Simon's Theory of Origins was brought about by findings of the author (an auditor) regarding science in general and evolution in particular.
Simon's Theory says that an object is designed /created if ALL of the below criteria are in the positive (YES). Otherwise, the object is either accidentally formed or something else.
Criteria #1- Is object made up of parts, or components that can be recognized by our senses; i.e. sight, hearing, smell, touch, power of observation?
Criteria #2- Was the object formed by natural or man-made process?
Criteria #3- Is there ABSENCE of reasonably credible evidence that:
(a) the object was formed /made due to accident or blind chance, OR
( b ) the object is a mere by-product (or resulting waste) of a process
Criteria # 4- Is there UTILITLY or PURPOSE--apparent or not--for the object?
Criteria# 5: Is the object capable of being WHOLLY or PARTIALLY imitated, copied, or reproduced?
Definitions:• Utility or Purpose—means use; ordinary usage.
• reasonably credible evidence – It is an evidence that when evaluated by a reasonable person—a logical, open-minded and thinking person—would lead him to believe something asserted. An example of such evidence is the mathematical probability (odds) of something happening given certain conditions.
Using the above criteria, the following are some results:
#1 Humans are designed /created because all of the above 5 criteria are positive (Yes). The utility of humans is that we are part of the food chain. Alive we are omnivores. Dead we are food for the maggots.
#2 The earth is designed /created because all of the above 5 criteria are positive (yes). The utility of the earth is that it is the habitat of living and non-living things.
#3 Time is a mystery because criteria # 1 and 2 are negative (NO) So is the Creator or God.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 27 2011, 09:49 PM)
Simon's Theory says that an object is designed /created if ALL of the below criteria are in the positive (YES).
Criteria #1- Is object made up of parts, or components that can be recognized by our senses; i.e. sight, hearing, smell, touch, power of observation?
Michaelangelo's David is made of one solid block of marble. It has no components in any sense higher than crystallography. Not designed, then?
Yes for all complex structures in the universe regardless of design or lack thereof. What, aside from fundamental particles and the fabric of spacetime itself could even conceivably answer no to this?
Yes for all complex structures in the universe regardless of design or lack thereof. What, aside from fundamental particles and the fabric of spacetime itself could even conceivably answer no to this?
Criteria #3- Is there ABSENCE of reasonably credible evidence that:
(a) the object was formed /made due to accident or blind chance, OR
( b ) the object is a mere by-product (or resulting waste) of a process
Wave patterns in sand where waves wash across it are not random in many senses. Nor are they a by-product of wave-action. They are randomly seeded, but their development is a complex feedback process between the sand and the waves. Fits all your criteria for design. Do you really believe that?
If the purpose does not have to be apparent, I can answer yes to this for anything, merely asserting that the thing has a non-apparent purpose.
If the purpose does not have to be apparent, I can answer yes to this for anything, merely asserting that the thing has a non-apparent purpose.
Criteria# 5: Is the object capable of being WHOLLY or PARTIALLY imitated, copied, or reproduced?
Again, true for any non-fundamental aspect of the universe, and all fundamental particles, too (maybe not the Higgs just yet
).
With all due respect, three of your criteria (incidentally and pedantically, the singular is 'criterion') appear to be unable to distinguish between any two things under the sun, and the other two I have provided counter examples for. I think either clarification or a fundamental rethink is needed.
You also seem to have missed the order-from-chaos capabilities of self-organising systems. These make it necessary to define extremely carefully what you mean by 'design', which I don't think you've done.
Sorry, but I really think this idea either needs a LOT better communication or a total rethink.
Michaelangelo's David is made of one solid block of marble. It has no components in any sense higher than crystallography. Not designed, then?
Yes for all complex structures in the universe regardless of design or lack thereof. What, aside from fundamental particles and the fabric of spacetime itself could even conceivably answer no to this?
Wave patterns in sand where waves wash across it are not random in many senses. Nor are they a by-product of wave-action. They are randomly seeded, but their development is a complex feedback process between the sand and the waves. Fits all your criteria for design. Do you really believe that?
If the purpose does not have to be apparent, I can answer yes to this for anything, merely asserting that the thing has a non-apparent purpose.
Again, true for any non-fundamental aspect of the universe, and all fundamental particles, too (maybe not the Higgs just yet).
With all due respect, three of your criteria (incidentally and pedantically, the singular is 'criterion') appear to be unable to distinguish between any two things under the sun, and the other two I have provided counter examples for. I think either clarification or a fundamental rethink is needed.
You also seem to have missed the order-from-chaos capabilities of self-organising systems. These make it necessary to define extremely carefully what you mean by 'design', which I don't think you've done.
Sorry, but I really think this idea either needs a LOT better communication or a total rethink.
Hi Kino,
May I respectfully ask what your profession is? And may I use your statements in my coming book?
Also, I find it hard replying to your comments, I have to go up. Any short cut?
Here are my replies to your comment.
Michaelangelo's David is in human form. It has arms, legs, etc as parts or components. It is an imitation, copy of a human (although not alive). Regardless if it is made up one solid marble, plastic, and so on. So, designed. A rock in my book, because it did not pass criterion #3 (there is evidence that it could be a mere by-product of the earth's movement, volcanic eruption, etc, is not designed.
Michaelangelo's David is in human form. It has arms, legs, etc as parts or components. It is an imitation, copy of a human (although not alive). Regardless if it is made up one solid marble, plastic, and so on. So, designed. A rock in my book, because it did not pass criterion #3 (there is evidence that it could be a mere by-product of the earth's movement, volcanic eruption, etc, is not designed.
Yes for all complex structures in the universe regardless of design or lack thereof. What, aside from fundamental particles and the fabric of space time itself could even conceivably answer no to this?
Time has no particles or components I believe. So, it will not pass the 1st criterion. It may not pass also criterion #2. So, it is mysterious. The same with space, although I'm a little bit iffy on this. If space has no components
then it is mysterious.
Who said "random" and "complex" did I mention it in any of the criteria? Obviously, there is evidence of these being accidentally caused by wind. Criterion# 3 is not met. Thus, accidentally formed.
Who said "random" and "complex" did I mention it in any of the criteria? Obviously, there is evidence of these being accidentally caused by wind. Criterion# 3 is not met. Thus, accidentally formed.
order-from-chaos capabilities of self-organising systems.
Did I mention this in any of the criteria? As I said in the OP (opening post) an object to be designed must pass ( YES answer) all of the criteria.
Criteria #1- Is object made up of parts, or components that can be recognized by our senses; i.e. sight, hearing, smell, touch, power of observation?
Michaelangelo's David is made of one solid block of marble. It has no components in any sense higher than crystallography. Not designed, then?
QUOTE
Criteria #2- Was the object formed by natural or man-made process?
Yes for all complex structures in the universe regardless of design or lack thereof. What, aside from fundamental particles and the fabric of spacetime itself could even conceivably answer no to this?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Criteria #2- Was the object formed by natural or man-made process? |
Yes for all complex structures in the universe regardless of design or lack thereof. What, aside from fundamental particles and the fabric of spacetime itself could even conceivably answer no to this?
Criteria #3- Is there ABSENCE of reasonably credible evidence that:
(a) the object was formed /made due to accident or blind chance, OR
( b ) the object is a mere by-product (or resulting waste) of a process
Wave patterns in sand where waves wash across it are not random in many senses. Nor are they a by-product of wave-action. They are randomly seeded, but their development is a complex feedback process between the sand and the waves. Fits all your criteria for design. Do you really believe that?
QUOTE
Criteria # 4- Is there UTILITLY or PURPOSE--apparent or not--for the object?
If the purpose does not have to be apparent, I can answer yes to this for anything, merely asserting that the thing has a non-apparent purpose.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Criteria # 4- Is there UTILITLY or PURPOSE--apparent or not--for the object? |
If the purpose does not have to be apparent, I can answer yes to this for anything, merely asserting that the thing has a non-apparent purpose.
Criteria# 5: Is the object capable of being WHOLLY or PARTIALLY imitated, copied, or reproduced?
Again, true for any non-fundamental aspect of the universe, and all fundamental particles, too (maybe not the Higgs just yet
).With all due respect, three of your criteria (incidentally and pedantically, the singular is 'criterion') appear to be unable to distinguish between any two things under the sun, and the other two I have provided counter examples for. I think either clarification or a fundamental rethink is needed.
You also seem to have missed the order-from-chaos capabilities of self-organising systems. These make it necessary to define extremely carefully what you mean by 'design', which I don't think you've done.
Sorry, but I really think this idea either needs a LOT better communication or a total rethink.
Total rethink.
BTW, criteria used as singular is gaining acceptance, much like agenda to agendum.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criteria
BTW, criteria used as singular is gaining acceptance, much like agenda to agendum.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criteria
Some alleged "stone tools" are just "rocks" in another's eyes. Are they designed? In this case where human agency isn't proven, your "theory of origins" is unilluminating.
Basically, all this boils down to "Things are designed if they look designed" which is unscientific. Round things look designed, planets and stars are round, then are all planets and stars designed? Nonsense.
Basically, all this boils down to "Things are designed if they look designed" which is unscientific. Round things look designed, planets and stars are round, then are all planets and stars designed? Nonsense.
QUOTE (Kino+Apr 27 2011, 11:03 PM)
Michaelangelo's David is made of one solid block of marble. It has no components in any sense higher than crystallography. Not designed, then?
Yes for all complex structures in the universe regardless of design or lack thereof. What, aside from fundamental particles and the fabric of spacetime itself could even conceivably answer no to this?
Wave patterns in sand where waves wash across it are not random in many senses. Nor are they a by-product of wave-action. They are randomly seeded, but their development is a complex feedback process between the sand and the waves. Fits all your criteria for design. Do you really believe that?
If the purpose does not have to be apparent, I can answer yes to this for anything, merely asserting that the thing has a non-apparent purpose.
Again, true for any non-fundamental aspect of the universe, and all fundamental particles, too (maybe not the Higgs just yet
).With all due respect, three of your criteria (incidentally and pedantically, the singular is 'criterion') appear to be unable to distinguish between any two things under the sun, and the other two I have provided counter examples for. I think either clarification or a fundamental rethink is needed.
You also seem to have missed the order-from-chaos capabilities of self-organising systems. These make it necessary to define extremely carefully what you mean by 'design', which I don't think you've done.
Sorry, but I really think this idea either needs a LOT better communication or a total rethink.
Hi Kino,
May I respectfully ask what your profession is? And may I use your statements in my coming book?
Also, I find it hard replying to your comments, I have to go up. Any short cut?
Here are my replies to your comment.
QUOTE
Michaelangelo's David is made of one solid block of marble. It has no components in any sense higher than crystallography. Not designed, then?
Michaelangelo's David is in human form. It has arms, legs, etc as parts or components. It is an imitation, copy of a human (although not alive). Regardless if it is made up one solid marble, plastic, and so on. So, designed. A rock in my book, because it did not pass criterion #3 (there is evidence that it could be a mere by-product of the earth's movement, volcanic eruption, etc, is not designed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Michaelangelo's David is made of one solid block of marble. It has no components in any sense higher than crystallography. Not designed, then? |
Michaelangelo's David is in human form. It has arms, legs, etc as parts or components. It is an imitation, copy of a human (although not alive). Regardless if it is made up one solid marble, plastic, and so on. So, designed. A rock in my book, because it did not pass criterion #3 (there is evidence that it could be a mere by-product of the earth's movement, volcanic eruption, etc, is not designed.
Yes for all complex structures in the universe regardless of design or lack thereof. What, aside from fundamental particles and the fabric of space time itself could even conceivably answer no to this?
Time has no particles or components I believe. So, it will not pass the 1st criterion. It may not pass also criterion #2. So, it is mysterious. The same with space, although I'm a little bit iffy on this. If space has no components
then it is mysterious.
QUOTE
Wave patterns in sand where waves wash across it are not random in many senses. Nor are they a by-product of wave-action. They are randomly seeded, but their development is a complex feedback process between the sand and the waves. Fits all your criteria for design. Do you really believe that?
Who said "random" and "complex" did I mention it in any of the criteria? Obviously, there is evidence of these being accidentally caused by wind. Criterion# 3 is not met. Thus, accidentally formed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wave patterns in sand where waves wash across it are not random in many senses. Nor are they a by-product of wave-action. They are randomly seeded, but their development is a complex feedback process between the sand and the waves. Fits all your criteria for design. Do you really believe that? |
Who said "random" and "complex" did I mention it in any of the criteria? Obviously, there is evidence of these being accidentally caused by wind. Criterion# 3 is not met. Thus, accidentally formed.
order-from-chaos capabilities of self-organising systems.
Did I mention this in any of the criteria? As I said in the OP (opening post) an object to be designed must pass ( YES answer) all of the criteria.
Synth 75 said:
Me: Thanks for the help. English is not my native tongue, you know.
rpenner said:
Me: Thanks for the help. English is not my native tongue, you know.
rpenner said: Some alleged "stone tools" are just "rocks" in another's eyes. Are they designed? In this case where human agency isn't proven, your "theory of origins" is unilluminating.
Basically, all this boils down to "Things are designed if they look designed" which is unscientific. Round things look designed, planets and stars are round, then are all planets and stars designed? Nonsense.
Me: I beg to disagree the theory is unilluminating. Consider this scenario. On a table you are shown 5 grains of genetically modified rice ('designer rice' if you will), and 5 grains of wild natural rice. They have the same look, size, etc. You are unaware of the 'designer rice'. You have no additional data. You are not allowed to add assumptions. The question posed to you is this: WHICH OF THE RICE GRAINS ARE DESIGNED, W/C ONES IF ANY, ARE PRODUCTS OF ACCIDENT?
BY using Simon's Theory of Origins, you can logically answer that both are designed.
QUOTE
BTW, criteria used as singular is gaining acceptance, much like agenda to agendum.
Me: Thanks for the help. English is not my native tongue, you know.
rpenner said:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| BTW, criteria used as singular is gaining acceptance, much like agenda to agendum. |
Me: Thanks for the help. English is not my native tongue, you know.
rpenner said: Some alleged "stone tools" are just "rocks" in another's eyes. Are they designed? In this case where human agency isn't proven, your "theory of origins" is unilluminating.
Basically, all this boils down to "Things are designed if they look designed" which is unscientific. Round things look designed, planets and stars are round, then are all planets and stars designed? Nonsense.
Me: I beg to disagree the theory is unilluminating. Consider this scenario. On a table you are shown 5 grains of genetically modified rice ('designer rice' if you will), and 5 grains of wild natural rice. They have the same look, size, etc. You are unaware of the 'designer rice'. You have no additional data. You are not allowed to add assumptions. The question posed to you is this: WHICH OF THE RICE GRAINS ARE DESIGNED, W/C ONES IF ANY, ARE PRODUCTS OF ACCIDENT?
BY using Simon's Theory of Origins, you can logically answer that both are designed.
That's why it's unilluminating.
Polished grains of rice as sold in stores are all man-made. Firstly through cultivation and selection. Secondly through mechanical dehulling and "polishing" away the germ, and thirdly through splicing in of genes in the GM case.
The case of rocks is appropriate since a beautiful rock doorstop may be man-carved, man-colored and generally man-designed, or it may be the undesigned product of natural processes which just happened to be man-selected. (Or any combination of the above.) If it is being used as a doorstop, the so-called "Simon's Theory of Origins" will always claim it is designed.
Polished grains of rice as sold in stores are all man-made. Firstly through cultivation and selection. Secondly through mechanical dehulling and "polishing" away the germ, and thirdly through splicing in of genes in the GM case.
The case of rocks is appropriate since a beautiful rock doorstop may be man-carved, man-colored and generally man-designed, or it may be the undesigned product of natural processes which just happened to be man-selected. (Or any combination of the above.) If it is being used as a doorstop, the so-called "Simon's Theory of Origins" will always claim it is designed.
rpenner said:
Me: Let me show you how it is illuminating. Case 1 is about the 5 grains of GM case, and 5 grains of natural rice.
Did you notice that Simon's Theory is a series of questions answerable by "YES" or "NO"? If all the answers are YES, then you can conclude both are designed. If otherwise, then it is not designed.
Case 2- Use the same questions. If all of the answers are YES then designed. If one is NO--e.g. C# 3 Absence of Evidence that object(s) was accidentally formed--meaning there is evidence one or both was accidentally formed, then that object is not designed.
rpenner further said:
Me: Let me show you how it is illuminating. Case 1 is about the 5 grains of GM case, and 5 grains of natural rice.
Did you notice that Simon's Theory is a series of questions answerable by "YES" or "NO"? If all the answers are YES, then you can conclude both are designed. If otherwise, then it is not designed.
Case 2- Use the same questions. If all of the answers are YES then designed. If one is NO--e.g. C# 3 Absence of Evidence that object(s) was accidentally formed--meaning there is evidence one or both was accidentally formed, then that object is not designed.
rpenner further said:
undesigned product of natural processes
Me: That is a pre-conceived notion, I believe. How do you know that natural processes are ALL undesigned? Simon's Theory, I believe, is a cure for that preconceived notion.
QUOTE
That's why it's unilluminating.
Polished grains of rice as sold in stores are all man-made. Firstly through cultivation and selection. Secondly through mechanical dehulling and "polishing" away the germ, and thirdly through splicing in of genes in the GM case.
The case of rocks is appropriate since a beautiful rock doorstop may be man-carved, man-colored and generally man-designed, or it may be the undesigned product of natural processes which just happened to be man-selected. (Or any combination of the above.) If it is being used as a doorstop, the so-called "Simon's Theory of Origins" will always claim it is designed
Polished grains of rice as sold in stores are all man-made. Firstly through cultivation and selection. Secondly through mechanical dehulling and "polishing" away the germ, and thirdly through splicing in of genes in the GM case.
The case of rocks is appropriate since a beautiful rock doorstop may be man-carved, man-colored and generally man-designed, or it may be the undesigned product of natural processes which just happened to be man-selected. (Or any combination of the above.) If it is being used as a doorstop, the so-called "Simon's Theory of Origins" will always claim it is designed
Me: Let me show you how it is illuminating. Case 1 is about the 5 grains of GM case, and 5 grains of natural rice.
Did you notice that Simon's Theory is a series of questions answerable by "YES" or "NO"? If all the answers are YES, then you can conclude both are designed. If otherwise, then it is not designed.
Case 2- Use the same questions. If all of the answers are YES then designed. If one is NO--e.g. C# 3 Absence of Evidence that object(s) was accidentally formed--meaning there is evidence one or both was accidentally formed, then that object is not designed.
rpenner further said:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's why it's unilluminating. Polished grains of rice as sold in stores are all man-made. Firstly through cultivation and selection. Secondly through mechanical dehulling and "polishing" away the germ, and thirdly through splicing in of genes in the GM case. The case of rocks is appropriate since a beautiful rock doorstop may be man-carved, man-colored and generally man-designed, or it may be the undesigned product of natural processes which just happened to be man-selected. (Or any combination of the above.) If it is being used as a doorstop, the so-called "Simon's Theory of Origins" will always claim it is designed |
Me: Let me show you how it is illuminating. Case 1 is about the 5 grains of GM case, and 5 grains of natural rice.
Did you notice that Simon's Theory is a series of questions answerable by "YES" or "NO"? If all the answers are YES, then you can conclude both are designed. If otherwise, then it is not designed.
Case 2- Use the same questions. If all of the answers are YES then designed. If one is NO--e.g. C# 3 Absence of Evidence that object(s) was accidentally formed--meaning there is evidence one or both was accidentally formed, then that object is not designed.
rpenner further said:
undesigned product of natural processes
Me: That is a pre-conceived notion, I believe. How do you know that natural processes are ALL undesigned? Simon's Theory, I believe, is a cure for that preconceived notion.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 28 2011, 11:55 AM)
Case 2- Use the same questions. If all of the answers are YES then designed. If one is NO--e.g. C# 3 Absence of Evidence that object(s) was accidentally formed--meaning there is evidence one or both was accidentally formed, then that object is not designed.
There's a lack of evidence that a crystal formation, with its regular lattice structure, is accidentally formed, and its shape weights heavily on an assumption of it having a purpose. Actually, if we look closely enough, we find everything to have a very regular structure, and part of a hierarchy of support (purpose).
So in this light, your criteria are moot, as everything can be deemed designed. It makes no significant differentiation of anything.
There's a lack of evidence that a crystal formation, with its regular lattice structure, is accidentally formed, and its shape weights heavily on an assumption of it having a purpose. Actually, if we look closely enough, we find everything to have a very regular structure, and part of a hierarchy of support (purpose).
So in this light, your criteria are moot, as everything can be deemed designed. It makes no significant differentiation of anything.
synthsin75:
Me: Remember, that Simon’s Theory has 5 criteria, not just one. Let’s test this particular object:
C#1 – A discernable parts or components? YES
C# 2- Formed by natural OR man-made process? – YES
C# 3 – Absence of Reasonably Credible Evidence that it was formed by accident or blind chance? – YES (according to you)
C# 4 – Does it have utility / purpose—apparent or not? – YES (conditional)
C# 5- Can it be imitated, copied, wholly or partially? – YES
Conclusion: The object is designed. If you are able to successfully argue—with a reasonably convincing evidence for example-- that the object has no utility or purpose, then the object is not designed. If you can successfully argue that any one of those criteria is not met ( answer is NO) then the object is not designed. Simple.
Me: Remember, that Simon’s Theory has 5 criteria, not just one. Let’s test this particular object:
C#1 – A discernable parts or components? YES
C# 2- Formed by natural OR man-made process? – YES
C# 3 – Absence of Reasonably Credible Evidence that it was formed by accident or blind chance? – YES (according to you)
C# 4 – Does it have utility / purpose—apparent or not? – YES (conditional)
C# 5- Can it be imitated, copied, wholly or partially? – YES
Conclusion: The object is designed. If you are able to successfully argue—with a reasonably convincing evidence for example-- that the object has no utility or purpose, then the object is not designed. If you can successfully argue that any one of those criteria is not met ( answer is NO) then the object is not designed. Simple.
So in this light, your criteria are moot, as everything can be deemed designed. It makes no significant differentiation of anything.
Simon’s theory does not make any differentiation between naturally formed and man-made objects. To do so would be to have a PRECONCEIVED IDEA that ALL naturally formed objects are formed by accident. I believe a number of scientists would disagree with you. (But that is not my province. My province, as an auditor, is to come up with objective and verifiable SET OF CRITERIA, which should be applied to all objects.
I'll give you one "man-made" sample of accidentally formed object--the pothole on your road. ( Unless of course, again, there is absence of evidence that it was accidentally formed because it was purposely made.)
May I know what your profession is?
QUOTE
There's a lack of evidence that a crystal formation, with its regular lattice structure, is accidentally formed, and its shape weights heavily on an assumption of it having a purpose. Actually, if we look closely enough, we find everything to have a very regular structure, and part of a hierarchy of support (purpose).
Me: Remember, that Simon’s Theory has 5 criteria, not just one. Let’s test this particular object:
C#1 – A discernable parts or components? YES
C# 2- Formed by natural OR man-made process? – YES
C# 3 – Absence of Reasonably Credible Evidence that it was formed by accident or blind chance? – YES (according to you)
C# 4 – Does it have utility / purpose—apparent or not? – YES (conditional)
C# 5- Can it be imitated, copied, wholly or partially? – YES
Conclusion: The object is designed. If you are able to successfully argue—with a reasonably convincing evidence for example-- that the object has no utility or purpose, then the object is not designed. If you can successfully argue that any one of those criteria is not met ( answer is NO) then the object is not designed. Simple.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There's a lack of evidence that a crystal formation, with its regular lattice structure, is accidentally formed, and its shape weights heavily on an assumption of it having a purpose. Actually, if we look closely enough, we find everything to have a very regular structure, and part of a hierarchy of support (purpose). |
Me: Remember, that Simon’s Theory has 5 criteria, not just one. Let’s test this particular object:
C#1 – A discernable parts or components? YES
C# 2- Formed by natural OR man-made process? – YES
C# 3 – Absence of Reasonably Credible Evidence that it was formed by accident or blind chance? – YES (according to you)
C# 4 – Does it have utility / purpose—apparent or not? – YES (conditional)
C# 5- Can it be imitated, copied, wholly or partially? – YES
Conclusion: The object is designed. If you are able to successfully argue—with a reasonably convincing evidence for example-- that the object has no utility or purpose, then the object is not designed. If you can successfully argue that any one of those criteria is not met ( answer is NO) then the object is not designed. Simple.
So in this light, your criteria are moot, as everything can be deemed designed. It makes no significant differentiation of anything.
Simon’s theory does not make any differentiation between naturally formed and man-made objects. To do so would be to have a PRECONCEIVED IDEA that ALL naturally formed objects are formed by accident. I believe a number of scientists would disagree with you. (But that is not my province. My province, as an auditor, is to come up with objective and verifiable SET OF CRITERIA, which should be applied to all objects.
I'll give you one "man-made" sample of accidentally formed object--the pothole on your road. ( Unless of course, again, there is absence of evidence that it was accidentally formed because it was purposely made.)
May I know what your profession is?
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 28 2011, 12:51 PM)
I'll give you one "man-made" sample of accidentally formed object--the pothole on your road. ( Unless of course, again, there is absence of evidence that it was accidentally formed because it was purposely made.)
May I know what your profession is?
So what do potholes, or anything else that can be distinguished by these criteria, have to do with evolution, as "an alternative"?
And no, you may not know my profession, as there can only be dubious reason to make such a request. You should be capable of defending your ideas without recourse to anything but what is brought against it.
May I know what your profession is?
So what do potholes, or anything else that can be distinguished by these criteria, have to do with evolution, as "an alternative"?
And no, you may not know my profession, as there can only be dubious reason to make such a request. You should be capable of defending your ideas without recourse to anything but what is brought against it.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 28 2011, 07:15 PM)
So what do potholes, or anything else that can be distinguished by these criteria, have to do with evolution, as "an alternative"?
And no, you may not know my profession, as there can only be dubious reason to make such a request. You should be capable of defending your ideas without recourse to anything but what is brought against it.
And no, you may not know my profession, as there can only be dubious reason to make such a request. You should be capable of defending your ideas without recourse to anything but what is brought against it.
QUOTE (brucep+Apr 28 2011, 04:06 PM)
Is this who he's referring to?
http://www.wpr.org/book/simon%20conway%20m...0transcript.pdf
Doesn't seem to be, as that fellow says:
My bet is it's Simple Simon.
http://www.wpr.org/book/simon%20conway%20m...0transcript.pdf
Doesn't seem to be, as that fellow says:
QUOTE
Once you start importing words like “purpose” or “design” - which have all sorts of agendas which I find too narrow and constricting - we’re throwing away our imaginative powers.
My bet is it's Simple Simon.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 28 2011, 06:51 PM)
C#1 – A discernable parts or components?
intact grain of rice: YES
harvested grain of rice: YES
polished grain of white rice: NO
Therefore man-made white rice is not designed?!?
intact grain of rice: YES
harvested grain of rice: YES
polished grain of white rice: NO
Therefore man-made white rice is not designed?!?
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 28 2011, 07:15 PM)
So what do potholes, or anything else that can be distinguished by these criteria, have to do with evolution, as "an alternative"?
And no, you may not know my profession, as there can only be dubious reason to make such a request. You should be capable of defending your ideas without recourse to anything but what is brought against it.
Synthsin75 said
Me: The pothole is just an example of how Simon’s Theory could be used to OBJECTIVELY assess, Prima Facie, if a naturally formed or man-made object is designed or otherwise. Simon’s Theory is a challenge to the Theory of Evolution (TOE). It is a prima facie positive evidence that some (not all) objects formed by natural processes are created / designed.
(I don’t have time to discuss w/ you TOE, nor the appetite to do so. So, I won’t reply to additional comments re. TOE. )
Synthsin75 said
Me: The pothole is just an example of how Simon’s Theory could be used to OBJECTIVELY assess, Prima Facie, if a naturally formed or man-made object is designed or otherwise. Simon’s Theory is a challenge to the Theory of Evolution (TOE). It is a prima facie positive evidence that some (not all) objects formed by natural processes are created / designed.
(I don’t have time to discuss w/ you TOE, nor the appetite to do so. So, I won’t reply to additional comments re. TOE. )
Synthsin75 saidAnd no, you may not know my profession, as there can only be dubious reason to make such a request. You should be capable of defending your ideas without recourse to anything but what is brought against it
Me: Me: In my book, I want to include an appendix on “What Critics Say..” . For example, Critic 1 ( a physicist) said: this is ridiculous...or words to that effect. So, it would be helpful to just mention your qualification as I mentioned mine (an auditor).
And thank you very much for defending me against stereotyping as done by Brucep.
And no, you may not know my profession, as there can only be dubious reason to make such a request. You should be capable of defending your ideas without recourse to anything but what is brought against it.
Synthsin75 said
QUOTE
So what do potholes, or anything else that can be distinguished by these criteria, have to do with evolution, as "an alternative"?
Me: The pothole is just an example of how Simon’s Theory could be used to OBJECTIVELY assess, Prima Facie, if a naturally formed or man-made object is designed or otherwise. Simon’s Theory is a challenge to the Theory of Evolution (TOE). It is a prima facie positive evidence that some (not all) objects formed by natural processes are created / designed.
(I don’t have time to discuss w/ you TOE, nor the appetite to do so. So, I won’t reply to additional comments re. TOE. )
Synthsin75 said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So what do potholes, or anything else that can be distinguished by these criteria, have to do with evolution, as "an alternative"? |
Me: The pothole is just an example of how Simon’s Theory could be used to OBJECTIVELY assess, Prima Facie, if a naturally formed or man-made object is designed or otherwise. Simon’s Theory is a challenge to the Theory of Evolution (TOE). It is a prima facie positive evidence that some (not all) objects formed by natural processes are created / designed.
(I don’t have time to discuss w/ you TOE, nor the appetite to do so. So, I won’t reply to additional comments re. TOE. )
Synthsin75 saidAnd no, you may not know my profession, as there can only be dubious reason to make such a request. You should be capable of defending your ideas without recourse to anything but what is brought against it
Me: Me: In my book, I want to include an appendix on “What Critics Say..” . For example, Critic 1 ( a physicist) said: this is ridiculous...or words to that effect. So, it would be helpful to just mention your qualification as I mentioned mine (an auditor).
And thank you very much for defending me against stereotyping as done by Brucep.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 28 2011, 11:53 PM)
intact grain of rice: YES
harvested grain of rice: YES
polished grain of white rice: NO
Therefore man-made white rice is not designed?!?
Me: Common, you know better than that. Type “parts of grain of rice” on google image and you will find that rice grains, man made or natural, have common components, e.g. starchy endosperm, embryo, etc.
I think (I may be wrong) you are a “victim” of preconceived idea that ALL naturally formed objects are products of accident, while man-made ones are designed. That is not so, as illustrated in the samples presented in this thread—using Simon’s Theory.
If you are a scientist, shouldn’t you be more open-minded?
harvested grain of rice: YES
polished grain of white rice: NO
Therefore man-made white rice is not designed?!?
Me: Common, you know better than that. Type “parts of grain of rice” on google image and you will find that rice grains, man made or natural, have common components, e.g. starchy endosperm, embryo, etc.
I think (I may be wrong) you are a “victim” of preconceived idea that ALL naturally formed objects are products of accident, while man-made ones are designed. That is not so, as illustrated in the samples presented in this thread—using Simon’s Theory.
If you are a scientist, shouldn’t you be more open-minded?
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 28 2011, 01:14 PM)
Hi Kino,
May I respectfully ask what your profession is? And may I use your statements in my coming book?
What's the relevance of the first? In what context in the second?
I usually click "Quote", type about four characters in the text box, hit "Preview Post" and then edit, since the quote blocks and my text are in line at that point.
I usually click "Quote", type about four characters in the text box, hit "Preview Post" and then edit, since the quote blocks and my text are in line at that point.
Michaelangelo's David is in human form. It has arms, legs, etc as parts or components. It is an imitation, copy of a human (although not alive). Regardless if it is made up one solid marble, plastic, and so on. So, designed. A rock in my book, because it did not pass criterion #3 (there is evidence that it could be a mere by-product of the earth's movement, volcanic eruption, etc, is not designed.
I think you need to define what a component is in this context, then. I know where to cut to remove a whole human arm - through the shoulder joint. Where exactly do I cut to remove the whole of David's arm? It doesn't have a joint per se, so will a plane cut (a la Venus de Milo) do, or do I need to carve out the form of a severed shoulder joint?
David does not have components in any engineering sense because it is a solid block of marble (cf the Terracotta Army) and the details of the form do not encapsulate any function that will let you make defensible judgements about which bit of marble belongs to which "component" (cf real human beings).
If you don't like this example, consider a man-made sphere of pure aluminium. This definitely has no components except in the most trivial sense of being constructed of atoms, so would be not designed by your argument, as it fails criterion 1.
But my point is that everything since the Big Bang was the result of a natural process or else we built it. More precisely, you cannot show otherwise by examination of the universe because it all seems to follow "natural laws" and tick along quite nicely on its own. So this criterion does not distinguish between much.
Yes for all complex structures in the universe regardless of design or lack thereof. What, aside from fundamental particles and the fabric of space time itself could even conceivably answer no to this?
Time has no particles or components I believe. So, it will not pass the 1st criterion. It may not pass also criterion #2. So, it is mysterious. The same with space, although I'm a little bit iffy on this. If space has no components
then it is mysterious.
But my point is that everything since the Big Bang was the result of a natural process or else we built it. More precisely, you cannot show otherwise by examination of the universe because it all seems to follow "natural laws" and tick along quite nicely on its own. So this criterion does not distinguish between much.
Who said "random" and "complex" did I mention it in any of the criteria? Obviously, there is evidence of these being accidentally caused by wind. Criterion# 3 is not met. Thus, accidentally formed.
I said "complex"; you can drop it from my sentence without affecting my argument. I also said "random", but you said "blind chance", which is the same, no? And my point is about the ripples in wet sand where waves wash across them. Take a look next time you are on the beach. The layout of the ripples and the exact positioning depends on very subtle starting conditions and is essentially random. However, each ripple is very close to identical in profile, and that is not an accident. It is a consequence of the way shallow water waves act when they pass over a non-flat surface, where the stable solution is a surface with this profile. That's neither accident nor chance, nor a by-product of something, so it fits criterion 3 - and all the others. So you say it's designed, I think.
You can flip it around if you disagree; say that you think that the profile is accidental. You can certainly make that case - it depends on things like sand grain size and seawater viscosity, not to mention the local gravitational field strength, all of which are in some sense arbitrary. But if you do, the same case can be made against every other self-organising process and, hence, anything created via such a process. For example, evolution by natural selection and, hence, us - making us not designed.
No you did not mention it, which is why I brought it up. You said yourself that you think humans fit your criteria for design, yet you threw out my example of wave-induced sand-dunes as accident. Both are products of self-organising systems that create pattern and structure where there previously was none, but the exact results of which depend critically on random factors. Is this design? You seem to have gone both ways, and I do not think that you can have it both ways.
Criteria 2, 4 and 5 are trivially satisfied by the vast majority of things within the universe (although maybe not the universe itself), independent of them actually having a design. I think the aluminium sphere example, if not my earlier David, shows that criterion 1 generates anomalous results. Criterion 3 is very sensitive to what exactly you define to be an accident, and I strongly suspect that the existence of self-organising processes renders this criterion also trivially satisfied by any structure in the universe much larger than a couple of atoms. I really don't think your definition is useful.
Me: Common, you know better than that. Type “parts of grain of rice” on google image and you will find that rice grains, man made or natural, have common components, e.g. starchy endosperm, embryo, etc.
I think (I may be wrong) you are a “victim” of preconceived idea that ALL naturally formed objects are products of accident, while man-made ones are designed. That is not so, as illustrated in the samples presented in this thread—using Simon’s Theory.
If you are a scientist, shouldn’t you be more open-minded?
Wow calling rpenner closed minded just because he doesn't agree with you. You might want to read some of the posts rpenner has penned at this site before you jump to such a stupid conclusion. Wow I stereotyped you and rpenner is closed minded.
May I respectfully ask what your profession is? And may I use your statements in my coming book?
What's the relevance of the first? In what context in the second?
QUOTE
Also, I find it hard replying to your comments, I have to go up. Any short cut?
I usually click "Quote", type about four characters in the text box, hit "Preview Post" and then edit, since the quote blocks and my text are in line at that point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also, I find it hard replying to your comments, I have to go up. Any short cut? |
I usually click "Quote", type about four characters in the text box, hit "Preview Post" and then edit, since the quote blocks and my text are in line at that point.
Michaelangelo's David is in human form. It has arms, legs, etc as parts or components. It is an imitation, copy of a human (although not alive). Regardless if it is made up one solid marble, plastic, and so on. So, designed. A rock in my book, because it did not pass criterion #3 (there is evidence that it could be a mere by-product of the earth's movement, volcanic eruption, etc, is not designed.
I think you need to define what a component is in this context, then. I know where to cut to remove a whole human arm - through the shoulder joint. Where exactly do I cut to remove the whole of David's arm? It doesn't have a joint per se, so will a plane cut (a la Venus de Milo) do, or do I need to carve out the form of a severed shoulder joint?
David does not have components in any engineering sense because it is a solid block of marble (cf the Terracotta Army) and the details of the form do not encapsulate any function that will let you make defensible judgements about which bit of marble belongs to which "component" (cf real human beings).
If you don't like this example, consider a man-made sphere of pure aluminium. This definitely has no components except in the most trivial sense of being constructed of atoms, so would be not designed by your argument, as it fails criterion 1.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||
Time has no particles or components I believe. So, it will not pass the 1st criterion. It may not pass also criterion #2. So, it is mysterious. The same with space, although I'm a little bit iffy on this. If space has no components then it is mysterious. |
But my point is that everything since the Big Bang was the result of a natural process or else we built it. More precisely, you cannot show otherwise by examination of the universe because it all seems to follow "natural laws" and tick along quite nicely on its own. So this criterion does not distinguish between much.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Criteria #2- Was the object formed by natural or man-made process? |
Yes for all complex structures in the universe regardless of design or lack thereof. What, aside from fundamental particles and the fabric of space time itself could even conceivably answer no to this?
Time has no particles or components I believe. So, it will not pass the 1st criterion. It may not pass also criterion #2. So, it is mysterious. The same with space, although I'm a little bit iffy on this. If space has no components
then it is mysterious.
But my point is that everything since the Big Bang was the result of a natural process or else we built it. More precisely, you cannot show otherwise by examination of the universe because it all seems to follow "natural laws" and tick along quite nicely on its own. So this criterion does not distinguish between much.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Criteria #3- Is there ABSENCE of reasonably credible evidence that: (a) the object was formed /made due to accident or blind chance, OR ( b ) the object is a mere by-product (or resulting waste) of a process Wave patterns in sand where waves wash across it are not random in many senses. Nor are they a by-product of wave-action. They are randomly seeded, but their development is a complex feedback process between the sand and the waves. Fits all your criteria for design. Do you really believe that? |
Who said "random" and "complex" did I mention it in any of the criteria? Obviously, there is evidence of these being accidentally caused by wind. Criterion# 3 is not met. Thus, accidentally formed.
I said "complex"; you can drop it from my sentence without affecting my argument. I also said "random", but you said "blind chance", which is the same, no? And my point is about the ripples in wet sand where waves wash across them. Take a look next time you are on the beach. The layout of the ripples and the exact positioning depends on very subtle starting conditions and is essentially random. However, each ripple is very close to identical in profile, and that is not an accident. It is a consequence of the way shallow water waves act when they pass over a non-flat surface, where the stable solution is a surface with this profile. That's neither accident nor chance, nor a by-product of something, so it fits criterion 3 - and all the others. So you say it's designed, I think.
You can flip it around if you disagree; say that you think that the profile is accidental. You can certainly make that case - it depends on things like sand grain size and seawater viscosity, not to mention the local gravitational field strength, all of which are in some sense arbitrary. But if you do, the same case can be made against every other self-organising process and, hence, anything created via such a process. For example, evolution by natural selection and, hence, us - making us not designed.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| order-from-chaos capabilities of self-organising systems. Did I mention this in any of the criteria? As I said in the OP (opening post) an object to be designed must pass ( YES answer) all of the criteria. |
No you did not mention it, which is why I brought it up. You said yourself that you think humans fit your criteria for design, yet you threw out my example of wave-induced sand-dunes as accident. Both are products of self-organising systems that create pattern and structure where there previously was none, but the exact results of which depend critically on random factors. Is this design? You seem to have gone both ways, and I do not think that you can have it both ways.
Criteria 2, 4 and 5 are trivially satisfied by the vast majority of things within the universe (although maybe not the universe itself), independent of them actually having a design. I think the aluminium sphere example, if not my earlier David, shows that criterion 1 generates anomalous results. Criterion 3 is very sensitive to what exactly you define to be an accident, and I strongly suspect that the existence of self-organising processes renders this criterion also trivially satisfied by any structure in the universe much larger than a couple of atoms. I really don't think your definition is useful.
This is just a convoluted intelligent design rationale. If you don't wish to discuss evolution, you might be wiser to leave Darwin's name out of the title. By refusing to discuss evolution you are admitting an inability of these "criteria" to be of any use in the classification and understanding of things, since it lacks any use in differentiation.
And no, you don't have permission to use anything I may say, or write, in any book.
And no, I wasn't defending you, I was defending the fellow Bruce mentioned, didn't you read the quote?
And no, you don't have permission to use anything I may say, or write, in any book.
And no, I wasn't defending you, I was defending the fellow Bruce mentioned, didn't you read the quote?
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 29 2011, 12:07 AM)
Synthsin75 said
Me: The pothole is just an example of how Simon’s Theory could be used to OBJECTIVELY assess, Prima Facie, if a naturally formed or man-made object is designed or otherwise. Simon’s Theory is a challenge to the Theory of Evolution (TOE). It is a prima facie positive evidence that some (not all) objects formed by natural processes are created / designed.
(I don’t have time to discuss w/ you TOE, nor the appetite to do so. So, I won’t reply to additional comments re. TOE. )
Synthsin75 said
Me: Me: In my book, I want to include an appendix on “What Critics Say..” . For example, Critic 1 ( a physicist) said: this is ridiculous...or words to that effect. So, it would be helpful to just mention your qualification as I mentioned mine (an auditor).
And thank you very much for defending me against stereotyping as done by Brucep.
Stereotyping? I made one post and I asked 'was the individual in the link the Simon you're referring to'. Still would like an answer. Maybe some way to look at Simon theory other than what you have to say. Maybe you should point out how I sterotyped you.
Me: The pothole is just an example of how Simon’s Theory could be used to OBJECTIVELY assess, Prima Facie, if a naturally formed or man-made object is designed or otherwise. Simon’s Theory is a challenge to the Theory of Evolution (TOE). It is a prima facie positive evidence that some (not all) objects formed by natural processes are created / designed.
(I don’t have time to discuss w/ you TOE, nor the appetite to do so. So, I won’t reply to additional comments re. TOE. )
Synthsin75 said
Me: Me: In my book, I want to include an appendix on “What Critics Say..” . For example, Critic 1 ( a physicist) said: this is ridiculous...or words to that effect. So, it would be helpful to just mention your qualification as I mentioned mine (an auditor).
And thank you very much for defending me against stereotyping as done by Brucep.
Stereotyping? I made one post and I asked 'was the individual in the link the Simon you're referring to'. Still would like an answer. Maybe some way to look at Simon theory other than what you have to say. Maybe you should point out how I sterotyped you.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 29 2011, 01:03 AM)
This is just a convoluted intelligent design rationale. If you don't wish to discuss evolution, you might be wiser to leave Darwin's name out of the title. By refusing to discuss evolution you are admitting an inability of these "criteria" to be of any use in the classification and understanding of things, since it lacks any use in differentiation.
And no, you don't have permission to use anything I may say, or write, in any book.
And no, I wasn't defending you, I was defending the fellow Bruce mentioned, didn't you read the quote?
He keeps mentioning Simon theory and I can't figure out who he's talking about. I got that link and a link to Herbert Simon who is highly respected over many subjects. I'm usually pretty good at finding info on the net. Reading about Herbert Simon reminded me of rpenner.
And no, you don't have permission to use anything I may say, or write, in any book.
And no, I wasn't defending you, I was defending the fellow Bruce mentioned, didn't you read the quote?
He keeps mentioning Simon theory and I can't figure out who he's talking about. I got that link and a link to Herbert Simon who is highly respected over many subjects. I'm usually pretty good at finding info on the net. Reading about Herbert Simon reminded me of rpenner.
QUOTE (brucep+Apr 28 2011, 07:18 PM)
He keeps mentioning Simon theory and I can't figure out who he's talking about. I got that link and a link to Herbert Simon who is highly respected over many subjects. I'm usually pretty good at finding info on the net. Reading about Herbert Simon reminded me of rpenner.
I'm guessing that the OP is Simon, since he's mentioned writing a book, probably about his "theory".
I'm guessing that the OP is Simon, since he's mentioned writing a book, probably about his "theory".
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 29 2011, 01:55 AM)
I'm guessing that the OP is Simon, since he's mentioned writing a book, probably about his "theory".
Wow. If that's the case he's referencing his unpublished work as an authority. Maybe he'll add some clarification.
Wow. If that's the case he's referencing his unpublished work as an authority.
Maybe he'll add some clarification.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 29 2011, 12:27 AM)
Me: Common, you know better than that. Type “parts of grain of rice” on google image and you will find that rice grains, man made or natural, have common components, e.g. starchy endosperm, embryo, etc.
I think (I may be wrong) you are a “victim” of preconceived idea that ALL naturally formed objects are products of accident, while man-made ones are designed. That is not so, as illustrated in the samples presented in this thread—using Simon’s Theory.
If you are a scientist, shouldn’t you be more open-minded?
Wow calling rpenner closed minded just because he doesn't agree with you. You might want to read some of the posts rpenner has penned at this site before you jump to such a stupid conclusion. Wow I stereotyped you and rpenner is closed minded.
This is in reply to Kino
In one of my post, I disclosed that I want to add “What the Critics Say” portion. So, it would be nice to add something like this: Critic #2, a biologist: I don’t agree because .. Besides, I disclosed my profession. I am an auditor. Being an auditor, I like to vet with qualified persons ( I hope ) my theory.
In one of my post, I disclosed that I want to add “What the Critics Say” portion. So, it would be nice to add something like this: Critic #2, a biologist: I don’t agree because .. Besides, I disclosed my profession. I am an auditor. Being an auditor, I like to vet with qualified persons ( I hope ) my theory.
I think you need to define what a component…If you don't like this example, consider a man-made sphere of pure aluminium. This definitely has no components except in the most trivial sense of being constructed of atoms, so would be not designed by your argument,
There is another rule in interpreting the written words—given that English is not my native tongue. Singular is given plural and vice versa to arrive at a reasonable interpretation. Given this rule, If I re-state C# 1 to say: ‘The object must have a part(s) or component(s) would it be reasonable or unreasonable to you? Do I have to put dots above every “i” and cross every “t’s”?
QUOTE
What's the relevance of the first? In what context in the second?
In one of my post, I disclosed that I want to add “What the Critics Say” portion. So, it would be nice to add something like this: Critic #2, a biologist: I don’t agree because .. Besides, I disclosed my profession. I am an auditor. Being an auditor, I like to vet with qualified persons ( I hope ) my theory.
CODE (->
| QUOTE |
| What's the relevance of the first? In what context in the second? |
In one of my post, I disclosed that I want to add “What the Critics Say” portion. So, it would be nice to add something like this: Critic #2, a biologist: I don’t agree because .. Besides, I disclosed my profession. I am an auditor. Being an auditor, I like to vet with qualified persons ( I hope ) my theory.
I think you need to define what a component…If you don't like this example, consider a man-made sphere of pure aluminium. This definitely has no components except in the most trivial sense of being constructed of atoms, so would be not designed by your argument,
There is another rule in interpreting the written words—given that English is not my native tongue. Singular is given plural and vice versa to arrive at a reasonable interpretation. Given this rule, If I re-state C# 1 to say: ‘The object must have a part(s) or component(s) would it be reasonable or unreasonable to you? Do I have to put dots above every “i” and cross every “t’s”?
QUOTE
I also said "random", but you said "blind chance", which is the same, no?
I agree and I stand corrected. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I also said "random", but you said "blind chance", which is the same, no? |
I agree and I stand corrected.
And my point is about the ripples in wet sand where waves wash across them. Take a look next time you are on the beach. The layout of the ripples and the exact positioning depends on very subtle starting conditions and is essentially random.
So, do you agree or disagree that there is ABSENCE of evidence that these ripples on wet sands were accidentally formed? If you agree, then simply the conclusion is these were not designed
Opps time out.. be back later
And my point is about the ripples in wet sand where waves wash across them. Take a look next time you are on the beach. The layout of the ripples and the exact positioning depends on very subtle starting conditions and is essentially random.
So, do you agree or disagree that there is ABSENCE of evidence that these ripples on wet sands were accidentally formed? If you agree, then simply the conclusion is these were not designed
Opps time out.. be back later
So.... of what use is this "theory" beyond an attempt to shore up intelligent design? Does it have any applicability to increasing human knowledge?
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 27 2011, 03:49 PM)
Criteria #3- Is there ABSENCE of reasonably credible evidence that:
(a) the object was formed /made due to accident or blind chance, OR
( b ) the object is a mere by-product (or resulting waste) of a process
This is the only one that tries to ask anything of relevance. And you can file this under "No True Scotsman". (Reasonably credible evidence? Who gets to decide what is "reasonably credible"?)
(a) the object was formed /made due to accident or blind chance, OR
( b ) the object is a mere by-product (or resulting waste) of a process
This is the only one that tries to ask anything of relevance. And you can file this under "No True Scotsman". (Reasonably credible evidence? Who gets to decide what is "reasonably credible"?)
THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF MY REPLY TO KINO.
KINO said:
Me: Given a reasonably intelligent (all “A”s) 10 to 12 year old kid, and not blind. I’ll ask the kid the same questions for Criterion # 1 to 3. (I’ll tweak the words so he /she will understand better.)
C#1 – Do you see any ripples in wet sands? – Answer: Yes (meaning there are discernible part(s) )
C# 2- Were these ripples formed by man or by waves? Answer: Waves (meaning yes natural process)
C# 3- Do you think the waves formed these ripples on purpose or by accident? Answer: Are you serious? Of course, by accident. (Meaning NO. There is evidence that the ripples were made accidentally)
Questions to you: Do you agree that the kid’s answer was reasonable, or not?
Case B, Kino said:
Me: Given a reasonably intelligent (all “A”s) 10 to 12 year old kid, and not blind. I’ll ask the kid the same questions for Criterion # 1 to 3. (I’ll tweak the words so he /she will understand better.)
C#1 – Do you see any ripples in wet sands? – Answer: Yes (meaning there are discernible part(s) )
C# 2- Were these ripples formed by man or by waves? Answer: Waves (meaning yes natural process)
C# 3- Do you think the waves formed these ripples on purpose or by accident? Answer: Are you serious? Of course, by accident. (Meaning NO. There is evidence that the ripples were made accidentally)
Questions to you: Do you agree that the kid’s answer was reasonable, or not?
Case B, Kino said: You can flip it around if you disagree; say that you think that the profile is accidental. You can certainly make that case - it depends on things like sand grain size and seawater viscosity, not to mention the local gravitational field strength, all of which are in some sense arbitrary. But if you do, the same case can be made against every other self-organising process and, hence, anything created via such a process. For example, evolution by natural selection and, hence, us - making us not designed.
Me: Again, given a reasonably intelligent (all “A”s) 10 to 12 year old kid, and not blind. I’ll ask the kid the same questions for Criterion # 1 to 3. (I’ll tweak the words so he /she will understand better)
C# 1 – Do you see my hands, and feet? Answer: Yes
C#2 – Were my hands and feet developed inside my mother’s womb—or outside? Answer: Of course inside. (YES, meaning natural process)
C# 3- Do you think that my hands and feet were developed inside my mother’s womb by accident / or blind chance?
Answer: No, silly! When your mother and father had sex that alone is not by accident! Then he explains what he was taught in sex education... (Interpretation: According to the kid, there is ABSENCE of evidence that my appendages were formed by accident)
Questions to you: Do you agree that the kid’s answer was reasonable, or not?
KINO said:
QUOTE
And my point is about the ripples in wet sand where waves wash across them. Take a look next time you are on the beach. The layout of the ripples and the exact positioning depends on very subtle starting conditions and is essentially random. However, each ripple is very close to identical in profile, and that is not an accident. It is a consequence of the way shallow water waves act when they pass over a non-flat surface, where the stable solution is a surface with this profile. That's neither accident nor chance, nor a by-product of something, so it fits criterion 3 - and all the others. So you say it's designed, I think.
Me: Given a reasonably intelligent (all “A”s) 10 to 12 year old kid, and not blind. I’ll ask the kid the same questions for Criterion # 1 to 3. (I’ll tweak the words so he /she will understand better.)
C#1 – Do you see any ripples in wet sands? – Answer: Yes (meaning there are discernible part(s) )
C# 2- Were these ripples formed by man or by waves? Answer: Waves (meaning yes natural process)
C# 3- Do you think the waves formed these ripples on purpose or by accident? Answer: Are you serious? Of course, by accident. (Meaning NO. There is evidence that the ripples were made accidentally)
Questions to you: Do you agree that the kid’s answer was reasonable, or not?
Case B, Kino said:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And my point is about the ripples in wet sand where waves wash across them. Take a look next time you are on the beach. The layout of the ripples and the exact positioning depends on very subtle starting conditions and is essentially random. However, each ripple is very close to identical in profile, and that is not an accident. It is a consequence of the way shallow water waves act when they pass over a non-flat surface, where the stable solution is a surface with this profile. That's neither accident nor chance, nor a by-product of something, so it fits criterion 3 - and all the others. So you say it's designed, I think. |
Me: Given a reasonably intelligent (all “A”s) 10 to 12 year old kid, and not blind. I’ll ask the kid the same questions for Criterion # 1 to 3. (I’ll tweak the words so he /she will understand better.)
C#1 – Do you see any ripples in wet sands? – Answer: Yes (meaning there are discernible part(s) )
C# 2- Were these ripples formed by man or by waves? Answer: Waves (meaning yes natural process)
C# 3- Do you think the waves formed these ripples on purpose or by accident? Answer: Are you serious? Of course, by accident. (Meaning NO. There is evidence that the ripples were made accidentally)
Questions to you: Do you agree that the kid’s answer was reasonable, or not?
Case B, Kino said: You can flip it around if you disagree; say that you think that the profile is accidental. You can certainly make that case - it depends on things like sand grain size and seawater viscosity, not to mention the local gravitational field strength, all of which are in some sense arbitrary. But if you do, the same case can be made against every other self-organising process and, hence, anything created via such a process. For example, evolution by natural selection and, hence, us - making us not designed.
Me: Again, given a reasonably intelligent (all “A”s) 10 to 12 year old kid, and not blind. I’ll ask the kid the same questions for Criterion # 1 to 3. (I’ll tweak the words so he /she will understand better)
C# 1 – Do you see my hands, and feet? Answer: Yes
C#2 – Were my hands and feet developed inside my mother’s womb—or outside? Answer: Of course inside. (YES, meaning natural process)
C# 3- Do you think that my hands and feet were developed inside my mother’s womb by accident / or blind chance?
Answer: No, silly! When your mother and father had sex that alone is not by accident! Then he explains what he was taught in sex education... (Interpretation: According to the kid, there is ABSENCE of evidence that my appendages were formed by accident)
Questions to you: Do you agree that the kid’s answer was reasonable, or not?
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 29 2011, 03:33 PM)
So.... of what use is this "theory" beyond an attempt to shore up intelligent design? Does it have any applicability to increasing human knowledge?
I'll demonstrate the value of this theory by giving a case.
You walk in a park and you saw what look like a tattered unbranded cloth. It looks like a cloth but you are not sure.
Question to you: How do you know if that stuff was designed? May be the winds blew on a hip of thread and formed that stuff? Without Simon's Theory, how would you OBJECTIVELY assess whether that stuff ( that looks like a cloth) was designed or accidentally formed by the wind's action?
I'll demonstrate the value of this theory by giving a case.
You walk in a park and you saw what look like a tattered unbranded cloth. It looks like a cloth but you are not sure.
Question to you: How do you know if that stuff was designed? May be the winds blew on a hip of thread and formed that stuff? Without Simon's Theory, how would you OBJECTIVELY assess whether that stuff ( that looks like a cloth) was designed or accidentally formed by the wind's action?
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 27 2011, 03:49 PM)
Simon's Theory says that an object is designed /created if ALL of the below criteria are in the positive (YES). Otherwise, the object is either accidentally formed or something else.
Criteria #1- Is object made up of parts, or components that can be recognized by our senses; i.e. sight, hearing, smell, touch, power of observation?
Criteria #2- Was the object formed by natural or man-made process?
Criteria #3- Is there ABSENCE of reasonably credible evidence that:
(a) the object was formed /made due to accident or blind chance, OR
( b ) the object is a mere by-product (or resulting waste) of a process
Criteria # 4- Is there UTILITLY or PURPOSE--apparent or not--for the object?
Criteria# 5: Is the object capable of being WHOLLY or PARTIALLY imitated, copied, or reproduced?
These criteria are not THE criteria for something designed. If so, each would have to stand on its own as being indicative of something designed.
designed - made or done intentionally; intended; planned.
created - to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
I'll just stick to "designed" for now, since the definition for "created" already contradicts one of your criteria.
#1 Everything that can be sensed has at least one component, so this one has absolutely no differentiation value whatsoever. Everything would answer in the positive, which means this criteria doesn't accomplish anything.
#2 Once again, everything has been formed by either a natural or man-made process. Absolutely no evaluative value.
#4 Yet again, everything can be deemed to have a purpose, of some kind. Waste has the purpose of making what it was the waste of possible, or contributing to an ecology. Everything is necessary to some purpose.
#5 All objects are capable of being, at least, partially imitated. Yet again, no value in any evaluation.
All of these are here only to obfuscate the fact the you are only really forwarding ONE CRITERION. Namely:
Thus is it any wonder that this is the most convoluted of all of them, yet another attempt to shroud the foregone conclusion this this one is DESIGNED to arrive at?
(a) There is no "blind chance" in the formation of any object. That is a direct result of being in the classical domain, where deterministic causation rules. Outside of quantum phenomena, only events can be by chance, not objects.
( b ) All objects are by-products of an earlier causation.
So once again we find that even this one cannot be answered in the negative.
All of this is useless justification for a biased conclusion, nothing more.
Criteria #1- Is object made up of parts, or components that can be recognized by our senses; i.e. sight, hearing, smell, touch, power of observation?
Criteria #2- Was the object formed by natural or man-made process?
Criteria #3- Is there ABSENCE of reasonably credible evidence that:
(a) the object was formed /made due to accident or blind chance, OR
( b ) the object is a mere by-product (or resulting waste) of a process
Criteria # 4- Is there UTILITLY or PURPOSE--apparent or not--for the object?
Criteria# 5: Is the object capable of being WHOLLY or PARTIALLY imitated, copied, or reproduced?
These criteria are not THE criteria for something designed. If so, each would have to stand on its own as being indicative of something designed.
designed - made or done intentionally; intended; planned.
created - to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
I'll just stick to "designed" for now, since the definition for "created" already contradicts one of your criteria.
#1 Everything that can be sensed has at least one component, so this one has absolutely no differentiation value whatsoever. Everything would answer in the positive, which means this criteria doesn't accomplish anything.
#2 Once again, everything has been formed by either a natural or man-made process. Absolutely no evaluative value.
#4 Yet again, everything can be deemed to have a purpose, of some kind. Waste has the purpose of making what it was the waste of possible, or contributing to an ecology. Everything is necessary to some purpose.
#5 All objects are capable of being, at least, partially imitated. Yet again, no value in any evaluation.
All of these are here only to obfuscate the fact the you are only really forwarding ONE CRITERION. Namely:
QUOTE
Criteria #3- Is there ABSENCE of reasonably credible evidence that:
(a) the object was formed /made due to accident or blind chance, OR
( b ) the object is a mere by-product (or resulting waste) of a process
(a) the object was formed /made due to accident or blind chance, OR
( b ) the object is a mere by-product (or resulting waste) of a process
Thus is it any wonder that this is the most convoluted of all of them, yet another attempt to shroud the foregone conclusion this this one is DESIGNED to arrive at?
(a) There is no "blind chance" in the formation of any object. That is a direct result of being in the classical domain, where deterministic causation rules. Outside of quantum phenomena, only events can be by chance, not objects.
( b ) All objects are by-products of an earlier causation.
So once again we find that even this one cannot be answered in the negative.
All of this is useless justification for a biased conclusion, nothing more.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Apr 29 2011, 06:20 PM)
This is the only one that tries to ask anything of relevance. And you can file this under "No True Scotsman". (Reasonably credible evidence? Who gets to decide what is "reasonably credible"?)
Judges, Auditors, Scientists, etc. decide what are "reasonably credible evidence". Sometimes they define it by giving a couple of examples. Here are some:
1) Mathematical probability of the presence or absence of something. Reasonably credible evidence.
2) Piltdown man, tainted w/ fraud--Not reasonably credible evidence.
3) IDA fossil worth $2M - not a reasonably credible evidence of humanoid, according to some scientists. May be just maybe a reasonably credible evidence for a specie of lemur.
4) Fossils of critters said to be from Pre-cambrian explosion, if untainted. A reasonable evidence for spontaneous appearance of once living organisms. Since these (as in plural) are the earliest fossil evidence, the are reasonably credible evidence against the concept that all life originated from a single ancestor.
I hope you get the sense.
Judges, Auditors, Scientists, etc. decide what are "reasonably credible evidence". Sometimes they define it by giving a couple of examples. Here are some:
1) Mathematical probability of the presence or absence of something. Reasonably credible evidence.
2) Piltdown man, tainted w/ fraud--Not reasonably credible evidence.
3) IDA fossil worth $2M - not a reasonably credible evidence of humanoid, according to some scientists. May be just maybe a reasonably credible evidence for a specie of lemur.
4) Fossils of critters said to be from Pre-cambrian explosion, if untainted. A reasonable evidence for spontaneous appearance of once living organisms. Since these (as in plural) are the earliest fossil evidence, the are reasonably credible evidence against the concept that all life originated from a single ancestor.
I hope you get the sense.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 29 2011, 12:57 PM)
Question to you: How do you know if that stuff was designed? May be the winds blew on a hip of thread and formed that stuff? Without Simon's Theory, how would you OBJECTIVELY assess whether that stuff ( that looks like a cloth) was designed or accidentally formed by the wind's action?
Conversely, how would you objectively know something wasn't designed?
You have a list of criteria that cannot be answered wholly in the negative. So by these, you cannot ever judge anything to NOT BE DESIGNED.
It isn't falsifiable.
Conversely, how would you objectively know something wasn't designed?
You have a list of criteria that cannot be answered wholly in the negative. So by these, you cannot ever judge anything to NOT BE DESIGNED.
It isn't falsifiable.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 29 2011, 07:22 PM)
Conversely, how would you objectively know something wasn't designed?
You have a list of criteria that cannot be answered wholly in the negative. So by these, you cannot ever judge anything to NOT BE DESIGNED.
It isn't falsifiable.
According to Wikipedia,
Synthsin:
You have a list of criteria that cannot be answered wholly in the negative. So by these, you cannot ever judge anything to NOT BE DESIGNED.
It isn't falsifiable.
According to Wikipedia,
QUOTE
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment
.Synthsin:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment |
.
Synthsin: You have a list of criteria that cannot be answered wholly in the negative. So by these, you cannot ever judge anything to NOT BE DESIGNED. It isn't falsifiable.
I think the above definition from Wikipedia does not agree with you. The pothole, time, etc, shows that NOT all objects are designed.
Synthsin: You have a list of criteria that cannot be answered wholly in the negative. So by these, you cannot ever judge anything to NOT BE DESIGNED. It isn't falsifiable.
I think the above definition from Wikipedia does not agree with you. The pothole, time, etc, shows that NOT all objects are designed.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 29 2011, 08:13 PM)
According to Wikipedia, .
Synthsin:
I think the above definition from Wikipedia does not agree with you. The pothole, time, etc, shows that NOT all objects are designed.
Since you refuse to answer a simple question and falsely accuse me of stereotyping you I'll have to conclude your behavor is stereotypical of those who would rather be socially and intellectually dishonest rather than admitting you made a mistake. Probably by design [pun intended].
Synthsin:
I think the above definition from Wikipedia does not agree with you. The pothole, time, etc, shows that NOT all objects are designed.
Since you refuse to answer a simple question and falsely accuse me of stereotyping you I'll have to conclude your behavor is stereotypical of those who would rather be socially and intellectually dishonest rather than admitting you made a mistake. Probably by design [pun intended].
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 29 2011, 02:13 PM)
I think the above definition from Wikipedia does not agree with you. The pothole, time, etc, shows that NOT all objects are designed.
All of your criteria are directed explicitly at OBJECTS. Time, and even a pothole, are not objects, and thus cannot be used to falsify criteria based solely on objects. A pothole is an absence of pavement/asphalt, and an absence isn't an object. The surrounding and broken away pavement are objects, the pothole is not.
So you still have not shown any plausible falsifiability. All OBJECTS must give a positive response to each of your criteria, as per my earlier post.
All of your criteria are directed explicitly at OBJECTS. Time, and even a pothole, are not objects, and thus cannot be used to falsify criteria based solely on objects. A pothole is an absence of pavement/asphalt, and an absence isn't an object. The surrounding and broken away pavement are objects, the pothole is not.
So you still have not shown any plausible falsifiability. All OBJECTS must give a positive response to each of your criteria, as per my earlier post.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 29 2011, 01:17 PM)
I hope you get the sense.
I "get" the non-sense.
You're asking for ABSENCE of evidence... How do you know that you are personally aware of ALL the "reasonably credible" evidence?
I "get" the non-sense.
You're asking for ABSENCE of evidence... How do you know that you are personally aware of ALL the "reasonably credible" evidence?
Reminder to Synthsin75, you did not answer my case question re. that stuff that look like an old cloth in the park. But you are not sure. How would you know it is designed? Maybe the wind just blew on a heap of strings and formed the object? Could you favor me with an answer?
synthsin75,Apr 29 2011, 07:16 PM:
I understand your discomfort about this new theory. What I can not understand is your reluctance—my guess could be wrong—to accept that some naturally formed objects are designed / created.
Simon’s Theory is a set of criteria. It gives A WHOLE NEW DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DESIGNED /CREATED OBJECTS, and what are not. Simply put, Simon’s Theory of Origins define designed objects as those that meet the 5 objective verifiable criteria. If not, then the object is not designed.
It is NOT your regular dictionary definition that a designed object is “made or done intentionally; intended; planned”.
I understand your discomfort about this new theory. What I can not understand is your reluctance—my guess could be wrong—to accept that some naturally formed objects are designed / created.
Simon’s Theory is a set of criteria. It gives A WHOLE NEW DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DESIGNED /CREATED OBJECTS, and what are not. Simply put, Simon’s Theory of Origins define designed objects as those that meet the 5 objective verifiable criteria. If not, then the object is not designed.
It is NOT your regular dictionary definition that a designed object is “made or done intentionally; intended; planned”.
#1 Everything that can be sensed has at least one component, so this one has absolutely no differentiation value whatsoever. Everything would answer in the positive, which means this criteria doesn't accomplish anything.
Time & space will answer negative. So, falsifiable.
What about extra-terrestrial beings? Angels, for example, are technically aliens in this planet. Incidentally, a famous scientist Stephen Hawking is afraid of aliens. By extension, I think, he is afraid of angels. ( But, this is going-off topic)
The others I will not respond because I honestly believe you are just frustrated.
synthsin75,Apr 29 2011, 07:16 PM:
QUOTE
These criteria are not THE criteria for something designed. If so, each would have to stand on its own as being indicative of something designed.
designed - made or done intentionally; intended; planned.
created - to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
I'll just stick to "designed" for now, since the definition for "created" already contradicts one of your criteria.
designed - made or done intentionally; intended; planned.
created - to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
I'll just stick to "designed" for now, since the definition for "created" already contradicts one of your criteria.
I understand your discomfort about this new theory. What I can not understand is your reluctance—my guess could be wrong—to accept that some naturally formed objects are designed / created.
Simon’s Theory is a set of criteria. It gives A WHOLE NEW DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DESIGNED /CREATED OBJECTS, and what are not. Simply put, Simon’s Theory of Origins define designed objects as those that meet the 5 objective verifiable criteria. If not, then the object is not designed.
It is NOT your regular dictionary definition that a designed object is “made or done intentionally; intended; planned”.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| These criteria are not THE criteria for something designed. If so, each would have to stand on its own as being indicative of something designed. designed - made or done intentionally; intended; planned. created - to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. I'll just stick to "designed" for now, since the definition for "created" already contradicts one of your criteria. |
I understand your discomfort about this new theory. What I can not understand is your reluctance—my guess could be wrong—to accept that some naturally formed objects are designed / created.
Simon’s Theory is a set of criteria. It gives A WHOLE NEW DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DESIGNED /CREATED OBJECTS, and what are not. Simply put, Simon’s Theory of Origins define designed objects as those that meet the 5 objective verifiable criteria. If not, then the object is not designed.
It is NOT your regular dictionary definition that a designed object is “made or done intentionally; intended; planned”.
#1 Everything that can be sensed has at least one component, so this one has absolutely no differentiation value whatsoever. Everything would answer in the positive, which means this criteria doesn't accomplish anything.
Time & space will answer negative. So, falsifiable.
QUOTE
#2 Once again, everything has been formed by either a natural or man-made process. Absolutely no evaluative value.
What about extra-terrestrial beings? Angels, for example, are technically aliens in this planet. Incidentally, a famous scientist Stephen Hawking is afraid of aliens. By extension, I think, he is afraid of angels. ( But, this is going-off topic)
The others I will not respond because I honestly believe you are just frustrated.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 29 2011, 03:37 PM)
I understand your discomfort about this new theory.
This doesn't even count as a hypothesis.
Please don't use the word theory.
This doesn't even count as a hypothesis.
Please don't use the word theory.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Apr 29 2011, 08:45 PM)
All of your criteria are directed explicitly at OBJECTS. Time, and even a pothole, are not objects, and thus cannot be used to falsify criteria based solely on objects. A pothole is an absence of pavement/asphalt, and an absence isn't an object. The surrounding and broken away pavement are objects, the pothole is not.
So you still have not shown any plausible falsifiability. All OBJECTS must give a positive response to each of your criteria, as per my earlier post.
A dictionary defines OBJECT as:
Per above definition, time and pothole qualifies as object.
So you still have not shown any plausible falsifiability. All OBJECTS must give a positive response to each of your criteria, as per my earlier post.
A dictionary defines OBJECT as:
QUOTE
Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing. In philosophy, something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.
Per above definition, time and pothole qualifies as object.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Apr 29 2011, 09:41 PM)
This doesn't even count as a hypothesis.
Please don't use the word theory.
Free Dictionary will not agree with you. Included in the definition of a theory:
Please don't use the word theory.
Free Dictionary will not agree with you. Included in the definition of a theory:
QUOTE
a) Abstract reasoning; speculation 
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment c) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment c) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
You have misused the term "theory" in its scientific sense by confounding its use in the common sense.
Also, who is Simon and why does he matter to this discussion?
Also, who is Simon and why does he matter to this discussion?
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 29 2011, 10:13 PM)
You have misused the term "theory" in its scientific sense by confounding its use in the common sense.
Also, who is Simon and why does he matter to this discussion?
Ah words... I have a problem with English because it is not my native tongue.
Simon is me. Or is it Simon is I?
Also, who is Simon and why does he matter to this discussion?
Ah words... I have a problem with English because it is not my native tongue.
Simon is me. Or is it Simon is I?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Apr 29 2011, 10:30 PM)
.
Hi everyone.
Just came in to check on something and have a few minutes before I must log out again. So briefly....
@ DExaminer.....May I ask if you believe that 'god designed' you at your conception?
I ask because the answer may modify somewhat the definition of 'designed' which is used in the 'god-creation/design' context insofar as life and evolution is concerned.
.
Hi,
Your question is about my faith in God. I think it is not appropriate in this forum. But, anyway I'll give it a shot. Did God design me at my conception? Let me answer it this way. I believe that my father and mother's reproductive seeds produced me. How? I don't know. My grandpa and my grandma's reproductive seeds produced my Dad. How? I don't know. And so on...
There exist now self-replicating machines. They look like tetris. Simple but illustrates self-reproduction by a designed object.
Using this analogy--that very first machine--I could objectively say that the first humans ( let's call them ADAM and Eve, and let's designate them as the 1st human machines) were designed. How am I able to objectively say this--without resulting to my faith? By using Simon's Theory of Origins--my theory.
As far as I can remember, and as far as my mom and dad, and my grandma has told me, humans have always reproduced humans. They haven't found monkeys reproducing humans, and vice versa.
So, if humans--since Adam and Eve--have always produced humans and Adam and Eve were designed, as proven prima facie, by Simon's Theory, then by extention God designed me.
Hi everyone.
Just came in to check on something and have a few minutes before I must log out again. So briefly....
@ DExaminer.....May I ask if you believe that 'god designed' you at your conception?
I ask because the answer may modify somewhat the definition of 'designed' which is used in the 'god-creation/design' context insofar as life and evolution is concerned.
.
Hi,
Your question is about my faith in God. I think it is not appropriate in this forum. But, anyway I'll give it a shot. Did God design me at my conception? Let me answer it this way. I believe that my father and mother's reproductive seeds produced me. How? I don't know. My grandpa and my grandma's reproductive seeds produced my Dad. How? I don't know. And so on...
There exist now self-replicating machines. They look like tetris. Simple but illustrates self-reproduction by a designed object.
Using this analogy--that very first machine--I could objectively say that the first humans ( let's call them ADAM and Eve, and let's designate them as the 1st human machines) were designed. How am I able to objectively say this--without resulting to my faith? By using Simon's Theory of Origins--my theory.
As far as I can remember, and as far as my mom and dad, and my grandma has told me, humans have always reproduced humans. They haven't found monkeys reproducing humans, and vice versa.
So, if humans--since Adam and Eve--have always produced humans and Adam and Eve were designed, as proven prima facie, by Simon's Theory, then by extention God designed me.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 29 2011, 03:37 PM)
Reminder to Synthsin75, you did not answer my case question re. that stuff that look like an old cloth in the park. But you are not sure. How would you know it is designed? Maybe the wind just blew on a heap of strings and formed the object? Could you favor me with an answer?
For most rational (as opposed to rationalizing) people, it would be obviously man-made as opposed to naturally occurring. Strings of which fabric is woven, nor the regular pattern of the weaving, occur in nature. Objectively, if you cannot find the components nor the configuration of an object to exist without human intervention, it is not "designed".
Moronic nonsense.
Moronic nonsense.
A dictionary defines OBJECT as:
"Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing. In philosophy, something intelligible or perceptible by the mind."
Per above definition, time and pothole qualifies as object.
You cannot have it both ways. If your "theory" is meant to OBJECTIVELY access things, then your definition of an OBJECT is constrained to what can be accessed OBJECTIVELY. That means that of your above definition, "in philosophy, something intelligible or perceptible by the mind" is strictly not allowed, as those are definitively subjective.
So the only definition of OBJECT you can allow, by your own reasoning, is:
OBJECT - Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.
Neither time nor a pothole qualify as OBJECTS, so defined. You cannot perceive an absence, as it does not provide sense channel input. An absence is recognized (subjectively) via context alone.
Just give it up already. This sort of tenuous and rationalized contrivance will never fly with anyone with an ounce of intelligence. Your target audience is definitely those who do not normally "access" much of anything, very much like yourself.
For most rational (as opposed to rationalizing) people, it would be obviously man-made as opposed to naturally occurring. Strings of which fabric is woven, nor the regular pattern of the weaving, occur in nature. Objectively, if you cannot find the components nor the configuration of an object to exist without human intervention, it is not "designed".
QUOTE
What about extra-terrestrial beings? Angels, for example, are technically aliens in this planet.
Moronic nonsense.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What about extra-terrestrial beings? Angels, for example, are technically aliens in this planet. |
Moronic nonsense.A dictionary defines OBJECT as:
"Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing. In philosophy, something intelligible or perceptible by the mind."
Per above definition, time and pothole qualifies as object.
QUOTE
The pothole is just an example of how Simon’s Theory could be used to OBJECTIVELY assess, Prima Facie, if a naturally formed or man-made object is designed or otherwise.
You cannot have it both ways. If your "theory" is meant to OBJECTIVELY access things, then your definition of an OBJECT is constrained to what can be accessed OBJECTIVELY. That means that of your above definition, "in philosophy, something intelligible or perceptible by the mind" is strictly not allowed, as those are definitively subjective.
So the only definition of OBJECT you can allow, by your own reasoning, is:
OBJECT - Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.
Neither time nor a pothole qualify as OBJECTS, so defined. You cannot perceive an absence, as it does not provide sense channel input. An absence is recognized (subjectively) via context alone.
Just give it up already. This sort of tenuous and rationalized contrivance will never fly with anyone with an ounce of intelligence. Your target audience is definitely those who do not normally "access" much of anything, very much like yourself.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Apr 29 2011, 11:08 PM)
.
Hi again, I was just about to log out. Thanks for your reply.So....do you believe there was any direct 'design' input by any 'god' at your conception?
.
I think I have already explained how I believed that God designed me. Could you clarify the phrase "direct design by any god at your conception?
Hi again, I was just about to log out. Thanks for your reply.So....do you believe there was any direct 'design' input by any 'god' at your conception?
.
I think I have already explained how I believed that God designed me. Could you clarify the phrase "direct design by any god at your conception?
Synthsin75,Apr 29 2011, 11:12 said:
Me: If a bird weaved it, was it not designed?
Me: If a bird weaved it, was it not designed?
You cannot have it both ways. If your "theory" is meant to OBJECTIVELY access things, then your definition of an OBJECT is constrained to what can be accessed OBJECTIVELY.That means that of your above definition, "in philosophy, something intelligible or perceptible by the mind" is strictly not allowed, as those are definitively subjective
QUOTE
For most rational (as opposed to rationalizing) people, it would be obviously man-made as opposed to naturally occurring. Strings of which fabric is woven, nor the regular pattern of the weaving, occur in nature. Objectively, if you cannot find the components nor the configuration of an object to exist without human intervention, it is not "designed".
Me: If a bird weaved it, was it not designed?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For most rational (as opposed to rationalizing) people, it would be obviously man-made as opposed to naturally occurring. Strings of which fabric is woven, nor the regular pattern of the weaving, occur in nature. Objectively, if you cannot find the components nor the configuration of an object to exist without human intervention, it is not "designed". |
Me: If a bird weaved it, was it not designed?
You cannot have it both ways. If your "theory" is meant to OBJECTIVELY access things, then your definition of an OBJECT is constrained to what can be accessed OBJECTIVELY.That means that of your above definition, "in philosophy, something intelligible or perceptible by the mind" is strictly not allowed, as those are definitively subjective
.
Is THINKING 1+1 = 2 definitely subjective to you?
Not my own reasoning, but yours? I think in my OP, C#1 includes perceptible by powers of observation. ( that includes thinking I guess).
Not my own reasoning, but yours? I think in my OP, C#1 includes perceptible by powers of observation. ( that includes thinking I guess).
Neither time nor a pothole qualify as OBJECTS, so defined. You cannot perceive an absence, as it does not provide sense channel input. An absence is recognized (subjectively) via context alone.
Really, you can't perceived an absence? Any elementary kid will disagree with you. Dictionary will not agree with you.
I think you are mean and insulting. You mentioned the word "intelligence". Could you define it for me please? Is a crow intelligent or not? What about a computer?
Is THINKING 1+1 = 2 definitely subjective to you?
QUOTE
So the only definition of OBJECT you can allow, by your own reasoning, is: OBJECT - Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.
Not my own reasoning, but yours? I think in my OP, C#1 includes perceptible by powers of observation. ( that includes thinking I guess).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So the only definition of OBJECT you can allow, by your own reasoning, is: OBJECT - Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing. |
Not my own reasoning, but yours? I think in my OP, C#1 includes perceptible by powers of observation. ( that includes thinking I guess).
Neither time nor a pothole qualify as OBJECTS, so defined. You cannot perceive an absence, as it does not provide sense channel input. An absence is recognized (subjectively) via context alone.
Really, you can't perceived an absence? Any elementary kid will disagree with you. Dictionary will not agree with you.
QUOTE
Just give it up already. This sort of tenuous and rationalized contrivance will never fly with anyone with an ounce of intelligence. Your target audience is definitely those who do not normally "access" much of anything, very much like yourself
I think you are mean and insulting. You mentioned the word "intelligence". Could you define it for me please? Is a crow intelligent or not? What about a computer?
You may not quote anything I have written or will write here or elsewhere unless I make a specific exception. I may write something that you may quote at a later date, but I am not yet ready to write a complete comment on your ideas.
QUOTE (DExaminer+)
QUOTE (Kino+)
I think you need to define what a component is in this context, then. I know where to cut to remove a whole human arm - through the shoulder joint. Where exactly do I cut to remove the whole of David's arm? It doesn't have a joint per se, so will a plane cut (a la Venus de Milo) do, or do I need to carve out the form of a severed shoulder joint?
David does not have components in any engineering sense because it is a solid block of marble (cf the Terracotta Army) and the details of the form do not encapsulate any function that will let you make defensible judgements about which bit of marble belongs to which "component" (cf real human beings).
Lawyers have common sense rules to interpret the written words. One of this is: Ordinary words are given ordinary meaning unless the resulting interpretation is ridiculous or absurd.
Given this rule in interpretations, which part of statue of David’s arm or leg is ridiculous or absurd to you?
This is not the law; it is an attempt at science. What exactly defines the arm of a statue? I can make a functional definition for a real human being - starting with the bone in the upper arm. Definitely part of the arm, although the top end of it is actually inside the shoulder. Where do you draw a similar line with David? Do you cut the arm off on a mathematical plane? Do you think the surface should reflect an assumed bone structure? Should it follow boundaries of the crystals in the marble?
The difference between the law and science is that edge cases always matter in science. Ninety nine times out of a hundred in the law you are asking yourself if the elbow is part of the arm: an easy question. But when you want to know the details at a boundary, that is where you need a precise definition and a casual one becomes useless, rather than either absurd or ridiculous.
Happy to let this one lie, since the sphere example got us further in the direction I was going.
David does not have components in any engineering sense because it is a solid block of marble (cf the Terracotta Army) and the details of the form do not encapsulate any function that will let you make defensible judgements about which bit of marble belongs to which "component" (cf real human beings).
Lawyers have common sense rules to interpret the written words. One of this is: Ordinary words are given ordinary meaning unless the resulting interpretation is ridiculous or absurd.
Given this rule in interpretations, which part of statue of David’s arm or leg is ridiculous or absurd to you?
This is not the law; it is an attempt at science. What exactly defines the arm of a statue? I can make a functional definition for a real human being - starting with the bone in the upper arm. Definitely part of the arm, although the top end of it is actually inside the shoulder. Where do you draw a similar line with David? Do you cut the arm off on a mathematical plane? Do you think the surface should reflect an assumed bone structure? Should it follow boundaries of the crystals in the marble?
The difference between the law and science is that edge cases always matter in science. Ninety nine times out of a hundred in the law you are asking yourself if the elbow is part of the arm: an easy question. But when you want to know the details at a boundary, that is where you need a precise definition and a casual one becomes useless, rather than either absurd or ridiculous.
Happy to let this one lie, since the sphere example got us further in the direction I was going.
QUOTE (DExaminer+)
QUOTE (Kino+)
I think you need to define what a component…If you don't like this example, consider a man-made sphere of pure aluminium. This definitely has no components except in the most trivial sense of being constructed of atoms, so would be not designed by your argument,
There is another rule in interpreting the written words—given that English is not my native tongue. Singular is given plural and vice versa to arrive at a reasonable interpretation. Given this rule, If I re-state C# 1 to say: ‘The object must have a part(s) or component(s) would it be reasonable or unreasonable to you? Do I have to put dots above every “i” and cross every “t’s”?
Forgive me, but you are an auditor. Dotted 'i's and crossed 't's are supposed to be your stock in trade. In this case, allowing singular components relaxes your criterion to the point that it is unable to differentiate between a single quark - a fundamental particle and therefore a true single component - and a jet engine with thousands of macroscopic components. It is now just as useless as criteria 2, 4 and 5.
So that just leaves criterion 3:
There is another rule in interpreting the written words—given that English is not my native tongue. Singular is given plural and vice versa to arrive at a reasonable interpretation. Given this rule, If I re-state C# 1 to say: ‘The object must have a part(s) or component(s) would it be reasonable or unreasonable to you? Do I have to put dots above every “i” and cross every “t’s”?
Forgive me, but you are an auditor. Dotted 'i's and crossed 't's are supposed to be your stock in trade. In this case, allowing singular components relaxes your criterion to the point that it is unable to differentiate between a single quark - a fundamental particle and therefore a true single component - and a jet engine with thousands of macroscopic components. It is now just as useless as criteria 2, 4 and 5.
So that just leaves criterion 3:
QUOTE (DExaminer+)
QUOTE (Kino+)
And my point is about the ripples in wet sand where waves wash across them. Take a look next time you are on the beach. The layout of the ripples and the exact positioning depends on very subtle starting conditions and is essentially random.
So, do you agree or disagree that there is ABSENCE of evidence that these ripples on wet sands were accidentally formed? If you agree, then simply the conclusion is these were not designed
I think you need a definition of "accidental". The layout of ripples is essentially random - although chaotic may be a better word - but the form of each ripple is a deterministic consequence of the mechanical and fluid-dynamic properties of the water and sand. Is something that is predictable in detail accidental? You could take a step back and say that the parameters that define the results (salt content of water, sand grain size, gravitational field strength etc) are all random consequences of the way the earth was formed, and argue that the answer was yes. But that attitude applies to all naturally-occurring self-organising systems, including human development in utero and evolution. If you think the ripples are accidental, then so are we, and vice versa.
"Accidental" and "blind chance" are not the right words here. Some systems generate stunning complexity and apparent design by applying simple rules to random junk. "Emergent complexity" is the relevant buzzword. "Accidental" does not begin to describe it, and "blind chance" simply ignores the feedback processes that direct these things. All mutations, for example, are blind chance. Natural selection weeds out mutations that don't confer a tactical advantage, and does so reliably and repeatedly - this is in no way blind chance.
So, do you agree or disagree that there is ABSENCE of evidence that these ripples on wet sands were accidentally formed? If you agree, then simply the conclusion is these were not designed
I think you need a definition of "accidental". The layout of ripples is essentially random - although chaotic may be a better word - but the form of each ripple is a deterministic consequence of the mechanical and fluid-dynamic properties of the water and sand. Is something that is predictable in detail accidental? You could take a step back and say that the parameters that define the results (salt content of water, sand grain size, gravitational field strength etc) are all random consequences of the way the earth was formed, and argue that the answer was yes. But that attitude applies to all naturally-occurring self-organising systems, including human development in utero and evolution. If you think the ripples are accidental, then so are we, and vice versa.
"Accidental" and "blind chance" are not the right words here. Some systems generate stunning complexity and apparent design by applying simple rules to random junk. "Emergent complexity" is the relevant buzzword. "Accidental" does not begin to describe it, and "blind chance" simply ignores the feedback processes that direct these things. All mutations, for example, are blind chance. Natural selection weeds out mutations that don't confer a tactical advantage, and does so reliably and repeatedly - this is in no way blind chance.
QUOTE (DExaminer+)
Me: Given a reasonably intelligent (all “A”s) 10 to 12 year old kid, and not blind. I’ll ask the kid the same questions for Criterion # 1 to 3. (I’ll tweak the words so he /she will understand better.)
C#1 – Do you see any ripples in wet sands? – Answer: Yes (meaning there are discernible part(s) )
C# 2- Were these ripples formed by man or by waves? Answer: Waves (meaning yes natural process)
C# 3- Do you think the waves formed these ripples on purpose or by accident? Answer: Are you serious? Of course, by accident. (Meaning NO. There is evidence that the ripples were made accidentally)
Questions to you: Do you agree that the kid’s answer was reasonable, or not?
Case B, Kino said:
Me: Again, given a reasonably intelligent (all “A”s) 10 to 12 year old kid, and not blind. I’ll ask the kid the same questions for Criterion # 1 to 3. (I’ll tweak the words so he /she will understand better)
C# 1 – Do you see my hands, and feet? Answer: Yes
C#2 – Were my hands and feet developed inside my mother’s womb—or outside? Answer: Of course inside. (YES, meaning natural process)
C# 3- Do you think that my hands and feet were developed inside my mother’s womb by accident / or blind chance?
Answer: No, silly! When your mother and father had sex that alone is not by accident! Then he explains what he was taught in sex education... (Interpretation: According to the kid, there is ABSENCE of evidence that my appendages were formed by accident)
Questions to you: Do you agree that the kid’s answer was reasonable, or not?
This is why it is a rare twelve-year-old in the extreme who will contribute significantly to the body of human knowledge. The answers are neither comparable nor complete, so whether or not they are reasonable is irrelevant.
Taking your case A, you appear to be defining "accident" to mean anything that does not happen as a result of a directing purpose. OK - fine. Applying that logic to case B, what is the judgment if a condom broke? The parents didn't intend it to happen, so the hands and feet are an accident in that case but not where the parents were trying to conceive? On another level, ants have offspring but they don't exactly choose to produce them. You don't get old spinster ants that never met the right man. That is what I mean about not complete.
You also are not assessing the cases on the same basis. Ripples in the sand will exist on all planets where there is sand and water. Babies will only exist on planets where there is a few billion years of evolutionary history, and you need to take that into account to make a fair comparison. When you look at evolution, it is hard to describe it as either design or as accident, just the same as with the ripples. There is randomness at work, but it is a feedback process that pushes that randomness in ways that can look like design.
Honestly, I agree with Goofus that your third criterion is the only one that can do any work. The problem is that it's merely a statement of a question ("does it look designed?") and gives no direction as to how to go about answering. You said in your reply to Goofus' "no true Scotsman" comment that scientists would define what "reasonable evidence" is. That is true, and Darwin already did it for life on earth.
C#1 – Do you see any ripples in wet sands? – Answer: Yes (meaning there are discernible part(s) )
C# 2- Were these ripples formed by man or by waves? Answer: Waves (meaning yes natural process)
C# 3- Do you think the waves formed these ripples on purpose or by accident? Answer: Are you serious? Of course, by accident. (Meaning NO. There is evidence that the ripples were made accidentally)
Questions to you: Do you agree that the kid’s answer was reasonable, or not?
Case B, Kino said:
Me: Again, given a reasonably intelligent (all “A”s) 10 to 12 year old kid, and not blind. I’ll ask the kid the same questions for Criterion # 1 to 3. (I’ll tweak the words so he /she will understand better)
C# 1 – Do you see my hands, and feet? Answer: Yes
C#2 – Were my hands and feet developed inside my mother’s womb—or outside? Answer: Of course inside. (YES, meaning natural process)
C# 3- Do you think that my hands and feet were developed inside my mother’s womb by accident / or blind chance?
Answer: No, silly! When your mother and father had sex that alone is not by accident! Then he explains what he was taught in sex education... (Interpretation: According to the kid, there is ABSENCE of evidence that my appendages were formed by accident)
Questions to you: Do you agree that the kid’s answer was reasonable, or not?
This is why it is a rare twelve-year-old in the extreme who will contribute significantly to the body of human knowledge. The answers are neither comparable nor complete, so whether or not they are reasonable is irrelevant.
Taking your case A, you appear to be defining "accident" to mean anything that does not happen as a result of a directing purpose. OK - fine. Applying that logic to case B, what is the judgment if a condom broke? The parents didn't intend it to happen, so the hands and feet are an accident in that case but not where the parents were trying to conceive? On another level, ants have offspring but they don't exactly choose to produce them. You don't get old spinster ants that never met the right man. That is what I mean about not complete.
You also are not assessing the cases on the same basis. Ripples in the sand will exist on all planets where there is sand and water. Babies will only exist on planets where there is a few billion years of evolutionary history, and you need to take that into account to make a fair comparison. When you look at evolution, it is hard to describe it as either design or as accident, just the same as with the ripples. There is randomness at work, but it is a feedback process that pushes that randomness in ways that can look like design.
Honestly, I agree with Goofus that your third criterion is the only one that can do any work. The problem is that it's merely a statement of a question ("does it look designed?") and gives no direction as to how to go about answering. You said in your reply to Goofus' "no true Scotsman" comment that scientists would define what "reasonable evidence" is. That is true, and Darwin already did it for life on earth.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 29 2011, 05:46 PM)
If a bird weaved it, was it not designed?
It will not have the precision or regularity of a man-made fabric.
Yes, numbers are abstract symbols, not real objects. They rely on a relation to real objects such that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
Yes, numbers are abstract symbols, not real objects. They rely on a relation to real objects such that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
Not my own reasoning, but yours? I think in my OP, C#1 includes perceptible by powers of observation. ( that includes thinking I guess).
Now you're just dodging the logic forced upon you by claiming to access the OBJECTIVE. Either way, only non-physical perceptions would ever answer any of these in the negative. So they are useless in differentiating between physical things.
No, you cannot "recognize by our senses" an absence. Our senses do not receive signals from nothing. It is purely a cognitive contextual relation.
No, you cannot "recognize by our senses" an absence. Our senses do not receive signals from nothing. It is purely a cognitive contextual relation.
I think you are mean and insulting. You mentioned the word "intelligence". Could you define it for me please? Is a crow intelligent or not? What about a computer?
Yes, people who do not understand basic logic and stubbornly cling to their own personal ideology will very often find others impatience with them to be mean, unfair, biased, pick your vitriol.
intelligence - capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
So far, you have yet to learn the difference between subjective and objective. Now you could successfully argue that everything is subjective, but then you further destroy an possible validity for your "theory".
I don't know if I understand fully your analogy on 'dice throwing'. What I know is that I was reproduced akin to that man-made machine that replicates itself.
Today, there are CLONED animals (sheep, fish) etc. They are designed living things. I understand that clones can't self-reproduce at present--that is they are sterile. But, in the future they may be. I don't know if scientists--their designers--would play dice w/ the clone's offsrings, if ever.
Let's leave it at that.
ANYWAY, I WANT TO THANK EVERY ONE FOR PARTICIPATING. I WON'T BE ANSWERING ANYMORE QUESTIONS.
I would recommend this site, and this thread, as reference material.
I could not help but reply to this one. You dodge the question, if the bird weaved the cloth like thing was it designed?
By your "box-in" definition of intelligence, you have excluded non-humans.
Thanks for insulting me and the crow!
END. I WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO REPLY TO ANYONE AFTER THIS.
It will not have the precision or regularity of a man-made fabric.
QUOTE
Is THINKING 1+1 = 2 definitely subjective to you?
Yes, numbers are abstract symbols, not real objects. They rely on a relation to real objects such that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is THINKING 1+1 = 2 definitely subjective to you? |
Yes, numbers are abstract symbols, not real objects. They rely on a relation to real objects such that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
Not my own reasoning, but yours? I think in my OP, C#1 includes perceptible by powers of observation. ( that includes thinking I guess).
Now you're just dodging the logic forced upon you by claiming to access the OBJECTIVE. Either way, only non-physical perceptions would ever answer any of these in the negative. So they are useless in differentiating between physical things.
QUOTE
Really, you can't perceived an absence? Any elementary kid will disagree with you. Dictionary will not agree with you.
No, you cannot "recognize by our senses" an absence. Our senses do not receive signals from nothing. It is purely a cognitive contextual relation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Really, you can't perceived an absence? Any elementary kid will disagree with you. Dictionary will not agree with you. |
No, you cannot "recognize by our senses" an absence. Our senses do not receive signals from nothing. It is purely a cognitive contextual relation.
I think you are mean and insulting. You mentioned the word "intelligence". Could you define it for me please? Is a crow intelligent or not? What about a computer?
Yes, people who do not understand basic logic and stubbornly cling to their own personal ideology will very often find others impatience with them to be mean, unfair, biased, pick your vitriol.
intelligence - capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
So far, you have yet to learn the difference between subjective and objective. Now you could successfully argue that everything is subjective, but then you further destroy an possible validity for your "theory".
QUOTE
RealityCheck,Apr 29 2011, 11:49 PM
Very well.
My question goes to the point about 'design' and what it means in the context of divine creation/design per se insofar as physical beings like you and me are concerned.
You have replied that your 'design' was IN-direct, ie, via a 'first generation' and subsequent generations.
Now let's examine the implications of that.
That your conception was the result of repeated 'dice throwing' (genetic/chromosomal random mixing during generations of SEXUAL procreation) rather than a 'definite design plan'.
Very well.
My question goes to the point about 'design' and what it means in the context of divine creation/design per se insofar as physical beings like you and me are concerned.
You have replied that your 'design' was IN-direct, ie, via a 'first generation' and subsequent generations.
Now let's examine the implications of that.
That your conception was the result of repeated 'dice throwing' (genetic/chromosomal random mixing during generations of SEXUAL procreation) rather than a 'definite design plan'.
I don't know if I understand fully your analogy on 'dice throwing'. What I know is that I was reproduced akin to that man-made machine that replicates itself.
Today, there are CLONED animals (sheep, fish) etc. They are designed living things. I understand that clones can't self-reproduce at present--that is they are sterile. But, in the future they may be. I don't know if scientists--their designers--would play dice w/ the clone's offsrings, if ever.
Let's leave it at that.
ANYWAY, I WANT TO THANK EVERY ONE FOR PARTICIPATING. I WON'T BE ANSWERING ANYMORE QUESTIONS.
I would recommend this site, and this thread, as reference material.
QUOTE
synthsin75,Apr 30 2011, 12:11 AM]It will not have the precision or regularity of a man-made fabric.
I could not help but reply to this one. You dodge the question, if the bird weaved the cloth like thing was it designed?
By your "box-in" definition of intelligence, you have excluded non-humans.
Thanks for insulting me and the crow!
END. I WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO REPLY TO ANYONE AFTER THIS.
Well since you won't be replying, and haven't answered up to half of what has been put to you here, I don't feel any need to further oblige you.
BTW, you never bothered to define your "WHOLE NEW DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DESIGNED /CREATED OBJECTS".
BTW, you never bothered to define your "WHOLE NEW DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DESIGNED /CREATED OBJECTS".
synthsin75,Apr 30 2011, 12:42 AM, said:
BTW, you never bothered to define your "WHOLE NEW DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DESIGNED /CREATED OBJECTS"
Didn't you read my post,
BTW, you never bothered to define your "WHOLE NEW DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DESIGNED /CREATED OBJECTS"
Didn't you read my post, Simply put, Simon’s Theory of Origins define designed objects as those that meet the 5 objective verifiable criteria. If not, then the object is not designed.
I think I made a mistake in the sense that I did not state clearly my conclusion about this discussion. For the sake of honesty, and openness I will state this in my book.
The author vetted this theory with a web site who claims to be scientific. While the author honestly disclosed his profession, no one of his critics was willing to disclose theirs. (A little search revealed that most of them want to appear as scientists) There were five or so critics against the author. Here are some highlights of the discussion.
1. Michael Angelo’s David has no arms and legs in the “scientific” sense of the word.
2. An intelligent twelve year old can not significantly contribute to the human body of knowledge. And whatever they say—reasonable or not—does not matter.
3. A cloth like stuff made by a bird is not intelligently designed.
4. The critics were silent to the proposition that NOT ALL of objects formed by natural processes are products of accident.
5. The critics rejected a dictionary’s definition of a theory being an “abstract reasoning; speculation. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.”
6. Time or a pothole is not an object.
7. The author was accused of not having an ounce of intelligence and his target audience does not have access to the proper materials.
8. The author is an anti-social, and intellectually dishonest person. His ideas are moronic.
While trying to open their minds to new ideas, the author felt that they tried to box him in with their “scientific perceptions”.
When the discussion turned heated as the author was called names, there was no recourse left for the author but to end it.
It is a good website and a good thread to follow. Unfortunately, the author was not able to get permission to publish the raw materials of the discussion.
If some time in the future, scientists are able to come up with live clone fish that's capable of sexually reproducing itself, I wonder if those guys will admit that the offspring of the cloned fish is really intelligently designed /created.
My guess is not, because I feel that the real question is not about whether an object is intelligently designed/ created. Its all about rejecting my Creator, Jehovah God.
I REQUEST THAT NO ONE REPLY TO THIS POST OR THREAD ANYMORE. BYE, BYE AND MAY YOU ALL HAVE A BLESSED DAY !!
[Moderator: Another g*ddamned child rapist posing as an authority. Phaugh.]
QUOTE
Well since you won't be replying, and haven't answered up to half of what has been put to you here, I don't feel any need to further oblige you.
BTW, you never bothered to define your "WHOLE NEW DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DESIGNED /CREATED OBJECTS"
Didn't you read my post,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well since you won't be replying, and haven't answered up to half of what has been put to you here, I don't feel any need to further oblige you. |
BTW, you never bothered to define your "WHOLE NEW DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DESIGNED /CREATED OBJECTS"
Didn't you read my post, Simply put, Simon’s Theory of Origins define designed objects as those that meet the 5 objective verifiable criteria. If not, then the object is not designed.
I think I made a mistake in the sense that I did not state clearly my conclusion about this discussion. For the sake of honesty, and openness I will state this in my book.
The author vetted this theory with a web site who claims to be scientific. While the author honestly disclosed his profession, no one of his critics was willing to disclose theirs. (A little search revealed that most of them want to appear as scientists) There were five or so critics against the author. Here are some highlights of the discussion.
1. Michael Angelo’s David has no arms and legs in the “scientific” sense of the word.
2. An intelligent twelve year old can not significantly contribute to the human body of knowledge. And whatever they say—reasonable or not—does not matter.
3. A cloth like stuff made by a bird is not intelligently designed.
4. The critics were silent to the proposition that NOT ALL of objects formed by natural processes are products of accident.
5. The critics rejected a dictionary’s definition of a theory being an “abstract reasoning; speculation. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.”
6. Time or a pothole is not an object.
7. The author was accused of not having an ounce of intelligence and his target audience does not have access to the proper materials.
8. The author is an anti-social, and intellectually dishonest person. His ideas are moronic.
While trying to open their minds to new ideas, the author felt that they tried to box him in with their “scientific perceptions”.
When the discussion turned heated as the author was called names, there was no recourse left for the author but to end it.
It is a good website and a good thread to follow. Unfortunately, the author was not able to get permission to publish the raw materials of the discussion.
If some time in the future, scientists are able to come up with live clone fish that's capable of sexually reproducing itself, I wonder if those guys will admit that the offspring of the cloned fish is really intelligently designed /created.
My guess is not, because I feel that the real question is not about whether an object is intelligently designed/ created. Its all about rejecting my Creator, Jehovah God.
I REQUEST THAT NO ONE REPLY TO THIS POST OR THREAD ANYMORE. BYE, BYE AND MAY YOU ALL HAVE A BLESSED DAY !!
[Moderator: Another g*ddamned child rapist posing as an authority. Phaugh.]
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 30 2011, 07:10 AM)
I REQUEST THAT NO ONE REPLY TO THIS POST OR THREAD ANYMORE. BYE, BYE AND MAY YOU ALL HAVE A BLESSED DAY !!
BS! You already claimed that you were NOT going to reply to this thread anymore.
TWICE!
END. I WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO REPLY TO ANYONE AFTER THIS.
You are a hypocritical liar, as evidenced by the above outright lies that you were done with this discussion only to defray any further rebuke of your inability to reason.
Making you a coward as well. DO NOT REPLY FURTHER, OR YOU WILL FURTHER VERIFY YOUR OWN CHARACTER.
For the information of any hapless fool you get to purchase your book:
1. Definitions of how science uses the words THEORY, HYPOTHESIS, and LAW:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
2. The author still has yet to precisely define nor state his "NEW" terms for "created/designed". New terms must be clearly defined BEFORE any reasoning can be done with them, or any further assumptions made.
3. The author went from arguing the "wind" may have woven a piece of fabric, only when pressed to resort to a "bird" having woven it, then taking replies out of context to dishonestly imply he had made some point.
4. This idea was presented as a "theory" alternative to Darwin's. Thus the author should not be surprised that he may be required to deal scientifically.
BS! You already claimed that you were NOT going to reply to this thread anymore.
TWICE!
QUOTE
Let's leave it at that.
ANYWAY, I WANT TO THANK EVERY ONE FOR PARTICIPATING. I WON'T BE ANSWERING ANYMORE QUESTIONS.
ANYWAY, I WANT TO THANK EVERY ONE FOR PARTICIPATING. I WON'T BE ANSWERING ANYMORE QUESTIONS.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let's leave it at that. ANYWAY, I WANT TO THANK EVERY ONE FOR PARTICIPATING. I WON'T BE ANSWERING ANYMORE QUESTIONS. |
END. I WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO REPLY TO ANYONE AFTER THIS.
You are a hypocritical liar, as evidenced by the above outright lies that you were done with this discussion only to defray any further rebuke of your inability to reason.
Making you a coward as well. DO NOT REPLY FURTHER, OR YOU WILL FURTHER VERIFY YOUR OWN CHARACTER.
For the information of any hapless fool you get to purchase your book:
1. Definitions of how science uses the words THEORY, HYPOTHESIS, and LAW:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
2. The author still has yet to precisely define nor state his "NEW" terms for "created/designed". New terms must be clearly defined BEFORE any reasoning can be done with them, or any further assumptions made.
3. The author went from arguing the "wind" may have woven a piece of fabric, only when pressed to resort to a "bird" having woven it, then taking replies out of context to dishonestly imply he had made some point.
4. This idea was presented as a "theory" alternative to Darwin's. Thus the author should not be surprised that he may be required to deal scientifically.
QUOTE (DExaminer+Apr 30 2011, 01:10 PM)
I think I made a mistake in the sense that I did not state clearly my conclusion about this discussion. For the sake of honesty, and openness I will state this in my book.
The author vetted this theory with a web site who claims to be scientific. While the author honestly disclosed his profession, no one of his critics was willing to disclose theirs. (A little search revealed that most of them want to appear as scientists) There were five or so critics against the author. Here are some highlights of the discussion.
1. Michael Angelo’s David has no arms and legs in the “scientific” sense of the word.
No, I argued that Michelangelo's David does not have components in an engineering sense, and tried to get you to define precisely what you meant by component.
No, I said it was a rare twelve-year-old who could contribute significantly. The two answers you were attributing to the twelve-year-old were meant to be compared and contrasted, but were not on a comparable basis and did not consider the complete situation; therefore whether these answers were reasonable or not was irrelevant to this argument. I expect these kinds of mistakes from most twelve-year-olds - you, I suspect, are not twelve.
No, I said it was a rare twelve-year-old who could contribute significantly. The two answers you were attributing to the twelve-year-old were meant to be compared and contrasted, but were not on a comparable basis and did not consider the complete situation; therefore whether these answers were reasonable or not was irrelevant to this argument. I expect these kinds of mistakes from most twelve-year-olds - you, I suspect, are not twelve.
3. A cloth like stuff made by a bird is not intelligently designed.
Not my argument - no comment.
I spent three posts banging on about how accident was not the right word. What on earth do you mean by "silent"?
I spent three posts banging on about how accident was not the right word. What on earth do you mean by "silent"?
5. The critics rejected a dictionary’s definition of a theory being an “abstract reasoning; speculation. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.”
You are playing at science; you claim your "theory" is competition for the Theory of Evolution. You are not even using the scientific definition of the word theory, and so your "theory" doesn't even have the basic characteristics of a scientific theory, let alone a good enough one to challenge evolution.
Not me again; however if you claim this is a fair summary of the discussion, the "intellectually dishonest" part is correct.
Not me again; however if you claim this is a fair summary of the discussion, the "intellectually dishonest" part is correct.
While trying to open their minds to new ideas, the author felt that they tried to box him in with their “scientific perceptions”.
You mean asking for precision in terminology.
I rather suspected you might construct some hideous travesty like this around any quotes you took. You will note that I did say that I might write something you could quote, but did not feel ready yet.
I rather suspected you might construct some hideous travesty like this around any quotes you took. You will note that I did say that I might write something you could quote, but did not feel ready yet.
If some time in the future, scientists are able to come up with live clone fish that's capable of sexually reproducing itself, I wonder if those guys will admit that the offspring of the cloned fish is really intelligently designed /created.
Designed? No. Copying is not design. Created? Arguably. Can't be bothered to make the case though.
Ah. That says it all.
I make it a rule not to be deliberately insulting in internet posts. Flamewars are too easy. I will say that in replying to your post, I have come the closest I have to breaking that rule in twelve years. The lack of integrity displayed in your summary is frankly disgusting.
The author vetted this theory with a web site who claims to be scientific. While the author honestly disclosed his profession, no one of his critics was willing to disclose theirs. (A little search revealed that most of them want to appear as scientists) There were five or so critics against the author. Here are some highlights of the discussion.
1. Michael Angelo’s David has no arms and legs in the “scientific” sense of the word.
No, I argued that Michelangelo's David does not have components in an engineering sense, and tried to get you to define precisely what you meant by component.
QUOTE
2. An intelligent twelve year old can not significantly contribute to the human body of knowledge. And whatever they say—reasonable or not—does not matter.
No, I said it was a rare twelve-year-old who could contribute significantly. The two answers you were attributing to the twelve-year-old were meant to be compared and contrasted, but were not on a comparable basis and did not consider the complete situation; therefore whether these answers were reasonable or not was irrelevant to this argument. I expect these kinds of mistakes from most twelve-year-olds - you, I suspect, are not twelve.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. An intelligent twelve year old can not significantly contribute to the human body of knowledge. And whatever they say—reasonable or not—does not matter. |
No, I said it was a rare twelve-year-old who could contribute significantly. The two answers you were attributing to the twelve-year-old were meant to be compared and contrasted, but were not on a comparable basis and did not consider the complete situation; therefore whether these answers were reasonable or not was irrelevant to this argument. I expect these kinds of mistakes from most twelve-year-olds - you, I suspect, are not twelve.
3. A cloth like stuff made by a bird is not intelligently designed.
Not my argument - no comment.
QUOTE
4. The critics were silent to the proposition that NOT ALL of objects formed by natural processes are products of accident.
I spent three posts banging on about how accident was not the right word. What on earth do you mean by "silent"?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4. The critics were silent to the proposition that NOT ALL of objects formed by natural processes are products of accident. |
I spent three posts banging on about how accident was not the right word. What on earth do you mean by "silent"?
5. The critics rejected a dictionary’s definition of a theory being an “abstract reasoning; speculation. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.”
You are playing at science; you claim your "theory" is competition for the Theory of Evolution. You are not even using the scientific definition of the word theory, and so your "theory" doesn't even have the basic characteristics of a scientific theory, let alone a good enough one to challenge evolution.
QUOTE
6. Time or a pothole is not an object.
7. The author was accused of not having an ounce of intelligence and his target audience does not have access to the proper materials.
8. The author is an anti-social, and intellectually dishonest person. His ideas are moronic.
7. The author was accused of not having an ounce of intelligence and his target audience does not have access to the proper materials.
8. The author is an anti-social, and intellectually dishonest person. His ideas are moronic.
Not me again; however if you claim this is a fair summary of the discussion, the "intellectually dishonest" part is correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 6. Time or a pothole is not an object. 7. The author was accused of not having an ounce of intelligence and his target audience does not have access to the proper materials. 8. The author is an anti-social, and intellectually dishonest person. His ideas are moronic. |
Not me again; however if you claim this is a fair summary of the discussion, the "intellectually dishonest" part is correct.
While trying to open their minds to new ideas, the author felt that they tried to box him in with their “scientific perceptions”.
You mean asking for precision in terminology.
QUOTE
When the discussion turned heated as the author was called names, there was no recourse left for the author but to end it.
It is a good website and a good thread to follow. Unfortunately, the author was not able to get permission to publish the raw materials of the discussion.
It is a good website and a good thread to follow. Unfortunately, the author was not able to get permission to publish the raw materials of the discussion.
I rather suspected you might construct some hideous travesty like this around any quotes you took. You will note that I did say that I might write something you could quote, but did not feel ready yet.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When the discussion turned heated as the author was called names, there was no recourse left for the author but to end it. It is a good website and a good thread to follow. Unfortunately, the author was not able to get permission to publish the raw materials of the discussion. |
I rather suspected you might construct some hideous travesty like this around any quotes you took. You will note that I did say that I might write something you could quote, but did not feel ready yet.
If some time in the future, scientists are able to come up with live clone fish that's capable of sexually reproducing itself, I wonder if those guys will admit that the offspring of the cloned fish is really intelligently designed /created.
Designed? No. Copying is not design. Created? Arguably. Can't be bothered to make the case though.
QUOTE
My guess is not, because I feel that the real question is not about whether an object is intelligently designed/ created. Its all about rejecting my Creator, Jehovah God.
Ah. That says it all.
I make it a rule not to be deliberately insulting in internet posts. Flamewars are too easy. I will say that in replying to your post, I have come the closest I have to breaking that rule in twelve years. The lack of integrity displayed in your summary is frankly disgusting.
QUOTE (DExaminer+)
Are you capable of courteous exchange of ideas? No name calling? Are you and the rest willing to accept the proposition that he who'll use foul, insulting language is a loser in this thread?
The Simon's Theory of Origins is closed. I won't reply to additional comments to it. Give it a rest. But, of course I'll use it in this thread to support some concepts.
I am joining just this thread NOT that thread. Is this OK with you?
Just wanting to make sure that this thread, that the OP claims will be referenced in his book, is complete.
The author's ideas couldn't withstand scrutiny, so he aborted this thread, and is now attempting to disseminate it elsewhere.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=485328
The Simon's Theory of Origins is closed. I won't reply to additional comments to it. Give it a rest. But, of course I'll use it in this thread to support some concepts.
I am joining just this thread NOT that thread. Is this OK with you?
Just wanting to make sure that this thread, that the OP claims will be referenced in his book, is complete.
The author's ideas couldn't withstand scrutiny, so he aborted this thread, and is now attempting to disseminate it elsewhere.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=485328
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.