Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#141  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 31, 2010 3:56 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Oh, whilst entertaining this derail for a moment, even the heat-death of the universe won't result in uniformly spread energy. According to the current scientific consensus, once 101000 years has elapsed, and the universe is nothing but a sea of photons, it will be a realm in which quantum entanglement, and the uncertainty arising therefrom, will be in effect a macroscopic phenomenon. Which means that there will still be inhomogeneities in the distribution of energy. Plus, of course, those photons will themselves constitute local inhomogeneities.

Now returning you to your scheduled thread ...


Which means of course, that the whole damn thing might reboot itself! ;)
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

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#142  Postby Atheistoclast » Jul 31, 2010 4:33 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Oh, whilst entertaining this derail for a moment, even the heat-death of the universe won't result in uniformly spread energy. According to the current scientific consensus, once 101000 years has elapsed, and the universe is nothing but a sea of photons, it will be a realm in which quantum entanglement, and the uncertainty arising therefrom, will be in effect a macroscopic phenomenon. Which means that there will still be inhomogeneities in the distribution of energy. Plus, of course, those photons will themselves constitute local inhomogeneities.

Now returning you to your scheduled thread ...


Is any of the above actually testable and falsifiable?
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 ...

#143  Postby Animavore » Jul 31, 2010 4:40 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Oh, whilst entertaining this derail for a moment, even the heat-death of the universe won't result in uniformly spread energy. According to the current scientific consensus, once 101000 years has elapsed, and the universe is nothing but a sea of photons, it will be a realm in which quantum entanglement, and the uncertainty arising therefrom, will be in effect a macroscopic phenomenon. Which means that there will still be inhomogeneities in the distribution of energy. Plus, of course, those photons will themselves constitute local inhomogeneities.

Now returning you to your scheduled thread ...


Is any of the above actually testable and falsifiable?


Of course it is. Wait 101000 years and see what happens.
While we're waiting, we can see if Jesus returns at any stage.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42986
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#144  Postby Calilasseia » Jul 31, 2010 11:31 pm

Actually, parts of the relevant cosmology are testable now. Such as proton decay. Since the mechanism of proton decay postulated to arise from Grand Unified theories is well documented and understood, and the physical results of this mechanism are known, scientists can conduct experiments to determine [1] if proton decay is a physically real phenomenon, and [2] what the half life of this process is. Indeed, they have already conducted experiments in this vein, and on the basis of those experiments placed a lower limit for the half-life of proton decay at 1036 years, because if that half-life were lower, it would have been observed by now. This, incidentally, also falsifies those versions of Grand Unified physics that postulated a shorter half-life than 1036 years.

Now, if proton decay is finally announced in the scientific press, we shall have a handle on the likely half life. This in turn dictates the length of time that we have to wait in order for baryonic matter to cease existing (for a proton decay half-life of 1036 years, the time required is 1040 years), and then, it's a matter of waiting for all the black holes to evaporate. Since the Hawking mechanism was first published in 1974, scientists have developed more thorough analyses of the process, and determined what phenomena to search for in the universe that would signal black hole evaporation, and in 2008, NASA launched the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, one of whose missions is to search for these events. I've yet to hear of any positive data being returned from the FGST, but since scientists know what to look for, they are now in a position to detect the relevant events if they have occurred.

Consequently, since we can place a lower limit of 1036 years on proton decay, and therefore a lower limit of 1040 years on baryonic matter disappearance, the remainder of the figures for the other events leading to the universe becoming a sea of photons fall into place in line with these. The only problem that will arise with respect to this cosmology is if proton decay is not observed within any of the periods that would support any of the extant Grand Unified theories, in which case, a rewrite of the Standard Model minus proton decay is needed, but this simply extends the time for heat death and the Photonic Era beyond 101000 years. If proton decay does not exist, and protons are indeed stable, then we have to wait a lot longer for all the baryonic matter to disappear, because it has to be swallowed up in black holes, which is going to take a lot longer than 1040 years. Indeed, if dark energy is verified, and results in accelerating expansion of space-time in the distant future, then baryonic matter may never disappear completely if protons are stable, and things start to get interesting in a heat-death universe in which baryonic matter still exists.
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 ...

#145  Postby THWOTH » Aug 01, 2010 8:47 pm

:thumbup:
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37086
Age: 54

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

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#146  Postby Robert Byers » Aug 05, 2010 8:17 am

Dudely wrote: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.


My comment stands well. They were made by processes. All rocks etc. The paper you quoted just says it was a chemical origin and this is rare. i didn't know about this but its obscure. in fact only a few papers have been done on it.
Anyways this changes nothing of what I said.
The process here is just as much a intelligent process effect as anything in nature. its not happanchance.
It is a part of design even if a corruption of design.

by the way I presume they got it right about chemical action. otherwise a answer could be they are evidence of being rounded by being tossed about when they were laid in the stratas which were laid by the flood.
Funy if this becoms a problem for slow layering claims!
Robert Byers
 
Name: Robert Byers
Posts: 325

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#147  Postby THWOTH » Aug 05, 2010 8:26 am

Robert Byers wrote:
Dudely wrote: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.


My comment stands well. They were made by processes. All rocks etc. The paper you quoted just says it was a chemical origin and this is rare. i didn't know about this but its obscure. in fact only a few papers have been done on it.
Anyways this changes nothing of what I said.
The process here is just as much a intelligent process effect as anything in nature. its not happanchance.
It is a part of design even if a corruption of design.

You are confusing or conflating design with process here.

Robert Byers wrote:by the way I presume they got it right about chemical action. otherwise a answer could be they are evidence of being rounded by being tossed about when they were laid in the stratas which were laid by the flood.
Funy if this becoms a problem for slow layering claims!

In the absecene of evidence there could be a lot of "could be's" - understanding the nature of evidence allows us to put aside the ridiculous and the fanciful and focus in on the more likely 'could be's' until they become 'possiblies' and then 'probablies' until finally they are 'most definitelies.' 'Presumablies' are OK if the 'probalies' match-up with the known 'certainties.' I hope that's clear?
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37086
Age: 54

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

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#148  Postby hackenslash » Aug 05, 2010 8:29 am

So what you're saying is that there are known knowns... :lol:
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21405
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#149  Postby dionysus » Aug 05, 2010 2:54 pm

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Oh, whilst entertaining this derail for a moment, even the heat-death of the universe won't result in uniformly spread energy. According to the current scientific consensus, once 101000 years has elapsed, and the universe is nothing but a sea of photons, it will be a realm in which quantum entanglement, and the uncertainty arising therefrom, will be in effect a macroscopic phenomenon. Which means that there will still be inhomogeneities in the distribution of energy. Plus, of course, those photons will themselves constitute local inhomogeneities.

Now returning you to your scheduled thread ...


Which means of course, that the whole damn thing might reboot itself! ;)


Like in Futurama? I call dibs on shooting Hitler. Now all I need is a forward time machine.
User avatar
dionysus
 
Name: Lukasz
Posts: 417
Age: 35
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#150  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 06, 2010 12:54 am

It's petunias time again ...

Robert Byers wrote:
Dudely wrote: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.


My comment stands well.


Correction, your blind assertions have been reduced to their constituent quarks. What part of "if you do not have entities belonging to two categories, you cannot test for either category", do you not understand?

Robert Byers wrote:They were made by processes. All rocks etc.


And exactly how does the existence of natural processes support "Magic Man did it"?

Robert Byers wrote:The paper you quoted just says it was a chemical origin and this is rare.


So "rare", Byers, that the author of that paper cited instances of boulders of the sort covered in that paper that can be found on two different continental land masses.

From the paper itself, we have:

Hanson & Howard, 2005 wrote:Investigations of the internet and in literature show that the spherical boulders found in Arkansas are not uncommon, as these types of concretions are known to occur worldwide, but they are unique in size and local abundance.


Exactly how does the authors' statement that these types of concretions "are not uncommon and known to occur worldwide" equal "rare" in any logically consistent universe, Byers?

Robert Byers wrote:i didn't know about this but its obscure.


Exactly how does "these concretions are known to occur worldwide" equal "obscure" in any logically consistent universe, Byers?

Robert Byers wrote:in fact only a few papers have been done on it.


Oh, read them all, have you? In which case you can provide citations for all of these "few" papers you have read.

Robert Byers wrote:Anyways this changes nothing of what I said.


It pisses all over your assertion that a fantasy flood caused by an invisible magic man was responsible for large scale geological phenomena, Byers, because those stones were formed by a slow process.

Robert Byers wrote:The process here is just as much a intelligent process effect as anything in nature. its not happanchance.


Total bollocks. Exactly where was the "intelligence" involved in water seeping through soil and carrying dissolved minerals with it? This latest assertion of yours is farcical in the extreme.

Robert Byers wrote:It is a part of design even if a corruption of design.


Bollocks.

Byers, your invisible magic man isn't responsible. Your invisible magic man is a figment of the imagination of retarded Bronze Age nomads, who thought that they could alter the genetics of livestock by having them shag alongside coloured sticks. On the other hand, chemical reactions take place in the real world all the time. Byers, they are taking place in interstellar space. Scientists have detected the signatures of these reactions taking place via absorption and emission spectroscopy. The idea that there is any "intelligence" directing these reactions in interstellar space is fatuous in the extreme. If you want to discover why, Byers, get the Templeton Foundation to lend you $100 million, so you can fly on the next mission to the International Space Station, and once you're there, step outside without a space suit. We'll see how long "intelligence" lasts in space, shall we?

Robert Byers wrote:by the way I presume they got it right about chemical action.


Byers, what part of "the authors present evidence that these rocks are the result of chemical concretion" do you not understand? No "presumptions" required.

Robert Byers wrote:otherwise a answer could be they are evidence of being rounded by being tossed about when they were laid in the stratas which were laid by the flood.


Bullshit.

Byers, once again ...

YOUR FANTASY "GLOBAL FLOOD" NEVER HAPPENED. OBSERVATIONAL REALITY SAYS IT NEVER HAPPENED.

My tropical fish burst out laughing, every time you erect the nonsensical assertion that this ridiculous fantasy "global flood" was anything other than a bad piece of fiction, contained within a particularly retarded species of mythology. My tropical fish would not exist if this fantasy "global flood" had ever happened. Learn once and for all that this story is a crock of shit, it's a bad piece of fiction, it's a fairy tale and a crap fairy tale at that, because it involves absurdities on a grand scale, physical unreality writ large, and the only reason we're bothering with this festeringly bubotic and suppuratingly gangrenous mythological excrement, is because well-funded and politically well-connected liars for doctrine are peddling this worthless tripe as if it constituted established fact.

Robert Byers wrote:Funy if this becoms a problem for slow layering claims!


It isn't. You can cease entertaining that ridiculous fantasy right now.

Oh, and Byers ... have you bothered to READ what I posted last time, about the fact that the very mythology you claim to adhere to, states explicitly that those who peddle known and manifest lies repeatedly, are destined for the everlasting lava barbecue? Which means, Byers, that if your magic man actually exists, then he's looking at you right now and thinking to himself "rare, medium or well done?". Because you have repeatedly posted blind assertions that are manifest lies, and your magic man doesn't like this. Which means, Byers, that according to the belief system you are trying to propagandise for here, and which you claim to adhere to, you're going to Hell.
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 ...

#151  Postby Atheistoclast » Aug 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Now that I have been freed from the dungeons of the atheist and his minions.....

Calilasseia wrote:
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.


Do you include human (or animal) creation and design as a "natural process" or does it require "magic" in your estimation?

Are engineers "technological wizards" because they create and design things?


So "rare", Byers, that the author of that paper cited instances of boulders of the sort covered in that paper that can be found on two different continental land masses.


The Flood aside, the reference to boulders recalls your example of a heap of rocks.

Now this is what Nature can do....

Image

and this is what Nature cannot do....

Image

The Giant's causeway requires no design inference, despite its interesting layout, but the sculpting of rock on Mt Rushmore clearly does.

It is as simple as that. But the naturalist is in perpetual denial of reality.
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 ...

#152  Postby DaveD » Aug 10, 2010 10:31 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
The Giant's causeway requires no design inference, despite its interesting layout, but the sculpting of rock on Mt Rushmore clearly does.

It is as simple as that. But the naturalist is in perpetual denial of reality.

Is there a point to this? Mt. Rushmore was designed. By humans. Who is denying that?
Image
User avatar
DaveD
 
Name: Dave Davis
Posts: 3022
Age: 62
Male

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

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#153  Postby tytalus » Aug 10, 2010 10:39 pm

Mt. Rushmore unfortunately doesn't get creationists any closer to devising a metric for 'design,' and it doesn't help that when you dig into the details, they believe everything to be 'designed' -- making any quest for a metric pointless.
Futurama wrote: Bender: Dying sucks butt. How do you living beings cope with mortality?
Leela: Violent outbursts.
Amy: General slutiness.
Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.
User avatar
tytalus
 
Posts: 1228
Age: 47
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#154  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 10, 2010 11:43 pm

Oh dear ... the in tray is full again ...

Atheistoclast wrote:Now that I have been freed from the dungeons of the atheist and his minions.....


Yawn. Unlike many thousands of people who suffered at the hands of the likes of Torquemada and other ruthless enforcers of conformity to doctrine, you were never in any "dungeon", so drop the specious hyperbole.

Atheistoclast wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: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.


Do you include human (or animal) creation and design as a "natural process" or does it require "magic" in your estimation?


The mere fact that you have to ask this question speaks volumes about your presuppositions. Not that it helps you, because as I've already pointed out to you repeatedly, the "design" processes humans engage in bear NO relation to the asserted "design" process ascribed by supernaturalists to their invented magic entities.

Atheistoclast wrote:Are engineers "technological wizards" because they create and design things?


Already dealt with this specious objection. Those examples of failed pre-Wright Brothers aircraft are hardly examples of "technological wizardry".

Atheistoclast wrote:
So "rare", Byers, that the author of that paper cited instances of boulders of the sort covered in that paper that can be found on two different continental land masses.


The Flood aside


Which never happened. Observational reality says it never happened. My tropical fish laugh every time someone asserts that it did.

Atheistoclast wrote:the reference to boulders recalls your example of a heap of rocks.


And I'm still waiting for a sueprnaturalist to tell me which of those rocks was the one shaped by human hand. Which makes rather a mockery of the blind assertion that "design" is easy to detect, doesn't it?

Atheistoclast wrote:Now this is what Nature can do....

Image


Hey, no kidding? And you think we needed to be told this?

Atheistoclast wrote:and this is what Nature cannot do....

Image


Oh look, it's the same specious example Polanyi is so fond of. What part of "we have evidence that humans were responsible for this" do you not understand? Such as the fact that film footage was shot of the sculptors in action? Here you go, I found this film footage with three mouse clicks:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Y1Nb6ngQk[/youtube]

Atheistoclast wrote:The Giant's causeway requires no design inference, despite its interesting layout, but the sculpting of rock on Mt Rushmore clearly does.


No it doesn't. It doesn't require any "inference" of the sort, because the above film footage documents the relevant activity and provides evidence of human intervention in the case of Mount Rushmore.

Now, where's the evidence for your invisible magic man?

Atheistoclast wrote:It is as simple as that.


Bollocks. What part of "no 'inference' is needed, given that we have a large body of documentary evidence with respect to human intervention in the case of Mount Rushmore" do you not understand?

Atheistoclast wrote:But the naturalist is in perpetual denial of reality.


Bollocks. The only people in denial of reality are those who insist that magic entities are needed. 300 years of diligent scientific inquiry has rendered such asserted entities superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
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 ...

#155  Postby hotshoe » Aug 10, 2010 11:51 pm

Atheistoclast, Polanyi. :nono:
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#156  Postby Atheistoclast » Aug 11, 2010 12:27 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Yawn. Unlike many thousands of people who suffered at the hands of the likes of Torquemada and other ruthless enforcers of conformity to doctrine, you were never in any "dungeon", so drop the specious hyperbole.


Spoken like Nero himself. I was in fact consigned to the dark abyss of cyberforum oblivion.


The mere fact that you have to ask this question speaks volumes about your presuppositions. Not that it helps you, because as I've already pointed out to you repeatedly, the "design" processes humans engage in bear NO relation to the asserted "design" process ascribed by supernaturalists to their invented magic entities.


How do you know? Certainly, humans do not design by ex nihilo creation. But neither does the Creator. If we read Genesis 1, as we should , He fashioned Adam from dust and took a rib from the primordial man to make Eve. This is how engineers do things - they never reinvent the wheel.


Already dealt with this specious objection. Those examples of failed pre-Wright Brothers aircraft are hardly examples of "technological wizardry".


You confuse purposeful design and rigorous testing with aimless trial and error.


Which never happened. Observational reality says it never happened. My tropical fish laugh every time someone asserts that it did.


Your tropical fish are the descendants of those ancestors kept in Noah's aquarium aboard the Ark. This is as much a fact as that the moon orbits the earth.


And I'm still waiting for a sueprnaturalist to tell me which of those rocks was the one shaped by human hand. Which makes rather a mockery of the blind assertion that "design" is easy to detect, doesn't it?


The Giant's causeway could have been made by men, but needn't have because natural processes alone suffice as an explanation. Therefore, there is no need to make a design inference for such a case.


Oh look, it's the same specious example Polanyi is so fond of. What part of "we have evidence that humans were responsible for this" do you not understand? Such as the fact that film footage was shot of the sculptors in action? Here you go, I found this film footage with three mouse clicks.


And if no footage of its construction had been made? If an ET visiting earth were to inspect the site, would he not make an inference for design?


Bollocks. The only people in denial of reality are those who insist that magic entities are needed. 300 years of diligent scientific inquiry has rendered such asserted entities superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.


No. Science has described the various processes and laws but not the fundamental causes behind phenomena. Indeed, it has only served to show how much we fail to explain...like the existence of digital codes in DNA.
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 ...

#157  Postby Nautilidae » Aug 11, 2010 12:31 am

I'm very tired of Atheistoclast arguing in circles.
User avatar
Nautilidae
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4230
Age: 25
Male

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

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#158  Postby DaveD » Aug 11, 2010 12:34 am

Atheistoclast wrote:And if no footage of [Mt Rushmore's] construction had been made? If an ET visiting earth were to inspect the site, would he not make an inference for design?

And why not? The bloody thing was designed. Not only is there film footage, but there's a good deal of contemporary documentation too.
Using an example of known human design and construction to "prove" a cosmic designer is probably the most pathetic attempt at an argument I've ever seen.
Image
User avatar
DaveD
 
Name: Dave Davis
Posts: 3022
Age: 62
Male

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

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#159  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 11, 2010 1:59 am

Atheistoclast wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Yawn. Unlike many thousands of people who suffered at the hands of the likes of Torquemada and other ruthless enforcers of conformity to doctrine, you were never in any "dungeon", so drop the specious hyperbole.


Spoken like Nero himself. I was in fact consigned to the dark abyss of cyberforum oblivion.


Oh boo fucking hoo. Perhaps if you hadn't engaged in rampant discoursive abuse, this wouldn't have happened.

Atheistoclast wrote:
The mere fact that you have to ask this question speaks volumes about your presuppositions. Not that it helps you, because as I've already pointed out to you repeatedly, the "design" processes humans engage in bear NO relation to the asserted "design" process ascribed by supernaturalists to their invented magic entities.


How do you know?


Oh, you mean you haven't bothered reading the posts in which I already told you this? You know, that business about trial and error as opposed to magical perfect foreknowledge? Which you tried to dismiss with the usual specious apologetic excrement, liberally sprinkled with a spicing of ad hominem attack?

Those comical early attempts to build aircraft are back to haunt you. And please, don't try to erect the specious argument that a mature technology that has benefited from a century or more of past mistakes somehow supports the sort of magic "design" processes asserted to exist by supernaturalists when they want to wheel in a magic man, because I already dealt with that specious objection.

Atheistoclast wrote:Certainly, humans do not design by ex nihilo creation.


They don't possess perfect foreknowledge either. Which is why prototypes are built, in order to find out if reality supports the ideas that those prototypes embody. When reality doesn't support those ideas, the prototype fails, and its back to the drawing board ... just as happened with all those comical early failures in the world of aircraft.

Atheistoclast wrote:But neither does the Creator.


Oh really? Why do I have the strange feeling you're about to erect an apologetic fabrication that quite a few of your fellow supernaturalists would regard as a heresy?

Atheistoclast wrote:If we read Genesis 1, as we should


Translation: "in accordance with my apologetic convenience" ...

Atheistoclast wrote:He fashioned Adam from dust and took a rib from the primordial man to make Eve.


Which of course is complete tosh. It's an indication of the neurotoxic effects of supernaturalist blind assertions, that when Vesalius established by dissecting actual human corpses, that males and females have the same number of ribs, that he ran the risk of being subjected to the Inquisition for daring to put reality before doctrine. That piece of mythological fiction about ribs has been known to be fiction since 1543.

Meanwhile, with respect to the matter of creation ex nihilo ass asserted to have taken place by supernaturalist, what extant materials did your magic man purportedly fashion the previously non-existent universe from? Only last time I checked the relevant supernaturalist assertions, those assertions do present this as creation ex nihilo.

Atheistoclast wrote:This is how engineers do things - they never reinvent the wheel.


Actually, in a sense, some engineers have. I'm reminded here of the drill that drills square holes. There's some interesting mathematics behind that, incidentally.

Atheistoclast wrote:
Already dealt with this specious objection. Those examples of failed pre-Wright Brothers aircraft are hardly examples of "technological wizardry".


You confuse purposeful design and rigorous testing with aimless trial and error.


Oh please, take this comedy line to the Improv. What part of "purposeful design and rigorous testing is simply impossible without the requisite body of knowledge in place" do you not understand? The only reason Boeing and Airbus Industries are able to engage in rigorous testing and purposeful design nowadays is because of those earlier mistakes. If humans hadn't bothered trying to build flying machines, and hadn't made those mistakes, there wouldn't BE a Boeing or an Airbus Industries extant today. :roll:

Atheistoclast wrote:
Which never happened. Observational reality says it never happened. My tropical fish laugh every time someone asserts that it did.


Your tropical fish are the descendants of those ancestors kept in Noah's aquarium aboard the Ark.


:lol: :rofl: :dielaughing:

And what recreational pharmaceuticals led to this piece of blatant fantasising and fabrication? The relevant piece of turgid mythology never mentions any fucking "aquarium", this is something you've pulled out of your rectal passage.

Atheistoclast wrote:This is as much a fact as that the moon orbits the earth.


Bollocks. This blatant piece of fabrication of yours is about as "factual" as George W. Bush's claims about WMDs in Iraq.

Atheistoclast wrote:
And I'm still waiting for a sueprnaturalist to tell me which of those rocks was the one shaped by human hand. Which makes rather a mockery of the blind assertion that "design" is easy to detect, doesn't it?


The Giant's causeway could have been made by men, but needn't have because natural processes alone suffice as an explanation. Therefore, there is no need to make a design inference for such a case.


Blatant evasion. The simple fact of the matter is, that one of those rocks in the photograph I presented originally, has been determined, by appropriately trained expert palaeoanthropologists, to have been shaped by human action. Now, if "design" is so purportedly "obvious", why can't you or any other supernaturalist tell me which of those rocks is the rock in question? Once again, when supernaturalists are required to put up or shut up with a concrete example, they're found wanting.

Atheistoclast wrote:
Oh look, it's the same specious example Polanyi is so fond of. What part of "we have evidence that humans were responsible for this" do you not understand? Such as the fact that film footage was shot of the sculptors in action? Here you go, I found this film footage with three mouse clicks.


And if no footage of its construction had been made? If an ET visiting earth were to inspect the site, would he not make an inference for design?


That depends upon a lot of factors. Such as whether that purported alien visitor notices that there are a lot of humans around, and that those rock carvings happen to bear a very close resemblance to observable human faces. At this point, if said alien is going to be rigorous about this, said alien will look for evidence connecting the two. Such as noticing that humans seem to have devoted a lot of effort to producing likenesses of themselves in stone. At which point, the connection starts to enjoy some evidential support. What part of this elementary process do you not understand again?

Atheistoclast wrote:
Bollocks. The only people in denial of reality are those who insist that magic entities are needed. 300 years of diligent scientific inquiry has rendered such asserted entities superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.


No. Science has described the various processes and laws but not the fundamental causes behind phenomena.


Oh, and you think a bunch of Bronze Age retards scribbling mythological fantasies did any better? Please, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Atheistoclast wrote: Indeed, it has only served to show how much we fail to explain...


Yeah, right, that's why science has given us famine-free, disease-free lives surrounded by expensive electronic toys, put humans on the Moon, built computers capable of 1015 floating point calculations per second, eradicated smallpox and probed into the heart of matter itself. Meanwhile, mythology has achieved ... sweet fuck all.

Atheistoclast wrote:like the existence of digital codes in DNA.


Oh dear, not this bullshit. What part of "DNA is a chemical molecule whose behaviour happens to be amenable to modelling as an information system" do you not understand? What part of "information isn't a magic entity" do you also not understand? Do I have to educate you with respect to the basics here?
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 ...

#160  Postby dionysus » Aug 11, 2010 3:10 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:Now that I have been freed from the dungeons of the atheist and his minions.....


Stop breaking the rules and you won't have to be penalized. It's common sense. Not to mention common courtesy. If you insist on insulting other members and quote mining scientific articles then you're not going to last long.
User avatar
dionysus
 
Name: Lukasz
Posts: 417
Age: 35
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests