Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8964 total)
47 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, xongsmith (3 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 872,990 Year: 4,738/23,288 Month: 1,643/1,286 Week: 310/615 Day: 2/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 3827 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 46 of 185 (485303)
10-07-2008 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NOT JULIUS
10-03-2008 7:34 PM


What is design? - Not natural, Not spontaneous
-Coded information is not spontaneous
-Machinery (intelligent use of energy to create motion) not natural structures, not spontaneous, ever made by change.

TONY: In light of forum debates and how they go. These basic rules work out well. Anything like this can do well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-03-2008 7:34 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 743 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 47 of 185 (485332)
10-07-2008 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 7:24 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
Doubting Too writes:

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?


There you go again, ASSUMING there is a goal to the universe, and that that goal is life.

As for your bet, I'll take you up on it. Please provide me with clear evidence we are indeed "designed" and i will join your cause.

To that "change your mind part" the same goes for you, don't be a part of a system invented to make maintaining control easier, and FREE your mind and think for yourself.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 7:24 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:12 PM Huntard has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 48 of 185 (485333)
10-07-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 6:52 PM


DT writes:

By whom or by what? Does it even matter? The

Yes it does. If you say a unicorn waved it's horn and placed the planets in their orbits for the purpose of biological life, I'd say 'you're crazy'. If you say, 'by naturally occuring events', I would agree with you and would have nothing further to debate on.

The fact is there is this earth placed just on the right distance to the sun.

The fact is that 'There is an Earth', period. The added word placed is what is NOT a fact. Please show how you determined it was placed, and show how you refute the scientific evidence that points to naturally occuring events.

As explained in my post just above yours, this to me is evidence of design.

Then this is an argument from incredulity. If you can show no other evidence other than 'I feel it is placed there', then you are simply invoking your belief.

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.

Yes, you could combine the 2, but what purpose would that be for? To satisfy you and your own personal interpretation of nature?

If you are going to invoke a designer, but you cannot prove whether a designer actually exists, then why invoke a designer when there is a perfectly good theory on planetary formation that explains it through just the natural processes?

In fact you're not even arguing that there aren't natural processes, you are just saying that an un-named intelligence did it for the purpose of life, with natural causes. If science is only the study of the natural world, and naturally occuring events explain just about everything, then 'design' is just to invoke purpose, and purpose cannot be proven just because you feel things are designed. This is a circular argument that you've presented.


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 6:52 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Me4Him, posted 10-07-2008 2:34 PM onifre has responded

  
Me4Him
Junior Member (Idle past 4093 days)
Posts: 19
From: TN
Joined: 10-06-2008


Message 49 of 185 (485337)
10-07-2008 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by onifre
10-07-2008 2:03 PM


[ This is way off topic. Please, no replies. --Admin ]

Do I need to point out that "ADAM" was created from the "DUST OF THE EARTH".

Every "Chemical", "Element" you find in the "universe", you'll find in the "creatures" created from it.

However, there is "one ingredient" in all creatures that the universe can't produce/provide,

That being the "SPIRIT" (of life), only "GOD" can "CREATE LIFE".

As the body without a "SPIRIT" is "DEAD", so would the whole universe be dead without "God's spirit".

"Earth" can provide the "body", but only "GOD" can supply the "LIFE".

A lesson "Evolutionist" haven't learned yet.

Edited by Admin, : Add comment at top.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 10-07-2008 2:03 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by onifre, posted 10-07-2008 5:00 PM Me4Him has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 78 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 50 of 185 (485342)
10-07-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 7:41 PM


Re: Anthropic reasoning voided
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.

If you assume life and humanity is a "goal" then you are right.

If we do not make this assumption then life fitting the "hole" available is perfectly analogous to the puddle.

So is your "goal" assumption justified? I would say definitely not and you have provided no argument to suggest otherwise.

Straggler writes:

DT writes:

What I meant was I am not assuming anything about the goal of the universe. That's beyond me. I am only guessing.

But you are assuming that there is a goal. No?
Is that assumption not beyond you too?

To which you never replied.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 7:41 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:18 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2923 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 51 of 185 (485346)
10-07-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
10-06-2008 9:49 PM


P3 OF POST # 35 APPEARS ONLY TO BE "BEGGING THE Q"
Dr Taz_M writes:

while I am sure that someone else on this board has pointed this flaw out to you I will point out this specific one. Your statement here falls under a general area of argumentation called a teleological arguement which makes one very important assumption, namely that the universe has a purpose and that purpose is to generate life. While this can form the basis for latter arguements you have to support this assumption first, otherwise your whole logic chain collapses like a house built on sand.

Thanks, for this. My reply below also applies to similar querries.
This refers to Premise # 3 of my post # 35.

DT writes:

P3: The right distance of the earth to the sun, and the right conditions on earth is towards a goal--life on earth.

Is this begging the question? It appears only to be so. But, a more detailed analysis will show this is a valid premise.

Here is analysis:
A. Facts first:

- if there is right distance of the earth to the sun, but WRONG conditions life won’t be possible.
- -if the conditions are right, but distance is wrong life will eventually die.

B. Interpretation of the facts:
-Were the above facts brought by random chance? Mathematical probability is not on its side.

- Then, why should the earth’s distance to the sun be right, and the conditions of the earth be right for life to flourish?

An analogous question will answer this one.

Why would Gideon, a cook, take the effort of coming up with the right ingredient, the right temperature, even the right equipment to cook? In short, why these conditions or requirements? Because he wants to achieve his GOAL—the perfect muffin ( or whatever is that dish). So, as Gideon’s conditions / requirements are towards a goal ( the muffin), the Earth’s and Sun’s conditions/ requirements--- the rightness of distance and condition—also has a GOAL: Life !

I think this GOAL was also expressed by a scientist (?)—I forgot his name—‘ it is as if the universe knew we were coming ( or words to this effect).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-06-2008 9:49 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by cavediver, posted 10-07-2008 4:29 PM NOT JULIUS has responded
 Message 99 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-11-2008 8:40 AM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2923 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 52 of 185 (485347)
10-07-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Huntard
10-07-2008 1:56 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
Huntard writes:

There you go again, ASSUMING there is a goal to the universe, and that that goal is life.
As for your bet, I'll take you up on it. Please provide me with clear evidence we are indeed "designed" and i will join your cause.

See my post # 51. May not be clear evidence for you but makes sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Huntard, posted 10-07-2008 1:56 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2008 4:23 PM NOT JULIUS has responded
 Message 56 by Huntard, posted 10-07-2008 4:28 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2923 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 53 of 185 (485349)
10-07-2008 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Straggler
10-07-2008 3:32 PM


Re: Anthropic reasoning voided
stragler writes:

To which you never replied.

Please see my post # 51 where I explained why life is goal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2008 3:32 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 78 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 54 of 185 (485351)
10-07-2008 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NOT JULIUS
10-07-2008 4:12 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
DT writes:

Huntard writes:

There you go again, ASSUMING there is a goal to the universe, and that that goal is life.
As for your bet, I'll take you up on it. Please provide me with clear evidence we are indeed "designed" and i will join your cause.

See my post # 51. May not be clear evidence for you but makes sense.

DT in post 51 writes:

Is this begging the question? It appears only to be so. But, a more detailed analysis will show this is a valid premise.

Here is analysis:
A. Facts first:

- if there is right distance of the earth to the sun, but WRONG conditions life won’t be possible.
- -if the conditions are right, but distance is wrong life will eventually die.

B. Interpretation of the facts:
-Were the above facts brought by random chance? Mathematical probability is not on its side.

- Then, why should the earth’s distance to the sun be right, and the conditions of the earth be right for life to flourish?

An analogous question will answer this one.

Why would Gideon, a cook, take the effort of coming up with the right ingredient, the right temperature, even the right equipment to cook? In short, why these conditions or requirements? Because he wants to achieve his GOAL—the perfect muffin ( or whatever is that dish). So, as Gideon’s conditions / requirements are towards a goal ( the muffin), the Earth’s and Sun’s conditions/ requirements--- the rightness of distance and condition—also has a GOAL: Life !

I think this GOAL was also expressed by a scientist (?)—I forgot his name—‘ it is as if the universe knew we were coming ( or words to this effect).

So how specifically is the exact puddle formed in a randomly produced pothole any different to the "exact" conditions for life leading to life?

Why do you deduce a "goal" to be necessary in one case and not the other?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:12 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:29 PM Straggler has responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2923 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 55 of 185 (485352)
10-07-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ramoss
10-06-2008 10:30 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
ramoss writes:

Why should there be a goal at all. Why not that life just occurs when the conditions are right. This earth may be the only planet with life or there may be millions of planets with life, obviously the universe is a pretty big place. To me life forms where the conditions are right, but there is no goal nor the earth is where it is so life can occur

Blue cat 48 writes:

Why should there be a goal at all. Why not that life just occurs when the conditions are right. This earth may be the only planet with life or there may be millions of planets with life, obviously the universe is a pretty big place. To me life forms where the conditions are right, but there is no goal nor the earth is where it is

My answer is post # 51. My honest effort to answer these and similar questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ramoss, posted 10-06-2008 10:30 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 743 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 56 of 185 (485353)
10-07-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NOT JULIUS
10-07-2008 4:12 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
Doubting Too writes:

See my post # 51. May not be clear evidence for you but makes sense.


Alrighty:

Here is analysis:
A. Facts first:

- if there is right distance of the earth to the sun, but WRONG conditions life won’t be possible.
- -if the conditions are right, but distance is wrong life will eventually die.


Yes

B. Interpretation of the facts:
-Were the above facts brought by random chance? Mathematical probability is not on its side.

Mathematical probability is ABSOLUTELY on its side. Do you have ANY idea how many planets there are? Very many of them will be in the Goldilocks zone. So the earth is very common in that way.

- Then, why should the earth’s distance to the sun be right, and the conditions of the earth be right for life to flourish?

Because that's the way the solar system formed.

Why would Gideon, a cook, take the effort of coming up with the right ingredient, the right temperature, even the right equipment to cook? In short, why these conditions or requirements? Because he wants to achieve his GOAL—the perfect muffin ( or whatever is that dish). So, as Gideon’s conditions / requirements are towards a goal ( the muffin), the Earth’s and Sun’s conditions/ requirements--- the rightness of distance and condition—also has a GOAL: Life !

Again you turn it around, we know Gideon's goal because he TOLD us. Nobody told us the universe has a goal. First you need to show there IS a goal, then you need to show this goal to be life, then we can talk about if the placement of the earth is good to achieve this goal. In short, don't just ASSUME there is a goal, provide evidence for this, if not, I will start claiming some very different things to you, and then we're stuck and crying nuh-uh to each other.

I think this GOAL was also expressed by a scientist (?)—I forgot his name—‘ it is as if the universe knew we were coming ( or words to this effect).

Truth does not depend on opinion, it depends on facts.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:12 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 7:50 PM Huntard has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2092 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 57 of 185 (485354)
10-07-2008 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by NOT JULIUS
10-07-2008 4:08 PM


Re: P3 OF POST # 35 APPEARS ONLY TO BE "BEGGING THE Q"
Were the above facts brought by random chance? Mathematical probability is not on its side.

There are several hundred BILLION stars in our Galaxy. And there are nearly one hundred BILLION galaxies in just the Observable Universe. That gives us billions of trillions of potential planetary systems. Probability not on our side :laugh: Are you sure???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:08 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 8:03 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2923 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 58 of 185 (485355)
10-07-2008 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Straggler
10-07-2008 4:23 PM


The Puddle / Pothole analogy has no Goal
Stragler writes:

So how exactly is the exact puddle formed in a randomly produced pothole any different to the "exact" conditions for life leading to life?

Simply, your analogy does not apply. I think somebody has already confirmed that the analogy of the puddle/pothole has no Goal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2008 4:23 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2008 4:39 PM NOT JULIUS has responded
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-07-2008 5:30 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 78 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 59 of 185 (485356)
10-07-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NOT JULIUS
10-07-2008 4:29 PM


Re: The Puddle / Pothole analogy has no Goal
So how exactly is the exact puddle formed in a randomly produced pothole any different to the "exact" conditions for life leading to life?

Simply, your analogy does not apply. I think somebody has already confirmed that the analogy of the puddle/pothole has no Goal.

Your argument appears to be very very circular.

There must be a goal because the environmental conditions are so specific to life and the conditions are so specific for life because life is the goal.

How is this different from:

The exact size and shape of the puddle must have been the goal bacause the puddle meets the exact size and shape requirements of the goal.

You are applying circular logic to the argument you want to make but refusing to apply the same logic to the puddle.

Life is the puddle. The conditions are the "hole". The same goal arguments can be made for each. Your argument is nonsense.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:29 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 8:37 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 60 of 185 (485358)
10-07-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Me4Him
10-07-2008 2:34 PM


Hi Me4Him, and welcome to EvCforum,

Admin has asked that we not reply to your post, however, if you'd like to present any argument from your PoV, I suggest starting a thread on it...this is a debate forum and you'll find no shortage of people who would love to challenge each and everyone of your points.

I would however like to address this,

Me4Him writes:

A lesson "Evolutionist" haven't learned yet.

I would be cautious if I were you of who you think you can teach lessons to on this site.

Also, try to be a bit more polite as a new member.


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Me4Him, posted 10-07-2008 2:34 PM Me4Him has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020