What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?

TONY: In light of forum debates and how they go. These basic rules work out well. Anything like this can do well.

There you go again, ASSUMING there is a goal to the universe, and that that goal is life.As for your bet, I'll take you up on it. Please provide me with clear evidence we are indeed "designed" and i will join your cause.To that "change your mind part" the same goes for you, don't be a part of a system invented to make maintaining control easier, and FREE your mind and think for yourself.

---

I hunt for the truth

Yes it does. If you say a unicorn waved it's horn and placed the planets in their orbits for the purpose of biological life, I'd say 'you're crazy'. If you say, 'by naturally occuring events', I would agree with you and would have nothing further to debate on. The fact is that 'There is an Earth', period. The added word placed is what is NOT a fact. Please show how you determined it was placed, and show how you refute the scientific evidence that points to naturally occuring events. Then this is an argument from incredulity. If you can show no other evidence other than 'I feel it is placed there', then you are simply invoking your belief. Yes, you could combine the 2, but what purpose would that be for? To satisfy you and your own personal interpretation of nature?If you are going to invoke a designer, but you cannot prove whether a designer actually exists, then why invoke a designer when there is a perfectly good theory on planetary formation that explains it through just the natural processes?In fact you're not even arguing that there aren't natural processes, you are just saying that an un-named intelligence did it for the purpose of life, with natural causes. If science is only the study of the natural world, and naturally occuring events explain just about everything, then 'design' is just to invoke purpose, and purpose cannot be proven just because you feel things are designed. This is a circular argument that you've presented.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

[ This is way off topic. Please, no replies. --Admin ]Do I need to point out that "ADAM" was created from the "DUST OF THE EARTH".Every "Chemical", "Element" you find in the "universe", you'll find in the "creatures" created from it.However, there is "one ingredient" in all creatures that the universe can't produce/provide,That being the "SPIRIT" (of life), only "GOD" can "CREATE LIFE".As the body without a "SPIRIT" is "DEAD", so would the whole universe be dead without "God's spirit"."Earth" can provide the "body", but only "GOD" can supply the "LIFE".A lesson "Evolutionist" haven't learned yet. Edited by Admin, : Add comment at top.

If you assume life and humanity is a "goal" then you are right.If we do not make this assumption then life fitting the "hole" available is perfectly analogous to the puddle.So is your "goal" assumption justified? I would say definitely not and you have provided no argument to suggest otherwise. To which you never replied.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thanks, for this. My reply below also applies to similar querries.
This refers to Premise # 3 of my post # 35. Is this begging the question? It appears only to be so. But, a more detailed analysis will show this is a valid premise.Here is analysis:
A. Facts first:- if there is right distance of the earth to the sun, but WRONG conditions life won’t be possible.
- -if the conditions are right, but distance is wrong life will eventually die.B. Interpretation of the facts:
-Were the above facts brought by random chance? Mathematical probability is not on its side.- Then, why should the earth’s distance to the sun be right, and the conditions of the earth be right for life to flourish?An analogous question will answer this one.Why would Gideon, a cook, take the effort of coming up with the right ingredient, the right temperature, even the right equipment to cook? In short, why these conditions or requirements? Because he wants to achieve his GOAL”the perfect muffin ( or whatever is that dish). So, as Gideon’s conditions / requirements are towards a goal ( the muffin), the Earth’s and Sun’s conditions/ requirements--- the rightness of distance and condition”also has a GOAL: Life !I think this GOAL was also expressed by a scientist (?)”I forgot his name”” it is as if the universe knew we were coming ( or words to this effect).

See my post # 51. May not be clear evidence for you but makes sense.

Please see my post # 51 where I explained why life is goal

So how specifically is the exact puddle formed in a randomly produced pothole any different to the "exact" conditions for life leading to life?Why do you deduce a "goal" to be necessary in one case and not the other?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

My answer is post # 51. My honest effort to answer these and similar questions.

Alrighty: Yes Mathematical probability is ABSOLUTELY on its side. Do you have ANY idea how many planets there are? Very many of them will be in the Goldilocks zone. So the earth is very common in that way. Because that's the way the solar system formed. Again you turn it around, we know Gideon's goal because he TOLD us. Nobody told us the universe has a goal. First you need to show there IS a goal, then you need to show this goal to be life, then we can talk about if the placement of the earth is good to achieve this goal. In short, don't just ASSUME there is a goal, provide evidence for this, if not, I will start claiming some very different things to you, and then we're stuck and crying nuh-uh to each other. Truth does not depend on opinion, it depends on facts.

---

I hunt for the truth

There are several hundred BILLION stars in our Galaxy. And there are nearly one hundred BILLION galaxies in just the Observable Universe. That gives us billions of trillions of potential planetary systems. Probability not on our side Are you sure???

Simply, your analogy does not apply. I think somebody has already confirmed that the analogy of the puddle/pothole has no Goal.

Your argument appears to be very very circular.There must be a goal because the environmental conditions are so specific to life and the conditions are so specific for life because life is the goal.How is this different from:The exact size and shape of the puddle must have been the goal bacause the puddle meets the exact size and shape requirements of the goal.You are applying circular logic to the argument you want to make but refusing to apply the same logic to the puddle.Life is the puddle. The conditions are the "hole". The same goal arguments can be made for each. Your argument is nonsense.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Me4Him, and welcome to EvCforum,Admin has asked that we not reply to your post, however, if you'd like to present any argument from your PoV, I suggest starting a thread on it...this is a debate forum and you'll find no shortage of people who would love to challenge each and everyone of your points.I would however like to address this, I would be cautious if I were you of who you think you can teach lessons to on this site.Also, try to be a bit more polite as a new member.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky