Design? -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Saturday, September 07, 06:39:18pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Design?

Author:
Damoclese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07/16/04 8:18am
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Welcome back Kemosabe" on 07/15/04 9:31pm

>
>Funny, creationists have said similar things about
>evolution.

Yes, they have. Of course, they're wrong.

>
>
>Impressed? Why be impressed that they've had so many
>failures with would-be intermediates?

I'm not sure that they've had "so many failures with intermediates". I think what creationists expect is something half one thing and half another. That's an expectation evolution isn't required to meet.

>
>Okay, suppose we find an obelisk on the moon of
>Jupiter just like the one that was in 2001: A Space
>Odyssey. Suppose the obelisk is clearly inscribed
>with, "This thing is designed, in case you couldn't
>tell already." Yes, we can tell if it was designed.
>Archaeologists can also rationally infer design even
>if they don't know who made it (beyond the fact that
>they're humans) or why.

Archaeologists have several assumptions working in their favor to make that inference. 1) They are on the planet Earth, and are familar with what is natural in that environment and what is not. 2)They are dealing in inanimate objects.

To make the inference that life is designed would imply that the earth isn't capable of producing life on its own. It relegates a potential natural process to something supernatural without any knowledge of what the earth is capable of over vast amounts of time.

>>Snow flakes look designed.
>
>Not to me they don't.

And therein lies the problem with inferring design. If a designer made humans, he wasn't very good at it, and should have given it up.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Disputable points	Wade A. Tisthammer	08/12/04 5:38pm