|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence to expect given a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined:
|
There is no reason to think that whatever caused this universe to begin was not trivial and was not transient. No reason but the specificity observed in the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined:
|
Hey Doc, I have already responded a couple of times to your broad painting accusations that all the (insert professional title here) disagree with me. But you continue on with bliss. Also I have nothing really to say to someone who just replies basically with, "Na uh!"
I wish you nothing but good health, long life, and to be prosperous my friend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hey Doc, I have already responded a couple of times to your broad painting accusations that all the (insert professional title here) disagree with me. Perhaps you could respond with some sort of refutation, like finding a scientist who does use your jargon. Otherwise I stand by my claim that they don't.
Also I have nothing really to say to someone who just replies basically with, "Na uh!" Then perhaps you could respond to my posts instead.
I wish you nothing but good health, long life, and to be prosperous my friend. Well that's nice of you, but unfortunately your wishes don't seem to affect reality. You could contribute to my prosperity by sending me actual money ... no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
JBR writes: Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources. I think you meant: things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern are produced only by intelligent sources. If you did, and you intended the word "intended" to apply to all four nouns, then that seems correct, as intent seems to imply intelligence. However, it's not an observation. The use of "intended" makes the statement true by definition. As functions, codes and patterns can also be produced by unintelligent sources (sources incapable of conscious intent), your statement doesn't help you make the case you want to make.
JBR writes: Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes. Somehow, I don't think you were being strictly truthful further up the thread when you told me you had searched the scientific literature extensively for what you're claiming hasn't been observed in that last sentence. As for the first sentence.
JBR writes: Scientific observation F: The more than 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems. The "parameters" of any planet will always be exactly right for everything that is part of the planet. What else would you expect?
JBR writes: Scientific observation G: Physical forces such as electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, speed of light, centrifugal force of planetary movements, and rate of expansion are all fine tuned to the exact parameters need for life to exist. This is yet another life support system displaying a highly specified nature. Of course the "parameters" of the universe will be exactly right for everything that is part of it. What else would you expect? And if they're exactly right for life, there would be no need for anyone to intelligently design D.N.A., would there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Rather than getting into details of what would really be a side discussion, let me try to steer the path more directly onto the topic. One way would be to ask if you can describe any overt evidence that we should expect to see if there were a designer.
Or another way, since you're simply claiming that the nature of the universe is evidence of the designer, perhaps you can describe what the universe would be like were there no designer. Isn't it true that no matter what were the nature of any universe, however similar or different from this universe, the nature of that universe is what life in that universe would offer as evidence of a designer? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Percy writes: One way would be to ask if you can describe any overt evidence that we should expect to see if there were a designer As you say (I think!), it must be the case that in any universe that has conscious minds it must seem to those minds that the universe has at least the superficial appearance of being designed. I find it useful to think that if our universe was designed, it was designed by something that either didn't want the inhabitants to know who designed it and what for, or simply didn't care. It the creator wanted us to know, it would have left its TM on the mechanism for all of us to find, no matter how primitive we are. So at the very most, the designer god, if he did exist, has nothing to do with the religious god that people here talk about.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Utter nonsense.
First, you have not shown that there is any specificity in the universe, but even if you had it is irrelevant to your claim that some infinity critter caused this universe. Why can't the cause of this universe be something trivial? Why can't the cause of this universe be transient, destroyed during the creation itself?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
JBR writes: Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.Scientific observation B: the universe "began." A + B = C - "C" being something else that must infinitely exist from which the universe sprang. Straggler writes: Unless something that "infinitely exists" has been observed your C would seem to be in the same category as your A here. No? JBR writes: This is only a trick question of course. Since we are only finite beings how would we ever observer the infinity of something? Let's suppose I were to look at some object that did in fact exist infinitely. How would I know that it did? Since I have not existed infinitely, I couldn't state for sure the object did or didn't. Well likewise we can't observe something coming from literally a state of nothing because if we are there to observe it something must already exist. So - again - your A and C are by the terms of your argument in the same category.
JBR writes: However infinity as a concept is something we most definitely can observe. The concept of directions like East or West are infinite. So is the end of the value of Pi. A sequence of numbers is infinite, and likewise is the concept of time... infinite. Many similar examples can be given. Can I take it from this that you are happy for this infinite designer of your to exist only in the same sense that Pi can be said to exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
JBR on quantum fluctuations writes: It is definitely not the observation of something coming from nothing. Can you give an example of "something coming from nothing" that it would be possible for us to observe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1781 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined: |
Just being real writes:
Doesn't "B" contradict "A"? If it does, you can't very well have both.
Not necessarily. Only if you assume that prior to the beginning of the universe there was nothing. And that's the big problem isn't it?
In the absence of evidence, I wouldn't assume their was a "prior" to the beginning of the universe. In fact, I wouldn't even go so far as to assume that there was a "beginning" in the first place. What's the point of this, anyway? Could not an omnipotent intelligent designer design a beginningless universe, if he so chose?
So why don't we observe the same sets of parameters which would make life possible on all other planets? Earth was designed and no other planet was?
Well gee... I don't know. Do we have to no all the mind of the designer in order to detect design?
No, but why stop at just "detecting design"? Surely, from the nature of the so-called "design", you could (at least tentatively) infer lots lots more.
So why doesn't life exist everywhere in the universe?
This is a question that can only invoke speculation. Again I wouldn't presume to know the mind of the designer. However personally whenever I hear this question I kind of get this image in my head of a small child following his daddy into a huge mansion he just commissioned to be built. The child looks at his dad and asks, why such a big house with nobody else in here? My speculation is that Dad just built the house and hasn't moved in yet.
Let's talk real bonā fidē design, for a change. Just off the top of my head, here's a list of phenomena which I personally would consider evidence of design with respect to various alleged artifacts:
Does all that sound overly-anthropocentric? It should; it's what humans do (at least some of those things, if not most) when designing something. Would you say that the intelligent designer wouldn't do it that way? Are you quite sure? Design (as humans practice it) is far far more than one end product; it's the entire process that goes behind it. Were we made in the image of the intelligent designer, or not? If you could simply wave a magic wand and make computers instantly poof into existence, how could you call it "design"? You didn't really design anything, did you? Be honest now(!), you are not really all that interested in looking for evidence of a designer; you are instead wishfully touting "evidence" of a daddy who builds a huge mansion in the sky and promises to provide for all of your selfish needs so you don't have to. DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
In DNA, specific function implies intent because specific function has only been observed originating by intelligence. This is untrue. A random, unintelligent mutation in the nylC gene resulted in an enzyme capable of metabolizing nylon oligomers:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing. Scientific observation B: the universe "began." Scientific observation A: same as above.Scientific observation B: thunderclouds "began". Conclusion: the production of thunderclouds require a supernatural deity.
Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes. Microbiologists do not claim that specified sequences require an intelligent source. Also, DNA comes about through natural mechanisms all of the time. It is called biological reproduction.
Scientific observation F: The more than 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems. You are drawing the bull's eye around the bullet holes. Ever heard of Texas Sharpshooting?
Scientific observation G: Physical forces such as electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, speed of light, centrifugal force of planetary movements, and rate of expansion are all fine tuned to the exact parameters need for life to exist. This is yet another life support system displaying a highly specified nature. If life were not possible in our universe, who would notice? Your argument suffers from confirmation bias.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
In DNA, specific function implies intent because specific function has only been observed originating by intelligence. Wrong. This antenna
has a specific function. It was created by NASA through a process that involved no intelligent input into the arrangement of the wires.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
He said intent. Nasa intended to do this, did they not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
There are no new observed novel designs. Even if information was gained, they have yet to show an improvement to a fruit-fly. We see adaptations, but the same essential organisms. Look at HIV, and all bacteria, look at the speed they reproduce, it is not unreasonable to expect at least one of these organisms to have produce a new novel design that could be observed/counted as a mcro-evolution, or even a partial macro-evolution, given that 100 human years is.............how man bacteria years?
Good points you make, they will never acknowledge it though, in nine years they always give the standard answers but those answers are not satisfying. We have no reason to believe in macro-evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024