Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer
barbara
Member (Idle past 4801 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 33 of 153 (585184)
10-06-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Omnivorous
10-01-2010 7:16 AM


Re: What experiments?
What studies support evidence for design?
Species all have an ID marker-traits, features, etc that tell us where they are located on the planet. It is their environment's mechanism that changes occur in species that live in those specific locations. It is the same in humans in obvious traits that easily identify where they are from, for example: Chinese people has distinct features that tell us they are from China. Specific designed traits is a location marker of its origin. Directed or undirected it is still a fact in observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Omnivorous, posted 10-01-2010 7:16 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2010 12:53 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 10-06-2010 12:59 PM barbara has not replied
 Message 40 by Son, posted 10-08-2010 12:21 PM barbara has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 34 of 153 (585188)
10-06-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by barbara
10-06-2010 12:22 PM


Re: What experiments?
Species all have an ID marker-traits, features, etc that tell us where they are located on the planet.
What you are thinking of are called classical racial traits. These are traits that evolve as adaptations to local environments.
For example, residents of the high Andes Mountains have adaptations to allow them to survive and reproduce in an oxygen-poor environment. Those traits are less than 10,000 years or so old, as the mountains were not inhabited earlier.
The neighboring tribes do not have those adaptations.
Not design at all: this is evolution providing adaptations to environments.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by barbara, posted 10-06-2010 12:22 PM barbara has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 35 of 153 (585191)
10-06-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by barbara
10-06-2010 12:22 PM


Re: What experiments?
I get it.
Like how the water at the bottom of a puddle fits perfectly to the shape of the puddle.
Now I get ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by barbara, posted 10-06-2010 12:22 PM barbara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 8:13 AM Larni has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 36 of 153 (585404)
10-08-2010 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Larni
10-06-2010 12:59 PM


Re: What experiments?
I get it.
Like how the water at the bottom of a puddle fits perfectly to the shape of the puddle.
Now I get ID.
Heres an experiment: Live your life the way you want to, by what feels right. and then grow old and die.
After you have died, is there more?
ID, IMO, Is simply recognizing the perfection of balance of all that exists. It recognizes that intelligence existing in our minds, is a dynamic inside of a much larger existence.
man can build a computer, see it, and recognize it came from intelligence. Then, This same man can look at the dynamics of the universe and realize that its alot more complex than a computer.
Its difficult to Prove ID to somone who wants to turn on a microphone and say:" Calling God...Calling God" and get a reply. That might not be impossible. However, if you do not understand the microphone, how can you understand the reciever?
For me, supernatural things are not supernatural. The phenomenons we call supernatural do exist. Supernatural is just saying : "Nobody understands".
I believe one day we will. either in death of flesh, or in flesh. Until that time we can search honestly, or we can just bicker and argue a decided position.
For me; I have a decided position, that I argue honestly. I do not ignore data, but i'm not going to accept opinions exept my own.
Do you agree this is a good descision? What is proven? Do you think my proposed experiment is an effective one?
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.
Edited by tesla, : Spelling, yadda yadda.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Larni, posted 10-06-2010 12:59 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 10-08-2010 9:01 AM tesla has replied
 Message 38 by Larni, posted 10-08-2010 9:01 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 11:00 AM tesla has replied
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 12:52 PM tesla has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 37 of 153 (585415)
10-08-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by tesla
10-08-2010 8:13 AM


Re: What experiments?
Hi tesla, long time no see.
You say ID is the recognition of balance in all things: but that is not what ID staes, is it?
ID states that the universe could not have arisen without a designer.
I agree that intelligence exists in our minds but this has not been shown to require intervention. The water in the puddle fits the puddle perfectly because of the nature of water and puddles: not that the ater is designed to fit the puddle.
A man can look at a computer and say that it is designed because it often has a lable saying 'made in China' (for example).
Nature has no such markers. Everything to date that has been put forwards as a marker for design has been debunked (blood clotting is a good example put forwards in 'Pandas and People'0.
Can you point to a marker of design in nature? If you can I'm all ears.
However, if you do not understand the microphone, how can you understand the reciever?
How can this be different to 'However, if you do not understand god, how can you understand god'?
Supernatural is just saying : "Nobody understands".
But this is not the case: the supernatural is saying: Nobody understands; therefor god. this is god of the gaps and fallacious.
Do you think my proposed experiment is an effective one?
You have proposed no experiment: what is the prediction and what is the experimental design? There is even no epistemological framework being used here apart from 'I believe what I believe'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 8:13 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 10:13 PM Larni has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 38 of 153 (585417)
10-08-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by tesla
10-08-2010 8:13 AM


Re: What experiments?
Hi tesla, long time no see.
You say ID is the recognition of balance in all things: but that is not what ID staes, is it?
ID states that the universe could not have arisen without a designer.
I agree that intelligence exists in our minds but this has not been shown to require intervention. The water in the puddle fits the puddle perfectly because of the nature of water and puddles: not that the ater is designed to fit the puddle.
A man can look at a computer and say that it is designed because it often has a lable saying 'made in China' (for example).
Nature has no such markers. Everything to date that has been put forwards as a marker for design has been debunked (blood clotting is a good example put forwards in 'Pandas and People'0.
Can you point to a marker of design in nature? If you can I'm all ears.
However, if you do not understand the microphone, how can you understand the reciever?
How can this be different to 'However, if you do not understand god, how can you understand god'?
Supernatural is just saying : "Nobody understands".
But this is not the case: the supernatural is saying: Nobody understands; therefor god. this is god of the gaps and fallacious.
Do you think my proposed experiment is an effective one?
You have proposed no experiment: what is the prediction and what is the experimental design? There is even no epistemological framework being used here apart from 'I believe what I believe'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 8:13 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 153 (585448)
10-08-2010 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by tesla
10-08-2010 8:13 AM


Re: What experiments?
Heres an experiment: Live your life the way you want to, by what feels right. and then grow old and die.
After you have died, is there more?
This experiment has already been performed: but no-one has published the results.
ID, IMO, Is simply recognizing the perfection of balance of all that exists.
Then why do some things fall over?
man can build a computer, see it, and recognize it came from intelligence.
And man can look at a tiger and recognize that it came from two other tigers unintelligently making out.
And both these feats of recognition come from prior knowledge --- we know how computers are made and how tigers are made. It is not clear that an ideal reasoner, without this sort of knowledge, could infer these things merely by abstract contemplation of a computer and a tiger.
So how are we meant to decide whether the universe is more like a computer or a tiger? Of course, if we could find a label on the bottom of the universe saying "Made In Taiwan", this would be a useful indication ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 8:13 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 10:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 40 of 153 (585466)
10-08-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by barbara
10-06-2010 12:22 PM


Re: What experiments?
Wait, do you mean your theory of ID says that each group of humans from different regions were created separately? I mean, you seem to say that we all have different ID marker-traits. So, would you say that species having different marker-traits don't have a common ancestor? If it's not the case, what does those ID marker-traits indicate at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by barbara, posted 10-06-2010 12:22 PM barbara has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 41 of 153 (585485)
10-08-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by tesla
10-08-2010 8:13 AM


Re: What experiments?
Heres an experiment: Live your life the way you want to, by what feels right. and then grow old and die.
I think you have just shown why ID is not very useful in a scientific sense. We have real life questions that we want to answer in the here and now. We call it "doing science".
ID, IMO, Is simply recognizing the perfection of balance of all that exists. It recognizes that intelligence existing in our minds, is a dynamic inside of a much larger existence.
So what is the evidence of this "perfection of balance" etc. ?
What you seem to be communicating is that there is no scientific evidence for ID. Rather, ID is a preference based on emotion.
I believe one day we will. either in death of flesh, or in flesh. Until that time we can search honestly, or we can just bicker and argue a decided position.
Or we can get stuff done like biologists are doing across the globe without any input from ID "theory". We apply the theory of evolution and guess what? It works. For example, an algorithm based on evolution called SIFTER is able to predict protein function with 96% accuracy (source). Do we see any ID supporters using ID to produce protein function predictions? Nope. They are too busy conning school boards and 9th graders to be concerned with actually doing science.
The evidence for the scientific vacuity of ID is the lack of scientific output. Like your post above, it is nothing more than flowery language meant to reinforce previously held religious beliefs. Where the rubber meets the road ID is nowhere to be found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 8:13 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 10:16 PM Taq has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 42 of 153 (585624)
10-08-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Larni
10-08-2010 9:01 AM


Re: What experiments?
Hi Larni
You say ID is the recognition of balance in all things: but that is not what ID states, is it?
Not exactly. I probably define my belief in intelligent design differently, but I do believe that the universe was set in motion decidedly by an intelligent force.
Supernatural is a word only used to describe 'mind boggling' phenomenon. Simply put: we don't know why the behavior exists, but it’s apparently impossible with our understanding of physics.
I.e. Edgar Cayce: This man was an unusual phenomenon, yet truly did exist and accomplish apparent supernatural abilities.
I don't believe the phenomenon of psychics' is not a natural dynamic of physics. It is simply not yet understood.
The experiment is to live until you die, and then see if there is anything more after you die. Does the electromagnetic field or electric field of the human body retain the information of memories and thoughts of the body it hosted even after the body is gone?
I find it odd that information can remain imbedded in a computer and transferred as data that can be sent at light speed and re-interpreted and stored essentially forever. Does this dynamic work in living things but by a different recording method?
The universe is full of mystery, and though God remains one, it doesn’t mean he is not there. Perhaps the dynamic of his existence is so different from our own perspective it appears supernatural.
Belief has power. It’s evident in psychiatric patients who have physical ailments from extreme mental hang-ups in their belief system. But perhaps a positive outcome is possible with the proper belief system in the other extreme. If belief has power on physical things, then we know very little about physics. This would not surprise me.
Can you point to a marker of design in nature? If you can I'm all ears.
As always, the fact anything can exist at all boggles my mind. For me the evidence is simply that intelligence exists, and that our universe is full of strange and wonderful dynamics on a scale so large our entire planet is a speck of a spec inside it. Does my belief mean I should give up trying to understand it? Should the possibility of it being designed by a creator that cares be dismissed? I don’t believe so.
For me, evolution has proven God is, because as long as two things are in an evolved state, before that is a relevant question. So when we get to one thing without time, how can it evolve? And decision is the only answer I can find. Existence just was, yet I can’t figure out how anything can exist at all. confused? Don’t sweat it. If I had the answers I would tell you. I don’t. But I know what I believe and why.
I debate to find more answers. If you’re comfortable with your belief, so be it. But make an informed decision. Because no science or evidence has 'proven' anything concerning God, without faith.
I.e. there is no proof of God, so I take faith in God.
You have no proof God isn’t, yet you proclaim by faith there is no God.
Edited by tesla, : : after cayce and capitalized T in 'This'

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 10-08-2010 9:01 AM Larni has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 43 of 153 (585626)
10-08-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taq
10-08-2010 12:52 PM


Re: What experiments?
See message 42

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 10-08-2010 12:52 PM Taq has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 44 of 153 (585628)
10-08-2010 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
10-08-2010 11:00 AM


Re: What experiments?
LOL
This experiment has already been performed: but no-one has published the results.
Quite right. see message 42 if you want more amunition =)
ID is an argument about how it all came to be the way it is. Not that things are the way they are. One side says its random designation of interation; The other position says its a design by an intelligence. If i'm wrong, correct me?
If not: Its a matter of faith to say its random, and a matter of faith to say its God's design.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 11:00 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 10-08-2010 10:28 PM tesla has replied
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2010 11:08 PM tesla has replied
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2010 11:32 PM tesla has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 153 (585631)
10-08-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by tesla
10-08-2010 10:22 PM


Re: What experiments?
ID is an argument about how it all came to be the way it is. Not that things are the way they are. One side says its random designation of interation; The other position says its a design by an intelligence. If i'm wrong, correct me?
Yes, you are wrong.
One side presents a model that explains HOW the variety of life we see came about. That is called the Theory of Evolution.
The other side asserts it is design by an intelligence but present no model of the process or places the designer on the lab table to be examined.
The ONLY model out there is the Theory of Evolution.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 10:22 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by tesla, posted 10-09-2010 1:49 AM jar has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 46 of 153 (585634)
10-08-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by tesla
10-08-2010 10:22 PM


Re: What experiments?
ID is an argument about how it all came to be the way it is. Not that things are the way they are. One side says its random designation of interation; The other position says its a design by an intelligence. If i'm wrong, correct me?
ID is a religious belief based on scripture, dogma, divine revelation and the like.
That has nothing to do with empirical evidence. In fact, it is the opposite of empirical evidence.
If not: Its a matter of faith to say its random, and a matter of faith to say its God's design.
No. One is based on empirical evidence, and can change if that evidence changes. The other is based on such squishy things as dogma, scripture, and "divine" revelation. How does one test any of those empirically?
(See tagline.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 10:22 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by tesla, posted 10-09-2010 2:05 AM Coyote has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 153 (585639)
10-08-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by tesla
10-08-2010 10:22 PM


Re: What experiments?
ID is an argument about how it all came to be the way it is.
But in fact cdesign proponentists never say how and refuse to discuss it.
Not that things are the way they are. One side says its random designation of interation; The other position says its a design by an intelligence. If i'm wrong, correct me?
You are wrong. I have never heard anyone say "random designation of interation" about anything.
If not: Its a matter of faith to say its random, and a matter of faith to say its God's design.
And a third class of people, who, unlike the first, actually exist, attribute it to the laws of nature --- which requires no faith whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by tesla, posted 10-08-2010 10:22 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by tesla, posted 10-09-2010 2:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024