The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

That's assuming there's no designer. This thread is about debating evidences of such. If a designer can be shown to exist, purpose and intent becomes relevant in science, does it not? Pathology: Online Dictionary: I'm not sure what you are alluding to here.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

It does not assume a designer. Since you proposed it as a way for us to look for design, the latter seems more appropriate. That's is what life is, not a purpose for what it is. As Dennis points out - this would be the case even if it were not designed which means it is not a suitable method for discriminating designed from undesigned. The purpose of the wind is to blow. Anything that is essentially defined by its verb becomes designed. Since this does not lead us to design, surely we need something better?

So far, nothing but meanspirited condescending personal attack. No evidence has ever been cited. No evidence ever cited. No evidence ever cited. Nuggin, you have posted three strawmen.I know that you've been absent for a spell. Welcome back, by the way, if I haven't already said so.Unlike your strawmen examples, the EvC archives are rife with cited evidences of an intelligent operative designer in the Universe, whether or not you are inclined to acknowledge them. .

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

The difference is that intelligently designed things serve the purpose and intent of the designer, whereas your example/model has no purpose or intent.Design things which have purpose and intent tend towards ordered complexity relative to the purpose and intent of the intelligent designer whereas random design does not.Thus ID creationists view purpose and intent as relative to science research.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Are you kidding me Buz? There are books upon books with cited evidence of Harry Potter.

Buz, you realize you are playing for our team when you wholeheartedly admit ID is creationism, right? I'm not sure if you know this, but ID hasn't publicly come out of the closet. They still deny their religious ties...... Keep it up, buddy. We appreciate it.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Intelligent design - as opposed to...? Let's just call it 'design'.
Design (by definition) has a purpose.
Intent means purpose.
Random design means having no purpose Tautology much?Edited by Panda, : missed a bitEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

No. Both examples that I gave are still unknown as to purpose/intent.I asked you to look at patterns in the snow and explain how you would distinguish random patterns made by skiers from an intentional work of art made by a designer. I asked you to look at a pile of sand and explain how you would distinguish a natural phenomenon like a sand dune from an intentional pile-up by a building contractor.Either example might have purpose or it might not. The question is: When you see the evidence, what does purpose look like? What instrumentation do you use to detect intent?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

An intentometer, of course. It's a simple yet ingenious device consisting of a large metal box with a creationist in it. To operate it you simply point it at any object whatsoever, bang on the box, and say "Was that designed?" The creationist says "yes", and then you know.I've noticed that if you don't leave any air-holes in the box, you have to put a new creationist in every couple of days.

I think Dennis was on the right track but he just stopped a little short of the train station. It is true that order is very important in recognizing design, but order by itself is not enough. Otherwise we could say that snowflakes are all intelligently designed. No, order coupled with specificity, or as I like to say (particularization) is a dead ringer for design. Perhaps given enough time monkeys could produce a Shakespearean play, which would be both ordered and particularized, but lets look at exactly what you seem to be suggesting here.The question really is, "At what point are we safe to actually call something impossible?" When we call something impossible, we normal mean that the chances of that "something" happening are so small that they are very improbable. I do admit that just what constitutes impossible depends on who is doing the judging. If someone won the state lottery two weeks straight in a row (a chance of one in a hundred trillion) the judges would think that that was pretty impossible and they wouldn’t pay on the second win. They would probably investigate the first one with a fine tooth comb also.My favorite example of pointing to the impossible is to toss 150 coins in the air. A person can mathematically expect that only once in 10 to the 45th tosses, the coins would all come up heads (that's a ten with 45 zeros behind it). But since flipping coins, counting all the heads, and then picking them all back up, can be very slow and time consuming, lets imagine we employed 1,000 super fast people to all help us toss coins. If each person could do the entire process once per second, and we allowed them to do this for one hundred years they still could only flip the coins about three trillion times, which is a long way away from 10 to the 45th.Okay so lets try to do it really fast and use only a programmed computer to simulate the tossing of 150 coins, which could do it in under a "trillionth" of a second, and then say we enlisted a billion of these simulators and all together we call them one coin toss "pod." But we don't stop there, we proceeded to use ten billion of these pods and let them all run at that speed for 3000 years. Even in all of that time you would still only have flipped the coins 10 to the 42nd times. Still very short of the goal. No sane person would ever expect to get all 150 coins to land on heads. I believe anyone in there right mind would consider doing so to be basically impossible. Therefore, I think that we would both safely agree that the odds of 10 to the 45th to one are impossible.Lets for now completely ignore the impossible odds of life forming from non-life, forgoing the concept where a single cell must develop all at once and fully capable of reproducing. Lets for now just look at the possibility for the development of information to take place in the already existing DNA of a genome. What are those odds?I'm glad you compared it to the writing of a Shakespearean play. Lets stick with that example. Only we will pretend we already have the play, and all we want to see is an improvement take place. Keeping with the NeoDarwinian theory, our writer could randomly change a few letters and then reprint his book at least twice, once with the changes and once with the original. He would then check to see if he liked the changes and throw it away if he didn’t. He could not just keep the changes he liked; he would have to keep the entire text with all the random changes or throw it all away and stay with the original. It would be all or nothing. The random changes in the letters of the book corrisponds with the random mutations said to occur in the DNA message of an organism, and the reprinting of the two copies corrisponds with organisms ability to reproduce.This would dictate that he keep his changes to a bare minimum. Any random changes much more than one letter would have a much higher chance of rendering a negative change which would require destroying it and restarting. But then, even with the improvements there would be likely a problem that would cause him to reject it anyway. For example randomly changing a letter in one word might actually change that word into a new and improved word but perhaps now that word doesn’t make sense in the sentence or in the paragraph. Or it may not make sense in the reading of the book. If the book was about three mice, and the first letter of mice was changed to d to make dice, most of the other sentences with the word mice would need changing. And even if you could somehow change all the mice words to dice, you still would probably render the entire book to be unintelligible.To get an improvement you have to have several correlated changes all take place at the same time and in just the right places. In other words you have to have much more than 150 coins all land on their heads at once in each and every step of the process of evolution. We can see that the odds of these correlated changes occurring all at once far surpasses our impossible number of 10 to the 45th.

And if you ever get round to defining the terms that you are using, then your next step would be to argue for this claim instead of merely repeatedly asserting it.

HI JBR, Irrelevant is what they are. If you have DNA, you already have information. There would be no need to "develop" it, it would already be there. Even before the emergence of DNA, there was information. Even a snowflake contains information.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

For the sake of perspective, if 6 x 10²³ molecules of water weigh 18 grams, how many molecules are there in the ocean?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Of course there is something better and its called order and law. You simply asked me what is its purpose. Ther better you seek is the order it follows. To reason past this that it does it by itself, you would need to demonstrate the eternality of matter.Until you have done this design is a reasonable and logical assumption, the conclusion of whichis irresistible.So the question then goes way past evos or sciences ability to explain present conditions and materialsSince in anyother given situation an item with order and purpose would imply design, it is more reasonable conclude that the intricacies in nature are therefore designed.You disapproval doesnt change this factScience can PROVE nothing concerning matter swhere there is limited or unavailable evidence, like that of natures initiation source.Atheism has offered nothing to suggest or indicate this conclusion is not warrented, sepecially when tied in with Gods Word.Dawn BertotIt is hereofre unresonable for science or evos to request of us what they cannot provide themselves.However none of this removes the MORE valid conclusion that design implies a designer

You should work out more. I bet I could do that.And whichever way they came down, they would do so at odds of 10⁴⁵ against them coming down that way, and you would declare that whatever just happened was "mathematically impossible" ... wouldn't you? This blather illustrates the importance of thinking about genetics when one is trying to think about genetics. Otherwise you end up thinking really dumb stuff.