Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#101  Postby MrGray » Jul 28, 2010 11:02 pm

Let me just say, burn.
Hnau wrote:..we mournfully slice off their heads while loving them.

hackenslash wrote:Because the mind is a blank slate at birth. It is impossible to have a conception of a really fuckwitted idea until you've actually grown some stupidity.
User avatar
MrGray
 
Posts: 753
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#102  Postby Atheistoclast » Jul 29, 2010 11:12 pm

Calilasseia wrote:

WHY DESIGN ASSERTIONISTS ARE SCREWED



Tell that to SETI.

Tell them they are wasting their efforts looking for evidence of design.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#103  Postby Ubjon » Jul 29, 2010 11:22 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:

WHY DESIGN ASSERTIONISTS ARE SCREWED



Tell that to SETI.

Tell them they are wasting their efforts looking for evidence of design.


:lol:

In all likelyhood it probably is a complete waste of time what SETI are doing but their reasons for looking for artificial signals are different from the reasons that theists are looking for proof of design on Earth. They want to discover if there is intelligent life out there which isn't unreasonalbe since there is intelligent life on Earth so we know its possible. Creationists/ID'ers want to discover design to vindicate their beleif that God played a role in the creation and maintanance of life on Earth even through all the evidence points to life being a product of natural processes.

Not only do the reasons differ but so do the methods. SETI takes a scientific approach because they don't want to claim that they've received a signal from an alien race when they haven't. They have to account for and filter out huge amounts noise that originates from anthropogenic and natural sources. Creationists/ID'ers on the other hand just make false claims all the time in the hope that the sheer weight of their claims will convince people that what they are saying is true.
Last edited by Ubjon on Jul 30, 2010 12:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
Ubjon wrote:Your God is just a pair of lucky underpants.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post6 ... 3b#p675825
User avatar
Ubjon
 
Posts: 2569

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#104  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 29, 2010 11:58 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:

WHY DESIGN ASSERTIONISTS ARE SCREWED



Tell that to SETI.

Tell them they are wasting their efforts looking for evidence of design.


:rofl:

Let me guess ... you've never heard of pulsars? Only they should tell you something important about the rigorous business of determining a genuine signal from an intelligent alien life form from a natural phenomenon.

While you're at it, I don't suppose you have that rigorous means of detecting "design" that I've discussed at length in this thread? Only without it, all you have is the usual blind assertions about "design". Plus, my little exposition on the real nature of human "design", which offers ZERO support for magic design of the sort design assertionists keep banging on about, should also be telling you something important, as if the thousands of scientific papers extant in the literature establishing that we don't need magic to explain the biosphere aren't already screaming at you that your adherence to fictional mythology is fatuous.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#105  Postby Atheistoclast » Jul 30, 2010 12:23 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Let me guess ... you've never heard of pulsars? Only they should tell you something important about the rigorous business of determining a genuine signal from an intelligent alien life form from a natural phenomenon.


Er..SETI does actually know how to distinguish between signals from pulsars and a periodic sinusoidal.

Are you telling me that SETI's methodologies are flawed?
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#106  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 30, 2010 2:19 am

And precisely what would you know about these?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#107  Postby BlackRogueDreams » Jul 30, 2010 2:23 am

Why do I get the feeling someone just walked face first into the wall?
BlackRogueDreams
 
Posts: 50
Age: 38
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#108  Postby Robert Byers » Jul 30, 2010 5:24 am

one last time about this rock thing.
Cali was trying to say that real rocks and man made rocks looking the same means intelligence can't be observed in nature.
The rock thing fails.
A person making the rock shape is using processes of insight. Intelligence. The rock made naturally is also from intelligent processes. Its not a natural thing in space but a unique thing on earth or where forces are at work.
Its from intelligent ideas. Its not chance. Its not evolution. If the processes are at work the rocks could only look this way.
Nature looks intelligent as opposed to what things look like without laws etc.
All things in nature are intelligent where processes are at work.
so the rock thing fails because it presumes natures rock shaping is chance or evolutionish.
Robert Byers
 
Name: Robert Byers
Posts: 325

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#109  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 30, 2010 5:34 am

Robert Byers wrote:one last time about this rock thing.
Cali was trying to say that real rocks and man made rocks looking the same means intelligence can't be observed in nature.
The rock thing fails.
A person making the rock shape is using processes of insight. Intelligence. The rock made naturally is also from intelligent processes. Its not a natural thing in space but a unique thing on earth or where forces are at work.
Its from intelligent ideas. Its not chance. Its not evolution. If the processes are at work the rocks could only look this way.
Nature looks intelligent as opposed to what things look like without laws etc.
All things in nature are intelligent where processes are at work.
so the rock thing fails because it presumes natures rock shaping is chance or evolutionish.


Fuck a duck Byers, there really is a place for you in comedy! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 64

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#110  Postby MrGray » Jul 30, 2010 5:53 am

Robert Byers wrote:one last time about this rock thing.
Cali was trying to say that real rocks and man made rocks looking the same means intelligence can't be observed in nature.
The rock thing fails.
A person making the rock shape is using processes of insight. Intelligence. The rock made naturally is also from intelligent processes. Its not a natural thing in space but a unique thing on earth or where forces are at work.
Its from intelligent ideas. Its not chance. Its not evolution. If the processes are at work the rocks could only look this way.
Nature looks intelligent as opposed to what things look like without laws etc.
All things in nature are intelligent where processes are at work.
so the rock thing fails because it presumes natures rock shaping is chance or evolutionish.


¿Que? ¿Hablas inglés?
Hnau wrote:..we mournfully slice off their heads while loving them.

hackenslash wrote:Because the mind is a blank slate at birth. It is impossible to have a conception of a really fuckwitted idea until you've actually grown some stupidity.
User avatar
MrGray
 
Posts: 753
Male

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#111  Postby saggrock » Jul 30, 2010 6:02 am

Ok, I give up, can someone pm me the answer? Please!
"Stay thirsty my friends" - The Most Interesting Man in the World
User avatar
saggrock
 
Posts: 17
Age: 48
Male

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#112  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 30, 2010 6:41 am

saggrock wrote:Ok, I give up, can someone pm me the answer? Please!


42! :thumbup: ;)
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 64

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#113  Postby xrayzed » Jul 30, 2010 7:03 am

Robert Byers wrote:
Nature looks intelligent as opposed to what things look like without laws etc.

So you're saying that when the Intelligent Design people claim they can detect design they're wrong?
A thinking creationist is an oxymoron. A non-thinking creationist is just a moron.
(Source: johannessiig, here)
User avatar
xrayzed
 
Posts: 1053
Age: 61
Male

Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#114  Postby Dudely » Jul 30, 2010 12:26 pm

You guys are missing the entire point of the rock thing.

Consider it this way: if god made everything than that means he had to design everything. If he designed everything than how can you tell that something is "designed" when you have no basis for what is NOT designed? By this reasoning even a rock is designed- WE can't make a rock without it being designed, so how could he? The very fact that you look at something like a pile of dirt, or rocks, or a dead swamp and say it's NOT designed makes your entire argument fall apart. The fact is that there are, indeed, some things that are clearly not designed. If your answer is that "oh those are caused by natural processes put in place by god" that just leaves open the question of how you determine what is designed by him and what is caused by his natural processes.

The fact of the matter is that ALL things are the result of natural processes. If you want to say they were caused by god that is another story, but please don't just come up and say something is designed because it just makes you look silly.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#115  Postby theropod » Jul 30, 2010 12:57 pm

Robert Byers wrote:

snip...

They were [u]not made round but became round by processes. They first were not round.[/u]

snip...


Mr. Byers,

It seems you need a great deal of general education in geology. I've studied this subject for years and there remains far more than I can ever absorb. However, Mr. Byers, I do try to avoid making sweeping assertions in public postings, such as this snipped quote above.

Naturally occurring round rocks:

Link to pdf.

Prim, Arkansas

Very near to my home, less than 15 air miles, there exists a geological formation that holds round boulders that range in size from 12" to 48". These are not formed by previous tumbling in water or any other such action and are distinct from the encasing matrix. I have seen the stones both in the formation and exhumed stones and indeed they are very near spherical, some of them so round that they LOOK man made. These rocks formed in-situ, or in place. These rocks are very hard and resist weathering far more than the matrix, thus exposing them.


"Worldwide, spherical boulders are not unique. They are well documented in geological literature and on the Internet. McBride, Picard, and Milliken (2003) studied the formation of large spherical sandstone concretions in Cretaceous deposits of Wyoming and Utah. They concluded that calcite cement was locally derived, most likely from original carbonate shell material contained within individual sandstone units. Fossil Beach on Kodiak Island, Alaska, is known for its spherical boulders, which formed in siltstone as calcite cement grew radially around fossils. Near Tafraoute in Morocco, spherical boulders as large as small houses are present along the roadside."


Don't EVEN think about bringing up the stone balls from Central America, because I can point to methodology to DETECT engineering, and cite studies to support same.

So, do we find small round rocks, which are formed by natural non-erosive, causes as well as these boulders? You bet!

WIKI on tektites. (why bother with real papers for now, which I doubt would be read)?

Besides little round blobs the cool thing is shapes like this that REALLY look designed!
:

Image

:



Aerodynamically shaped Australite; the button shape caused by ablation of molten glass in the atmosphere.



So I have shown that round rocks from tiny to huge can and do occur without any design influence or tumbling action. Sorry Robert, no flood support there.

Can't you just TRY to engage your sense of need for accuracy, and apply this in the posts you submit? I'm not buying the act anymore, but somebody might buy into your bullshit, so...round rocks anyone?

:cheers:

RS

ETA: round
Last edited by theropod on Jul 30, 2010 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#116  Postby saggrock » Jul 30, 2010 6:13 pm

Thanks MrGray for the answer, it was one out of four or five that I thought could be the rock.
"Stay thirsty my friends" - The Most Interesting Man in the World
User avatar
saggrock
 
Posts: 17
Age: 48
Male

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#117  Postby MrGray » Jul 30, 2010 7:05 pm

saggrock wrote:Thanks MrGray for the answer, it was one out of four or five that I thought could be the rock.

:cheers:
Hnau wrote:..we mournfully slice off their heads while loving them.

hackenslash wrote:Because the mind is a blank slate at birth. It is impossible to have a conception of a really fuckwitted idea until you've actually grown some stupidity.
User avatar
MrGray
 
Posts: 753
Male

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#118  Postby Alan C » Jul 30, 2010 8:27 pm

It's times like this that I think SETI should direct it's search at Earth first.
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 2008
Age: 43
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#119  Postby amused » Jul 30, 2010 8:58 pm

I don't know if it's design, but don't you think it's really odd to be standing on a ball of rock slinging itself around a ball of fire that is flying around a bunch of other fireballs that are all moving through an enormous and cold mostly empty space?
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#120  Postby Tbickle » Jul 30, 2010 9:06 pm

amused wrote:I don't know if it's design, but don't you think it's really odd to be standing on a ball of rock slinging itself around a ball of fire that is flying around a bunch of other fireballs that are all moving through an enormous and cold mostly empty space?


You know, we use specific words because they have specific meanings. Design implies that a conscious person or thing specifically made made something according to a plan. Unless we have some reason to think that our universe was a consequence of this, why would you possibly even suggest that it's a possibility?
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-Thomas Paine
User avatar
Tbickle
 
Posts: 3919

Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest