21 Jul 23
@vivify saidThe word “design” covers two distinct cases, and the argument in favor of Intelligent Design in the universe tends to equivocate them. If one looks at a piece of woven cloth, for example, one will see regularities, patters, in the weave, and these are the result of the process which produced the cloth; they were also intended, there was intelligence involved. There was a human designer. Case two: if one looks at the dunes on a beach from high above, from an airplane or a drone, one will see regularities, patterns, and these are the result of winds, but there is no intentionality there, no designer; they are the result of the repeated operation of mindless natural forces. If one looks at the surface of a bay from above, one will see regularities, patterns, in the waves on the water; here too, this pattern exhibits what appear to be ‘designs’, but without intentionality, without a designer. The pattern on the back of a wasp, alternating lines of black and yellow, or the spots on a leopard, also exhibit what we call ‘designs’, but without intentionality, no designer is implied. The argument for ID confuses (mindless) pattern for (intelligent) design. Not all cases of design imply a designer. Where a ‘design’ is simply a regularity in nature, it is less confusing to call it a “pattern.“ Like waves on the bay or dunes on a beach; no one designed every pattern we see in nature. Moreover, as you pointed out, some patterns we think we see are our own mental or perceptual projections, they aren’t really there in nature. The argument for ID tends not to recognize these as dis-confirming cases.
The point is you have no criteria to define "designed".
How do you differentiate between something that was designed and something that's not? This was point of bringing up rainbows, which you suggested was designed by bringing up Noah. That indicates you have no idea what is designed and what isn't since rainbows are clearly not designed.
Unless you can show the dif ...[text shortened]... igned and something that wasn't you have no case for a creator.
Can you do that? It seems not.
KJ believes everything, literally everything from galaxies to photons, was designed, by God. He doesn’t differentiate at all. That’s why he claims that everything is evidence for God’s existence. It’s not a scientific argument at all; it’s a theological one.
21 Jul 23
@moonbus saidThe other explanations for where everything came are...?
The word “design” covers two distinct cases, and the argument in favor of Intelligent Design in the universe tends to equivocate them. If one looks at a piece of woven cloth, for example, one will see regularities, patters, in the weave, and these are the result of the process which produced the cloth; they were also intended, there was intelligence involved. There was a huma ...[text shortened]... hing is evidence for God’s existence. It’s not a scientific argument at all; it’s a theological one.
@vivify saidYou'll have more of an issue with that question, you can be riding on a train looking out a window and see a large group of rocks scattered around the ground as you ride by. Someone could have put them there, if you see them arranged in a manner that spells out "Welcome to Hoopeston" that recognition of the symbolism on display shows design.
"How do you know when something *isn't* designed?"---Vivify
Please answer that.
On top of that, everything you see in the material world is made up of things that are unique to them, from trees, rocks, and dirt, so we have genetic and molecular arrangements that give us the universe we live in.
Design is intelligently making something occur that would otherwise not.
21 Jul 23
@moonbus saidVery well said. Hopefully your post gives KJ something to think about.
The word “design” covers two distinct cases, and the argument in favor of Intelligent Design in the universe tends to equivocate them. If one looks at a piece of woven cloth, for example, one will see regularities, patters, in the weave, and these are the result of the process which produced the cloth; they were also intended, there was intelligence involved. There was a huma ...[text shortened]... hing is evidence for God’s existence. It’s not a scientific argument at all; it’s a theological one.
21 Jul 23
@kellyjay saidYou're still not answering a very simple question. How do you know when something was not designed?
You'll have more of an issue with that question, you can be riding on a train looking out a window and see a large group of rocks scattered around the ground as you ride by. Someone could have put them there, if you see them arranged in a manner that spells out "Welcome to Hoopeston" that recognition of the symbolism on display shows design.
On top of that, everything yo ...[text shortened]... s://youtu.be/vELfuiUpKM0
Design is intelligently making something occur that would otherwise not.
You keep giving your opinion on what seems like design to you; but how do you know when something wasn't designed?
21 Jul 23
@vivify saidThat's just the point: he does not think anything was not designed. "Goddidit" is for him the answer to life, the universe, and everything, literally.
You're still not answering a very simple question. How do you know when something was not designed?
You keep giving your opinion on what seems like design to you; but how do you know when something wasn't designed?
@kellyjay saidThis is the Science Forum; the explanation for how any thing came to be is: the repeated operation of natural laws, mindless causality.
The other explanations for where everything came are...?
The question where everything came from belongs in the Spirituality Forum. I reject that question as being equivalent to asking what is north of the North Pole. There is no evidence of a 'where' outside the universe whence everything might come. For those who still insist on having an answer, my answer is: take yer pick, there's a myth to satisfy anyone's need.
@moonbus said
That's just the point: he does not think anything was not designed. "Goddidit" is for him the answer to life, the universe, and everything, literally.
The video above is an infamous one from creationist Ray Comfort, who had a series with actor Kirk Cameron. He holds a banana, calling it the "atheist's nightmare". How can this banana be so curved, and smooth, he points out, as he takes a bite, This banana was clearly designed for human enjoyment.
He was right. Except he didn't realize commercial bananas are cultivated by humans; wild bananas are not like that.
Ray was forced to later acknowledge his error and admit he didn't know they were cultivated; but the smugness in his video will live on as testament that ID and creationism is fueled by ignorance.
@kellyjay saidYou didn't answer you just gave another example of how you would confirm that something *is* designed with your rock scenario.
I answered you don’t get it.
How can you know something is NOT designed? Citing rocks formed to spell out something doesn't answer the question of "not" designed.
Last time I'll ask: please show how you know something is NOT designed.
21 Jul 23
@vivify saidSo there is a difference between human modified and a natural cause, you can see that? You know we studied the environment looking for human pollution versus the natural composition of it. You acknowledge these as not a natural phenomenons yet a genetic word > 3 billion long you believe it’s reasonable for random chance, mindless indifference, dumb luck to be responsible. The evidence for that is what?
[youtube]Y4yBvvGi_2A[/youtube]
The video above is an infamous one from creationist Ray Comfort, who had a series with actor Kirk Cameron. He holds a banana, calling it the "atheist's nightmare". How can this banana be so curved, and smooth, he points out, as he takes a bite, This banana was clearly designed for human enjoyment.
He was right. Except he didn't realize c ...[text shortened]... the smugness in his video will live on as testament that ID and creationism is fueled by ignorance.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121527
21 Jul 23
@kellyjay saidDid you read the pubmed article in the link I gave you?
You acknowledge these as not a natural phenomenons yet a genetic word > 3 billion long you believe it’s reasonable for random chance, mindless indifference, dumb luck to be responsible. The evidence for that is what?
21 Jul 23
@vivify said
You didn't answer you just gave another example of how you would confirm that something *is* designed with your rock scenario.
How can you know something is NOT designed? Citing rocks formed to spell out something doesn't answer the question of "not" designed.
Last time I'll ask: please show how you know something is NOT designed.
21 Jul 23
@vivify saidYou can NOT tell because intent can be hidden intentionally. Masking signals to send messages that sounds like random noise is an art form companies and military long for, putting information into what looks like something common without intelligence involved can be a desirable feature. On top of things like. “Look that cloud looks like Winnie the Pooh.” Intent must seen recognized.
As I pointed out to you numerous times looking at all the possibilities that could occur, we can recognize intent by the improbability of specific information being presented in the arrangement. Spelling out the word “design” has a probability when you run the numbers against hitting each key correctly in the proper sequence.
