Originally posted by KazetNagorraDesign implies intent, it also implies what was "designed" is not
Common ancestry implies certain empirically verifiable characteristics. "Design" implies nothing.
something you will see if left to the normal flow of things normally, or
if at all. The term common ancestor implies what in your opinion, that
during the corse of all things life just pops out for no reason what so
ever other than, dumb luck?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt would make your posts a lot easier to read if you stopped hitting carriage return every time you get to the right hand side of the text box. If you just keep typing then your posts won´t be all bunched up on the left like they are.
Design implies intent, it also implies what was "designed" is not
something you will see if left to the normal flow of things normally, or
if at all. The term common ancestor implies what in your opinion, that
during the corse of all things life just pops out for no reason what so
ever other than, dumb luck?
Kelly
I notice that you´ve just shifted the terms of the debate. Up until now it was evolution. Abiogenesis is a different, if related thing. We can debate that if you want. But really you get on to even shakier ground - if your designer exists then you have to provide an explanation for their existence.
You are insisting on ridiculous levels of proof so I´m going to continue to point out the fallacies in your argument. You state that design implies intent, and that it implies that something that was designed is not something that can happen by chance. But you have yet to demonstrate that there is anything living in the world that requires something other than the theory of evolution by natural selection to explain its presence. You have to show that there is design before you can make such a statement.
It is also not the case that something that comes about by chance cannot be like something that was designed - I can find natural examples such as the Giant´s Causeway which has a designed look to it: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant´s_Causeway - see the bottom of the page for some other natural structures that have a fabricated look to them).
Originally posted by KellyJayIntent is not empirically verifiable. How things are if left to the normal flow of things is obviously how they are now, since there is only one way of how things have been it must be the "normal" way.
Design implies intent, it also implies what was "designed" is not
something you will see if left to the normal flow of things normally, or
if at all. The term common ancestor implies what in your opinion, that
during the corse of all things life just pops out for no reason what so
ever other than, dumb luck?
Kelly
Common ancestry implies that you will see many characteristics that are alike for animals that are more alike. For example, mammals have hairy skin, 2 lungs, etc., which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint but is unneccessary from the point of view of a hypothetical designer. Common ancestry implies a fossil record; the designer-hypothesis is incompatible with fossils.
Originally posted by KellyJay….One step forward and two backwards for proving Evolution of man from primates ?
Design implies intent, it also implies what was "designed" is not
something you will see if left to the normal flow of things normally, or
if at all. The term common ancestor implies what in your opinion, that
during the corse of all things life just pops out for no reason what so
ever other than, dumb luck?
Kelly
.…
Just replace the word “design” with the words “non-random physical structure” in you arguments and see how ridiculous your arguments are. Read my last post:
A life form appears to have a non-random physical structure -therefore what made its non-random physical structure must be an intelligent supernatural deity 😛
This is essentially your argument -same crap -different words.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI’ve been posting this way here for years here; I’m not going to
It would make your posts a lot easier to read if you stopped hitting carriage return every time you get to the right hand side of the text box. If you just keep typing then your posts won´t be all bunched up on the left like they are.
I notice that you´ve just shifted the terms of the debate. Up until now it was evolution. Abiogenesis is a differen ...[text shortened]... e the bottom of the page for some other natural structures that have a fabricated look to them).
change.
I’ve not shifted anything in the debate, abiogenesis is/can be a
different topic yes; however, it is still the starting point of the
evolutionary process is it not? Therefore, it is by definition part of the
discussion, I’d also point out that a designer must start at some time
implementing the various and sundry parts of the design too, again
part of the discussion. When discussing chess, talking about the
opening moves is still part of the topic of chess if we were talking
about just the end game and moved to the opening that would be
different, but we are talking about the topic as a whole are we not?
I’m not insisting on any ridiculous level of proof, you are crying without
being hurt! I asked a very simple question, need I repeat it again, or
do you recall it? You insisting evolution has passed all the tests and
can be thought of as the only game in town? Yet not everyone
believes that. If you wish to just go along your merry way, please do
I’m not going to chase you down in every board you post in trying to
engage you in a discussion, or throw you name in a thread just to get
you to respond.
I understand they are hard to tell apart sometimes, which makes the
question of how do you know, even more important don’t you think?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou keep bringing in the supernatural, why is that? Do you see me
[b]….One step forward and two backwards for proving Evolution of man from primates ?
.…
Just replace the word “design” with the words “non-random physical structure” in you arguments and see how ridiculous your arguments are. Read my last post:
A life form appears to have a non-random physical structure -therefore what made its non-random ...[text shortened]... elligent supernatural deity 😛
This is essentially your argument -same crap -different words.[/b]
doing that here? You want to use the word design to mean something
other than done with intent, we have gone over this before, I see no
reason to repeat myself with you.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you refuse to evolve eh? 😉
I’ve been posting this way here for years here; I’m not going to
change.
I’ve not shifted anything in the debate, abiogenesis is/can be a
different topic yes; however, it is still the starting point of the
evolutionary process is it not? Therefore, it is by definition part of the
discussion, I’d also point out that a designer must start at some time ...[text shortened]... times, which makes the
question of how do you know, even more important don’t you think?
Kelly
Technically you have changed the debate, since you seem to be denying evolution by natural selection occurs at all. If you are accepting the theory of evolution by natural selection but have God as a sort of initial condition then we have been arguing at cross purposes. If not then you are shifting the ground to try to make us argue much more marginal theories.
The main difficulty I have is that there is no standard model of abiogenesis - the evidence gets poorer the further back you go - most of it´s been recycled back into the Earth´s mantle. Also the argument involves detailed discussion of cell structures which I need to read up about as this really isn´t my field. So I will have a think about what I want to say about it and make another post later - which may be rather long - I never did master the laconic style.
Essentially I´ll attempt show that the RNA world hypothesis is plausible (not the only scientific theory of abiogenesis, but probably the favourite), and that although that theory has some spectacularly large gaps in it, that the difference in the chemical conditions early on in Earth´s history make it possible.
You are insisting on an absolute level of proof. I´ve written several complete essays in this thread which more or less state what the evidence for the theory of natural selection is - allowing for my fallibility - and I´ve stated why we do not think that there is any need to introduce a designer (supernatural or otherwise). Not only can the theory as it stands explain the evidence, but there is a complete lack evidence for a designer. Now, either you have to provide positive evidence for a designer, or find a good reason why the theory of evolution fails to adequately explain the evidence. Two things that you have signally failed to do.
At the top of page 6 you state that: ¨Design implies intent, it also implies what was ´designed´ is not something you will see if left to the normal flow of things.¨ (slightly edited) so I provide a counter-example which you then attempt to use to justify your initial point. Really you don´t think I´d let you have your cake and eat it did you? Closer examination of the evidence tells you which it is. In any case, in all instances of real design there is a visible designer, and they normally leave their signature.
I assume the repeated asking of this question is an attempt at the Socratic method. The idea is that you question your opponent until the inconsistencies in their position do the job of undermining their argument for you. But there is a trick to it that you are missing - you have to ask a different question each time - repeating the same one ad nauseam is the broken-gramophone-record method of debate which ain´t half as effective. Your question has adequately been answered by several people, think of a new one.
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….You keep bringing in the supernatural, why is that? Do you see me
You keep bringing in the supernatural, why is that? Do you see me
doing that here? You want to use the word design to mean something
other than done with intent, we have gone over this before, I see no
reason to repeat myself with you.
Kelly
doing that here?
.…
Yes, you are constantly bringing it up. In your mind, it is OBVIOUS that what you mean by “design” is “intelligent design” and thus:
“design” of living things = supernatural deity must have designed living things
Do you deny this is what you OBVIOUSLY are basically repeatedly implying by your use of the word “design“? Yes or no?
….You want to use the word design to mean something
other than done with intent ..…
Ok, it is obvious now that you must have realised that you have lost the argument completely as you yet AGAIN make this obvious by idiotically ignore the fact that I have clearly debunked your argument by taking the word “design” OUT of it and exposed it to be just the flimsy wordplay which it is -I guess you would never acknowledge the existence of any counter arguments that debunks yours:
Here is yet another reminder of the representation of your argument but with the word “design“ taken out of it:
A life form appears to have a non-random physical structure -therefore what made its non-random physical structure must be an intelligent supernatural deity 😛
No word “design” there! And I will keep repeating this until if or when you acknowledge the fact that there is no word "design" there and you attempt some kind of counter argument (or admit that you are wrong? )
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAbiogenesis is completely irrelevant to evolution, in the sense that you don't need to understand the process of abiogenesis to understand the process of evolution. If a supernatural deity had in fact created the first life forms, they would have evolved in the way evolution theory describes. Therefore discrediting some particular variation of an abiogenetic theory does not discredit evolution theory in one bit.
I’ve been posting this way here for years here; I’m not going to
change.
I’ve not shifted anything in the debate, abiogenesis is/can be a
different topic yes; however, it is still the starting point of the
evolutionary process is it not? Therefore, it is by definition part of the
discussion, I’d also point out that a designer must start at some time ...[text shortened]... times, which makes the
question of how do you know, even more important don’t you think?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraVery well said 🙂
Abiogenesis is completely irrelevant to evolution, in the sense that you don't need to understand the process of abiogenesis to understand the process of evolution. If a supernatural deity had in fact created the first life forms, they would have evolved in the way evolution theory describes. Therefore discrediting some particular variation of an abiogenetic theory does not discredit evolution theory in one bit.
Can’t argue with logic.
This is lifted straight from Wikipedia (Five_minute_hypothesis) and is an entertaining alternative line of argument:
In a rebuttal of the claim that God might have implanted a false history of the age of the Universe in order to test our faith in the truth of the Torah, Rabbi Natan Slifkin, an author whose works have been banned by several Haredi rabbis for going against the tenets of the Talmud, writes:
God essentially created two conflicting accounts of Creation: one in nature, and one in the Torah. How can it be determined which is the real story, and which is the fake designed to mislead us? One could equally propose that it is nature which presents the real story, and that the Torah was devised by God to test us with a fake history! One has to be able to rely on God's truthfulness if religion is to function. Or, to put it another way—if God went to enormous lengths to convince us that the world is billions of years old, who are we to disagree?
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNo, I have not denied evolution at all by natural selection, you are
So you refuse to evolve eh? 😉
Technically you have changed the debate, since you seem to be denying evolution by natural selection occurs at all. If you are accepting the theory of evolution by natural selection but have God as a sort of initial condition then we have been arguing at cross purposes. If not then you are shifting the ground to try to ...[text shortened]... as effective. Your question has adequately been answered by several people, think of a new one.
reading into my posts what is not there, the degree of evolutionary
change I have issues with, not change itself. You should really just pick
my words and quote them. Natural selection occurs in my opinion,
I've no issue at all with that; however, have issues with statements
projected as factual that is pure belief, such as suggesting all eyes
evolved from a common ancestor! When an equally unverifiable cause
could be common design.
You have stated that they are hard to tell apart, for me the more
functionally complex the system the less likely it is to be done
naturally without design. I see nothing, and I mean nothing that
suggests to me in the fossil record life has been proven to have
common ancestors, we see simpler life forms today, and more
complex life forms today, the variety is staggering and in the
fossil record we see simpler life forms and more complex ones.
The only things that adds to the strength of argument for a
common ancestor is our dating methods, which cannot be shown
falsifiable only taken on faith.
With respect to evidence for design, it could be right in front of you
and I believe you can see it, acknowledging it another matter.
I refuse to change how I post because I get benefits from it, and
others have also told me they like it, it isn't a matter of evolving, it
would be changing just to suit you.
Kelly