The evidence for design and a designer

I think we all agree with half of what you say. An untested half-educated guess (presumably based upon available but incomplete evidence) *does* make more sense than accepting that everything sprang out randomly. That's why none of us accept that everything sprang out randomly. As far as well can tell, matter and energy follow fairly well established laws of nature, and evolution uses natural selection to choose from randomly produced alternatives.Look at it this way. Were an asteroid to strike the Earth it would be a random event, but the event itself would follow the non-random laws of nature. In an analogous fashion, were a mutation to occur it would be a random event, but whether the mutation makes it to the next generation (that's the "selection" part of natural selection) would again follow the non-random laws of nature.As to "purpose" in a "meaning of life" kind of sense, that isn't something science can tell us about. Things that we've learned scientifically are what tend to get taught in science classrooms.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Yes, it's word salad. I think you must have created your own terminology, for instance, necessities. Necessities is not a scientific concept. Here's a list of things that you need to define, correct or clarify:

• Necessities - not a scientific concept, what's this mean?
  ​
• Laws that govern necessities - what laws?
  ​
• Singularity - not believed by most physicists to actually have ever existed
  ​
• "governable law to exist in energy" - reads like nonsense
  ​
• "energy to evolve" - what does it mean for energy to evolve?
  ​
• "So time is irrelevant, therefore necessity is irrelevant" - how does one follow from the other, and what is "necessity" anyway?
  ​
• "However, to argue object (a), has intelligence: (b) causing the necessity of evolution..." - how does one follow from the other?
  ​
• "...(c) would fit in a necessity argument." - what is a "necessity argument?"
  ​
• "Because intelligence is a possibility for a single energy to exist without time, nor introduction; then change." - Right now, in the light of day, do even you know what this means?
  ​
• conflict - What do you mean by "conflict?" Maybe you mean interaction, a common term in science?

Much of this might be moot. I think your argument is based upon the singularity being something real, and as I alluded in the third point, the singularity isn't thought to be anything real. It just falls out of math that it is believed to no longer apply before T=10^-43.--Percy

Sure, and you can ask what came before great grandpa and what came before hominids and what came before mammals and what came before amphibians and so forth.But when you start asking what came before the Earth or before the sun or before the galaxy or before matter you're not talking about evolution anymore. It's fine if you have a cosmological argument for design and a designer based upon change, but if you're going to refer to this change as evolution then be careful to make clear you're not talking about biological evolution, which is heritable change. The change in the universe that you're talking about is not heritable.If you're not clear about how you're using the word evolution then people will object that evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, or they won't say anything and just assume you're hopelessly confused. Remember, this site hosts the creation/evolution debate, so the definition of evolution people assume is in play is the one for biological evolution. When you're not using it that way then make certain people know it.--Percy

Hi Dawn Bertot,Your objection makes no sense. I think you might have misunderstood the point about the potential for confusion when one is unclear about which meaning of the term evolution one is using.Since this is your thread, why don't you resume participation.--Percy

Hi Dawn Bertot,Tesla was confusing two different definitions of the word evolution. I suggested to Tesla that it is important to be clear about which definition he means.You, on the other hand, are somehow interpreting that as saying something about the topic and what can be discussed. It is not.My suggestion to you is that if you want to discuss the topic then you should start posting messages about the topic. After all, this is your thread.--Percy

So you're saying that order is evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of order you're thinking about. Is a crystalline structure evidence of design?You're also saying that laws of nature are evidence of design. What is an example of the kind of law you're thinking about? Is the law of gravity evidence of design?--Percy

We agree with you that there is evidence of order.The question is what kind of order are you talking about why do you think it is evidence for design. I presume you also observe change?Anyway, if by change you're referring to evolution then you're making the same mistake Tesla did. Evolution and change are not synonyms.--Percy

Hi Dawn,Don't you remember that arguments that evolution is incomplete because it doesn't deal with the origin of the universe are off-topic in this thread? See Message 31, here's an excerpt: I'm having trouble sorting out what you mean in your Message 115: So order that emerges from a lower level order isn't evidence of design?But the lower level order in molecules and atoms *is* evidence of design?You go on: So sight, which is based upon an internal order of molecules and atoms, is evidence of design, but crystals, which are also based upon an internal order of molecules and atoms, are not evidence of design?About usable functions, how do you conclude that crystalline salt does not have a usable function while sight does?--Percy

"Order is always evidence of order..."???Really?Anyway, assuming that what you really meant to say is that order is always evidence of design, then you're contradicting what you say in Message 115 where you draw a distinction between order in a crystal versus order in things like sight and hearing. How is the order in a crystal not evidence of design while the order in a gloppy mess like the gall bladder *is* evidence of design?You asked to go one-on-one earlier. Before I'd consider that I'd move this thread back to Proposed New Topics so you can clarify your position and define your terms.--Percy