Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 227 of 373 (647060)
01-08-2012 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
01-02-2012 8:16 AM


Re: Evidence for a 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?
Since we only know about the life that is found on Earth, we have no grounds with which to even speculate. Any speculation of how life could form (or be created) had the universe been different, would be pure H.G. Wells fantasy. Right now we know that carbon is one of the key elements necessary to have life. Any slight change in just one of the proportions of virtually all the laws of physics would render the existence of carbon impossible.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 01-08-2012 9:01 AM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 228 of 373 (647061)
01-08-2012 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Straggler
01-02-2012 11:16 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Can you give an example of "something coming from nothing" that it would be possible for us to observe?
I think though you were trying to trip me up in my words, you inadvertently supported my point. My point again is that we have never observed something come from nothing. And that science is based on observation not speculation. The fact that we have neither the means nor the ability to observe something come from nothing should it happen, does nothing to change that point. All things we have observed come into existence thus far in our human experience have come from something else. Therefore based on that observation we have no reason to suppose the universe came from nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2012 11:16 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 2:26 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 01-08-2012 9:08 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 287 by Larni, posted 01-08-2012 11:45 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 292 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2012 5:54 PM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 229 of 373 (647062)
01-08-2012 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by DWIII
01-03-2012 9:04 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
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.
I'm not disagreeing with you that there is no evidence that something existed prior to the formation of the universe. However there is ample evidence to suggest that the universe did have a beginning. Therefore when we are trying to speculate about that beginning, we must use the only frame of reference available. What do we observe now? We must take that observation and utilize it to postulate the most logical conclusions of what happened then. I wouldn't look at what we observe now and say, "Gee I guess the universe poofed in to existence from nothing all by itself." There is nothing observable today that one can use to make such an illogical conclusion.
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?
Lol. Since the existence of a computer must already exist in order for me to know to wave my wand and create one, then the actual device necessarily would have to have been designed and I would merely be "poofing" a replicated copy. If you are inferring that that was how Christians believe God created things, then you are sadly mistaken. We believe that He could design every facet of something all in His head at instantaneous speeds. His sketch, his "paton," his research, his tests, his blueprints, all took place in his mind in an instant of time. From the smallest proton up to the inter workings of the heart and eyes, ears, and everything else.
But now we have strayed away from talking about what I can prove, and gone to talking about what I believe. Something I think no one in this thread really cares about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by DWIII, posted 01-03-2012 9:04 AM DWIII has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 12:30 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 236 by DWIII, posted 01-08-2012 2:45 AM Just being real has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 230 of 373 (647063)
01-08-2012 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Lol. Since the existence of a computer must already exist in order for me to know to wave my wand and create one ...
Really? You know a lot more about magic then most of us. Can you tell us how you came by this knowledge?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 1:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 231 of 373 (647065)
01-08-2012 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Yes it is true by definition. But why do we know it is true? Because of observation. Therefore I meant exactly what I said. We seem to be in agreement that intended objects by nature require an intelligent source. The problem is when anyone tries to nail down just what constitutes a fair means by which one can accurately detect and asses "intent." This is where there seems to be a gross double standard on the part of atheists and agnostics. As I have already pointed out, no one seems to have any problem using the specificity of the information in a dolphins communication, to detect and determine levels of intelligence. And no on has trouble with an archaeologist using patterns of specific information that he foreknows from completely independent sources to determine if an object he is examining is man made or naturally formed. Actually I can not think of a single case in which "intent" is detected apart from the use of specificity as I have already defined here. However Katy bar the door and all hell brakes loose the moment someone points out that this same specificity is observed in something that implies the involvement of a Supreme Being.
But this is nonsense which we have already kicked to pieces.
Real scientists do not, and indeed could not, detect design with reference to your vague waffle about specificity. I have told you how they do it. I have also pointed out about a zillion times that archaeologists do not put the remains of living creatures in the same class as clay pots and flint arrowheads, they stick 'em in the "natural" pile. Either they are not detecting design when they look at the stuff they dig up, or they are coming to the exact opposite conclusion to the one you want them to and so are not using any method that you'd endorse.
The moment someone does that, then in a desperate attempt to find a loop hole, the conversation suddenly degrades into quibbling over the definition of words... to the point that you practically have to define the very word "DEFINE." Its all really quite very comical to watch.
You are telling us falsehoods about what our arguments are. Which I guess is easier than refuting those arguments, but I can't imagine it gives you the same sense of satisfaction.
I fully understand that patterns can be produced by unintelligent sources, but you seem to be using pattern and "code" as if they were synonymous. I would like to see an example of a "code" that was observed having formed by unintelligent sources.
The genetic code has been observed to evolve into new and different codes.
I'd ask if you've ever observed a code being brought into existence by supernatural means, only I know the answer.
Think about what you are saying. That's like saying that out of 500 billion dump-trucks full of marbles you find only one marble with a perfect biosphere and intelligent organisms living on it, and saying "Oh well there is nothing really all that unique about it."
No it isn't. It's actually like saying: "The "parameters" of any planet will always be exactly right for everything that is part of the planet. What else would you expect?"
Would you like to argue with that?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 5:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 232 of 373 (647067)
01-08-2012 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
That's like saying that out of 500 billion dump-trucks full of marbles you find only one marble with a perfect biosphere and intelligent organisms living on it, and saying "Oh well there is nothing really all that unique about it."
But we haven't examined all of those 500 billion marbles, just 9 of them. We have little evidence to say that the one is unique.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 5:46 AM DrJones* has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 233 of 373 (647068)
01-08-2012 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Dr Adequate
01-08-2012 12:30 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
You know a lot more about magic then most of us. Can you tell us how you came by this knowledge?
My apology there Doc. I was just doing something that us under educated lay people call, "communicating within operating constructs of an abstract analogy."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 12:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 2:27 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 234 of 373 (647069)
01-08-2012 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
I think though you were trying to trip me up in my words, you inadvertently supported my point. My point again is that we have never observed something come from nothing. And that science is based on observation not speculation.
So much for the Christian doctrine of ex nihilo creation. Will you tell the Pope or shall I?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 235 of 373 (647070)
01-08-2012 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Just being real
01-08-2012 1:15 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
My apology there Doc. I was just doing something that us under educated lay people call, "communicating within operating constructs of an abstract analogy."
I too am educated, but I would hesitate to call what you are doing "communicating".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 1:15 AM Just being real has not replied

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 236 of 373 (647073)
01-08-2012 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:
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.
I'm not disagreeing with you that there is no evidence that something existed prior to the formation of the universe. However there is ample evidence to suggest that the universe did have a beginning. Therefore when we are trying to speculate about that beginning, we must use the only frame of reference available. What do we observe now? We must take that observation and utilize it to postulate the most logical conclusions of what happened then. I wouldn't look at what we observe now and say, "Gee I guess the universe poofed in to existence from nothing all by itself." There is nothing observable today that one can use to make such an illogical conclusion.
Agreed, "the universe poofed in to existence from nothing all by itself" is an illogical conclusion. That's why serious cosmologists infer no such thing. (So as not to unnecessarily de-rail the topic, please refer to my take on this in "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God" (Message 6) for the details.)
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?
Lol. Since the existence of a computer must already exist in order for me to know to wave my wand and create one, then the actual device necessarily would have to have been designed and I would merely be "poofing" a replicated copy. If you are inferring that that was how Christians believe God created things, then you are sadly mistaken.
I wouldn't go about imputing that kind of simplistic belief to every believer. And yet, serious believers (such as you) infer some unknown and ultimately unknowable sort of design process instead of "magical poofing", in spite of the fact that your holy writ indicates otherwise when it formulaicly says "And God said Let there be x, and there was x" in the vast majority of the "designer's" creative acts. Is it any wonder then that such simplistic notions abound among run-of-the-mill believers and the unbelievers who put up with them?
We believe that He could design every facet of something all in His head at instantaneous speeds. His sketch, his "paton," his research, his tests, his blueprints, all took place in his mind in an instant of time. From the smallest proton up to the inter workings of the heart and eyes, ears, and everything else.
That is an intriguing notion, that the "omnipotent and omniscient designer" could effortlessly run multiple simulations of potential creations entirely in his own mind. This itself opens a rather large can of worms. I put it to you that your "omniscient designer" would have no problem in perfectly simulating, entirely in his mind (instantaneously or not), an infinite number of different universes with all sorts of initial conditions. I also put it to you that any sentient beings that happen to reside in such a simulation could never know (on their own) that they are existing in one such simulation, and would have no basis for thinking (from their point of view) that their universe was any less than real.
So, given the unlimited mind of your postulated "omniscient designer", how could you possibly know that our universe in particular may be nothing more than one of a vast number of simulated partially-failed "test models"? You couldn't.
But now we have strayed away from talking about what I can prove, and gone to talking about what I believe. Something I think no one in this thread really cares about.
Since your only support is unfalsifiable assertions, your "proof" (so far) utterly fails. All that is left is the real-world evidences which (contrary to your beliefs) point in the opposite direction.

DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 6:33 AM DWIII has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 237 of 373 (647074)
01-08-2012 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
quote:
Yes it is true by definition. But why do we know it is true? Because of observation. Therefore I meant exactly what I said. We seem to be in agreement that intended objects by nature require an intelligent source. The problem is when anyone tries to nail down just what constitutes a fair means by which one can accurately detect and asses "intent." This is where there seems to be a gross double standard on the part of atheists and agnostics. As I have already pointed out, no one seems to have any problem using the specificity of the information in a dolphins communication, to detect and determine levels of intelligence. And no on has trouble with an archaeologist using patterns of specific information that he foreknows from completely independent sources to determine if an object he is examining is man made or naturally formed. Actually I can not think of a single case in which "intent" is detected apart from the use of specificity as I have already defined here.
You mean this is where you resort to false accusations because your argument fails. We know that the conclusions of scientists researching dolphin communication and archaeologists do not rely on your notion of specificity. Their inferences use other information which we do not have in the case of life (for instance both start with the existence of an intelligent agent, instead of concluding that one exists without other evidence)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 238 of 373 (647075)
01-08-2012 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Taq
01-03-2012 11:33 AM


This is untrue. A random, unintelligent mutation in the nylC gene resulted in an enzyme capable of metabolizing nylon oligomers
You are just busting at the seems to talk about bacteria aren't you? Its incredible to me how someone can take a single celled organism which bares almost no resemblance to the incredible diversity of multi-celled organisms found on Earth and use it as their sole biological argument for universal common decent. An interesting thought to chew on for a few moments, is to consider what a designer might have created bacteria for to begin with.
They seem to be required as tiny micro recyclers in the soil and in the ocean, performing the major role in the decomposition process of organic matter. Without them there would be no recycling of the carbon and nitrogen needed to support life. Plants and animals just cant create some of these much needed chemicals. Scientists have even recently found that bacteria play a significant part in cloud formation and precipitation of rain and snow. Bacteria are needed inside the body to aid in the digestive process and to help us actually get more nutrients out of the food that we eat. There are more than 200 different species of bacteria living on the skin of the average human, helping to prevent many other harmful bacteria from taking up residence there.
If you consider that a designer might have had an important purpose for creating bacteria, then you also have to consider that an intelligent designer would realize that they just can't pick up and migrate to a new location when food becomes scarce, like multi-celled organisms can. A designer would therefore probably "design" bacteria to have very unique and novel ways of finding food sources where they are, in order to perpetuate the species. This is one of the reasons I am so adamant about seeing an example in a multi-celled organism and not bacteria. And since you brought up nylonase bacteria, I will use them as an example to make my point.
For those reading this who aren't familiar with the whole "nylon eating bacteria" argument, allow me a second to bring you up to speed. Basically the idea is that since nylon is a man made product that didn't exist until 1935, then these bacteria developing the ability to digest the manufacturer waste product (according to the argument) must have "evolved" to be able to do so. The Nylonase flag was raised by atheists and planted firmly into the hill of intelligent design, and touted as a great victory!
But hold da phone somebody... notice the very first line in Taq's abstract:
quote:
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.
I just want to first point out that all the changes occurred in the plasmids. But I'll get back to that. Since none of these new enzymes have been found to catalyze with any naturally occurring amide compounds, it is assumed that the enzymes are completely new and not just modified existing enzymes. The argument is usually made that this new enzyme (EII) was the result of a frame shift mutation, while others insist that it is actually the result of a loss of specification. And that is actually what the whole nylonase debate boils down to (frame shift mutation or loss of specification). Most ID proponents suggest that because five transposable elements exist on plasmid pOAD2 that it could be interpreted as evidence of it being "designed" to be adaptive.
Opponents to ID argue that because the transposons jump around at random without regard to the cell’s need, therefore the mechanism is purely random mutation and natural selection. But considered the fact that transposons cleave to the DNA strand by use of an enzyme called transposase, which recognize specific sequences of nucleotides and these transposons insert into the DNA molecule. This in turn creates direct repeats on each side of the transposons, known as insertion sequences. When they are activated, transposase enzymes coded within, cause genetic recombination. External forces such as exposure to poison, starvation or high temperature are known to activate transposases.
That tells us that it is in fact with regard to the cells need! Contrary to just randomly jumping around transposase existing with in the transposons, recognize specific nucleotide sequences and therefore there number on the plasmid does in fact suggest it is pre-designed to adapt under stress from outside forces. Its actually the existence of these five transposable elements that leads many scientists to doubt the claim that nylonase is an example of random mutation and natural selection generating new enzymes.
Finally my case in point is this. For those of you who aren't familiar with plasmids, they are a small circular unit of DNA that replicate within a cell completely independent of the chromosomal DNA and are mostly only found in bacteria. But wait a second, the whole argument using nylonase is that they are an example showing us how DNA could have formed by natural processes. But if almost all other forms of life do not even have plasmids, then how is a bacterias "plasmid" manipulation a good example of evolution at work? It seems to me that instead of supporting universal common decent, they are in reality an example of the awesome wisdom of an intelligent designer.
So again Taq, show me an example in the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism and we can talk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Taq, posted 01-03-2012 11:33 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 4:52 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 313 by Taq, posted 01-09-2012 3:47 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 239 of 373 (647076)
01-08-2012 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:45 PM


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.
Yes I don't intend to really sway the one's I am debating. I am aimed more at reaching the ones that just curiously sit on the side and watch. I want them to know that we aren't the bumbling fools the world paints us to be. That you don't have to check your brain at the door with the hats when you enter a church. That its not a blind leap into a dark chasm, but rather a faith based on evidence.
Thank you for your kind words my friend.
Brad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 3:57 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 242 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 4:54 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 373 (647078)
01-08-2012 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Just being real
01-08-2012 3:47 AM


mike the wiz writes:
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.
Hi just being real. I agree with mike. You're doing a fine job on this thread here. Thanks for all the info and knowledge.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 3:47 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 6:41 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 241 of 373 (647081)
01-08-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Just being real
01-08-2012 3:35 AM


You are just busting at the seems to talk about bacteria aren't you? Its incredible to me how someone can take a single celled organism which bares almost no resemblance to the incredible diversity of multi-celled organisms found on Earth and use it as their sole biological argument for universal common decent.
Don't you ever tell the truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 3:35 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024