(December 25, 2015 at 11:45 pm)pool Wrote: I don't understand that question - "Is earth a system with imposed rules of evolutionary biology". Probably because of my lack of knowledge in the subject.
I can give you another example to understand what i mean by design though, an example of imposed rules on the system that is earth would be the laws of physics. Get it?

(December 26, 2015 at 12:06 am)pool Wrote: Dafaq? Is that how you think I think? O.o Wow I must look like a complete idiot if you guys think that's what I mean. Nobody's going to give punishment or butt slap. What I think is more along the lines of "There are laws of physics and you can't defy them." - which implies imposed rules, the system being our world would then imply there is a design.  

It seems, to me, that you understood the question just fine.  Where is this imposition, though?  That we can't defy the laws of physics seems, to you, to imply imposition?  Flesh that out for me.  Why and how, would my inability to make an elephant levitate imply that, at all, and then........ why -would- the imposition of rules imply design of the system?  You;ve never walked onto a court and laid out the rules of the game you're willing to play?  That, is an imposition of rules, but it doesn't imply that you made the court, or the ball...or even invented the game, does it?

Quote:In Climbing Mount Improbable Richard Dawkins draws a distinction between objects that are clearly designed and objects that are not designed but superficially look a bit like they are – which he calls ‘designoid’.[4] Dawkins illustrates the concept of being designoid with a hillside that suggests a human profile: ‘Once you have been told, you can just see a slight resemblance to either John or Robert Kennedy.  But some don’t see it and it is certainly easy to believe that the resemblance is accidental.’[5] Dawkins contrasts this Kennedy-esque hillside with the four president’s heads carved into Mt. Rushmore in America which ‘are obviously not accidental: they have design written all over them.’[6] Although Dawkins defines biology as ‘the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’,[7] he believes that appearances are deceiving.  Biological things are designoid: ‘Designoid objects look designed, so much so that some people – probably, alas, most people – think that they are designed.  These people are wrong. . .  the true explanation – Darwinian natural selection – is very different.’[8]

Quote:Dembski is ‘the leading intellectual theorist of Design. . .’[19] According to Edward Sission: ‘If Thomas Huxley was “Darwin’s Bulldog”, Dembski is the man with the leash and the obedience training technique to bring Darwinism into check.’[20] Dembski’s leash is an ‘Explanatory Filter’ that identifies intelligent causation by detecting what chance and natural law alone are extremely hard-pressed to produce, namely ‘specified complexity’ or ‘complex specified information’ (CSI): ‘the filter asks three questions in the following order: (1) Does a law explain it? (2) does chance explain it? (3) does design explain it?’[21] If something can reasonably be explained by chance and/or necessity, then (by Occam’s razor) it should be so explained (it is, at most, designoid); but if such an explanation is inadequate, then an inference to the more complex but more adequate hypothesis of design is warranted.  Intelligence easily accomplishes what unintelligent causes find all but impossible, the creation of specified complexity; hence the detection of specified complexity, while it does not prove design beyond all possibility of doubt, does prove design beyond all reasonable doubt.

These guys are trying their best to define design
I wonder why they are trying so hard - A system with one or more set of imposed rules(s), seems to be able to do it just fine
I feel so smart :>

(December 26, 2015 at 3:04 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(December 25, 2015 at 11:45 pm)pool Wrote: I don't understand that question - "Is earth a system with imposed rules of evolutionary biology". Probably because of my lack of knowledge in the subject.
I can give you another example to understand what i mean by design though, an example of imposed rules on the system that is earth would be the laws of physics. Get it?

(December 26, 2015 at 12:06 am)pool Wrote: Dafaq? Is that how you think I think? O.o Wow I must look like a complete idiot if you guys think that's what I mean. Nobody's going to give punishment or butt slap. What I think is more along the lines of "There are laws of physics and you can't defy them." - which implies imposed rules, the system being our world would then imply there is a design.  

It seems, to me, that you understood the question just fine.  Where is this imposition, though?  That we can't defy the laws of physics seems, to you, to imply imposition?  Flesh that out for me.  Why and how, would my inability to make an elephant levitate imply that, at all, and then........ why -would- the imposition of rules imply design of the system?  You;ve never walked onto a court and laid out the rules of the game you're willing to play?  That, is an imposition of rules, but it doesn't imply that you made the court, or the ball...or even invented the game, does it?

You're missing the point.
Imposition of rules imply that the rules cannot be broken at will. [Switched on and off at will.]
If you can break the laws of physics then you are not imposed of those rules. [Turn them on and off at will.]

Hardly, your definition would include a great many things not, by any stretch, considered designed. Your last post was complete gibberish, btw. Rephrase? "imposed of those rules"..lol? How many custom definitions are you going to require for your statement to be sensible? Would It be too unkind to surmise, at this point..that when you are done explaining your use of terms you'll be found to be saying nothing special, or different, than what any of the rest of us might say...and certainly that you -won't - be saying anything that your statements - before custom definitions- would seem to be communicating?

(December 26, 2015 at 3:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: Hardly, your definition would include a great many things not, by any stretch, considered designed.  Your last post was complete gibberish, btw.  Rephrase?  "imposed of those rules"..lol?  How many custom definitions are you going to require for your statement to be sensible?  Would It be too unkind to surmise, at this point..that when you are done explaining your use of terms you'll be found to be saying nothing special, or different, than what any of the rest of us might say...and certainly that you -won't - be saying anything that your statements - before custom definitions- would seem to be communicating?

 I would love to debate with you occasionally, you're very good.

I didn't really fully understand your post though, I take it you mean my definition of design is not sufficient. Provide an instance?

If I imposed my rules on a basketball court, would it imply that I designed the court, the ball..or even those rules?  No, it wouldn't.  This shows that even if there were an -actual- imposition, it would not imply what you think it does...and if your definition for a designed system is a system with rules imposed...then you must accept that I designed either the court, the ball, or the game of basketball, by my act of imposing rules upon the court.  You and I both know, ofc, that I didn't design any of those things.  This ignores that you haven't actually -shown- any such imposition in the first place, /w regards to the cosmos as a whole or life in specific.

The manner in which we design, and the manner in which evolution works, are entirely dissimilar. Any definition that includes both things we've designed and things naturaly occurring (by a process such as evolution, for example) -as designed-, is absurdly insufficient in that it cannot then distinguish between two very distinguishable things, nor can it distinguish between design and my walking onto a basketball court and saying "We're playing horse, yall".

Quote:If I imposed my rules on a basketball court, would it imply that I designed the court, the ball..or even those rules?

xD You couldn't be more wrong. If you impose your rules on a basketball it would obviously imply that you designed the rules.
The system being the basketball with imposed rules(Your rules in this instance) would then imply a design, an intelligent design in this instance since we know that you're the designer. As we all know a basketball game is designed.

You think that I designed the rules of horse?  You're very generous, but alas, I did not. That basketball is a designed game, that the court is designed, that the ball is designed........that all of these things are, as we know them, designed..and yet none of it can amount to a validation of your definition for the word is -precisely why- it is insufficient, and indistinguishable from my having found a rock in a field somewhere. I did not and could not have designed any of it, though I'm clearly capable of imposing those rules on a system, and of availing myself of designed things in that imposition. This, again, is why an imposition doesn't imply what you think it does....even if you could show such an imposition, which you haven't.

What would your final statement even mean.....if basketball is a designed game in the same way that a rock is a designed object? Not really saying much of anything, in that case, eh?

Well, I would personally never use the word "designed" if some sort of intelligence, or at the very least a process, wasn't involved. So we're just not speaking in the same terms. A system that apparently has rules is... just that; if you are calling the universe one of those things, fair enough. That is true by definition. It does appear to be that way, although we can only try and model the rules, we can never be sure we actually know what they are or that they really apply how we think they do.

Also, I would think the for something to be "designed" there would have to be a time when it didn't exist in its current form, some design process happened, and then the thing was crafted into this designed form. This assumes a time when our reality wasn't around, some sort of design process happened (however quickly), and then the reality was there with rules in place. I'd find this view to be possible, but as yet unsupported.

If you don't mean the above either, then your use of the word just means nothing like what I would mean by it. Which is fine

Also, pool, your saying anything under imposed rule is designed and that our world is under imposed rule therefore designed. When I asked you if you thought that everything is designed, you said "No". This seems to be a contradiction, like I said before I'm not sure you know what your talking about. You always try to make up definitions and dress them up in a lot of gibberish to make it seem like your coming up with some deep smart position that nobody has thought of before, when really your just talking nonsense. Rhythm's Horse example clearly explains that even if you could establish imposed rules (which you can't) it still doesn't imply design.