If everything is designed...

[Delphiki]

I am not making any assumption. It is a contrast of two systems.

For two designed systems, just look at their complexity. The one designed by God is far far far far superior than the one designed by man. The simplest thing designed by God (e.g. rock, soil, leaf, water etc.) is far far better than the best and the most complicated thing designed by man.

That is how you tell. Very easy.

Ok, then how do you determine something like a rock is superior to, say, a cannon ball or a brick. I would say bricks are far superior than natural rocks when it comes to masonry. A solar panel is far superior at harnessing the energy of the sun than a leaf, isn't it? What about airplanes and automobiles? How superior are rocks when compared tho these? Humans can even make better rocks (rocks better suited for a desired purpose) that what can be found in nature, sooo....

How does one determine rocks, soil, leaves, and water are superior and how does one determine what you're supposed to be comparing these things to?

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, then how do you determine something like a rock is superior to, say, a cannon ball or a brick. I would say bricks are far superior than natural rocks when it comes to masonry. A solar panel is far superior at harnessing the energy of the sun than a leaf, isn't it? What about airplanes and automobiles? How superior are rocks when compared tho these? Humans can even make better rocks (rocks better suited for a desired purpose) that what can be found in nature, sooo....

How does one determine rocks, soil, leaves, and water are superior and how does one determine what you're supposed to be comparing these things to?

Good question.

So we need to set some criteria for the evaluation.

To me, one way to evaluate is to see how many physical/chemical principles are involved in the process of construction.

For example: in order to make a brick, all you need is a function of cementation. But in order to (make) a (natural) rock, boy, you don't want to know how complicated it is. The formation of a simple rock would easily involve at least dozens of factors.

 

[juvenissun]

You've only tried to deal with your assumption, not with the points I raised.

What is the purpose of these simplest things "designed by God"? I can't see any, except from the anthropocentric world view, which I reject. Please try and answer my questions.

I guess this question is off the scope of OP. But I will take it since it is a good one.

God's "design" or creation has only one purpose: make us His people.

It is very subjective and religious. But that is the only valid answer. Beyond that, like you said, it is hard to find a purpose for all the designs.

 

[becon]

It is still Intelligent design since Evolution cannot explain the origin of life anyhow

Go back to your teachers and ask them why they told you that evolution had something to do with the origins of life?
You are just showing the people here how little education you had.

 

[becon]

God's "design" or creation has only one purpose: make us His people.

That's what all religions pin their hopes on, if you're wrong you're just another animal destined to die.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go back to your teachers and ask them why they told you that evolution had something to do with the origins of life?

Why? they work for a state-run religion.

You are just showing the people here how little education you had.

Is that why you put a question mark at the end of a declarative statement?

 

[3rdHeaven]

So, since creationists and ID supporters purport that everything is designed, then how do we distinguish whether or not something is designed.

You would need something natural or not designed to compare to in order to determine another thing was designed.

Using the watch maker analogy, it's like finding the watch in a field of watches on a giant watch-planet.

Excellent question.

I am not your typical IDer, so I can't speak for them. But as I see it, creation began with the Big Bang, the creator was GOD.

Now God got the ball rolling, along with all the elements required to proceed forward in creation and evolution. This makes room for positive and negative reactions, even mutations and "mistakes".

I realize this does not fully address your question, but in a sense it does, that you will have examples of what appears to be unintelligent design along with intelligent design, if you look at the bigger picture it's all part of ID.

Your right there really is no real model to compare this too of unintelligent design. But that should show you the need to realize there can be nothing with out ID.

Also, I could ask you the same question in reverse.

How do you know this is not a intelligent design world with out a ID model to compare it to?

 

[becon]

Is that why you put a question mark at the end of a declarative statement?

That's why I'm considered to be smart, I make mistakes and I do my best to learn from my mistakes.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's why I'm considered to be smart, I make mistakes and I do my best to learn from my mistakes.

I'm glad I could teach you something.

 

[becon]

How do you know this is not a intelligent design world with out a ID model to compare it to?

That's something we will never know so all we can do is assume it's not, we have nothing to say that it is so we must assume it's not, we have no proof that it wasn't made by a giant water lily eating chipmunk so we must assume that it wasn't.

 

[3rdHeaven]

That's something we will never know so all we can do is assume it's not, we have nothing to say that it is so we must assume it's not, we have no proof that it wasn't made by a giant water lily eating chipmunk so we must assume that it wasn't.

I'm afraid your logic went out the window with the giant lily.

My point was simply with out a opposite model to compare the other, each is equally in question or subject to the same observations.

How ever logic should prevail regardless what position one takes.

God is logical, there is significant references to this since early time.

No God is logical, there is significant references to this since early time.

There is no logic or references to giant lily's.

Can we at least keep our argument relevant and logical, is that too hard?

 

[OllieFranz]

Is that why you put a question mark at the end of a declarative statement?

It wasn't a declarative sentence. It was an imperative sentence: it did not make a statement; it gave a command. If you are going to criticize someone's punctuation based on grammar, then get the grammar right.

 

[Philothei]

Go back to your teachers and ask them why they told you that evolution had something to do with the origins of life?
You are just showing the people here how little education you had.

That is what my point was...that it does not! I was never taught evolution BTW. So if it does not why are we cutting down Intelligence design again?

 

[AV1611VET]

It wasn't a declarative sentence. It was an imperative sentence: it did not make a statement; it gave a command. If you are going to criticize someone's punctuation based on grammar, then get the grammar right.

Try again.

Here's the statement:

You are just showing the people here how little education you had.

As an imperative, it would read: "Show the people here how little education you have."

 

[JustMeSee]

Why? they work for a state-run religion.

Is that why you put a question mark at the end of a declarative statement?

Try harder when you are attempting to derail threads.

 

[JustMeSee]

Try again.

Here's the statement:

As an imperative, it would read: "Show the people here how little education you have."

The period is placed outside of the quotation marks.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Go back to your teachers and ask them why they told you that evolution had something to do with the origins of life?

An imperative sentence that incorrectly ends with a question mark. It could be a speculative answer to a question (A: "Hey, what should I do next?" B: "I dunno, run for President?"), but given the context we know that's not the case.

You are just showing the people here how little education you had.

A declarative sentence, no more, no less.

As an imperative, it would read: "Show the people here how little education you have."

Period placement is legitimate. In the US, it's conventional (and, indeed, strictly taught) to put periods inside the quotation marks (the so-called 'aesthetic' technique), while in Britain it's conventional to put it outside the quotation unless it's specifically required by the quotation (the so-called 'logical' technique). I prefer the latter, as it makes logical sense, but AV is perfectly able to do either, and, since he's American, it shouldn't be a surprise he chose the 'aesthetic' form.

Now, move along, citizens.

 

[becon]

I was never taught evolution BTW.

That's why you are a creationist, you were wrongly taught to comment on things you know nothing about.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is what my point was...that it does not! I was never taught evolution BTW. So if it does not why are we cutting down Intelligence design again?

I refer you back to my response to your post, in post #40:

But it does not matter if evolution explains it or not It is still Intelligent design since Evolution cannot explain the origin of life anyhow

Even if an intelligent being created the original common ancestor, that wouldn't change the veracity of the theory of common descent (i.e., we'd still be descended from that common ancestor, biological diversity would still be a result of inheritable mutation, environmental attrition, etc). So, on the contrary, the origin of life is itself irrelevant to evolution.

Evolution can be seen as starting from a premise: "All life is descended from a common ancestor". From that premise, and a sprinkling of biological facts (the fact that life replicates, the fact that offspring inherit their parents' (mutated) traits, etc), we can explain the diversity of life on Earth today. The origin of that common ancestor is irrelevant: it could be abiogenesis, it could be a direct act by Brahman, it could be aliens, but whatever it is, evolution is utterly unchanged.

And, so, my statements stand

The point is that a) we are discussing the veracity of evolution and ID, b) the origin of the common ancestor of all life is irrelevant to (a), and c) while evolution itself doesn't answer the question of where the first organism came from, that doesn't mean scientists don't know. We do, after all, have a great many theories to explain the great many things in the universe. Biodiversity is explained by evolution by positing a common ancestor whence we all descend, and that ancestor's origins are explained by another theory: abiogenesis. While abiogenesis isn't on topic in this thread, I'm more than happy to discuss it with you in another thread.

 

[OllieFranz]

Try again.

Here's the statement:

"You are just showing the people here how little education you had."​

As an imperative, it would read: "Show the people here how little education you have."

Look again. That is not the sentence with the question mark. The sentence you criticized was:

"Go back to your teachers and ask them why they told you that evolution had something to do with the origins of life?"​