Calling out KellyJay: DW Stage 2.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know why I have wasted my time trying to teach you guys anything.
You guys must be the most ignorant people in the world.

You are trying to teach us? If so, yes, you are clearly wasting your time.

Sorry for long delay, moving has kept me busy and without access to this place
for a time too. I'll get back into the discussion shortly.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sorry for long delay, moving has kept me busy and without access to this place
for a time too. I'll get back into the discussion shortly.
Kelly

No worries.

Originally posted by LemonJello
No worries.

Almost settled in a couple of weeks of nights than a normal schedule.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
This is a continuation of examination into the following essay by Dallas Willard:

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42

DW's argument for the "first stage of theistic evidence" is being examined in the previous thread Thread 145948.

My intention for this thread is to open up discussion on DW's argument for the "secon ...[text shortened]... -------

KJ, do you have comments or corrections?

At first glance I want to say that order has to do with classification so his
question is finding a life form that sprang from something that did not
have an ancestor in front of it. It seems to be okay in evolutionary terms
to say this creature came from that one, and that one came from this
other one….so the order is there. He is looking for the disordered life.

I'll have to read his text again and yours, I've been so busy of late I have
not spent any time thinking about this. I've also suffered in my chess play,
I've basically have been forced to make all my move (70+) games in one
30 minute time period once each day before work. I just got my internet up
at home so my game play will improve over the blitz chess I've been
playing here. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think that a common error is to believe that in our universe a randomly arranged set of objects (eg atoms) will not of their own accord arrange themselves into neat (ordered?) formations. However this is quite obviously untrue as many simple examples demonstrate. Almost all such 'ordering' is a result of a force, forces or process. However forces are fo ...[text shortened]...
3. A chemical reaction between two free atoms results in a more ordered arrangement of atoms.

The trouble with what your saying is that there are somethings that go
far beyond just simply reacting to forces at play. An example I have given
before has to do with rocks seen along the ground while one is travelling
on a train or car. You can see them all over the place vary in size and shape,
but if you are travelling along and you see some that are all the same
color and size plus they are now in such an order that they spell out the
words, "Welcome to Hoopeston" you have to think there was a little more
at play than just a random placement of rocks. I suppose you could still
argue that there is no real reason to think of anything else happened to
those rocks to put those shapes and colors together in that pattern, after
all we see a lot of function inside code that is a lot more complex than
stationary rocks that are said to be there for reasons of random chance
and just natural forces at play.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is another common error. The belief that we can identify man made objects based on their complexity. There are plenty of natural phenomena that but almost any measure would be considered more complex than a watch - yet we do not attribute man as a designer to them.
What's worse, I think he is attempting to set up a flawed circular argument. He is sa ...[text shortened]... refore also have been created (but this time not by man). This seems to be self contradictory.

Natural phenomena more complex than a watch I'd have to get some
examples, of what you are talking about. Personally since I think the
universe is built by design so I'm not very surpised there would be some,
but examples would still be nice.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is another common error. The belief that we can identify man made objects based on their complexity. There are plenty of natural phenomena that but almost any measure would be considered more complex than a watch - yet we do not attribute man as a designer to them.
What's worse, I think he is attempting to set up a flawed circular argument. He is sa refore also have been created (but this time not by man). This seems to be self contradictory.

A watch has a function it tracks time, it is complex in its makeup.
The parts of it do not come together naturally, the parts don't even
exist naturally by themselves so they must be built and put together
to function.

Now within life we see a lot more function and complexity at play so
knowing how difficult it is to get all the parts, put them together,
make sure all the timing and temperatures are correct, apply the
right energy in the proper amounts to make things work...saying it
looks like design isn't a common error in my opinion, it is more like
a glaring truth.
Kelly