|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
You tell me. What earth-shattering changes in the theory of evolution would that discovery cause? Pertinent to the topic, how would it point toward design?
Would the discovery that DNA is frontloaded and the 92% of unused human DNA represents potential as well as evolution be considered relatively small? taiji2 writes:
It's not even a real hypothesis until you propose a way of testing it.
This is a pet theory, not a real theory. taiji2 writes:
Because "design" suggests "designer" and "insert miracle here".
Why does everyone say "woo-woo" or some other equally derogatory term when mentioning design? taiji2 writes:
But it isn't simple, is it? Nobody seems to be able to tell us what "design" would look like if it was there. The only tests for "design" that I've seen are the equivalent of, "If it looks like an elephant it must be designed."
If design is there it is simply design. If design is not there it is simply not there. taiji2 writes:
Why not? What's the difference between designing France and designing DNA?
I would never make the proposition that god said "let there be France" taiji2 writes:
That's odd. I consulted Merriam-Webster and I found:
ringo writes:
I have consulted Merriam-Webster and did not see evidence mentioned. Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition.quote:"Experience" would be evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
taiji2 writes: ringo writes:
Ok, I will take your word. I am pretty sure I have seen statements here that violate that, but I will accept what you say is true and that others might have misspoke. Nobody does. Science, by its very nature is "adjustable". Everybody who accepts science expects the theory of evolution to be modified on an ongoing basis. Ringo is saying the same thing others have already said, that science is tentative. Our understanding of the natural world can change in light of new information or improved insight.
ringo writes:
Would the discovery that DNA is frontloaded ...be considered relatively small? However, we expect the modifications to be relatively small. No. That would be big.
Would the discovery that...92% of unused human DNA represents potential as well as evolution be considered relatively small? No, because it wouldn't represent a change in our understanding. That unused DNA, also called junk DNA, can become coding DNA has long been an accepted view within science. Also, we're now coming to understand that a great deal of what was formerly thought to be unused DNA actually has a purpose, that it can perform regulatory functions. Given that evolution employs a "whatever works" approach we should expect the future to bring more unexpected surprises about how DNA works.
Why does everyone say "woo-woo" or some other equally derogatory term when mentioning design? Because when you weigh the evidence for design against the evidence for "woo-woo" things like ghosts and sasquatch, they come out equal.
ringp writes:
I have consulted Merriam-Webster and did not see evidence mentioned. Where should I look. Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition. I think you should look within yourself and give a serious response next time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
No, I want to make the natural laws is design argument You haven't done so. In fact, I don't even see that you even brought it up until I tried to chase you off of your "beautiful atoms" argument. So if you have an argument make it.
You failed to mention the negative charge of the lepton, but that is ok, I got it. Was it necessary for me to do so?
Why protons, leptons and energy? You would be doing exactly what RAZD is doing. Begging the question. You are asking 'have you stopped beating your wife, yet questions. Perhaps there is no answer other than that is how time/space/matter/energy work. Perhaps the only answer is that a property of the pre-cursor to the universe is bound to create energy in the form of quarks and leptons without any intervention. What you are missing is that I am not trying to prove to you that the universe has no why answer or no ultimate creator. All I am suggesting is that you cannot infer any such designer from the simple fact that the universe can be described in either simple or complex terms. Accordingly, your claim to have reached that conclusion logically can be shown to be a farce. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: Perhaps there is no answer other than that is how time/space/matter/energy work. I hate that saying, "it is what it is." That has become so popular in discussions. I am reminded of my young daughter who always seems to have a "but why" at the end of every answer. Inevitably I have to say, " I don't know." It is what it is.But what a boring world we would live in if we knew everything. The discovery of the Higgs was one of the most amazing achievments but it seems to have only opened the door to more questions, more but why? Why is the Higgs in the middle between a universe that may someday be explained or to one that is arbitrary. The mystery continues, the final answer postponed yet again.We can choose to believe there is a reson de entre' or we can simply say it is what it is. I tend to flip back and forth depending on my mood that day. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
1.6 writes: We can choose to believe there is a reson de entre' or we can simply say it is what it is. Or we just say that we don't know. Yet.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Tangle writes:
But wHy??? Or we just say that we don't know. Yet. Ok that is a third option. One that seems to be in line with "it is what it is." It is what is because we don't know yet what it is or why it is. The natural laws of the universe operate in the way they do and exist the way they do because we do not know yet. Edited by 1.61803, : redundant"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
No, I want to make the natural laws is design argument NoNukes writes: You haven't done so. In fact, I don't even see that you even brought it up until I tried to chase you off of your "beautiful atoms" argument. So if you have an argument make it. Actually I have brought it up. I've brought it up several times in one context or another. I see you haven't read my prior posts. Admittedly, I have not written anything that qualifies as a position paper on it. I think even if I had, you would want for it to have been published before you consider it. So I choose not to make an argument again that I have already made. If you want, you can actually read my prior posts and ask for clarification on anything I have said. If you do not want, then that is ok too.
You failed to mention the negative charge of the lepton, but that is ok, I got it. NoNukes writes:
No, absolutely not necessary. I just found it curious you didn't. You found it important to mention the positive charge of the proton.
Was it necessary for me to do so? Why protons, leptons and energy? NoNukes writes: You would be doing exactly what RAZD is doing. Begging the question. You are asking 'have you stopped beating your wife, yet questions. Perhaps there is no answer other than that is how time/space/matter/energy work. Perhaps the only answer is that a property of the pre-cursor to the universe is bound to create energy in the form of quarks and leptons without any intervention. And perhaps we just don't know. Doesn't mean it isn't important. You have a very valid point though, RAZD is much more qualified to discuss the question of why with you. It was his idea after all. I shall defer to RAZD your further observations as to why.
NoNukes writes: What you are missing is that I am not trying to prove to you that the universe has no why answer or no ultimate creator. Nor am I trying to prove to you the counter. We are having a conversation. I recognize coming to those proofs is beyond my capability. That is not to say I believe it impossible to come closer to the truth through logic and reasonable deduction and, yes science. It just hasn't been done.
NoNukes writes: All I am suggesting is that you cannot infer any such designer from the simple fact that the universe can be described in either simple or complex terms. Well yes one can infer that. Millions and billions of people have and have (do) make that inference. That is a large population of observers gathering evidence. The rub seems to be around pinning down what is design and what is evidence for design. That would be a good place to start if science ever chooses to discuss a way to properly pursue ID.
NoNukes writes:
Put "My opinion is" in front of that and we are good.
Accordingly, your claim to have reached that conclusion logically can be shown to be a farce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello Taiji2,
Taiji2 writes: This is a appeal to popularity argument.
Well yes one can infer that. Millions and billions of people have and have (do) make that inference. That is a large population of observers gathering evidence. The rub seems to be around pinning down what is design and what is evidence for design.
Lets do that. How would you define design as and what evidence would you present.Unless you are using your atom is complex therefore is designed argument. Because it was refuted by NoNukes stating the atom is not complex. So you could perhaps come up with a complex system that could not possibly be non designed. Like the Rhodopsin cycle of the human eye, or the Kreb cycle. Which NoNukes refuted that complexity is also not a adequate evidence of design. So how about Goddidit? This requires no evidence. Just faith and belief. But that is for another forum other than Science que no? "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That is not to say I believe it impossible to come closer to the truth through logic and reasonable deduction and, yes science. It just hasn't been done. I appreciate your honesty, and I apologize for the rather pointed nature of my inquiries. The majority of the people who come here and claim that the universe or conch shells must be designed pretend to have it all sorted.
RAZD is much more qualified to discuss the question of why with you. Perhaps, but RAZD and I seem to be nitpicking each other with the dictionary for want of something better to do. Nothing will come from that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
My argument for design :
There is no underlying truth or reality, it is what it is. The Universe and humanity exist in the software of a alien super intelligent artificial sentient lifeform for the soul purpose of entertainment. It is a highly complex programming masterpiece. The game is self running and models the cosmos completely. It can not be predicted or understood because the operating parameters have been left out by the designers. The game resets after all available energy reaches maximum entropy. Many of the underlying mechanisms of how the game manifest reality seem to point to various themes and overtime seem to merge into one unique principal of operation. But several key bits of information simply do not exist in this game and therefore it is unsolvable. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The discovery of the Higgs was one of the most amazing achievments but it seems to have only opened the door to more questions, more but why? Perhaps this notion that the laws of science 'operate' is simply flawed. Which laws do you think it makes sense to think of in this way?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
ringo writes:
Ok, I will take your word. I am pretty sure I have seen statements here that violate that, but I will accept what you say is true and that others might have misspoke. Nobody does. Science, by its very nature is "adjustable". Everybody who accepts science expects the theory of evolution to be modified on an ongoing basis.Percy writes: Ringo is saying the same thing others have already said, that science is tentative. Our understanding of the natural world can change in light of new information or improved insight. I have no problem with what ringo said. I did observe other comments on the thread that were not what ringo said. I do not claim all other comments on the thread were not what ringo said. It is really a non-ussue with me for further remarks though, doesn't move the conversation forward.
ringo writes:
Would the discovery that DNA is frontloaded ...be considered relatively small? However, we expect the modifications to be relatively small. Percy writes:
I could ask what would that mean to the theory, but that would take us to another conversation which is not what I care to do at this time. So, my question is asked and answered.
No. That would be big. Would the discovery that...92% of unused human DNA represents potential as well as evolution be considered relatively small? Percy writes: No, because it wouldn't represent a change in our understanding. That unused DNA, also called junk DNA, can become coding DNA has long been an accepted view within science. Also, we're now coming to understand that a great deal of what was formerly thought to be unused DNA actually has a purpose, that it can perform regulatory functions. Given that evolution employs a "whatever works" approach we should expect the future to bring more unexpected surprises about how DNA works. Thank you. I was not aware of this accepted view. I just learned and you taught me. Do you have a revision to the old 92% junk number that floats around for us common folk? I have many questions, but presume you don't want to teach on this forum. If you have any references to reading though, I do have a keen interest.
Why does everyone say "woo-woo" or some other equally derogatory term when mentioning design? Percy writes: Because when you weigh the evidence for design against the evidence for "woo-woo" things like ghosts and sasquatch, they come out equal. ringp writes:
I have consulted Merriam-Webster and did not see evidence mentioned. Where should I look. Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition. Percy writes:
No lack of seriousness intended, truly. The word evidence has special meaning for science, correct? ringo made a flat statement that any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition, The word she referenced for definition was fanciful. I looked fanciful up in Merriam-Webster and found no reference to evidence in any of the accepted definitions. My suggestion is perhaps she should find a better word.
I think you should look within yourself and give a serious response next time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3483 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
That is not to say I believe it impossible to come closer to the truth through logic and reasonable deduction and, yes science. It just hasn't been done.
NoNukes writes: I appreciate your honesty, and I apologize for the rather pointed nature of my inquiries. The majority of the people who come here and claim that the universe or conch shells must be designed pretend to have it all sorted. No sweat on the pointy stuff. It has been good for my skin actually .I have been referred to as prickly and disputatious here. Though I don't intend that, I see how I might be interpreted that way. RAZD is much more qualified to discuss the question of why with you. NoNukes writes: Perhaps, but RAZD and I seem to be nitpicking each other with the dictionary for want of something better to do. Nothing will come from that. Perhaps. I have found it interesting reading though
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes: Perhaps, but I tend to look at things from a human point of view. Being that I am human.
Perhaps this notion that the laws of science 'operate' is simply flawed.NoNukes writes: In terms of operation? Then does that not imply a operator? (kidding) Not sure what you mean, I'll guess you mean that I am guilty of perhaps thinking of "natural laws" as "things" when they are simply the way physics happens and physics is the lingusitic description/representation of those phenomenon. Regardless the constants and laws that have been discovered do not need to make any sense at all. Humans are the ones that tend to look for symmetry, patterns and significance. At least I do. The universe could care less.
Which laws do you think it makes sense to think of in this way? Edited by 1.61803, : spelling."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No lack of seriousness intended, truly. The word evidence has special meaning for science, correct? ringo made a flat statement that any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition, The word she referenced for definition was fanciful. I looked fanciful up in Merriam-Webster and found no reference to evidence in any of the accepted definitions. My suggestion is perhaps she should find a better word. Well, after a few minutes with a thesaurus, how about baseless, conjectural, groundless, hypothetical, imaginary, notional, speculative, suppositional, unconfirmed, uncorroborated, unestablished, unevidenced, unfounded, unjustifiable, unproven, unsubstantiated, unsupported, unverified, or up in the air?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024