Darwin's Beagle ship replica plan [for his 200th birthday]

BBC News ^ | 19 July 2006 | Staff

[Fester Chugabrew]

If it were not the nature of intelligent design to create and arrange matter so that it performs specific functions you might have a point. Unfortunately neither is the case.

[Dimensio]

If it were not the nature of intelligent design to create and arrange matter so that it performs specific functions you might have a point.

That "intelligent design" may be a component in the process of arranging matter "so that it performs specific functions" is not evidence that "intelligent design" is a necessary component in such a process, nor is it evidence that "intelligent design" was a component in the origin of the universe. That an event is possible is not evidence that an event occured. You have offered no evidence that "intelligent design" is the best possible explanation for the existence of the universe, and in fact you have not even specified the mechanics of this alleged "intelligent design" process nor have you offered a method to evaluate your claims.

Using a strawman to claim that I do not have a point does not actually invalidate my statement.

[Fester Chugabrew]

As soon as you introduce the word "necessary" you imply, if not say outright, that you require proof as opposed to inference. I have never said organized matter performing specific functions "necessarily" involves intelligent design. It is no straw man to say you have no point, especially since you have no explanation for organized matter that performs specific functions. No possible explanation = no point. It could, however, be explained by intelligent design.

[Dimensio]

As soon as you introduce the word "necessary" you imply, if not say outright, that you require proof as opposed to inference

Incorrect. I am asking for evidence that your claim is a more reasonable explanation than any other, not "proof".

I have never said organized matter performing specific functions "necessarily" involves intelligent design.

Then, if "organized matter performing specific functions" can come about without "intelligent design", why is it more reasonable to believe that the universe came about through "intelligent design" than not?

It is no straw man to say you have no point, especially since you have no explanation for organized matter that performs specific functions.

I am not claiming a cause. You are. It is therefore your responsibility to show that evidence exists that shows that your proposed cause is the real cause. Thus far you have not done so.

It could, however, be explained by intelligent design.

That it "could" have been "intelligent design" is not in any way evidence that it was "intelligent design". Moreover, "intelligent design" itself is not a process, it is a modifier that can be applied to a process. You are asserting, without evidence, that a modifier applies to a process that you have not even specified.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I am not claiming a cause. You are.

No. I am suggesting a cause that is more likely than any other. You claim my suggestion is unreasonable yet offer no substitute. Since it is the essence of intelligent design to create and organize matter, it stands to reason that where there is organized matter, intelligent design may be involved.

[Dimensio]

No. I am suggesting a cause that is more likely than any other.

Why is this cause more likely than any other?

Since it is the essence of intelligent design to create and organize matter, it stands to reason that where there is organized matter, intelligent design may be involved.

You are attempting to argue that because a process "may" have occured it is reasonable to believe that the process did occur. That is not a logical inference.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Why is this cause more likely than any other?

Because it is the nature of intelligent design to organize matter in such a way as to be intelligible, consistent, and functional, just they way the physical universe in my neighborhood happens to be.

You are attempting to argue that because a process "may" have occurred it is reasonable to believe that the process did occur.

No. I am attempting to argue that because a process "may" have occurred it is reasonable to believe that it may have occurred. Not only so, but intelligent design most certainly does occur, and every time it does, the result is organized matter that performs specific functions.

[Dimensio]

Because it is the nature of intelligent design to organize matter in such a way as to be intelligible, consistent, and functional, just they way the physical universe in my neighborhood happens to be.

You have yet to explain why a different cause is less likely. As such, your claims are baseless conjecture.

I am attempting to argue that because a process "may" have occurred it is reasonable to believe that it may have occurred.

I have never denied that "intelligent design" may have occured. I have only stated that you have offered no logical reason to conclude that it is the most probable occurance, nor have you even offered an actual mechanism.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You have yet to explain why a different cause is less likely.

On the contrary, the likelihood is found in the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions. The essence of intelligent design (creating and arranging matter), the manner in which it becomes manifest (organized matter performing specific functions), and the intelligible nature of the physical universe all make the theory of intelligent design a reasonable one. If you want to argue that the above is unreasonable, or unscientific, then you'll have to provide positive evidence to support your negative argument.

[Dimensio]

On the contrary, the likelihood is found in the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions.

Why is it less reasonable to assume that a process not incorporating "intelligent design" is responsible for this?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Because it is not the nature of non-intelligence and non design to produce intelligible or purposeful matter and functions. Reasonable people, like reason itself, expect entities to act according to their nature, and also expect, when things act according to their nature, they will be consistent. It is inconsistent with the concept of intelligent design for unintelligible substances and events to develop.

That is not to say one may not dismiss intelligible matter, its organization, and its functions as merely having the appearance of being intelligently designed. Evolutionists do that all the time, but they do not have a scientific argument. It is a personal philosophy whereby the evidence is waved away in favor of personal predilections.

Why is it more reasonable to believe what is written in a telephone book than to disbelieve it?

[dread78645]

According to the ISAF there were 4 fatal shark attacks last year. In the world.

That doesn't seem right. There were a couple in Australia alone

World-wide: 59 attacks, 4 fatal.
Oz-land: 10 attacks, 2 fatal.

ISAF Statistics for the Worldwide Locations with the Highest Shark Attack Activity Since 1990.

[Dimensio]

Because it is not the nature of non-intelligence and non design to produce intelligible or purposeful matter and functions.

How have you determined this?

It is inconsistent with the concept of intelligent design for unintelligible substances and events to develop.

Please demonstrate that this claim is true.

[dread78645]

"Loss of 45 minutes and 5 IQ points" placemark

[Fester Chugabrew]

How have you determined this?

By direct observation and experience.

Please demonstrate that this claim is true.

You just did, by creating and posting an intelligible message, using all the necessary elements of the physical universe to do so, many of which elements functioned to your advantage yet apart from your knowledge, all of which elements may be reasonably inferred as intelligently designed.

[Dimensio]

By direct observation and experience.

Please elaborate on your observations and experience.

You just did, by creating and posting an intelligible message, using all the necessary elements of the physical universe to do so, many of which elements functioned to your advantage yet apart from your knowledge, all of which elements may be reasonably inferred as intelligently designed.

How does this demonstrate that "intelligent design" does not normally produre "unintelligible substances and events" in at least equal proportions?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Please explain why it is more reasonable to believe what is written in a telephone book than to disbelieve it.

[Dimensio]

Please explain why it is more reasonable to believe what is written in a telephone book than to disbelieve it.

The publishers of such books -- typically the phone company that services the area of distribution -- has a vested interest is providing accurate information. Moreover, a book that frequently contains errors without correction in subsequent volumes will no longer be trusted as accurate. How does this relate to your previous assertions. Also, why did you ignore my previous questions?

[Fester Chugabrew]

So, when you use a phone book, you think to yourself first: "I am going to accept this information as true because the people who provided it have a vested interest in accuracy." I don't think so. As for ignoring your previous questions, I've been answering them steadily over the past few days. Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over? Where have you been?

[andysandmikesmom]

Regarding the discussion a few days ago, between you and I on the matter of interpreting the Scriptures...there is currently an interesting thread running now on FR, which addresses this very subject, and the article which the post is about, addresses this very subject of interpretation of the Scriptures, and does so in a much better way than I can...might be worthwhile for you to take a look, so as to understand what I was talking about in our discussion...dont know if you will agree or not with the article, but certainly it shows that my thoughts about interpretation are hardly new...Who indeed, in the sole arbiter of which interpretation is the correct one?...I am sure that those who respond to the thread, will have interesting thoughts on this issue, which would involve evolution vs literal creation, as well as a whole host of other differences concerning Biblical interpretation...

Dont know if you would be interested in this or not, just thought I would pass it along...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1673305/posts