Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
263 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,572 Year: 20,608/19,786 Month: 1,005/2,023 Week: 513/392 Day: 57/72 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2251 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 167 of 373 (646023)
01-02-2012 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by jar
01-01-2012 5:24 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
There is no reason to think that whatever caused this universe to begin was not trivial and was not transient.
No reason but the specificity observed in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 01-01-2012 5:24 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 01-02-2012 9:50 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2251 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 168 of 373 (646025)
01-02-2012 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Dr Adequate
01-02-2012 12:26 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Hey Doc, I have already responded a couple of times to your broad painting accusations that all the (insert professional title here) disagree with me. But you continue on with bliss. Also I have nothing really to say to someone who just replies basically with, "Na uh!"

I wish you nothing but good health, long life, and to be prosperous my friend.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2012 12:26 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2012 2:53 AM Just being real has not yet responded

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


Message 169 of 373 (646027)
01-02-2012 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Just being real
01-02-2012 2:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Hey Doc, I have already responded a couple of times to your broad painting accusations that all the (insert professional title here) disagree with me.

Perhaps you could respond with some sort of refutation, like finding a scientist who does use your jargon. Otherwise I stand by my claim that they don't.

Also I have nothing really to say to someone who just replies basically with, "Na uh!"

Then perhaps you could respond to my posts instead.

I wish you nothing but good health, long life, and to be prosperous my friend.

Well that's nice of you, but unfortunately your wishes don't seem to affect reality. You could contribute to my prosperity by sending me actual money ... no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 2:01 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 793 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 170 of 373 (646028)
01-02-2012 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
JBR writes:

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.

I think you meant: things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern are produced only by intelligent sources. If you did, and you intended the word "intended" to apply to all four nouns, then that seems correct, as intent seems to imply intelligence. However, it's not an observation. The use of "intended" makes the statement true by definition. As functions, codes and patterns can also be produced by unintelligent sources (sources incapable of conscious intent), your statement doesn't help you make the case you want to make.

JBR writes:

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.

Somehow, I don't think you were being strictly truthful further up the thread when you told me you had searched the scientific literature extensively for what you're claiming hasn't been observed in that last sentence. As for the first sentence……….

JBR writes:

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.

The "parameters" of any planet will always be exactly right for everything that is part of the planet. What else would you expect?

JBR writes:

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.

Of course the "parameters" of the universe will be exactly right for everything that is part of it. What else would you expect? And if they're exactly right for life, there would be no need for anyone to intelligently design D.N.A., would there?


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 226 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM bluegenes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18984
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 171 of 373 (646034)
01-02-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Just being real
01-01-2012 11:42 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Rather than getting into details of what would really be a side discussion, let me try to steer the path more directly onto the topic. One way would be to ask if you can describe any overt evidence that we should expect to see if there were a designer.

Or another way, since you're simply claiming that the nature of the universe is evidence of the designer, perhaps you can describe what the universe would be like were there no designer. Isn't it true that no matter what were the nature of any universe, however similar or different from this universe, the nature of that universe is what life in that universe would offer as evidence of a designer?

--Percy


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 172 by Tangle, posted 01-02-2012 8:51 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 227 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Percy has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7129
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 172 of 373 (646036)
01-02-2012 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
01-02-2012 8:16 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Percy writes:

One way would be to ask if you can describe any overt evidence that we should expect to see if there were a designer

As you say (I think!), it must be the case that in any universe that has conscious minds it must seem to those minds that the universe has at least the superficial appearance of being designed.

I find it useful to think that if our universe was designed, it was designed by something that either didn't want the inhabitants to know who designed it and what for, or simply didn't care. It the creator wanted us to know, it would have left its TM on the mechanism for all of us to find, no matter how primitive we are.

So at the very most, the designer god, if he did exist, has nothing to do with the religious god that people here talk about.


Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 01-02-2012 8:16 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31635
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 173 of 373 (646039)
01-02-2012 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Just being real
01-02-2012 1:42 AM


No Evidence for a designer
Utter nonsense.

First, you have not shown that there is any specificity in the universe, but even if you had it is irrelevant to your claim that some infinity critter caused this universe.

Why can't the cause of this universe be something trivial?

Why can't the cause of this universe be transient, destroyed during the creation itself?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 1:42 AM Just being real has not yet responded

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


Message 174 of 373 (646042)
01-02-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Just being real
01-02-2012 1:40 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.

Straggler writes:

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

JBR writes:

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.

Well likewise we can't observe something coming from literally a state of nothing because if we are there to observe it something must already exist. So - again - your A and C are by the terms of your argument in the same category.

JBR writes:

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.

Can I take it from this that you are happy for this infinite designer of your to exist only in the same sense that Pi can be said to exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 1:40 AM Just being real has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 175 of 373 (646043)
01-02-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Just being real
01-01-2012 11:42 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
JBR on quantum fluctuations writes:

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

Can you give an example of "something coming from nothing" that it would be possible for us to observe?


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 228 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Straggler has responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 176 of 373 (646114)
01-03-2012 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Just being real
01-02-2012 1:00 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:


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?

In the absence of evidence, I wouldn't assume their was a "prior" to the beginning of the universe. In fact, I wouldn't even go so far as to assume that there was a "beginning" in the first place.

What's the point of this, anyway? Could not an omnipotent intelligent designer design a beginningless universe, if he so chose?


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?

No, but why stop at just "detecting design"? Surely, from the nature of the so-called "design", you could (at least tentatively) infer lots lots more.


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.

Let's talk real bonā fidē design, for a change. Just off the top of my head, here's a list of phenomena which I personally would consider evidence of design with respect to various alleged artifacts:


  • A preliminary sketch prior to the creation of some specific thing
  • Patent applications, or a statement of legal right to be the sole manufacturer of said type of thing
  • Proof-of-concept simplified designs as part of a research program
  • Test models of increasing functionality
  • Competing designs eliminated for reasons of lower efficiency
  • Blueprints, a list of components, &/or instructions for assembly
  • A record of qualification tests with associated recommended tweaks
  • Protected trade secrets
  • Inbuilt safety features (with the intended user in mind)
  • Instruction manuals &/or warnings against misuse or abuse
  • Clearly-labelled control mechanisms
  • Brand-name identification
  • Storage facilities for available but currently inactive designed objects
  • Advertising
  • Dates of manufacture, price tags, unique serial numbers, etc.

Does all that sound overly-anthropocentric? It should; it's what humans do (at least some of those things, if not most) when designing something. Would you say that the intelligent designer wouldn't do it that way? Are you quite sure? Design (as humans practice it) is far far more than one end product; it's the entire process that goes behind it. Were we made in the image of the intelligent designer, or not? If you could simply wave a magic wand and make computers instantly poof into existence, how could you call it "design"? You didn't really design anything, did you?

Be honest now(!), you are not really all that interested in looking for evidence of a designer; you are instead wishfully touting "evidence" of a daddy who builds a huge mansion in the sky and promises to provide for all of your selfish needs so you don't have to.


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Just being real, posted 01-02-2012 1:00 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM DWIII has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8163
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 177 of 373 (646138)
01-03-2012 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Just being real
12-23-2011 12:53 AM


In DNA, specific function implies intent because specific function has only been observed originating by intelligence.

This is untrue. A random, unintelligent mutation in the nylC gene resulted in an enzyme capable of metabolizing nylon oligomers:

quote:
J Bacteriol. 1992 Dec;174(24):7948-53.

A new nylon oligomer degradation gene (nylC) on plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp.

Negoro S, Kakudo S, Urabe I, Okada H.
SourceDepartment of Biotechnology, Osaka University, Japan.

Abstract
Flavobacterium sp. strain KI725 harbors plasmid pOAD21, a derivative of nylon oligomer-degradative plasmid pOAD2, in which all of nylA (the gene for 6-aminohexanoate cyclic dimer hydrolase [EI]) was deleted but nylB (the gene for 6-aminohexanoate dimer hydrolase [EII]) was retained. KI725 showed no growth on unfractionated nylon oligomers (Nom1) obtained from a nylon factory as a sole carbon and nitrogen source (Nom1 minimum plate). Extracts of KI725 cells possessed hydrolytic activity for Nom1 (approximately 5% of the activity of KI72), but pOAD2-cured strains (KI722 and KI723) showed no activity. KI725R strains which grew on the Nom1 minimum plate were spontaneously isolated from KI725 at a frequency of 10(-7) per cell. Activity toward Nom1 was enhanced in KI725R strains (10 to 30% of the activity of KI72). This new Nom1 degrading enzyme (EIII, the nylC gene product) hydrolyzed not only Nom1 but also the N-carbobenzoxy-6-aminohexanoate trimer, a substrate which was not hydrolyzed by either EI or EII. Cloning and sequence analysis showed that the nylC gene is located close to nylB on pOAD21 and is a 1,065-bp open reading frame corresponding to 355 amino acid residues. The nucleotide sequence of the nylC gene and the deduced amino acid sequence of EIII had no detectable homology with the sequences of nylA (EI) and nylB (EII).



This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Just being real, posted 12-23-2011 12:53 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 3:35 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8163
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 178 of 373 (646139)
01-03-2012 11:38 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."

Scientific observation A: same as above.
Scientific observation B: thunderclouds "began".

Conclusion: the production of thunderclouds require a supernatural deity.

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.

Microbiologists do not claim that specified sequences require an intelligent source. Also, DNA comes about through natural mechanisms all of the time. It is called biological reproduction.

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.

You are drawing the bull's eye around the bullet holes. Ever heard of Texas Sharpshooting?

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.

If life were not possible in our universe, who would notice? Your argument suffers from confirmation bias.


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 243 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 5:08 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 179 of 373 (646140)
01-03-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Just being real
12-23-2011 12:53 AM


In DNA, specific function implies intent because specific function has only been observed originating by intelligence.

Wrong.

This antenna

has a specific function. It was created by NASA through a process that involved no intelligent input into the arrangement of the wires.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Just being real, posted 12-23-2011 12:53 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:38 PM subbie has responded
 Message 245 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 5:34 AM subbie has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 180 of 373 (646168)
01-03-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by subbie
01-03-2012 11:39 AM


He said intent. Nasa intended to do this, did they not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 11:39 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 2:46 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 181 of 373 (646169)
01-03-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Just being real
12-20-2011 3:25 AM


There are no new observed novel designs. Even if information was gained, they have yet to show an improvement to a fruit-fly. We see adaptations, but the same essential organisms. Look at HIV, and all bacteria, look at the speed they reproduce, it is not unreasonable to expect at least one of these organisms to have produce a new novel design that could be observed/counted as a mcro-evolution, or even a partial macro-evolution, given that 100 human years is.............how man bacteria years?

Good points you make, they will never acknowledge it though, in nine years they always give the standard answers but those answers are not satisfying. We have no reason to believe in macro-evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Just being real, posted 12-20-2011 3:25 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2012 3:03 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 190 by Tangle, posted 01-03-2012 3:41 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 201 by Taq, posted 01-03-2012 4:41 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 239 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 3:47 AM mike the wiz 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