Hi All, First, I ask for pardon if this topic has been discussed here. Show me the link and I'll suggest that this post be discontinued.
What is design? Do you agree or disagree with this definition: "To design is to create or execute something--abstract or concrete--in a highly skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind".
key words: higly skilled (meaning intelligence), purpose or goal.
For example, the position of the earth vis a vis the sun. Our planet is so well placed vis a vis the sun. A few feet away from the sun (compared to where we are now) , and we all freeze to death. A few feet near the sun and we all burn.
proof of high skill: exact placement--where we are now purpose or goal:the purpose of the earth's exact location is for life to thrive.
This is a classic example of anthropic reasoning. The idea is that some finetuning took place in order to make life on earth possible. Of course, in reality the reverse it true: life arises only there where it is possible for it to arise. If the earth had been too close to the sun, or too far away from it for life to arise, then life would obviously not have arisen on earth and we would not be having this conversation.
Whether or not anthtopic reasoning or the reverse is true do you agree that the distance of the earth to the sun is just right so that life could exist?
This defintion of "design" works for me: "to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design
But the appearance of design should also be differentiated from actual design. Our minds pick up on patterns and intentions, sometimes when they aren't even there - seeing faces in clouds, hills on mars, and on pieces of toast for example, when, on thoughtful consideration we realize that all these things are the result of chance and our minds tendency to recognize patterns. This is the case of appearance of design, as opposed to actual design.
First, off I beg to stay with my initial definition of design. You want the readers to believe that they should differentiate "design" and "appearance of design". But, is it not also true that if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and do all the things a duck do...then it must be a duck!
I mean if the earth was placed in just the right distance from the sun--give or take a few deviations from time to time--for life to flourish then that which caused it to be so must either a)be a dumb, b) appears to be brilliant, or c) really brilliant--which implies high level of skill Which is which?
And then, what about the goal of that exact distance--life? Life must have come by either this 3: 1)chance or 2)"appearance of chance" or 3) designed Which is which?
Let me get a crack at my own question. If you combine a)dumb, and 1) chance--I'll say tell it to the marines! If you combine b) appears to be brilliant, and 2) appearance of chance, then that suggests what? Artificial intelligence--but intelligence just the same?
If you combine c) really brilliant, and d) designed--then that's acceptable to the man on the street.
Life, as others have pointed out, is only going to be found on a planet that suits it. Life fits the planet, rather than the other way around, and must have the capability to adapt to specific and changing environments on that planet.
Not only should the planet be suitable for life. But that its distance from the energy source should be right as well.
I agree with what parasomnium wrote:
if the earth had been too close to the sun, or too far away from it for life to arise, then life would obviously not have arisen on earth
If you assume a goal for the universe, then judging by its contents, the goal would seem to be to produce lots of empty space, along with huge quantities of gasses and rocks! If designed, it doesn't give the appearance of having been designed for the sake of a bit of green mould on the surface of one of trillions of planets.
I am not assuming anything. Besides rocks and gasses, and huge empty space, the universe also has so many wanders--creation and death of stars, etc. At present, earth is the only planet we know that has life. If it continues to be, then the goal for the vastness and "lifelessness" of the universe is to provide a contrast between what is a planet full of life and that one which is empty. I am just guessing--but this designer has sense of beauty,contrast, a purpose to challenge man's capacity to learn, etc.
Not to me and many others.
Edited by Doubting Too, : correct name of paras...
Nobody on this thread has agreed with this so far. People on this thread have shown you how the distance between the Sun and the Earth varies by thousands of kilometers with the seasons and other cycles, and how they can go upstairs to use the restroom without burning to death. This means they disagree with you.
I thought they were humuoring me about the distance. Don't you agree with what Parasomnium wrote:
if the earth had been too close to the sun, or too far away from it for life to rise, then life would obviously not have arisen on earth and we would not be having this conversation
Look at the pictures on This Wiki page about the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland. It looks like somebody was sculpting the rocks into geometric shapes, doesn't it? Well, that's not what happened. It only looks like somebody carved it: in reality, it's a natural feature.
I believe this is a way of diverting the topic. What about that mountain in the US(?)--i don't remember--where the faces of US presidents were sculpted? Did not somebody design these?
blue jay writes:
this is not true. (Referring to the looks and quacking of a duck)
Pardon, but are you a 'determinist'? Why is it hard for you to believe that if one looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, does the thing of a duck... then it must be a duck?
Did the puddle form in the available hole or was the hole designed to form that exact puddle?
I don't exacly know where this line of questioning is leading. But, here's my try.
What was the goal of the kid who made the pothole to fit the puddle? Was it for fun? At any rate if there was a goal for the pothole--for the fun of the kid--then obviously the kid designed the pothole.
but I do not agree that another form of life couldn't have arisen if the earth were too close to the Sun for our kind of life to arise
How do you know? Have you created life?
I have seen insects that look and move like sticks... but, obviously, they are not sticks. A loon looks, acts and swims like a duck, but is not a duck. Some actual ducks do not quack like other ducks, but they are still ducks.
the designer of that insect that looks like a stick is telling you the goal: to fool predators or preys of that insect. A loon doesn't look like a duck ( its bill is pointed) so it is not a duck. Of course there are differences in the quacking of certain ducks, but they are still ducks.
blue jay writes:
I have seen pictures of a rock formation that looks like it was carved into geometric shapes by skilled craftsmen, but it was actually formed by natural, non-intelligent processes.
But, you believe that the faces on Mt Rushmore are designed even though you probably don't know who designed them. As regards those rock formation that looks like geometric shapes to you, here are possibilities: 1) it happened by accident, 2) some ancient men may have actually aided nature so that those shapes come to be. Just like my wife who aided a plant to shape like an arc--even this was by design.
Here's a picture of it: http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/apr_mars_face_06921_ssv.jpg The camera that took this picture was not manipulated. Furthermore, the point I'm trying to make here is just because something LOOKS designed, it doesn't mean it is. We KNOW the face is not designed, it is a natural feature of Mars, and only because the light hit it at that particular angle when the picture was taken did it look like a face.
Sorry, I don't see a face of a man. It looks to me like black spots on spotted grayish background. Nothing else.
If the Earth is some distance from the sun and then life evolves to fit within the conditions of that distance, then you'd be a fool to say that the sun was put at that distance so that life could fit.
I think you probably got it wrong. Here, I'm putting it on argument form to simplify.
Premise (p)1: To design is to create or execute something in a skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind.
P2: If something is made or executed in a highly skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind, then it is evidence of design.
P3: The right distance of the earth to the sun, and the right conditions on earth is towards a goal--life on earth.
P4: There is life on earth (the goal)
Conclusion: From P1 to P4, we can conclude that the right distance of the earth to the sun, AND the right conditions on earth is by design towards a goal--life on earth.
Wrong analogies: The analogy of the puddle and the potholes, and the "face of man on mars" do not apply. They simply have no goals.
Ok, lets say it was placed...first off, by whom or what?
1. Naturally occuring cosmic events that lead to the formation of planets? 2. A postulated deity?
a)be a dumb, b) appears to be brilliant, or c) really brilliant--which implies high level of skill Which is which?
*Well, if we go with 'naturally occuring cosmic events that leads to the formations of planets...', then I would say that the laws of nuclear fusion, the attraction of gravity, and the time that it takes to unwind these events, is nothing short of amazing, but it would only require intelligence if it was programed to do all this. Is that what you are saying?
By whom or by what? Does it even matter? The fact is there is this earth placed just on the right distance to the sun. This AND the right conditions on earth supports a goal--life. As explained in my post just above yours, this to me is evidence of design.
And then you asked: 1) by naturally occuring events, or 2) by a postulated diety? There are other possibilities. A combination of both could be a possibility.
But you, with nothing but bald assertion, are telling us life is an Ultimate Goal.
I say it ain't. Particularly, as someone has pointed out, in light of the indisputable fact that over 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe, by either volume or by mass, is totally inimical to life. We're an accident. Get used to it.
First of all I'm not bald. I have hair. They aren't showing though. You see I even have diapers yet. :=):=). I don't get your point. If 99.99999999% is inimical to life, then how is it that life--the GOAL--is here? By accident? By what probability? 1/ 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. I don't believe you. I'll bet my diaper to your shirt someone--or something to some--designed us. Change your mind and don't be slave to blind chance, please, Uncle?