Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
36 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,396 Year: 20,432/19,786 Month: 829/2,023 Week: 337/392 Day: 27/41 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 151 of 373 (645087)
12-23-2011 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Just being real
12-23-2011 12:53 AM


Both the dolphin communication, and the sequences of DNA bases fit within one of the two categories of what is defined as specificity. One is a specific (intended) pattern recognition in communication. The other is a specific arrangement that produces function. In DNA, specific function implies intent because specific function has only been observed originating by intelligence.

A proposition which would be more easily disputed if you could mean something less vague by "specific".

The DNA code will first transcribe to the RNA code, that is still in the nitrogeneous bases language (if you will). Next that RNA code is translated into a protein code that is an entirely different language (if you will). This transaction utilizes ribosomes and two types of RNA. One type, mRNA, codes for the gene and gets copied off of the DNA, as the other type, tRNA matches a specific group of nucleotides with a specific amino acid. An anticodon (group of three nucleotides) codes for one amino acid which match up with specific three nucleotide sequences on the mRNA. The process involves many very precise matches of a highly specified manner.

And all this "specific" stuff happening without an intelligent entity involved in any way. Just a lot of dumb chemicals doing their stuff.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Just being real, posted 12-23-2011 12:53 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 153 of 373 (645971)
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Evidence for a designer
Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.
Scientific observation B: the universe "began."

A + B = C
"C" being something else that must infinitely exist from which the universe sprang.

Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources.

Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes.

Scientific observation F: The more than 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems.

Scientific observation G: Physical forces such as electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, speed of light, centrifugal force of planetary movements, and rate of expansion are all fine tuned to the exact parameters need for life to exist. This is yet another life support system displaying a highly specified nature.

Scientific observation H: The universe itself displays a highly specified nature as described by many astronomers and astrophysicists.

D + E + F + G + H = I
"I" being some sort of intelligence that was involved in the formation of the universe and life.


Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Trixie, posted 01-01-2012 6:03 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 155 by Tangle, posted 01-01-2012 6:12 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 01-01-2012 8:30 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 157 by DWIII, posted 01-01-2012 10:11 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 158 by Straggler, posted 01-01-2012 5:16 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 159 by jar, posted 01-01-2012 5:24 PM Just being real has responded
 Message 162 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2012 12:18 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 170 by bluegenes, posted 01-02-2012 4:15 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 178 by Taq, posted 01-03-2012 11:38 AM Just being real has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2019 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 154 of 373 (645972)
01-01-2012 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
You know, every time I see something like this, I inwardly cringe

The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things.....

Other things which have the same effect on me are newscasters talking about "the bacteria was..." and the "meningococcus virus".

If your knowledge of DNA is so lacking that you're going to waffle on about base protein pairs, then I suggest you leave discussions about DNA out of any arguments you wish to make. It just makes you look a tad foolish.

The base pairs of DNA are not proteins. Given that DNA fuctions the way it does because of the chemistry of the bases, it's rather important to get the right chemicals in there in your model.

no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes.

You do realise that to observe the above in a multicellular organism you are asking for the same change to occur in every cell of the multicellular organism at the exact same time?

The only changes to DNA that will be passed to the next generation are those that are present in the germ cells. A mutation in a skin cell won't be passed on.

What we do see are mutations present in a single egg or sperm being passed on to the offspring in every cell of the offspring's body. We also see spontaneous mutations in a single cell of the four cell embryo or an eight cell embryo which result in what is called mosaicism, where one quarter or one eighth of the cells of the multicellular organism will contain the mutation and the rest don't. Unless the mutation is present in the germ cell line, again it won't be passed on.

I may get back to the rest of your post later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 5:01 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 10:18 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7123
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 155 of 373 (645973)
01-01-2012 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
just Being Real writes:

"I" being some sort of intelligence that was involved in the formation of the universe and life.......

Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.

Begin infinite regress now.


Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 5:01 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18971
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 156 of 373 (645976)
01-01-2012 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:

Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.

There's a fundamental problem with this one: it's wrong.

Virtual particles flit in and out of existence all the time. Read the Wikipedia article on the Casimir effect, which explains one way we know these particles are real by way of their gravitational effect. Or read the Wikipedia article on Hawking radiation,which explains how black holes evaporate gradually over time by way of pairs of virtual particles spontaneously appearing with one inside and one outside the black hole. The one inside the black hole remains within, but the one outside often escapes, diminishing the black hole's mass by one particle.

A + B = C
"C" being something else that must infinitely exist from which the universe sprang.

Although the rationale differs significantly from your own, this is considered a valid idea within cosmology and has recently attracted growing attention.

Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources.

This is an ID assertion rather than a scientific observation.

Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified.

This is untrue. The term "specified" comes from ID and has no scientific foundation. It isn't a term often used by microbiologists.

There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes,...

Every case of cell division is an example of "DNA forming by natural unguided processes."

...and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes.

Every mutation that adds a new allele to a population is an example of adding information.

Scientific observation F: The more than 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems.

So to you it seems that anything with specific values is specified. There's a pile of rocks in my back yard with hundreds of parameters that make life possible for the life living there. Of course, that's not to say there aren't many other configurations of parameters that would serve that life just as well, but that's what you seem to be saying about the Earth. If the tilt of the Earth were different, could there be life? If the orbital distance were different, could there be life? If the moon distance were different (and it has been in its history), could there be life? If the Earth's rotation speed were different (and it has been in its history), could there be life? If there was more or less water, could there be life? If an additional planet made us the 4th instead of the 3rd planet from the sun, could there be life?

Scientific observation G: Physical forces such as electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, speed of light, centrifugal force of planetary movements, and rate of expansion are all fine tuned to the exact parameters need for life to exist. This is yet another life support system displaying a highly specified nature.

Change some of these and you do change the possibility of life, but the current values are the only example we have. All we know is that they are sufficient for life, not that they are necessary for life, and we do not know how many other permutations of values would be conducive to life.

Scientific observation H: The universe itself displays a highly specified nature as described by many astronomers and astrophysicists.

I believe that astronomers and astrophysicists are describing specific observations and measurements, rather than describing that it "displays a highly specified nature" as you claim.

D + E + F + G + H = I
"I" being some sort of intelligence that was involved in the formation of the universe and life.

Let me fix this for you:

"I'm still seeking evidence that some sort of intelligence was involved in the formation of the universe and life."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 5:01 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 11:42 PM Percy has responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 66 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


(1)
Message 157 of 373 (645984)
01-01-2012 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:


Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.
Scientific observation B: the universe "began."

A + B = C
"C" being something else that must infinitely exist from which the universe sprang.

Doesn't "B" contradict "A"? If it does, you can't very well have both.


Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources.

Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes.

Basically you are saying that DNA is an artifact. It's a rather poor sort of artifact that doesn't last with time, requires nearly continual maintenance, and is subject to some level of degradation every time it is replicated.

An artifact presumes a manufacturing process behind it. Is this manufacturing process no longer operative any where? If DNA requires information, and there are no longer any sources of fresh information to infuse it, how long do you suppose life itself will last? Could we ourselves (Homo sapiens), acting as intelligent designers, create the required information to allow life to exist indefinitely?


Scientific observation F: The more than 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems.

So why don't we observe the same sets of parameters which would make life possible on all other planets? Earth was designed and no other planet was?


Scientific observation G: Physical forces such as electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, speed of light, centrifugal force of planetary movements, and rate of expansion are all fine tuned to the exact parameters need for life to exist. This is yet another life support system displaying a highly specified nature.

Scientific observation H: The universe itself displays a highly specified nature as described by many astronomers and astrophysicists.

D + E + F + G + H = I
"I" being some sort of intelligence that was involved in the formation of the universe and life.

So now the whole universe is designed as well. Would this not include every single object contained in the universe? So why doesn't life exist everywhere in the universe? If the universe is fine-tuned for life, it's a poor sort of fine-tuning to allow life to exist on one planet only, out of an entire universe. Other than happening to be infested with life, why is Earth so privileged?

Edited by DWIII, : fixed dbl-neg


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 5:01 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 1:00 AM DWIII has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 158 of 373 (646000)
01-01-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
JBR writes:

Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.
Scientific observation B: the universe "began."

A + B = C
"C" being something else that must infinitely exist from which the universe sprang.

Unless something that "infinitely exists" has been observed your C would seem to be in the same category as your A here. No?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 5:01 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 1:40 AM Straggler has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31612
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 159 of 373 (646001)
01-01-2012 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Evidence shows that in every case examined the cause of something has not been something that infinitely existed, is often trivial and even more often transient and does not survive past the act of causation.

There is no reason to think that whatever caused this universe to begin was not trivial and was not transient.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 5:01 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 1:42 AM jar has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 160 of 373 (646013)
01-01-2012 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Trixie
01-01-2012 6:03 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
You know, every time I see something like this, I inwardly cringe
Please forgive my crude vocabulary use in this regards. I'm the first to admit I'm no microbiologist. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn once. (grin) So if someone's goal were to be to distract from my points by pointing out my clumsy word usage, then they could have a hay day. I'm sure everyone would get a good chuckle. So for clarity, is it satisfactory to say, " the code found in the nucleotide arrangement within the DNA of all living things?"

You do realise that to observe the above in a multicellular organism you are asking for the same change to occur in every cell of the multicellular organism at the exact same time?
Well that is not what I am asking for. I am talking about an example of observed added beneficially new never before existed information with in the chromosomal DNA of any multicelled organism (as a population over time and several generations). Sorry I was so unclear with that.

Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

Edited by Just being real, : accidently hit submit before I was through.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Trixie, posted 01-01-2012 6:03 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 161 of 373 (646016)
01-01-2012 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
01-01-2012 8:30 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
There's a fundamental problem with this one: it's wrong.
Virtual particles flit in and out of existence all the time. Read the Wikipedia article on the Casimir effect,
No need, I'm very familiar with this "effect." The problem with using this as an argument is that probability waves need "space" to exist in. Therfore even in the Casimir effect, the only waves that can possibly exist between the two plates in the vacuum, are those waves that fit into the boundaries defined by the plates. When we apply this fact to cosmology, again only fluctuations which conform to the current existing boundary of the universe could exist in the vacuum.

Consider what happens if the horizon of the universe were ever as small as a Planck. Because space is quantized, nothing smaller than a Planck is possible to exist. That means that once you make the universe a zero point of energy (below a Planck length) there's no longer any "pixels" of space so to speak. No space means no vacuum, no vacuum means no fluctuations, no fluctuations means no "virtual particle" pair production, and no particles means no physical existence of anything prior to the big bang. So use of the Casimir as a theory for how the universe might have began, has a real chicken or egg dilemma. Space and time is required for there to be a fluctuation, and in the big bang space and time were too small for a fluctuation to occur.

Then there is something else to consider before taking refuge in the Casimir. A well established scientific law within the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (perhaps your familiar with it) the "Conservation of Energy Law" which states that energy in a closed system must be preserved. That means within a closed system no new energy or material can be added and none can be eliminated. It can be converted within that system but that is all. To atheist the universe is a closed system, so even the notion of new quantum "virtual" particles is a scientific impossibility. At the very MOST, the experiments on QF's must only be observing some sort of quantum conversion of energy/material and not the creation of it.

It is definitely not the observation of something coming from nothing.

This is untrue. The term "specified" comes from ID and has no scientific foundation. It isn't a term often used by microbiologists.
I can actually quote several microbiologists who do use this term, including Crick and Watson (credited for discovering the structure of DNA).

There's a pile of rocks in my back yard with hundreds of parameters that make life possible for the life living there.
Lol. Parameters within the fine tuned life support parameters of Earth. Ship that pile of rocks to the moon along with its "life" and see how long it survives there.

Of course, that's not to say there aren't many other configurations of parameters that would serve that life just as well,
I know the old "Granny" rebuttal when I see it. The notion that certain conditions had to be just right in order for Granny to meet Gramps and have Mom who then met Dad and had me. The idea is that Granny could have just as easily had children with any number of men and it just would not have resulted in my eventual birth, but rather someone elses. But this argument takes for granted that there are any number of possibilities that exist. In order to validate this argument Percy it becomes necessary to present at least one life form that exists which could not have come from these particular Earth parameters. Science fiction has speculated a lot of ideas for some, but how many actual extra terrestrial life forms can you name? I'll give you a hint... you can count them all on zero hands.

Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 01-01-2012 8:30 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2012 12:26 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 01-02-2012 8:16 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 175 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2012 11:16 AM Just being real has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 162 of 373 (646017)
01-02-2012 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.
Scientific observation B: the universe "began."

Semantic observation: the word "began" is not synonymous with "came from nothing".

Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources.

That would be untrue even if you'd written it the right way round.

Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified.

Though you cannot quote them, since microbiologists do not talk in your arcane jargon.

There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes.

If this meant something, it would probably be untrue; which would explain why despite repeated requests you have assiduously avoided attaching any meaning to it.

Scientific observation F: The more than 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems.

Nonsense. There are lots of solar systems, lots of planets, it's inevitable that we live on one of the ones on which life is possible.

Scientific observation G: Physical forces such as electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, speed of light, centrifugal force of planetary movements, and rate of expansion are all fine tuned to the exact parameters need for life to exist. This is yet another life support system displaying a highly specified nature.

Well, either that or physicists are right about physics and you're not.

Scientific observation H: The universe itself displays a highly specified nature as described by many astronomers and astrophysicists.

Again, astrophysicists and astronomers do not use your jargon, because their aim is to convey ideas rather than to obscure them.

D + E + F + G + H = I
"I" being some sort of intelligence that was involved in the formation of the universe and life.

~D + ~E + ~F + ~G + ~H = ~I

"~I" being the lack of intelligence that was involved in the formation of creationist apologetics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 5:01 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 163 of 373 (646018)
01-02-2012 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Just being real
01-01-2012 11:42 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Consider what happens if the horizon of the universe were ever as small as a Planck. Because space is quantized, nothing smaller than a Planck is possible to exist. That means that once you make the universe a zero point of energy (below a Planck length) there's no longer any "pixels" of space so to speak.

Which would be why physicists don't think that there was an actual singularity, and suppose GR to be merely a very good approximation that breaks down at small scales.

Then there is something else to consider before taking refuge in the Casimir. A well established scientific law within the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (perhaps your familiar with it) the "Conservation of Energy Law" which states that energy in a closed system must be preserved. That means within a closed system no new energy or material can be added and none can be eliminated. It can be converted within that system but that is all. To atheist the universe is a closed system, so even the notion of new quantum "virtual" particles is a scientific impossibility.

Instead of telling falsehoods to "atheists" (which Percy is not, IIRC) about what they think, you could always ask them.

Of course, then you'd run the risk of coming into contact with accurate information.

I can actually quote several microbiologists who do use this term, including Crick and Watson (credited for discovering the structure of DNA).

That would be Crick and Watson whom you actually quoted as saying something else, and who think that creationism is a load of crap?

I know the old "Granny" rebuttal when I see it. The notion that certain conditions had to be just right in order for Granny to meet Gramps and have Mom who then met Dad and had me. The idea is that Granny could have just as easily had children with any number of men and it just would not have resulted in my eventual birth, but rather someone elses. But this argument takes for granted that there are any number of possibilities that exist. In order to validate this argument Percy it becomes necessary to present at least one life form that exists which could not have come from these particular Earth parameters.

Or to point out that there is a wide range of "parameters" on Earth which are hospitable to life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 11:42 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 2:01 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 164 of 373 (646019)
01-02-2012 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by DWIII
01-01-2012 10:11 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Doesn't "B" contradict "A"? If it does, you can't very well have both.
Not necessarily. Only if you assume that prior to the beginning of the universe there was nothing. And that's the big problem isn't it?

Basically you are saying that DNA is an artifact.
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. I simply meant an object of undetermined origin, and couldn't think of any other term that fit that definition at the time.

So why don't we observe the same sets of parameters which would make life possible on all other planets? Earth was designed and no other planet was?
Well gee... I don't know. Do we have to no all the mind of the designer in order to detect design?

So why doesn't life exist everywhere in the universe?
This is a question that can only invoke speculation. Again I wouldn't presume to know the mind of the designer. However personally whenever I hear this question I kind of get this image in my head of a small child following his daddy into a huge mansion he just commissioned to be built. The child looks at his dad and asks, why such a big house with nobody else in here? My speculation is that Dad just built the house and hasn't moved in yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by DWIII, posted 01-01-2012 10:11 AM DWIII has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by DrJones*, posted 01-02-2012 1:04 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 176 by DWIII, posted 01-03-2012 9:04 AM Just being real has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1984
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 165 of 373 (646020)
01-02-2012 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Just being real
01-02-2012 1:00 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
The child looks at his dad and asks, why such a big house with nobody else in here? My speculation is that Dad just built the house and hasn't moved in yet.

or it could be that the kid hasn't checked every room yet.

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 1:00 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2249 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 166 of 373 (646022)
01-02-2012 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Straggler
01-01-2012 5:16 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Unless something that "infinitely exists" has been observed your C would seem to be in the same category as your A here. No?
This is only a trick question of course. Since we are only finite beings how would we ever observer the infinity of something? Let's suppose I were to look at some object that did in fact exist infinitely. How would I know that it did? Since I have not existed infinitely, I couldn't state for sure the object did or didn't.

However infinity as a concept is something we most definitely can observe. The concept of directions like East or West are infinite. So is the end of the value of Pi. A sequence of numbers is infinite, and likewise is the concept of time... infinite. Many similar examples can be given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Straggler, posted 01-01-2012 5:16 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2012 11:03 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019