Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 196 of 377 (608239)
03-09-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:27 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
havoc writes:
There is no evidence of Biological Design.
So Im assuming that you think that there is evidence for non biological design. Can you objectively observe a non biological thing and make a determination as to whether it is designed or not? Does this same evidence apply to biology? If not why not? Do you accept the same evidence in one case but not in the other?
I think the evolutionist thought goes like this. Life is not designed so there is no evidence of design in life.
Learn to read.
At times we can determine if a non biological artifact is the result of outside interference and influence. Read the OP. In it I post examples.
When someone can present the same level of evidence regarding biological things then we can consider that they might be a product of outside interference and influence.
So far NO Creationist or Intelligent (talk about and oxymoron) Design marketeer has produced comparable evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:27 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 5:35 PM jar has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 197 of 377 (608241)
03-09-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:27 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
havoc writes:
There is no evidence of Biological Design.
So Im assuming that you think that there is evidence for non biological design. Can you objectively observe a non biological thing and make a determination as to whether it is designed or not? Does this same evidence apply to biology? If not why not? Do you accept the same evidence in one case but not in the other?
I think the evolutionist thought goes like this. Life is not designed so there is no evidence of design in life.
It goes far beyond that. We have evidence that biological systems can come up with "designs" on their own. As the video I have linked to here details, it's remarkably easy! That's what they mean by "robust" -- there are a lot of pathways to a workable result.
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):
Page not found | UW Video
Abstract Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:27 PM havoc has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 198 of 377 (608248)
03-09-2011 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:07 PM


Re: Provide the same relevant evidence used to identify the arrowhead.
Why do I have to give you this evidence?
You don't have to if you don't want to. However, if there is no evidence then I can not be certain that there is design in biological organisms.
Are you saying there is no evidence for design?
Not at all. I am saying that I have yet to see any.
My point is no evidence is 100% so at what point do you make the leap to say it is designed.
What evidence allowed you to make the leap, and why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:07 PM havoc has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 199 of 377 (608250)
03-09-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:03 PM


Life does not occur by chance.
Evidence please.
There is no known natural law that causes non living matter to become living matter.
There is no known law that prevents it.
So there is very little chance that life and the genetic code are not designed.
The genomes and species we see now are the product of evolution, not abiogenesis. Evolution is a non-random process.
So how do you differentiate between a non-random natural process that shapes genomes and design?
So at this level of certainty I am quite comfortable in saying that life was designed.
What certainty? All you have is baseless claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:03 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 4:38 PM Taq has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 200 of 377 (608251)
03-09-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by havoc
03-09-2011 2:03 PM


Life does not occur by chance.
What is your evidence for asserting this? At the moment, there is exactly one known instance of life in the universe: Earth. The formation of said life was so far in the past, regardless of whether you believe in thousands or billions of years, that we can't say how it happened. So, we have a sample size of one, and the origin of that sample is unknown. Seems like a very weak bit of evidence to make such a certain, absolute claim.
There is no known natural law that causes non living matter to become living matter.
What is the difference between living matter and non-living matter? Matter is made up of atoms, which form molecules, whether that form is living or not. When you get down to it, biology is just chemistry, which is just physics. Tell me what law forbids a chemical reaction from perpetuating itself if given the required components of said chemical reaction.
So there is very little chance that life and the genetic code are not designed. So at this level of certainty I am quite comfortable in saying that life was designed. Same goes for the unmarked arrow head.
Your evidence for saying so seems to rely on a house of cards supported by unfounded belief. Better hope it doesn't get breezy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 2:03 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 4:42 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 206 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 4:49 PM Perdition has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 201 of 377 (608253)
03-09-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by fearandloathing
03-09-2011 12:58 PM


Re: Designed?
No way to say based on one picture, LOL maybe its art in the form of a picture of a natural crystal, if so then yes it, the photo, was designed.
Correct, a magnified salt crystal.
How does one tell that from modern fine art?
Designed vs. natural is the question. IDers are still left with "I know it when I see it" and nothing more.
That's not science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by fearandloathing, posted 03-09-2011 12:58 PM fearandloathing has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 202 of 377 (608256)
03-09-2011 4:00 PM


Designed?
If you saw this laying on the sidewalk would you think it was designed?
Doesn't look like an arrowhead, that is for sure.

havoc
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 203 of 377 (608268)
03-09-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Taq
03-09-2011 3:38 PM


Life does not occur by chance.
Evidence please.
Pasteurization

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 3:38 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 4:43 PM havoc has replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 204 of 377 (608270)
03-09-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Perdition
03-09-2011 3:40 PM


What is the difference between living matter and non-living matter? Matter is made up of atoms, which form molecules, whether that form is living or not. When you get down to it, biology is just chemistry, which is just physics. Tell me what law forbids a chemical reaction from perpetuating itself if given the required components of said chemical reaction
I think most people think there is a difference between living and non living.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 3:40 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 5:11 PM havoc has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 205 of 377 (608271)
03-09-2011 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by havoc
03-09-2011 4:38 PM


Pasteurization
So if life does not appear in a bottle of milk in the matter of weeks this means that life can not appear in volumes the size of the oceans over millions of years across billions of planets? I think you are a bit off on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 4:38 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 5:02 PM Taq has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 206 of 377 (608272)
03-09-2011 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Perdition
03-09-2011 3:40 PM


What is your evidence for asserting this? At the moment, there is exactly one known instance of life in the universe: Earth. The formation of said life was so far in the past, regardless of whether you believe in thousands or billions of years, that we can't say how it happened. So, we have a sample size of one, and the origin of that sample is unknown. Seems like a very weak bit of evidence to make such a certain, absolute claim.
First of all, the burden of proof is on those who claim life can arise through natural processes. Not the other way around.
Second, the fact that despite all our efforts we fail to find life elsewhere is actually evidence for the fact that life does not arise naturally, or else it would also have elsewhere.
What is the difference between living matter and non-living matter? Matter is made up of atoms, which form molecules, whether that form is living or not. When you get down to it, biology is just chemistry, which is just physics. Tell me what law forbids a chemical reaction from perpetuating itself if given the required components of said chemical reaction.
Fallacy of composition.
Life isn't just chemistry, it is an emergent property of the atoms when arranged in a very specific way.
Your evidence for saying so seems to rely on a house of cards supported by unfounded belief. Better hope it doesn't get breezy.
Yet I'm the one racking up the fallacies in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 3:40 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 4:54 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 208 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 5:00 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 218 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 5:20 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 03-09-2011 6:49 PM slevesque has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 207 of 377 (608274)
03-09-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by slevesque
03-09-2011 4:49 PM


First of all, the burden of proof is on those who claim life can arise through natural processes.
No more so than those who claim it came about by design.
Second, the fact that despite all our efforts we fail to find life elsewhere . . .
Seriously? What percentage of planets in the universe have we thoroughly searched for life? We haven't even checked all of the planets and moons in our own solar system.
Life isn't just chemistry, it is an emergent property of the atoms when arranged in a very specific way.
The same could be said for any non-living matter made up of more than one atom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 4:49 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:19 PM Taq has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 208 of 377 (608278)
03-09-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by slevesque
03-09-2011 4:49 PM


slevesque writes:
First of all, the burden of proof is on those who claim life can arise through natural processes. Not the other way around.
Utter nonsense.
I'm sorry but that is a just plain stupid statement.
There is evidence for natural processes. There is NO evidence for some Intelligent Designer or Special Creation.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 4:49 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 209 of 377 (608279)
03-09-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
03-09-2011 4:17 AM


The problems for irreducible complexity are that none of the proposed examples holds up, the connection to design is asserted rather than demonstrated, and it hasn't proven to be something that can be studied and researched if judged by the number of researchers studying and researching it, which is 0, Michael Behe included.
Irreducible complexity is discussed in the litterature, but it is not named this way. For example:
quote:
A major enigma in evolutionary biology is that
new forms or functions often require the concerted
efforts of several independent genetic changes. It is
unclear how such changes might accumulate when
they are likely to be deleterious individually and be
lost by selective pressure
Koch, A.L., Enzyme evolution: I. The importance of untranslatable
intermediates, Genetics 72:297—316, 1972.
This is clearly a description of irreducible complexity before it was named by Behe. The proposed explanations come down to a watered-down version of the hopeful monster, where genes are rendered invisible to natural selection for some time, mutations accumulate, and then reappear all at once and are acted upon by natural selection all at once. It becomes a matter of chance if some good combination of mutations happened during that time.
In fact, it is these alternative mechanism of the ''hopeful monster' type that Behe adresses in his recent book 'the edge of evolution' (which I did not read)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 03-09-2011 4:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 5:13 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 03-10-2011 7:00 AM slevesque has replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 210 of 377 (608280)
03-09-2011 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Taq
03-09-2011 4:43 PM


So if life does not appear in a bottle of milk in the matter of weeks this means that life can not appear in volumes the size of the oceans over millions of years across billions of planets? I think you are a bit off on this one.
Pasteurization is experimental, operational science. It is easily falsifiable, pasteurize something then ensuring a sterile environment make it come to life.
We might be a bit off topic here though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 4:43 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 5:08 PM havoc 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