Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#21  Postby Animavore » Jul 25, 2010 2:22 pm

Someone PM me. Must... know.
I have 3 suspects. I leading one. Probably wrong too.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42986
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#22  Postby Animavore » Jul 25, 2010 2:27 pm

Oh well. Completely wrong.
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 ...

#23  Postby Largenton » Jul 25, 2010 2:38 pm

Might I add that my method (examining the bulb of percussion) would only work on stones. I don't think we could do the same for other natural objects and they would require different evidence in order to determine whether they have been worked, unlike the IDers who should be able to form an opinion of what object has been worked from a universal standard as Calli said. As my method is solely for stones it does not fit within the standards (covering my back for any IDers who might choose to copy what I have said).
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#24  Postby Shrunk » Jul 25, 2010 2:44 pm

Largenton wrote:Actually, as an archaeologist I would look for a bulb of percussion present when people work stone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulb_of_applied_force

In general it is the key identification feature for a worked tool. However, the picture isn't good enough (and my area of expertise is also not in lithics) for me to deduce which one. Calli could you pm me to tell me btw, I've forgotten since last time.


And, of course, as I said above, that wouldn't demonstrate that ID is a valid idea. Using your archaeological method to identify the "designed" stone would require already knowing the process by which such artifacts are produced and looking for evidence of that process. That is not what ID assertionist claim they are able to do: Detect design without any knowledge of the process by which the "designer" works. As we all know, ID assertionists don't even make the slightest attempt to hypothesize a mechanism by which their "designer" operates.

So, willhud9, you're actually going to try answer this question?

:popcorn:
Last edited by Shrunk on Jul 25, 2010 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#25  Postby Largenton » Jul 25, 2010 2:50 pm

Ah, thanks, I was wondering about how this method was discounted.
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#26  Postby amused » Jul 25, 2010 3:05 pm

The question is flawed because a comparison between a bunch of rocks doesn't match the situation we find ourselves in. There is only one universe with no others to compare it against to determine if any of them are designed.

BTW, you can open the picture in Paint and then use the Image>Stretch/Skew command to reduce the size. Use Image>Attributes to check the starting size and the effect of any reduction.

Image
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#27  Postby Shrunk » Jul 25, 2010 3:06 pm

I know I've mentioned this before, but Ian Musgrave issued a similar challenge to evolution deniers to detect human design in a set of genetic sequences, some of which had been synthetically produced by Craig Venter's lab. This interesting and amusing thing was that the design assertionists, presented with this excellent opportunity to demonstrate the practical utility of their "theories", instead merely spent their time whining about how unfair the challenge was. Meanwhile, the "evolutionists" of Panda's Thumb solved the question easily without using any ID techniques whatsoever.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/01 ... ntell.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02 ... ent-3.html
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#28  Postby Shrunk » Jul 25, 2010 3:10 pm

amused wrote:The question is flawed because a comparison between a bunch of rocks doesn't match the situation we find ourselves in. There is only one universe with no others to compare it against to determine if any of them are designed.


That's irrelevant to the question at hand. ID assertionists maintain that some things in this universe are designed and others not. Bacterial flagella and eyes are designed, rocks (in their natural form) are not. Therefore, a rock that has been "designed" should somehow be discernible from non-designed rocks.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#29  Postby Bathynomus Giganteus » Jul 25, 2010 3:34 pm

This stone is smiling at me! :)
Image



OK, can someone pm me the answer, please? My missus thinks I've lost the plot staring at a picture of rocks. :crazy:
If the human brain was simple enough for us to understand, we would be too simple to understand it.
User avatar
Bathynomus Giganteus
 
Posts: 308
Age: 48
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#30  Postby amused » Jul 25, 2010 3:34 pm

Shrunk wrote:
amused wrote:The question is flawed because a comparison between a bunch of rocks doesn't match the situation we find ourselves in. There is only one universe with no others to compare it against to determine if any of them are designed.


That's irrelevant to the question at hand. ID assertionists maintain that some things in this universe are designed and others not. Bacterial flagella and eyes are designed, rocks (in their natural form) are not. Therefore, a rock that has been "designed" should somehow be discernible from non-designed rocks.


But they get to that point from the assumption/assertion that the entire universe is also designed. That's the basic assertion that must be disproven first. Nitpicking at anything less is avoiding the bigger question.

Any single one of the rocks and leaves and other junk in that picture *could* be an image made by a human. I mess around with 3D modeling and animation and I know that a talented artist could create that entire photo out of nothing but image maps and pixels.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#31  Postby Rumraket » Jul 25, 2010 3:47 pm

But they get to that point from the assumption that the entire universe is also designed. That's the basic assertion that must be disproven first. Nitpicking at anything less is avoiding the bigger question.

No, pure nonsense. They are the ones claiming it is designed, so they are under an obligation to prove it. We are under no oblication to disprove it. Of course, unless you positively assert that it is not designed. But in the absense of evidence for design, you have to remain technically agnostic... this puts the burden of proof on design claimists.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13145
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#32  Postby mark1961 » Jul 25, 2010 3:55 pm

The large kidney shaped dark indigo one near the bottom right. Looks like it might be a worn down brick to me. Also the curved flat one above it could be a roof tile or pot shard.

http://www.danielnurgitz.com/guide.html#1

(Scroll down to "page 8")

Different coloured pebbles like this can make for art as well as an illustration of the passing of glaciers mixing up geology.
Last edited by mark1961 on Jul 25, 2010 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mark1961
 
Posts: 957
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#33  Postby amused » Jul 25, 2010 3:58 pm

Rumraket wrote:
But they get to that point from the assumption that the entire universe is also designed. That's the basic assertion that must be disproven first. Nitpicking at anything less is avoiding the bigger question.

No, pure nonsense. They are the ones claiming it is designed, so they are under an obligation to prove it. We are under no oblication to disprove it. Of course, unless you positively assert that it is not designed. But in the absense of evidence for design, you have to remain technically agnostic... this puts the burden of proof on design claimists.


I'm SO glad you said that. I'm an architect. I design things. When I see a good design, I recognize and appreciate the hand of the designer. I see a good design in the universe, which implies a designer.

When it comes to the gods of all the religions, I'm atheist, mainly because those gods are just too dumb. But when it comes to Spinoza's designer, I have to be agnostic. There is the possibility that the universe itself has the mechanism of design built into itself. A type of universal DNA, if you will.

The argument about whether or not there is a god/designer and whether or not the truth claims of a particular religion are valid are two completely different arguments.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#34  Postby mark1961 » Jul 25, 2010 4:03 pm

amused wrote:

I'm SO glad you said that. I'm an architect. I design things. When I see a good design, I recognize and appreciate the hand of the designer. I see a good design in the universe, which implies a designer.



Depends on which way up you look at this argument. In some small way aren't you trying to imitate nature in your work. Which would leave the question of who created nature separate.
User avatar
mark1961
 
Posts: 957
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post


Ads by Google


Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#36  Postby amused » Jul 25, 2010 4:14 pm

mark1961 wrote:
amused wrote:

I'm SO glad you said that. I'm an architect. I design things. When I see a good design, I recognize and appreciate the hand of the designer. I see a good design in the universe, which implies a designer.



Depends on which way up you look at this argument. In some small way aren't you trying to imitate nature in your work. Which would leave the question of who created nature separate.


Go to a construction site. It's a violent attack on the surface of the planet. All the materials are ripped from the ground, processed, handled by hundreds of people, and forcibly put in place. There's nothing natural about it. The built environment is a temporary affront to nature, a nature that works every day to tear it down.

But yeah, the question of who/what created nature is a separate question. That was my point. I think we do a great disservice to ourselves to get caught up in quibbles over scripture and flagellum thingy things. That puts the argument on their terms.
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#37  Postby mark1961 » Jul 25, 2010 4:21 pm

amused wrote:
mark1961 wrote:
amused wrote:

I'm SO glad you said that. I'm an architect. I design things. When I see a good design, I recognize and appreciate the hand of the designer. I see a good design in the universe, which implies a designer.



Depends on which way up you look at this argument. In some small way aren't you trying to imitate nature in your work. Which would leave the question of who created nature separate.


Go to a construction site. It's a violent attack on the surface of the planet. All the materials are ripped from the ground, processed, handled by hundreds of people, and forcibly put in place. There's nothing natural about it. The built environment is a temporary affront to nature, a nature that works every day to tear it down.

But yeah, the question of who/what created nature is a separate question. That was my point. I think we do a great disservice to ourselves to get caught up in quibbles over scripture and flagellum thingy things. That puts the argument on their terms.


You make it sound like what a glacier does. Which was likely responsible for juxtaposing those rather nice different coloured and textured pebbles.

I'm partially in agreement with you over scripture. As for flagella I've learnt things about them and wonder if the present "controversy" has also spurred scientists to also do further research.
Last edited by mark1961 on Jul 25, 2010 4:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
mark1961
 
Posts: 957
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#38  Postby Shrunk » Jul 25, 2010 4:23 pm

amused wrote: But they get to that point from the assumption/assertion that the entire universe is also designed. That's the basic assertion that must be disproven first. Nitpicking at anything less is avoiding the bigger question.


I think you're conflating Intelligent Design with theism in general. According to the latter, of course, everything in the universe is "designed" in some sense. That is different than the specific claim of proponents of ID, which is that they have a metric by which they can discern "design" from the inherent qualities of an entity. That, I believe, is the claim that Cali is attempting to address in this thread. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm mistaken.

The fact that this claim needs to be reconciled with the fact that, according to their beliefs, everything is designed is a further complication that makes the ID position even less tenable. But that's their problem, not ours.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#39  Postby katja z » Jul 25, 2010 4:35 pm

Can someone please PM me the answer? :cheers:
*rushes to check the inbox*
User avatar
katja z
RS Donator
 
Posts: 5353
Age: 39

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Question For "Design" Assertionists ...

#40  Postby Animavore » Jul 25, 2010 4:44 pm

This one looks a bit like a human skull. Clearly this shows a common designer. It's like some being was using the same tool kit on both rocks and skulls.
Attachments
skull.JPG
skull.JPG (19.8 KiB) Viewed 678 times
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42986
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest