Posted: Jan 20, 2011 9:00 am
Царь Славян wrote:Why not?
Oh that's strange - you seem to have ignored the second part of the sentence which expressly explains the terms in quotes preceding it. Let me repeat it 'a system that no serious observer could possibly infer design from'.
Because it does not infer design. Design being conceiving something and fashioning it for a purpose. When a system has components that inhibit its supposed purpose, or directly hamper its utility, that would not infer design. Quite the opposite.
Царь Славян wrote:Show me which parts I didn't quote.No, you have entirely and purposefully misread what I wrote. In fact, you purposefully snipped out the entire context of my point just to formulate this argument - that tends to be called 'mendacious discourse', and provides reasonable evidence towards indicting you for infringements against the forum user agreement you signed up for when you joined this forum. Perhaps best if you don't quote mine people from now on, eh?
There are numerous examples of manifestly 'bad design' in nature and biology, as in, systems that no serious observer could possibly infer design from.
You removed all that is bolded. You should also have noted that I put bad design in quotation marks implying that it was not as simple as me asserting bad design. You didn't. Instead, you went off along a line of reasoning that bad design is still design. I had already removed that line of reasoning by saying that I was defining 'bad design' as a system that does not in any way infer design, as in, is contradictory to inferred design.
Царь Славян wrote:But you are wrong. A car as bad as you described is still designed. It's a really bad car, but it'ss till designed.Anyway, both cars are designed - they satisfy metrics of designedness. A car is meant to convey passengers across the ground. One of those designs might be better than the other, but neither exhibits immense design flaws that actually diminish its ability to achieve its purpose. Were there a metal rod sticking right through the chassis into the earth thereby stopping the car conveying passengers across the ground, we could be sure it wasn't designed, it would be a system that no serious observer could possibly infer design from.
No it's not. It no longer operates as a car. It no longer conveys passengers across the ground. It is no longer a car. It's not a 'bad' car, it's not even a car.
Царь Славян wrote:Yeah, it's bad, but it works. Just as both cars I posted work.So with the recurrent laryngeal nerve. So with much of nature.
No, it doesn't 'work'. It works in a fish, it doesn't 'work' in a giraffe by any metric of design.
I've already dismissed your cars on 2 grounds. One, they are of known designed provenance, using them as an analogy is begging the question. Two, they both satisfy metrics of design regardless that one is more efficient than the other, therefore they are not analogous to biological systems where design is not apparent and we are attempting to elucidate how we can infer design.
Царь Славян wrote:I haven't specified a designer. And I haven't said that he is nfinite in any way. Not only that, but a designer could design things to look bad if he wanted to.All this is quite aside from the notion of a designer with infinite more knowledge and infinite more power than us.
It's irrelevant of what you have said, it's what is necessary were there to be a designer of life, the universe and everything.
You've perfectly established my point and undermined the design hypothesis: If a designer could design things to purposefully hamper their designed purpose and to 'look bad' (not my argument), then there's no potential means of inferring design and the hypothesis can never satisfy simple logical principles, let alone empirical testing against reality.
As I said from the beginning, it's a redundant hypothesis and should be rejected... it would be rejected if people didn't start with a conclusion then try to buttress it with cherrypicked data.