Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

When you are reduced to paranoid eschatological rants then it's time to concede that you have lost the debate.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Ok Percy, my apologies!According to the SETI website:
"Failure to find a signal (radio signal) wouldn't prove that we're the only thinking beings in the galaxy. After all, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence."From Randy Bullock's "The Cave Painting":
"To an objective onlooker, such a dichotomy of thought in science between the search for elusive extraterrestrial "intelligent" design to detect an unknown "thinking being" somewhere in the universe, and the denial of coded information in DNA as strong evidence of intelligent design, is difficult to reconcile. To reject evidence that life on earth may be a product of an intelligent being while simultaneously (and in the absence of any evidence) entertaining thoughts of other intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe is at minimum a profound contradiction in reasoning.""Darwinists go to great lengths to assure us, if not "prove" to us, that anything of non-human origin that has all the clear unambiguous hallmarks of design is not designed at all, but merely has the appearance of design. That is, the design is not objectively real; it is "just an illusion, like the rising and the setting of the sun."
Evolution, as understood by Darwinists, therefore, can be characterized as the theory of "no design" in nature. Importantly, ID is simply the scientific challenge to the "no design" hypothesis of Darwinism.Contrary to the claims of today's grandees of evolution, Darwinism is not necessary to study,or even to understand, any other scientific subject, including molecular biology. Darwinism becomes necessary in biology only as a naturalistic attempt at explaining the origin of living things. There is a big difference between studying things and theorizing about their origins.Science in its simplest form is the human activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena, the explanations being based on observable data. Keeping this in mind, consider these two simple descriptions of science:
1) Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena
2) Science is the activity of seeking only natural (ie. unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.What's the difference between the two definitions?Definition 1 is objective.
Definition 2 is not objective.Definition 1 is consistent with the definition given by the NAS, state dept of education definitions of science and the scientific method, and dictionary definitions.
By Definition 1 ID is science (and is in fact consistent with the scientific method)
Definition 2, on the contrary, imports an assumption as a limitation into what is 'science,' a limitation that is not required by any established definition of science or the scientific method. Definition 2 leads to a scientific method that is more limiting than the scientific method. Definition 2 inserts the limiting assumption of the philosophy of naturalism into an otherwise objective definition, and leads to a scientific method consistent with the assumptions of the philosophy of naturalism. This method is often referred to as methodological naturalism, and is insisted apon as the only method of science by virtually all Darwinists.So it is evolution only Darwinists who attempt to redefine science to fit a philosophy of naturalism, the idea that natural causes and effects alone are sufficient to explain all natural phenomena.Option 1 above is rejected because any hint at "intelligent design" sets off fears of a 'divine foot' in the door and is taken as 'creation science' which is anathema to modern science.Thus the NABT contends that, regardless of where the observations might lead, explanations involving non-naturalisitc or supernatural events are outside of the realm of science. Thus science according to the NABT, is not to be objective but is limited to only naturalistic explanations supported, if possible, by empirical evidence.
According to Dawkins, we live in a universe that appears designed. All around us is unavoidably observable evidence of complex design in nature. Is it objectively real or is the design just an illusion?

The first sentence uses the word "prove", and is correct. To match the first, the second sentence should read: After all, absence of evidence is not proof of absence. It would then be correct. Absence of evidence can be evidence (but not proof) of absence.There is, anyway, indirect evidence for the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the fact that it exists here.The "naturalist" view is that chemicals can arrange themselves into what could be called "codes", but they can only arrange themselves into sending inter-planetary radio signals after arranging themselves into beings like us. There's nothing contradictory about looking for natural intelligence elsewhere in the universe, as we think that nature can produce intelligence, and that it is natural to this universe, and does not require non-natural designers who would require designers themselves (and so on infinitely).There's no reason why nature shouldn't produce all the natural things around us, and science does not need to rule out the non-natural, there's just no evidence for it at this point in time, so observation of numerous natural explanations for natural phenomena make them the likely default for any as yet unexplained natural stuff we observe!Your definition (1) of science is the one we operate on here at EvC, which is why we're asking you for positive evidence of a designer, natural or unnatural. What is the evidence?If you're claiming that nature cannot produce "codes" like the D.N.A. one as evidence, how will you demonstrate that?And if you claim that intelligence can't exist without a designer, then your original designer can't exist.How can you expect natural explanations for nature and non-natural explanations to be given equal consideration when there's no evidence for the existence of the non-natural, and loads for the natural?

Hi Beretta,Here's a brief summary of the three arguments contained in your message:

• It is contradictory to search for other intelligent life in the universe (SETI) while rejecting evidence of design on Earth.
  ​
• Methodological naturalism is an unnecessarily limiting approach to the study of our universe and is not objective.
  ​
• A more objective approach would include non-naturalistic and supernatural possibilities.

These are arguments against the perspectives and methods currently employed by science. They'd be a great start for a thread in the [forum=-11] forum, but as far as this thread goes, once again you've failed to mention any evidence for ID.Only about 25 messages left.--Percy

Yes, thats what it's always been, but where is your evidence against 'no-design'?You are simply stating that it looks designed, and therefore there is a designer and convinently enough your religion also has a designer. You put 2 and 2 together and you've made the case for yourself, however you have not made a case to the rest of us who have asked for the evidence...the evidence that you say is clearly observable in nature. Name 1 natural phenomena that was proven to be explained ONLY through non-natural or supernatural causes. It's taken as that because it IS that.What would be YOUR definition of a designer? Correct, there of the theological realm... Thats a retorical question right?

---

"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

1. We know of no other local pockets of evidenced design than planet earth which remotely equate to the quantitative order, complexity and life that is observed on planet earth.2. LoTs just do not trend from disorder to order to the degree that we observe here on planet earth.3. I have one key word for you and the other responders to my message. CORROBORATIVE. You people have your heads in the sand on this. When you add up all of the CORROBORATIVE necessities for life as observed on planet earth, the probabilities of them all being naturally (abe: simultaneously) in place is beyond reality. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add word

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Doesn't mean they're not out there Prove it Really? I'd like to see how you calculated these probabilities. See there's your problem, you're assuming that life can only exist under these conditions and not others.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Well, at least you're consistent, Buz. 500 years ago you'd be the guy running around yelling, "Get your heads out of the sand and look at the evidence, people, the earth does not move!"--Percy

Where is your evidence against design?My evidence for design is biological complexity and the genetic code.
Your evidence against design is that living things all just fell into organized complexity over eons of imaginary and magical (it can perform wonders) time.
Time can do nothing -you can stare at a container of hydrogen gas for all of eternity and it will never turn into a universe.
Put a single cell into a test tube of water at an optimum temperature for life ,then stick a sharp object into it and see all the complex little machinary spill out into the water. Now wait...........................forever.............................. -you have all the ingredients for life, but who's going to organize the parts?

Indeed, who is going to organise the parts. You can stare at all the components knowing that chances of them coming together by chance are absurd and yet nobody comes in and does it. So where is this designer?Meanwhile, in the science labs they are using straightforward chemistry (and no 'designer') to create entities which can grow, reproduce, compete and store information containing nucleotides. An easy to understand explanation can be found on this youtube video..Where is this designer? Does ID have anything of better explanatory quality with the same degree of explanatory power?

To repeat for the 5th or 6th or somethingth time:The "design" you are pointing out is the proof against intelligent design. It is exactly the wrong kind of result.You yourself keep supplying the proof. You have totally ignored this.

You've taken this out of context. In Message 272 you stated, "ID is simply the scientific challenge to the 'no design' hypothesis of Darwinism." Onifre was only asking about the evidence you claimed to have.Of course, the evidence for or against evolution is off-topic in this thread, but it's still worth pointing out that evolutionists aren't trying to find evidence against design, just like they're not trying to find evidence against pink unicorns on Alpha Centauri. Design as conceived by ID is not a scientific concept, and in the absence of any specific evidence based claims or predictions (just a vague "the designer did it") it cannot be falsified. So IDists interpret biological complexity and the genetic code as indicative of intelligent design. This seems a wrong interpretation to most biologists, but what have IDists done to prove themselves right? Where have IDists been abel to use this inference to extrapolate scientific predictions that were later validated?The one thing we can say for certain about the designer (other than an inordinate fondness for beetles) is that he's gone to an incredible amount of trouble to design and create in a way that precisely resembles evolution.--Percy

Do you generalize science simply for amusement?Is this really your argument? My evidence starts with the fact that there is NO evidence for a Designer, therefore the rest becomes null.Complexity does not automatically equal design. Also note that the Designer would have been responsable for non-complex things as well, so then non-complexity would ALSO equal design. At that point the whole argument about judging complexity or non-complexity and determining a designer based on that, falls apart.Also the fact that the Designer would be complex and by your definition also requires design, im sure you've heard that position before. It is something you need to deal with if complexity is your only reason for requiring a Designer.Designer requires a Designer, period.

---

"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

Way back in Message 64 you stated that Dembski had a method of detecting design that is "well worth considering". I can't help but notice that actual use of this method is nowhere to be seen in your claimed evidence. Perhaps you would like to explain why.

Well perhaps, but I wouldn't have had all of those wonderful simultaneously corroborative evidences to support the common cliche of the sun rising and setting.OTO, more likely I'd be the odd guy out, arguing logically for some non-conventional position.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.