A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

Percy in message 196 writes: I took that to mean the same as "is the physical evidence consistent with a designer".My bad if I misunderstood.Btw, shouldn't what you wrote read "I think we're looking for a designer consistent with the evidence rather th(a)n evidence consistent with a designer..." ? Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"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

Yes, of course we could get deeper into the effects of mass density and thoroughly go through it, using the Suns mass effect on spacetime with it's orbiting planets and properly educate the "Gecko", but I don't think "plain" wrong is just.Are you saying, plainly, that the Earths orbit is not determined by the mass denisty of both the Earth and the Sun?Maybe I could have worded it differently but shit, I was just making a point. I'm glad you picked up on the irony.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"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

Hi Gecko, - lol, a gecko from Australia, you wouldn't happen to sell auto insurance would you? Again, yes, it all seems, for now, to be hospitable for life. But also remember that at one point in the past it was not. In the early proto-planetary formation neither water, oxygen or life were found. Nor was the Earth in this particualr orbit.Also, a major intersellar event could change all of that.So too would the Sun's eventual death.All of this would be part of the "design". You are simply picking a moment in it's history where conscious life has emerged, but this is not the complete history and not the only condition this planet and solar system have experienced. No I do not. I do however see the picture for your personal beliefs. Because, the point was to show evidence for the designer in the physical evidence. You pointed to these specific conditions being the evidence for the designer, so it follows that opposing conditions would NOT show evidence for the designer. Opposing conditions would be solar systems and planets that don't hold life. These planets and solar systems are, using your logic, not designed.Maybe take a minute to try and understand what YOU are saying, so you can see how the logic is flawed.Unless you are saying that everything, no matter what it's conditions are, shows evidence for design. Which is fine. But at that point all of your examples would be moot points since their specifics doesn't really show evidence for design, if every single thing is designed then every single thing shows evidence for design.Your evidence supports living organisms, not design. I didn't just say other planets orbiting other stars, I also included the planets in this solar system. However, if there are other planets with life then that would be more of a case for Earth not being special at all. It is to us but not to the universe or other galaxies as a whole, if they too have the potential for life to emerge.I also wanted to comment on this specifically: Why would water be a limiting factor to the designer?Liquid water would be essential if natural processes required it and would be limited without it...Surely god/designer/creator/etc would not be limited by the lack of anything, right?Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"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

Lyx2no, this is for an increase to the current mass.Of course, the force of gravity acting between the Earth and the Sun are directly proportional to the mass of the Earth, directly proportional to the mass of the Sun, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance which separates the centers of the Earth and the Sun. An increase to it's mass would do nothing to it's current orbit.But, and this is what I was refering to, during proto-planetary formation is not the Earth's mass proportional to the Sun's mass directly influencial to what it's orbit will be? I'm a card carring member of the Douche Bag Association, I believe it's a sister organization of the Bourne Dick's, so we share personalities. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : spelling and such

---

"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

I have not seen it re-written with only (M) and not (m), but ok. But note that this is a formula to explain the observed orbiting of the planets, but does not help us in the formation of the orbit. This is out of my level of knowledge and I won't keep pressing further.The only thing I'll state is that Newton's law of gravitation says that "every object in the universe attracts every other object along a line of the centers of the objects, proportional to each object's mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects" - thus my commitment to my original point. I stand corrected, if in fact you are correct. Depends, do you like dicks or douches? I live in Miami and we have our fair share of both.

---

"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

My joke fell short. You don't have the Geico insurance commercials in Australia? Here in the US there's an insurance company who's spokes "person" is a Gecko, from Australia, hence my awful joke...sorry - lol. I figured that would be your response, which I understand, once you view the evidence with an a priori assumtion that there is a god, then one would be compelled to assume nature displays a design quality.But the point was to show evidence for design. If you simply say everything is designed, then why bother to pick specifics in nature. Just say "it's all designed because I believe it to be"...which it would then be fair to assume that you are not viewing the evidence objectively as is required by the scientific method. Then there is no objective evidence creationist can point to to show what they mean, philosophy and science don't mix in that way.Philosophical world views are plenty. Why you pick one specific one is beyond my comprehention IF one is being objective about the evidence. Even if nature points to design, that the designer is Jesus specifically does not make sense. Why Jesus? Why not any other god/metaphysical entity that has ever been spoken of?This assumtion, that Jesus is the dude, is not logically derived at from any objective evidence, can you agree to that? Even if it is small it doesn't matter, since life is here. It did arrise from any condition you are speculating was too impossible for it to arrise from. BUT, the point is, given the evidence that has been gathered, does it point to design by a designer, or does it show natural processes. If everything else within the universe, that has been agreed to have arrisen from natural processes, like stars, blackholes, planets, etc, is possible without devine intervention, then why does this particular process, abiogenesis, require a designer, and why do creationist hang on this point in time as their only argument for a designer?Why not explain how the sun wasn't able to form without devine intervention? Why not explain how Earth couldn't form without devine intervention? Why is it just the cell that you guys seem to get hung-up on? - My thoughts are that this one particular area of science is new, hasn't been fully understood and is a god of the gaps position that you have a while with to present your incredulous opinions, what do you think? Equally, if the universe was designed by Zues, Allah or Vishnu, it would also be evident...why Jesus? What evidence in nature do you see that specifically points to Jesus? Or, do you just believe in Jesus, the Bible and ergo the stories presented in the Bible? If this is why, then you have an a priori assumtion, and not objectively derived at proof for anything. We are born not knowing anything about a creator, you are indoctrinated into these philosophies. Whether it be Christianity, Hinduism, Janism, etc...non-materialistic philosophies are derived at from a faith based belief system, and not from objectively viewing the evidence. What nature seems to look like isn't always the correct answer to what is actually happening. Think solar eclipses 2000 years ago. Human assumtion was way wrong about what was happening in space with the sun and the moon, yet people were steadfast in their position about what a solar eclipse was and how it came came to be. If you know and understand the counter positions to your arguments so well then I can only assume that nothing is going to be presented to you that you have not already heard, and rejected.You are right, I don't understand how you arrive at Jesus, or how anyone arrives at their beliefs in any other deities existance.I was hoping you could shead more light as to how, using objective evidence that we can all agree on, the universe and everything in it show purpose and design, and now due to your belief, how it is Jesus and not any other deity. If you cannot show evidence that anyone with any world view can agree upon then you have not done a good job at explaining your position. Likewise, if it was up to me to show anyone of any world view how stars form, there would be no shortage of physical, objective evidence that I could point to that everyone would agree on. Like what Galileo did with planetery orbits - or Kepler if you want to get technical.They presented their evidence to people with a different world view and changed everyones mind. Why can't you do the same? Why does your world view not disagree with Galileo? Why does your world view, in the case of "living" cells, come into play, but not with planetery orbits? Is it because everyone now agrees upon it? Where will your argument go when abiogenesis is fully understood?If you limit yourself to your specific world view then you will fall victim to the illogical reasoning that people who disagree with Galileo used, and were shown was wrong. Just food for thought in this final point.*Note, if you do not wish to continue the discussion because you feel we'll just talk circles around each other then cool.- OniEdited by Admin, : Fix spelling of Geico.

---

"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

I only object because I don't have an a priori agenda, whatever that means. I look at evidence and don't assume anything outside of the natural until such time that objective evidence for me to think otherwise is shown to me.Now, if only there was a thread where objective evidence for design could be shown to me.......I don't assume anything. How did stars form? Naturally. How did the earth form? Naturally. How did land masses form? Naturally. How did trees form? Naturally. I think you see where I'm going with that. Now, lets keep it simple between us so we don't get too overwelmed, do you agree with those 4 things forming naturally? If not, why? And, where is your evidence that goes against the current evidence that explains how these 4 things develop naturally?However, if you do agree, then I'll keep asking about things found in nature til we get to the ones you feel ONLY a designer could have created it, and it didn't form naturally. In the spirit of good debating, when you point out that I'm wrong please try to give a clear discription as to how I'm wrong. You just repeated what I said and told me I'm wrong, wrong how?Think about it, EVEN IF god did it, he still did it under the conditions that were preexisting in the "primordial soup" time. Life arrose from those conditions, whether god directed or not. Now, since neither you nor I, currently, has the full info for this time period, I asked you to use some logical reasoning. What do you know of in nature that can ONLY be explained by god did it?The logical reasoning used to say god HAD TO direct it, just because all of the info isn't there, has been proven to be flawed in the past, do you agree with that?In fact it has NEVER been right, unless again, you can point to an example of something (ie. stars, planets, trees, etc). Or give me an example of something found in nature that everyone thought arrose naturally but now is accepted that god had to create it - and is taught that way in mainstream science classes. Let me get this straight, you believe that stars, planets, blackholes,etc, DO NOT form naturally? You believe that god has to create every single one of them? PLEASE, explain. I gotta admit I've never heard that one before.The point is not that you believe in a god that created everything, the point is to show how these things didn't form natural LIKE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SEEMS TO SUGGEST. Really?No. I believe the true reason is that none of you have any physics background and it would be completely impossible for any of you to mathematically explain how a blackhole doesn't form naturally. Also, because you would be laughed at since some of the greatest Nobel prize winning minds have explained this so accurately. You have no clue where to begin to deconstruct a blackhole, none of you do - nor do I - but then again, I'm not challenging it's origins. So the LHC is an unscientific venture? Really? So Nobel prizes are given for "guesswork"? Get the fuck outta here, dude.Do you own a GPS? Guess what, the scientist who "guessed shit" about spacetime made that cute little product possible for you to use. Maybe you've heard of him, Albert Einstein? - Guesswork Physicist The facts are interpreted differently by people who are not educated in these fields. Your 'opinion' of the facts does not change anything. Edited by onifre, : clean up a bit

---

"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

Oh so the reason is, because you said so? Ok, shit I never saw it that way. Thanks Tony, great post......

No. No he is not. That was it.Ready to convert yet?

---

"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

What is the 'real" process and this "assumed" process?You understand that selection of mutations amounts to evolvement, right? - Even if you disagree, you understand that that is what is taught in Biology class, right?Selection is the mechanism, the entire process is what's refered to as evolution, there is no seperation of the 2.Can you be a little less vague and explain what you see rather than what you feel is wrong with the entire scope of biology? The facts are as follows: Diversity exists, that is visually obvious. At any point in the Earths history diversity has existed and fossils show a multitude of diverse species; this too is visually observable.Do you dispute any of that?If you don't lets continue: The species we visually observe to exist today did not exist 500Mya, the species that lived 500Mya are not around today, SO, it follows that a process, be it devinely guilded or natural, took place.Do you agree with the above?If you do then lets continue: Is it too far fetched for you to believe that a natural process of mutation and selection can, given enough time, lead to what we perceive as different species, but in actuality is just a newly adapted version of the older species, having undergone adaptation due to enviromental changes?Or, do you believe that there had to be devine intervention each and every time the enviroment changes, that alters the species appearance, so they can survive in the new environment?Even if you believe in god, is it really too far fecthed to believe that he equipted each species with a mechanism that helps them adapt to their environment so that he doesn't have to continue to re-visit them and alter their appearance?If you disgaree with any portion of my post then please explain how the process from 500Mya went to bring about the species that we see today, and don't see from 500ya.- Oni

---

"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