Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Calilasseia wrote:This one comes courtesy of deadman_932 over at TalkRational.
Since those who erect the "design" assertion think that "design" is allegedly "obvious", and that it's only rejected because those pesky scientists won't accept magic, I've a simple question, courtesy of the aforementioned deadman_932.
Here's a picture of some rocks. The picture is being linked to because it's over 700 pixels wide, and the board software is set not to allow embedding of wide images. One of these rocks is "designed" (it was shaped by human hand). Which one?
Present all reasoning (assuming that the "design" assertion is accompanied by any reasoning, of course), to support your answer. Specious apologetics will simply be pointed and laughed at.
Picture of lots of rocks ...
EDIT: thanks to Xeno for reminding me about this.
Robert Byers wrote:Calilasseia wrote:This one comes courtesy of deadman_932 over at TalkRational.
Since those who erect the "design" assertion think that "design" is allegedly "obvious", and that it's only rejected because those pesky scientists won't accept magic, I've a simple question, courtesy of the aforementioned deadman_932.
Here's a picture of some rocks. The picture is being linked to because it's over 700 pixels wide, and the board software is set not to allow embedding of wide images. One of these rocks is "designed" (it was shaped by human hand). Which one?
Present all reasoning (assuming that the "design" assertion is accompanied by any reasoning, of course), to support your answer. Specious apologetics will simply be pointed and laughed at.
Picture of lots of rocks ...
EDIT: thanks to Xeno for reminding me about this.
First its not scientists that are the problem. Science has little or nothing to do with origin issues. Evolution can't claim the prestige of science or scientists.
This is not a good case.
First all the rocks are designed. They are within the laws of the universe. They were not made round but became round by processes. They first were not round.
So copying them is copying a process and copying a process within a universe of design.
So they all are designed where a process was invoked to make them round.
The human made one just did it too.
If your trying to say the rocks are from chance then your wrong.
They are from laws in nature. No chance here at all.
This is rather a good case why creationism makes better points over the old evolution ideas.
Closer attention to presumptions.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
Robert Byers wrote: First its not scientists that are the problem. Science has little or nothing to do with origin issues. Evolution can't claim the prestige of science or scientists.
This is not a good case.
First all the rocks are designed. They are within the laws of the universe. They were not made round but became round by processes. They first were not round.
So copying them is copying a process and copying a process within a universe of design.
So they all are designed where a process was invoked to make them round.
The human made one just did it too.
If your trying to say the rocks are from chance then your wrong.
They are from laws in nature. No chance here at all.
This is rather a good case why creationism makes better points over the old evolution ideas.
Closer attention to presumptions.
Calilasseia wrote:This one comes courtesy of deadman_932 over at TalkRational.
Since those who erect the "design" assertion think that "design" is allegedly "obvious", and that it's only rejected because those pesky scientists won't accept magic, I've a simple question, courtesy of the aforementioned deadman_932.
Here's a picture of some rocks. The picture is being linked to because it's over 700 pixels wide, and the board software is set not to allow embedding of wide images. One of these rocks is "designed" (it was shaped by human hand). Which one?
Atheistoclast wrote:
Their assumption is there must be one, even if the evidence is antithetical to this belief.
Atheistoclast wrote:
This is absolutely cretinous piece of obfuscation. Design inferences work because there is no naturalistic explanation
Atheistoclast wrote:A rock placed on a beach by a human could have also have been deposited by natural forces.
Atheistoclast wrote:There is a big difference between what Nature can do and what she cannot.
Atheistoclast wrote:Calilasseia wrote:This one comes courtesy of deadman_932 over at TalkRational.
Since those who erect the "design" assertion think that "design" is allegedly "obvious", and that it's only rejected because those pesky scientists won't accept magic, I've a simple question, courtesy of the aforementioned deadman_932.
No, those pesky scientists don't accept anything other than a naturalistic explanation for the origins and diversity of life.
Atheistoclast wrote:Their assumption is there must be one, even if the evidence is antithetical to this belief.
Atheistoclast wrote:Here's a picture of some rocks. The picture is being linked to because it's over 700 pixels wide, and the board software is set not to allow embedding of wide images. One of these rocks is "designed" (it was shaped by human hand). Which one?
This is absolutely cretinous piece of obfuscation. Design inferences work because there is no naturalistic explanation
Atheistoclast wrote:Digital codes don't just come into being by chance or the laws of physics and chemistry.
Atheistoclast wrote:A rock placed on a beach by a human could have also have been deposited by natural forces. There is a big difference between what Nature can do and what she cannot.
Shrunk wrote:
Except not so obvious to a creationist. In fact, Joe's statement is nonsense coming from a creationist. To them "nature" isn't a process that is distinct from "design". "Nature" is simply one of the methods that the "designer" uses to create. So to say that "nature" cannot do things that a "designer" can is nonsense. It's like saying a computer program can operate without a programmer.
Atheistoclast wrote: No, that is a Deist position. God creates Nature which in turn creates Man.
But Nature has no creative potential since it lacks intelligence.
The blind cannot leads the blind...except in the fantasy of evolutionism.
Atheistoclast wrote:Yes, but Nature itself cannot emulate the creativity of its Creator.
Atheistoclast wrote:Yes, but Nature itself cannot emulate the creativity of its Creator.
Robert Byers wrote:First its not scientists that are the problem.
Robert Byers wrote:Science has little or nothing to do with origin issues.
Byers over at RDF wrote:I don't like genetics as it requires too much basic study
and is still primitive in its concepts.
Robert Byers wrote:Evolution can't claim the prestige of science or scientists.
Robert Byers wrote:This is not a good case.
Robert Byers wrote:First all the rocks are designed.
Robert Byers wrote:They are within the laws of the universe.
Robert Byers wrote:They were not made round but became round by processes. They first were not round.
Robert Byers wrote:So copying them is copying a process and copying a process within a universe of design.
Robert Byers wrote:So they all are designed where a process was invoked to make them round.
Robert Byers wrote:The human made one just did it too.
Robert Byers wrote:If your trying to say the rocks are from chance then your wrong.
Robert Byers wrote:They are from laws in nature. No chance here at all.
Robert Byers wrote:This is rather a good case why creationism makes better points over the old evolution ideas.
Robert Byers wrote:Closer attention to presumptions.
Atheistoclast over at TR wrote:As with holocaust revisionism, evolutionism revisionism is important in establishing the truth.
Atheistoclast wrote:Calilasseia wrote:This one comes courtesy of deadman_932 over at TalkRational.
Since those who erect the "design" assertion think that "design" is allegedly "obvious", and that it's only rejected because those pesky scientists won't accept magic, I've a simple question, courtesy of the aforementioned deadman_932.
No, those pesky scientists don't accept anything other than a naturalistic explanation for the origins and diversity of life.
Atheistoclast wrote:Their assumption is there must be one, even if the evidence is antithetical to this belief.
Atheistoclast wrote:Here's a picture of some rocks. The picture is being linked to because it's over 700 pixels wide, and the board software is set not to allow embedding of wide images. One of these rocks is "designed" (it was shaped by human hand). Which one?
This is absolutely cretinous piece of obfuscation.
Atheistoclast wrote:Design inferences work because there is no naturalistic explanation
Atheistoclast wrote:Digital codes don't just come into being by chance
Atheistoclast wrote:or the laws of physics and chemistry.
Atheistoclast wrote:A rock placed on a beach by a human could have also have been deposited by natural forces.
Atheistoclast wrote:There is a big difference between what Nature can do and what she cannot.
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest