Common designer versus design standards?

[JIMINZ]

Religious thought in a nut shell.

.
Thank you very much, I wasn't sure if I had said it clearly enough for you to understand.

 

[HitchSlap]

.
Thank you very much, I wasn't sure if I had said it clearly enough for you to understand.

I can even shorten it for ya'.

You can save a bit of time by just blurting, "goddidit."

 

[JIMINZ]

I can even shorten it for ya'.

You can save a bit of time by just blurting, "goddidit."

.
Even better thanks "GODDIDIT"

 

[HitchSlap]

.
Even better thanks "GODDIDIT"

Course it doesn't explain much, does it.

 

[pitabread]

No not really, the point is, there aren't, nor have there ever been, any other designers as you would like to call them.

You're putting the cart before the horse here. The point of the OP is whether to one could distinguish between a single designer using a 'common code' or multiple designers using the same. To simply assert "there is only one designer" is meaningless. It doesn't address the scenario in question.

You've essentially already answered that you would not be able to, which is the point.

we all know who it was that Designed (Created) the Original Code,

Actually, you don't. You simply take it on a matter of faith.

But that's largely irrelevant to the question though about whether or not you could distinguish multiple designers. And you obviously could not.

In Law someone cannot use or reproduce an Original Code as their own, that would be called Counterfeiting.

Not at all. Programmers use common programming languages and common standards all the time. That's whole point of a common standard; that everyone uses the same thing.

Honestly, all this stuff about copyright or counterfeiting is kind of ridiculous anyway and completely irrelevant to the question posed in the opening post.

 

[JIMINZ]

You're putting the cart before the horse here. The point of the OP is whether to one could distinguish between a single designer using a 'common code' or multiple designers using the same. To simply assert "there is only one designer" is meaningless. It doesn't address the scenario in question.

You've essentially already answered that you would not be able to, which is the point.



Actually, you don't. You simply take it on a matter of faith.

But that's largely irrelevant to the question though about whether or not you could distinguish multiple designers. And you obviously could not.



Not at all. Programmers use common programming languages and common standards all the time. That's whole point of a common standard; that everyone uses the same thing.

.
The point of my posts was to demonstrate the discrepancies found within your question, and that the question itself was a nonsensical, hypothetical, assumption, which does not hold water.

I merely gave to you, all of the reasons why that was so.

 

[pitabread]

.
The point of my posts was to demonstrate the discrepancies found within your question, and that the question itself was a nonsensical, hypothetical, assumption, which does not hold water.

There are no 'discrepancies' in the question, nor is it nonsensical. It's a very basic, straightforward question, and arguably relevant given what we know of human-made designs and the use of common standards.

I merely gave to you, all of the reasons why that was so.

I think you don't like the implications of this question.

 

[JIMINZ]

There are no 'discrepancies' in the question, nor is it nonsensical. It's a very basic, straightforward question, and arguably relevant given what we know of human-made designs and the use of common standards.



I think you don't like the implications of this question.

.
Do you mean to tell me there were implications you were trying to put forward?......A hidden agenda so to speak?

 

[pitabread]

.
Do you mean to tell me there were implications you were trying to put forward?......A hidden agenda so to speak?

No hidden agenda at all.

It's just a consequence of using the argument that there is a "common code" to argue for a designer. It could just as easily point to a common standard being used by multiple designers. And one couldn't tell the difference.

 

[JIMINZ]

No hidden agenda at all.

It's just a consequence of using the argument that there is a "common code" to argue for a designer. It could just as easily point to a common standard being used by multiple designers. And one couldn't tell the difference.

.
First you have to declare where this so called Common Code came from and it's Designer, for it to be valid as the Common Standard.

Then you would have to Identify who these other supposed designers are, in order to not confuse all design as being that of the same Designer.

Otherwise you are saying there is only a possible assumption of there being other designers.....Your definite's are only supposed.

 

[pitabread]

First you have to declare where this so called Common Code came from and it's Designer, for it to be valid as the Common Standard.

Then you would have to Identify who these other supposed designers are, in order to not confuse all design as being that of the same Designer.

Not really. The whole point is that we're looking at this from the perspective of code-first, as opposed to designer-first.

If you knew where the standard came from and who the designers were then the question would be moot.

Otherwise you are saying there is only a possible assumption of there being other designers.....Your definite's are only supposed.

Again, the point is that one can't tell the difference between a single designer and multiple designers using a common standard.

I mean, you've basically already agreed to this so I'm not sure your point anymore.

 

[HitchSlap]

.
First you have to declare where this so called Common Code came from and it's Designer, for it to be valid as the Common Standard.

Then you would have to Identify who these other supposed designers are, in order to not confuse all design as being that of the same Designer.

Otherwise you are saying there is only a possible assumption of there being other designers.....Your definite's are only supposed.

There is no designer. That's a religious teaching, and has zero support in reality

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where did the common language come from?

You should try and answer the actual question, instead of hoping to derail it with a false analogy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is not the point. The point is that someone had to have created the first computer language that all other languages and standards came from.

1. html was not created by a single person. neither was it even created as-is. it's been developed by many people of a great many of years

2. DNA is a molecule, not a language.

3. all this is besides the point raised by the OP.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Would you agree that there is more agreement among creationists than evolutionists?

On the contrary, actually

 

[DogmaHunter]

I believe there are lots of different opinions when they get to the details.

Your beliefs are incorrect, then.

Creationists don't bother with details, large or small.

Off course they don't. They are to be avoided, at all costs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Seeing that the OP is in the creation and evolution forum it would appear that is the point of the OP.
Seeing that evolution attempts to define how all creation came about and creation had a beginning, it seems to me going back to the beginning is a necessity.
Seeing that your designers are using a common standard then it's important to know where that common standard originated? If the common standard is incorrect then everything that attempts to build on it is also incorrect.

Sheesh....

The OP has a point and the thread has a specific topic.
Either stick to it or go create your own thread.

You are aware about the rules concerning off-topic postings and derailment, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The answer to this question you wouldn't be able to if using a common standard.
However, if the common standard was incorrect then all the designs using that standard would be incorrect, so it really doesn't matter if there was one designer or many designers. What matters is the common standard, where did that come from and is it correct?

This thread is about how creationists conclude on a SINGLE designer versus multiple designers. More specifically, about how they come to that conclusion, based on the reason they give themselves: "common design".

Again, please stick to topic.

Ii's an interesting topic and it would be a shame to see it lost to yet another attempt of obfuscation or derailment.

If you don't have anything of worth to contribute to this topic, then maybe stop posting.

Does any form of life exist that didn't come from something living? There is a code for all living things, who created the most simple form of this code? Where did it come from, this common standard?

All interesting questions. But off topic in this thread.
Create your own thread if you want them answered.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.
The point of my posts was to demonstrate the discrepancies found within your question, and that the question itself was a nonsensical, hypothetical, assumption, which does not hold water.

It seems you completely failed at it.

IN fact, it kind of sounds like you don't actually understand the question.

I merely gave to you, all of the reasons why that was so.

No. You just declared your beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

Would you agree that there is more agreement among creationists than evolutionists?

Old earth v. young earth.

Nope.

That is a great chasm. Creationists like to point to disagreements between evolutionists regarding, say, the precise location of a genus in a phylogenetic tree as evidence that evolution is wrong/in shambles/contradictory, etc.

But the OEC/YEC split would be like evolutionists arguing over whether Darwin was right or is Justatruthseeker is right.