. Every advance of scientific knowledge means that attempts to argue for the logical or empirical necessity of God must retreat to what remains Unknown (e.g. specific gaps in cladistics, or the origin of the Universe, or of life from non-living chemicals), until an equally (or arguably more) reasonable person sees that "God did it" is just as speculative as "It just happened." Then it comes down to a matter of faith--do you want to believe in something for which there is no proof, and live with a belief that has a positive effect on your life, or do you want to refrain from believing in a thing until you do have proof?
Now, my suggestion for how to advance ID into science comes from specific comments made by proponents of ID, such as Michael Behe, where the conversation goes something like this: ID proponent: There's no way the bacteria flagellum could possibly have evolved from something else, it's such a perfect system! Scientist: But here's the type 3 secretory system, which has both a form much like the flagellum, and only requires a few changes in its gene sequence to be genetically identical to the flagellum. Indeed, your example seems to only confirm current evolutionary hypotheses about how these so-called "irreducibly complex systems" come to be. ID proponent: The secretory system is a degraded form of the flagellum!
And I don't see how any young earth creationist could disagree (unless they think God has deceived us by creating a Universe with the appearence of age...a rather nasty fellow, then, don't you think? ) .