Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2017 12:51 PM
373 online now:
DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, Riggamortis, ringo, Tangle, Taq (9 members, 364 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,799 Year: 19,405/21,208 Month: 2,164/3,111 Week: 385/574 Day: 40/59 Hour: 3/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
22232425Next
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 302 of 373 (647282)
01-08-2012 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Straggler
01-08-2012 5:54 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Will you at least accept that your "infinitely exists" isn't observationally supported?
Since "infinite" in this case is a reference in time, and we are finite, we obviously have no ability to directly observe if something is infinite or not. However we can logically conclude something infinite exists based on the fact that something finite exists now. That's because observationally we have only observed finite things come from something else. And therefore there can not logically have ever been a time when there was nothing. That means that something has always existed. The term for something that has always existed is "infinite."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2012 5:54 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Percy, posted 01-09-2012 8:43 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 311 by jar, posted 01-09-2012 8:53 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 312 by Straggler, posted 01-09-2012 9:01 AM Just being real has responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 303 of 373 (647286)
01-09-2012 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Just being real
01-08-2012 10:23 PM


So the configuration of the wires didn't become intelligently designed until it received a signal?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:23 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Just being real, posted 01-11-2012 12:40 PM subbie has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12873
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 304 of 373 (647289)
01-09-2012 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Just being real
01-08-2012 10:24 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
quote:

Don't twist my words. I said that things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern (specificity), are the product only of an intelligent source. I clearly defined how such specificity is commonly detected in science.

OK, then you've failed to establish that life, the universe or the Earth have specificity because intent has not been established. You certainly haven't shown a valid scientific method that applies.

In fact you seem to claim in Message 226 that specificity is used to identify intent, which is circular - unless the "intent" really is redundant and what you really mean is "function code or pattern".

quote:

The rest of your comments I seem to have discussed substantially in other replies.

I seem to have missed the answers. Can you start by pointing to a post that describes what you mean by "nothing" and what observations we have that entitle us to conclude that it produces nothing ? Indeed your refusal to identify how we even could make such an observation in Message 228 rather suggests that you have no observations to base your claim on whatsoever.

Edited by PaulK, : Updated with message references...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:24 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Just being real, posted 01-11-2012 12:40 PM PaulK has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 305 of 373 (647291)
01-09-2012 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Just being real
01-08-2012 10:24 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Don't twist my words. I said that things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern (specificity), are the product only of an intelligent source.

With you so far, since you can't have intention without thought.

I clearly defined how such specificity is commonly detected in science.

Commonly, in science, DNA is not attributed to an intelligent source. What you need is obviously something different from what scientists are doing.

And it is not clear that you have defined what this new method is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:24 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3943
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 306 of 373 (647296)
01-09-2012 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Just being real
01-08-2012 10:24 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Then how can you say that we have not seen something come from nothing if you know about virtual particles?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:24 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 307 of 373 (647302)
01-09-2012 6:16 AM


Fine tuning
Given the subject of this thread, it's inevitable that we're going to be treated to some "fine tuning" arguments. While there are various technical points that can be made about these individually, I want to cover what is wrong at the base of all of them. That is, the fact that their proponents unwittingly assume their conclusions. This is how it works.

If we look at the results of the last complete N.B.A. season, with all the scores of all the games coming out exactly as they did, we can easily work out that it would be extremely unlikely for that particular set of results ever to be repeated. Without working it out, less than a one in a quadrillion chance.

Let's propose a group of people called the "mafiaists". They believe that the mafia, prior to the season's commencement, had bet on all the games, and had bet on exactly the same set of scores that happened. In other words, the season panned out exactly as the mafia wanted it to. From the point of view of the mafiaists, the probability of the season matching the mafia's betting exactly would be so remote that they would reasonably come to believe that the mafia must have fixed the results. The mafia must have intelligently designed the season, presumably by bribing/threatening all the teams into acting out all the games in a way which resulted in all the desired scores.

Of course, for the rest of us, the results wouldn't seem remarkable, because we have no reason to believe anyone desired that specific season to be as it was before it happened. We would therefore have no reason to believe the season was fixed, or intelligently designed.

Astronomer Martin Rees has pointed out that there are a number of physical constants in this world that are "fine tuned" in a way that is just right for life (although that has been disputed). To many of us (including Rees) it's hardly a great surprise that a universe with life in it has a physical nature which would accommodate life. We see the numbers of the constants, like the basketball season, as being just as likely as any other set of results.

Now, let's propose a group of people called the "theists". They believe that there was someone who wanted the world to be as it is, and who particularly wanted our kind of life to exist, just as the mafia are believed by the mafiaists to have wanted a particular basketball season to take place. From the perspective of the theists, it looks as though the constants must have been intelligently fixed, because, as with the mafia, how would their god get its desired outcome just by chance?

Both the mafiaists and the "intelligent design" theists aren't actually basing their views on the numbers. The views are actually based on the prior belief that some beings or being wanted things to be as they are.

Things being as they are is never, in itself, evidence for intelligent design.

JBR is making a similar mistake when he refers to the "parameters" of this planet being exactly right for life. They would be. The "parameters" of any planet will be exactly right for anything that's a part of that planet.

He may as well point to the continent of Australia, and say: How amazing. The coastline of Australia is exactly right to fit the continent of Australia.

It's only if you assume that some intelligent being wanted Australia to be exactly as it is that you could see intelligent design in its parameters.


  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 308 of 373 (647308)
01-09-2012 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Just being real
01-08-2012 11:35 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:

Are you able to give an example of an unintelligent organism "creating" communication code? Or do they communicate through pre-programmed responses? And if the later is the case, where did that program originate?

Here's where you seem to be assuming your conclusion.

Think about what you're observing. You can see organisms producing signals that can be recognised by receivers. Most of these organisms are unintelligent. Yet you're singling out the intelligent ones, and coming out with the inference that signals and coding require intelligence. When you observe signals that don't have any known intelligence behind them, you'll immediately assume they must have been programmed by a programmer. So, you have to ask yourself whether you'd ever be able to observe an unintelligent signalling system that would falsify your conclusion. If bundles of chemicals with no brains sending and receiving signals don't fit as being "unintelligent communication", then what would?

I mentioned earlier in the thread another observation that you should make. Codes and signalling are a prerequisite for all known intelligent designers. Our real observation is codes first then intelligence, not the other way around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 11:35 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15647
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 309 of 373 (647312)
01-09-2012 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Just being real
01-08-2012 10:23 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:

I'm saying that at present we have no evidence to suggest other kinds of life is possible, so how can you base your argument in something there is not even any evidence for?

I was only pointing out another possibility, not advocating for it. I'm not arguing for any specific conclusion. You're the one who's doing that. I'm merely pointing out the lack of evidence. Given the lack of evidence pro or con for life under different conditions or physical laws, conclusions either way are unwarranted.

Yes, life on Earth under the conditions on Earth under the laws of this universe is all we have evidence for, but we are aware of our ignorance. We have a fair amount of knowledge of only a single planet, and we know almost nothing of the literally billions and trillions and quadrillions of planets that we know must exist, and we know approximately nothing about all the universes that might exist, and given this incredible amount of how much we do not know you still want to conclude that other kinds of life are not possible.

You've chosen an area of science where the evidence is especially sparse to argue for a designer.

Now your just playing with words. My point of course is that there never was an "era before the existence of anything." Else that era would still exist.

I'm not playing with your words, just trying understand you. So your position is that once there's nothing then nothing will be eternal. Is that part of your evidence for a designer?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:23 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15647
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 310 of 373 (647313)
01-09-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Just being real
01-08-2012 11:35 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being rea writes:

The term for something that has always existed is "infinite."

For clarity, you might want to be explicit by saying "infinite in time", otherwise when you use the word "infinite" by itself people are likely to assume you mean "infinite in space". Or you could say "eternal".

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 11:35 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29149
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 311 of 373 (647319)
01-09-2012 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Just being real
01-08-2012 11:35 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
It does not mean that that which came before this universe was infinite. Sorry but that simply does not follow.

In fact all the available evidence shows that the cause of things is finite and also in most cases trivial.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 11:35 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 312 of 373 (647321)
01-09-2012 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Just being real
01-08-2012 11:35 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
JBR writes:

That's because observationally we have only observed finite things come from something else.

Observationally we have only ever observed finite things. Period.

So if you are going to reject "something from nothing" on the basis that only the opposite has ever been observed you should also reject the notion of infinite (in time) things on the basis that only the opposite has ever been observed.

Why the inconsistency?

JBR writes:

And therefore there can not logically have ever been a time when there was nothing.

If time is something (which surely it must be) then - By definition there can be no time when there was nothing.

JBR writes:

That means that something has always existed.

It means something has existed for all of time.

JBR writes:

The term for something that has always existed is "infinite."

Presumably not if "always existed" constitutes the finite time of 13.7 billion years or so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 11:35 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Just being real, posted 01-11-2012 12:40 PM Straggler has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6849
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 313 of 373 (647403)
01-09-2012 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Just being real
01-08-2012 3:35 AM


You are just busting at the seems to talk about bacteria aren't you? Its incredible to me how someone can take a single celled organism which bares almost no resemblance to the incredible diversity of multi-celled organisms found on Earth and use it as their sole biological argument for universal common decent. An interesting thought to chew on for a few moments, is to consider what a designer might have created bacteria for to begin with.

You are just busting at the seams to make this example of evolution increasing information just go away. The facts of the matter is that this new and novel enzyme was the product of random mutation. If this is not an example of an increase in information then evolution does not require an increase in information.

Secondly, single celled organisms are more diverse than multi-cellular organisms. The majority of the biomass on Earth is made up of single celled organisms. You can whinge and wail all you want, this isn't going away. This is an example of mutations producing new information in the genome.

For those reading this who aren't familiar with the whole "nylon eating bacteria" argument, allow me a second to bring you up to speed. Basically the idea is that since nylon is a man made product that didn't exist until 1935, then these bacteria developing the ability to digest the manufacturer waste product (according to the argument) must have "evolved" to be able to do so. The Nylonase flag was raised by atheists and planted firmly into the hill of intelligent design, and touted as a great victory!

We have the genome without the mutation and the genome with the mutation. This is a case of a mutation producing a new and novel enzyme.

I just want to first point out that all the changes occurred in the plasmids.

You do realize that plasmids are made up of DNA, right?

Since none of these “new” enzymes have been found to catalyze with any naturally occurring amide compounds, it is assumed that the enzymes are completely new and not just modified existing enzymes. The argument is usually made that this new enzyme (EII) was the result of a frame shift mutation, while others insist that it is actually the result of a loss of specification. And that is actually what the whole nylonase debate boils down to (frame shift mutation or loss of specification). Most ID proponents suggest that because five transposable elements exist on plasmid pOAD2 that it could be interpreted as evidence of it being "designed" to be adaptive.

Thus, we find just how dishonest ID really is. They ask us for examples of mutations producing new enzymes, since such examples should exist if evolution is true. We show them the mutations. Their reply? It doesn't count because it was designed to do that. Pathetic.

Opponents to ID argue that because the transposons jump around at random without regard to the cell’s “need,” therefore the mechanism is purely random mutation and natural selection. But considered the fact that transposons cleave to the DNA strand by use of an enzyme called transposase, which recognize specific sequences of nucleotides and these transposons insert into the DNA molecule. This in turn creates direct repeats on each side of the transposons, known as insertion sequences. When they are activated, transposase enzymes coded within, cause genetic recombination. External forces such as exposure to poison, starvation or high temperature are known to activate transposases.

That tells us that it is in fact with regard to the cells need!

This is false. The insertions that are produced are neutral, beneficial, and detrimental. They are random with respect to fitness. This is true in multi-cellular organisms as well.

Finally my case in point is this. For those of you who aren't familiar with plasmids, they are a small circular unit of DNA that replicate within a cell completely independent of the “chromosomal DNA” and are mostly only found in bacteria. But wait a second, the whole argument using nylonase is that they are an example showing us how DNA could have formed by natural processes.

Baloney. It is an example of a mutation in DNA producing a new and novel enzyme, otherwise known as an increase in information.

So again Taq, show me an example in the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism and we can talk.

Do a comparison of the chimp and human genome. The similarities are inherited from the common ancestor. The differences are lineage specific mutations that resulted in the species we see today. It's pretty simple, really.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 3:35 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 314 of 373 (647818)
01-11-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by subbie
01-09-2012 12:55 AM


So the configuration of the wires didn't become intelligently designed until it received a signal?
Is that what you think, "the point that that randomly arranged set of wires was used as for the purpose of an antenna," means? Or does it mean, "the point that that randomly arranged set of wires WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE of an antenna?"

You didn't like my hood prop analogy? Let's try this one.

We know that trees often grow branches. These branches often extent out fairly far and then fork off. When I go camping I like to roast marshmallows. My two kids also happen to like to eat roasted marshmallows when we go camping. Hence I find myself in need of a long stick that branches off into a three prong fork configuration. When I find a small tree branch that forks off into three smaller branches I know I have found what I "intend" to use. After cutting it and sharpening the three points it becomes the perfect tool for the job. Did it grow with this intent? No of course not. I simply took advantage of its natural growth to use for my marshmallow roasting stick.

Likewise your wire configuration happens to be the perfect tool for its job as an antenna. With a little clip here and a little soldering there (onto an intelligently designed threaded coaxial) your naturally formed wires are turned into an intelligently designed antenna. I can't really explain it any plainer than that. I realize that was your favorite argument against ID. But it's been busted. Time to move on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by subbie, posted 01-09-2012 12:55 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Percy, posted 01-11-2012 3:18 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 325 by subbie, posted 01-11-2012 4:47 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 315 of 373 (647819)
01-11-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by PaulK
01-09-2012 1:19 AM


OK, then you've failed to establish that life, the universe or the Earth have specificity because intent has not been established.
(Sigh) Look "intent" is not established it is DETECTED!!! I have however ESTABLISHED that one of the best ways to "detect" intent is to look for specificity. Furthermore I have very well defined what I mean by specificity and given several real life scenarios in which real scientists use-- looking for specificity (rather that is the actual word they call it or not) to detect intelligence.

I have pointed out that many working biologists describe the code in DNA as being very specified. I have also pointed out that there is no observable evidence that we can look to in biology, that explains where this code (clearly recognized) in DNA, came from.

Therefore, devoid of any other observations, the most logical conclusion based on observation is that it came from an intelligent source.

...what you mean by "nothing" and what observations we have that entitle us to conclude that it produces nothing ?
The fact that we have never observed "nothing" ever. means the complimentary way of making that statement is to say, "we have only observed that something requires something else in order to be." BTW your comment about observing nothing produce nothing was quite hhhilllaaarioooouuus. I got sody pop up my nose on that one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by PaulK, posted 01-09-2012 1:19 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2012 1:04 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 322 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2012 3:23 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 316 of 373 (647820)
01-11-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Straggler
01-09-2012 9:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
So if you are going to reject "something from nothing" on the basis that only the opposite has ever been observed you should also reject the notion of infinite (in time) things on the basis that only the opposite has ever been observed.
The problem is we run into a logical stalemate. If we are going to assume based on observation that everything that has ever existed is finite because that is all we have ever observed, then how do we rationalize this mathematically? Finite things can not logically or mathematically also be infinite. Therefore we have no other choice but to conclude that there must exist something that we have yet to observe which can satisfy this logical dilemma.

At this particular junction in the problem we don't have to know what it is, we only have to understand that in order for finite matter and space to exist, it must be infinite in time.

If time is something (which surely it must be) then - By definition there can be no time when there was nothing.
Here is an interesting comment for you. Suppose "time" is not a "something" but merely a human measurement to measure change. To test this notion, consider what if right at this moment every thing in the universe just stopped changing. All protons and electrons, all planets and stars, if everything just became frozen in one position. If this were to happen, then would there still be time? I think if this were to happen we would say, "Time stopped." Therefore if time is merely a construct of human invention to measure change, then we can abstractly (from our point of view) say that there has always been time and always will be time. Of course if there were ever time in which absolutely nothing existed (to change) then practically speaking there would be no time. But that is not the point.

Time is a human invention... a tool if you will, invented to think abstractly. I can think about yesterday because of the "tool" we use called time. And with that same tool I can think about the minutes before there was a universe, even though perhaps there was nothing changing then. So then there is nothing illogical about humans using their tool called time to think about the moments before the universe began.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Straggler, posted 01-09-2012 9:01 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Panda, posted 01-11-2012 1:04 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 319 by Taq, posted 01-11-2012 1:11 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 327 by Straggler, posted 01-12-2012 7:51 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 339 by DWIII, posted 01-15-2012 1:10 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 340 by Boof, posted 01-20-2012 4:16 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1920
21
22232425Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017