tactile sensory units, 2

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Saying it is not designed is NOT dismissing the complex, functional, purposeful and observed shared elements of tactile sensory units.

Verbal tricks is all you've got!

Well, no, we've got evidence supporting evolution. We also have evidence of less than optimal design, and examples of complex arrangements that would be termed poor design, if they were designed.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Complex, functional, purposeful and observed shared elements of design of tactile sensory units cannot be dismissed with a simple 'it's not designed'.

Sure they can. We're doing it right here before your eyes. Of course, in your specification above, you cheat. You used "elements of design" as part of what you observe, which is what you are seeking to prove. You should take the phrase "elements of design" out of the first part in order to get to the second part and fairly, without circular reference, assert it is designed.

Because of course, every time you view a design, it is designed. That is a tautology.

But first, establish it is a design.

And this time don't sneak your conclusion into what you observe before deriving your conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, no, we've got evidence supporting evolution. We also have evidence of less than optimal design, and examples of complex arrangements that would be termed poor design, if they were designed.

You're responding to your own posts?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sure they can. We're doing it right here before your eyes.

You've only made baseless claims with absolutely no scientific method support.

On the other hand, we do observe elements of design in tactile sensory units.

Of course, in your specification above, you cheat. You used "elements of design" as part of what you observe, which is what you are seeking to prove. You should take the phrase "elements of design" out of the first part in order to get to the second part and fairly, without circular reference, assert it is designed.

There's no cheating in observing elements of design in tactile sensory units.

Because of course, every time you view a design, it is designed. That is a tautology.

Every time elements of design are applied to tactile sensory units, we have observation of those elements.

But first, establish it is a design.

I have. Take the elements of design of tactile sensory units. See if they're observed in tactile sensory units. They are. They're designed, not the result of some willy-nilly creation process.

And this time don't sneak your conclusion into what you observe before deriving your conclusion.
at

The conclusion is simply based on what we observe in tactile sensory units.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
@justlookinla is anything not designed?

Is the output of a random number generator . . . designed?

Is the unfortunate arrival of global warming due to high use of fossil fuels . . . designed?

Is the sequence of digits in the number pi . . . designed?

Is the arrival of a baby in spite of using birth control . . . designed?

Is the face on the moon . . . designed?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
@justlookinla is anything not designed?

Is the output of a random number generator . . . designed?

Is the unfortunate arrival of global warming due to high use of fossil fuels . . . designed?

Is the sequence of digits in the number pi . . . designed?

Is the arrival of a baby in spite of using birth control . . . designed?

Is the face on the moon . . . designed?

Are tactile sensory units (the subject of the thread) designed? Yes, they have observable elements of design.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Are tactile sensory units (the subject of the thread) designed? Yes, they have observable elements of design.

There you go again assuming the answer you want in the absence of any actual reason for the assumption.
There is an alternate explanation you are refusing to consider. Your have not shared your reason for refusing to consider the alternate explanation.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There you go again assuming the answer you want in the absence of any actual reason for the assumption.
There is an alternate explanation you are refusing to consider. Your have not shared your reason for refusing to consider the alternate explanation.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm actually observing elements of design in tactile sensory units.

Why are you dismissing what is observed in favor of some guess or supposition concerning the creation of tactile sensory units?
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not assuming anything. I'm actually observing elements of design in tactile sensory units.

Why are you dismissing what is observed in favor of some guess or supposition concerning the creation of tactile sensory units?

Well, you observe tactile sensory units. We all know that. Now as to how the tactile sensory units came to be, in the human hand for example, we have two competing hypotheses: a) They were designed or b) they are the result of millions of years of evolution. How did you choose a) over b)? There are those among us who believe evolution is able to simulate design in its ability to construct complicated, functional things. Have you some proof unknown to us that can't be the case?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, you observe tactile sensory units. We all know that.

Not just tactile sensory units, but observable elements of design in the tactile sensory units.

Now as to how the tactile sensory units came to be, in the human hand for example, we have two competing hypotheses: a) They were designed or b) they are the result of millions of years of evolution. How did you choose a) over b)?

The observation of the elements of design.

There are those among us who believe evolution is able to simulate design in its ability to construct complicated, functional things.

Directed or non-directed evolution? There's a huge different in the two evolutionary views.

Have you some proof unknown to us that can't be the case?

The issue is there's no proof that willy-nilly evolution produced tactile sensory units with observable elements of design.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The issue is there's no proof that willy-nilly evolution produced tactile sensory units with observable elements of design.

There you go again, sneaking the idea of design into the alleged observation, and then declaring that means the object is designed. Illogical circular reasoning.

You have failed to express a proof that evolution did not produce tactile sensory units with the observed elements that you claim show design.

Do you have a proof that evolution did not produce them? It seems strange to me that in all these posts you have never bothered to show such a proof.

Instead, you consistently refuse to even allow the idea of evolution a hearing. You only allow the design idea to be given a hearing. Isn't that rather . . . unfair?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Tactile sensory units folks, tactile sensory units.
Mine was related to tactile sensory units. I want you to prove that your reasoning apparently working with tactile sensory units (in your opinion) isn't a fluke: prove it works with other things, and it will at least show that your method has consistent results. This is the only way to show that your method works, if you use only 1 example and refuse to apply a method to anything else, I can just disregard it as a fluke and I don't even have to point out flaws in it, because you won't put in the effort to show that your method actually works. Use your criteria for 2 other items, 1 complex, and 1 simple, you are free to choose (and I am being generous with that). Show that your criteria for created items works for both, and I will be satisfied. It isn't hard, it isn't off topic, and if you continue to refuse to provide evidence that your criteria aren't tailored to 1 example, then why should I make the effort of taking you seriously?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There you go again, sneaking the idea of design into the alleged observation, and then declaring that means the object is designed. Illogical circular reasoning.

There's no alleged observation, there's observation, plain and simple, of the elements of design in tactile sensory units.

You have failed to express a proof that evolution did not produce tactile sensory units with the observed elements that you claim show design.

You've failed to offer proof of what kind of evolution produced a designed tactile sensory unit, willy-nilly evolution or directed evolution.

Do you have a proof that evolution did not produce them? It seems strange to me that in all these posts you have never bothered to show such a proof.

What kind of evolution, willy-nilly evolution or directed evolution? Big difference between the two faith-based views, you know.

Instead, you consistently refuse to even allow the idea of evolution a hearing. You only allow the design idea to be given a hearing. Isn't that rather . . . unfair?

Nope, not unfair at all. Nothing unfair about pointing out the observed elements of design in tactile sensory units.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Mine was related to tactile sensory units. I want you to prove that your reasoning apparently working with tactile sensory units (in your opinion) isn't a fluke: prove it works with other things, and it will at least show that your method has consistent results.

I don't have to prove that design in present in other things, only in the topic of the thread....tactile sensory units. And I've done that. Why don't you accept the observed elements of design in tactile sensory units?

This is the only way to show that your method works, if you use only 1 example and refuse to apply a method to anything else, I can just disregard it as a fluke and I don't even have to point out flaws in it, because you won't put in the effort to show that your method actually works.

Point out the absence of elements of design in tactile sensory units. Stick with the topic of the thread.

Use your criteria for 2 other items, 1 complex, and 1 simple, you are free to choose (and I am being generous with that).

Nope, not going to take the focus from the presence of design in tactile sensory units. Discuss the topic of the thread as it relates to design.

Show that your criteria for created items works for both, and I will be satisfied. It isn't hard, it isn't off topic, and if you continue to refuse to provide evidence that your criteria aren't tailored to 1 example, then why should I make the effort of taking you seriously?

Take the observed elements of design seriously.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't have to prove that design in present in other things, only in the topic of the thread....tactile sensory units. And I've done that. Why don't you accept the observed elements of design in tactile sensory units?
You have done that using a particular method. However, if your method only works with tactile sensory units and nothing else, then I can dismiss your entire line of reasoning as tailored for your position rather than a functioning method that actually works. I am demanding that you prove your method of distinguishing designed from not designed actually works, which is a challenge to your argument for tactile sensory units, because if your method only works for them, then I can dismiss it as a fluke or that you purposely ignored potential variables for the sake of an exceedingly specific example. Which means that your method would actually be invalid for tactile sensory units if it only works for tactile sensory units.


Point out the absence of elements of design in tactile sensory units. Stick with the topic of the thread.
I am stating that you haven't provided any evidence of elements of design if your method doesn't work for anything besides your specific example. If you are unwilling to show that the method you used for tactile sensory units can work with other examples, then there is no reason for me or anyone else to think your method is legitimate. I am sick of you trying to dodge this, no matter what you want, this discussion needs counter examples of other things to be verified. You cannot claim that your determination that tactile sensory units (both the hands and the actual machine) are designed is legitimate if it only works with them. And how do you prove the method is legitimate? 1 post showing it works with, say, a bike versus a tumbleweed. This is your topic, prove you care enough to support your actual argument over dodging with restraints on what we can say. This is on topic, and if you say it isn't, then you are being dishonest.


Nope, not going to take the focus from the presence of design in tactile sensory units. Discuss the topic of the thread as it relates to design.
I am not taking it away from tactile sensory units, what part of that do you not understand? I am asking you to demonstrate that your reasoning isn't tailored (and thus illegitimate) to your 1 specific example. Prove your reasoning works, 1 post, and you will support that your initial reasoning for tactile sensory units being designed will be addressed. But I refuse to address a conclusion that could very well be founded in an incorrect method, and if you won't make the effort to show that method works, why should anyone bother to refute it? You refute it by refusing to prove it actually works.


Take the observed elements of design seriously.
I will if you address my point seriously, because it attacks the foundation of your argument. I am claiming that your method for determining design is tailored to 1 example, and that it doesn't work with anything else, because you made it for a specific argument, not as an useable method that actually works. And if your method doesn't work, then you haven't provided any evidence that tactile sensory units are designed. Which means I have nothing to disprove, I can just say you are wrong and I will be in a more legitimate position than you are.
 
Upvote 0