The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

quote:

---

well there are tones of other species that do that

---

Thats right. It's called a food web. Without these organisms, even though they are microscopic, the worlds climate could change dramatically, since algae release oxygen both directly, and indirectly through chloroplasts, as well as fix CO2.They also help repair metal damaged ecosystems, reduce atomspheric Co2, and production of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) involved in the regulation of UV radiation, ozone concentration, and global warming. The amoeba is a vital part of the earths ecosystem.

quote:

---

so why this 5t wheel on our car.

---

No idea what you are getting at here.

quote:

---

why do you think anything has a purpose?

---

If nothing had purpose, then everything would do nothing. The ability for an organism to survive is based off of the ability to function and survive in a given environment.

quote:

---

You were the one suggesting that thinking the arrow had a function was part of our process in infering design, and you further emphasised function as one of the physical observations pointing to design.

---

Correct, but understanding of function is not the only clue that can lead to assume design. Using the arrow, being that it is straight, barkless, and tied to a rock, one can still assume design, without knowing function. The physical arrow looks designed. If it were natural, it would have distinct disadvantages, being that it doesn't have bark for protection, it is small and leafless, and has no roots. Since you as a person have seen many different kinds of trees, and all (generally) follow the same physical properties (roots, leaves, bark, trunk, etc.), you can assume that this is NOT a natural tree, and that it was made by a designer. The same can be said for a watch. If you found a watch in the sand at the beach, you would assume design, but watches are far less complex than living organisms.

quote:

---

This depends exactly what you mean by 'the theory of evolution'. There are quite a lot of assumptions in our current understanding of the history of life on earth, some with more supporting evidence than others.

---

You mean like there are no full ape fossils (minus orangutan fossil #151 in Thailand), but there are thousands of plant fossils, that have no natural evolutionary trend. I'm with you.

quote:

---

The basic underlying mechanisms of evolution on the other hand, mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc ... are so well established empirically that they can hardly be considered assumptions.

---

I agree with that. I was actually against some aspects of genetic mutational gain of information, but in my debates with Dr. Adequate in a different thread, I learned that it is entirely possible for random genetic mutations to produce new information. Now the question is, I suppose, are these mechanisms plausible explanations for the beginning of life (though I know that is what evolutionary scientists do every day).Which reminds me, do you WK, or anyone else have a good link to some websites that keep up with new discoveries in the ToE?

quote:

---

All the engineers need to know is how to manipulate the materials. You can build a log cabin without knowing anything about botany and you can build a car without knowing anything about chemistry.

---

It's plausible at best. But lets say you are right, and I build a car (I'm an oilfield worker, so I have some experience with oil and gas, but none with mechanical or civil engineering). I build a car. Would you drive it? Would you take your family on vacation in it? No. Because it's a prime example of POOR design. I COULD build a car, but it would probably kill everyone in it within the year. I could also build a log cabin, but over time, termites and carpenter ants, and rot would eat away at the wood, and kill everyone inside. This would be best case scenario, since I could build the cabin out of Pecan trees, and the wood would collapse before the cabin was even finished. One could easily argue that design and knowledge of a product is far more important than building the actual product. Otherwise cars would not have airbags, anti-lock brakes, and traction control. Or far more simple design improvements such as car bumpers, crumple zones, etc.

quote:

---

And all that any of those designers ever do is manipulate existing physical processes.

---

Where on earth is fossil fuels compressed to cause useful function of a large metal object? I'm pretty sure this is a new, man-made, DESIGNED process. If you are saying that for something to be designed, you cannot use any existing materials, then NOTHING is designed, which makes you galatically stupid, since even my 2 year old can design a super car on paper, and know that the wax on the crayon did not cause it to exist.

quote:

---

You answered your own question. Evolution goes back to the first organism just like cars go back to the first car.

---

So you don't believe in anything before evolution. You simply believe there was a first organism, and it got complex over time and caused all diverse life today. No big bang? No abiogenesis? You don't believe life started, or that matter got here through any natural process. There was just a first organism. If you honestly do not hold a position or personal belief on anything before the ToE, then why am I even talking to you? What a waste of time. You dodging Dawns question doesn't mean it doesn't require a response. It means you are showing weakness, and probably don't have a response.If you don't know, just say so.

quote:

---

Other IDers have at least used the lame excuse that they know design when they see it.

---

So when you borrow your dads hammer from the garage, you first assume that the garage was naturally occurring and the hammer was the result of a viral infection in a tree? Because if you look at the garage and hammer and assume design, then you are just as lame as us.

quote:

---

I want Dawn to show us an experiment that will demonstrate whether something has been designed or not.

---

First, Dawn needs a time machine, or supernatural powers...

quote:

---

How do you tell whether a pile of sand is designed or is just a function of the shape of the sand grains?

---

Sand is shaped by erosion processes, that are natural. Frac sand, that it made, is ceramic, and perfectly round however (frac sand is used on gas wells to open the formation better, and allow for better gas flow). But if you came to my backyard, and sat in the sandbox, you would assume the sand was naturally occuring, when it ISN'T (yes, I have a sandbox full of frac sand). This is a perfect example of a person misreading the physical evidence to assume natural origin.

quote:

---

In chemistry, for example, order depends on the shape and electronic configuration of molecules.

---

You are giving an example in favour of Dawns arguement, ringobingo. Dawn is arguing that because there are natural laws and properties (natural laws), this is evidence of a designer.

quote:

---

Why is order proof of design?

---

It's not proof. It's evidence of. Putting aside both views, order IS evidence of design for ANYTHING. If I write 1234567890 on your fridge with a marker, you wouldn't assume that it was due to a natural process (supposing you didn't see me write it). The same goes even if the numbers are mixed up, but in a logical recognizable order, such as a phone number 555 384 2301. No order, but understood none the less.She isn't saying it's PROOF of design, she's saying it is overlooked as evidence for...I think.

quote:

---

Since you want to talk about origins, could you tell me what the clear purpose of life is?

---

Origins have nothing to do with purpose, if you are asking for a christian perspective. It's not where you've been, it's where you're going. Which I suppose answers the purpose question.Strictly naturally speaking, the purpose of life is survival. Continued existance.

Fire begets heat. Heat causes more fire. Is that purpose?Mass begets gravity which collects mass which attracts more gravity... Is that purpose?Poverty begets poverty. Is that the purpose of poverty?Ignorance begets ignorance. Is that the purpose of ignorance?You are declaring that a magical Jewish Wizard is involved simply because a positive feedback loop exists. Do ALL positive feedback loops imply magical wizards are involved? If not, why not? If so, what PURPOSE is ascribed to these loops?

That's exactly how cars used to be built. Some guy did it. The knowledge about the materials was accumulated slowly as needed. They didn't study the materials first because they didn't know what meterials they were going to use. They didn't sit down and design a car with airbags and crumple zones. The car evolved. The fossil fuels were formed by natural processes. The metal ores were formed by natural processes. The combustion of hydrocarbons and the melting of metals are natural processes. There are no man-made processes. There is only manipulation of existing processes. I didn't say any such thing. I said that we don't need to know where the atoms came from to understand evolution. I'm not dodging anything. I've responded extensively. The answer is basically that origins of materials are irrelevant to understanding how the materials are used. If anything, you and Dawn are dodging the question of how you connect those materials to a designer.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

And if I see a living organism, such as a tiger, I correctly "assume" that it was the product of a natural and unintelligent process, namely a daddy tiger and a mummy tiger making sweet sweet tiger lurve.I know for certain that the underlying process is very very different from that which would produce numerals on my fridge. And yet you wish to assure me that they are basically the same.Well, just saying so, even if you do it over and over again, isn't going to cut it with me.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That is the purpose to life AFTER it has begun. If, as you claim, life is designed, then there was a purpose prior to it being designed. Just as the drill had a purpose before it was designed.This is when you invoke the god of the Bible and his purpose, but you know that that is a faith-based belief and not actual evidence.So, from a naturalistic perspective, there is only purpose AFTER life has begun, and no evidence for purpose prior. From a religious perspective, there is no evidence of purpose, only faith in a purpose described in the tenets within the religion.Conclusion: In both cases, there is no actual evidence for purpose.- Oni

But we don't.No-one you're arguing with has ever assumed design.We don't look at the garage and the hammer and assume design. We have evidence for design. No-one ever assumes design ... except creationists.

I don't "assume" design. I know that the hammer and garage were designed. That doesn't give me an excuse to assume design in other situations where I don't know.Suppose you find a piece of stone, pointed on one end, with sharp edges. But the sharp edges seem to be worn down on the blunt end as if maybe, possibly, they were deliberately "designed" to be tied to a stick to make a spear. How do you decide whether that piece of stone was designed or just happens to appear like it might possibly have been designed? Don't be silly. Scientists learn about the past from artifacts that exist in the present. Why can't IDists learn to do the same? You're projecting. I don't go around making assumptions willy-nilly. Yes, I would need some physical evidence to indicate that the sand was man-made. That's exactly what I'm asking you and Dawn Bertot for - some physical means of detecting design. And the counter-argument is that because of those natural laws and properties, there is no need for a designer in the equation. A rock's natural properties will allow it to roll downhill without the aid of an Intelligent Roller.If you want to claim that there is "evidence" of a designer/roller, you have to actually show the evidence. Dawn Bertot has militantly refused to do so.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quotes.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Hey, someone listened to me!In answer to your question, NO. The mechanisms I described couldn't possibly account for the origin of life. My theorem is about what life does when you've got life in the first place. I know about as much about the origin of life as my bedside table does --- but my argument does (as you kindly acknowledge) show that once life exists mutations can add genetic information to a genome. That's all I claim to have proved.

quote:

---

Fire begets heat. Heat causes more fire. Is that purpose?

---

No, that is a byproduct of a chemical reaction. But heat itself can have purpose.

quote:

---

Mass begets gravity which collects mass which attracts more gravity... Is that purpose?

---

No. And no one knows what causes gravity, only that it acts on mass. Mass doesn't cause gravity, gravity acts on mass. Just like wood doesn't cause heat, heat acts on wood.

The infinite monkey theorem disagrees with you. If youve never heard of this, its the whole "monkey at a desk writing Shakespeare" bit. If you havent, just take it on faith : )You can actually mathematically prove that with enough time, a conceivable but statistically improbable even will occur.You said order means design, EVERY TIME. A random act of chance will eventually yield something that is ordered, but was not designed. Therefor, your point is disproved.