Quick Question for IDers

[AV1611VET]

Ah, sorry, I missed that. My apologies.

Been there, done that!

 

[juvenissun]

Paranoia? Projection?
I´m not planning to say anything. I am asking a question.

OK. A creation should have a careful design.
Now. What are you going to say? You may say that you accept my answer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since after all nothing works on randomness.

Did you really just say that?

 

[Ophiolite]

OK. A creation should have a careful design.
Now. What are you going to say? You may say that you accept my answer.

While thinking about the various responses in this thread I realised that I do not have a clear idea of what one might reasonably call a creation. From the stand point of intelligent design where exactly does an act of creation occur?

 

[quatona]

OK. A creation should have a careful design.
Now. What are you going to say? You may say that you accept my answer.

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[juvenissun]

While thinking about the various responses in this thread I realised that I do not have a clear idea of what one might reasonably call a creation. From the stand point of intelligent design where exactly does an act of creation occur?

That is the time when something begins to exist.

 

[juvenissun]

Is that a yes or a no?

Yes or no for what?

 

[Ophiolite]

That is the time when something begins to exist.

OK, thank you. So, would I be right in stating, by that definition the deposition of sand at a river mouth would be an act of creation? Or, since we are talking evolution specifically, rather than creation in general, presumably each new life is an act of creation. Yes?

I've tended to see creation as being much larger scale, where classes of things might be considered to be created, but not individuals. It's just a different perspective on the meaning. What is your take on it?

 

[juvenissun]

OK, thank you. So, would I be right in stating, by that definition the deposition of sand at a river mouth would be an act of creation? Or, since we are talking evolution specifically, rather than creation in general, presumably each new life is an act of creation. Yes?

I've tended to see creation as being much larger scale, where classes of things might be considered to be created, but not individuals. It's just a different perspective on the meaning. What is your take on it?

Yeah, I just created a dish of stir fry veggie 10 minutes ago.

 

[Ophiolite]

So running with that definition and returning to my example of the river creating the beach by depositing sand, there would be no need of designer in that case. Not concurrent with the act of creation. One might suppose the design element was handled by the creation of the fundamental particles, forces and constants that led to there being a river and sand and a place to deposit them in the first place. Would you agree with that take on things?

 

[Radrook]

So running with that definition and returning to my example of the river creating the beach by depositing sand, there would be no need of designer in that case. Not concurrent with the act of creation. One might suppose the design element was handled by the creation of the fundamental particles, forces and constants that led to there being a river and sand and a place to deposit them in the first place. Would you agree with that take on things?

I can create or PRODUCE a crack in a rock by beating it with a hammer.

 

[Ophiolite]

I can create or PRODUCE a crack in a rock by beating it with a hammer.

That is more in line with my sense of the word create. However, it seems contrary to Juvenissun's perception. This confirms what most of us already know: meanings can vary with context and individual. Much confusion arises from this. I'm seeking to get us on the same page with this important terminology.

So, when nature constructs a beach, is this - in your lexicon - an act of creation? Whether yes or no, has the beach been designed?

 

[Radrook]

That is more in line with my sense of the word create. However, it seems contrary to Juvenissun's perception. This confirms what most of us already know: meanings can vary with context and individual. Much confusion arises from this. I'm seeking to get us on the same page with this important terminology.

So, when nature constructs a beach, is this - in your lexicon - an act of creation? Whether yes or no, has the beach been designed?

Definition of design

transitive verb
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan :

Definition of CREATE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of Create

transitive verb

1 : to bring into existence <God created the heaven and the earth — Genesis 1:1(Authorized Version)>

2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank <was created a lieutenant>b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior <her arrival created a terrible fuss> <create new jobs>

Definition of DESIGN
-----------------------------------------------------
If to design means to construct according to a plan then clearly the river had no plan when it mindlessly carved out its course so the word design isn't applicable because it demands foresight and planning.

However, obviously the river did PRODUCE, MAKE or create the shoreline. But it did NOT design the shoreline in the sense described above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If to design means to construct according to a plan then clearly the river had no plan when it mindlessly carved out its course so the word design isn't applicable because it demands foresight and planning.

What about "natural design"?
That doesn't demand "foresight and planning", does it?

 

[Radrook]

What about "natural design"?
That doesn't demand "foresight and planning", does it?

From the atheist viewpoint it doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From the atheist viewpoint it doesn't.

But not from the theistic, oeps I mean "intelligen design", viewpoint?
In that case, then what is the difference between natural and unnatural design?

It smells like "heads I win, tails you lose!" again.

 

[Larniavc]

Except there are more than one definitions given for each word. That´s why I am asking you IDers what exactly you mean.

Except there are more than one definitions given for each word. That´s why I am asking you IDers what exactly you mean.

You won't get an answer to that.

What you will get is quotes from other people, suggestions that he/she cannot answer without further information or that you won't accept what he/she means so he/she won't waste his/her time.

On every thread.

 

[quatona]

You won't get an answer to that.

What you will get is quotes from other people, suggestions that he/she cannot answer without further information or that you won't accept what he/she means so he/she won't waste his/her time.

On every thread.

Colour me an incurable optimist.

 

[Radrook]

/

But not from the theistic, oeps I mean "intelligen design", viewpoint?
In that case, then what is the difference between natural and unnatural design?

It smells like "heads I win, tails you lose!" again.

.
The word unnatural is often used to refer to the abnormal such as a creature composed of scavenged body parts from the dead such as Frankenstein's monster. Or someone who prefers to drink blood instead of water. Or someone who prefers to have sex with animals instead of humans. Or to events which don't fit in with what we usually associate with normal such as the red rain that has fallen in Asia or of fish suddenly falling out of a clear sky or birds suddenly dropping dead en mass.

BTW
I don't understand what you mean by your heads/tails comment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The word unnatural is often used to refer to the abnormal such as a creature composed of scavenged body parts from the dead such as Frankenstein's monster. Or someone who prefers to drink blood instead of water. Or someone who prefers to have sex with animals instead of humans. Or to events which don't fit in with what we usually associate with normal such as the red rain that has fallen in Asia or of fish suddenly falling out of a clear sky or birds suddenly dropping dead en mass.

You're playing dumb, aren't you?

You know very well that I meant design (patterns) as a result of natural processes as opposed to being a result of unnatural processes.

A snowflake is a natural design.
A car is an unnatural design. Or artificial design, if you wish.

BTW
I don't understand what you mean by your heads/tails comment.

It means that you are arguing in such a way that you pretend your conclusion to be valid in all cases - including when your arguments are contradicted.

In this particular case, you're just calling anything "designed".
The polar bear's white fur is a great example.

First, you gave criteria on how to "detect" design.
I then showed how white fur of this bear fits your criteria, yet is not designed.

And then you came back with some silly excuse, claiming it was designed anyway - even when it isn't.