What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?

Whether or not anthtopic reasoning or the reverse is true do you agree that the distance of the earth to the sun is just right so that life could exist?

If you saw a puddle in the road, would you think that the pothole was just the right shape to hold the puddle?

To say that the sun is in just the right spot for life to exist is like looking at a puddle and saying the pothole is just the right shape to fit around the water.

Life emerged in conditions where the sun is where it is so its no wonder that it fits into that niche. To then look back and say that the niche must have been designed for life is horribly flawed.

What was the goal of the kid who made the pothole to fit the puddle? Was it for fun? At any rate if there was a goal for the pothole--for the fun of the kid--then obviously the kid designed the pothole.

Actually, the pothole wasn't designed at all and there is no kid.

stragler writes: Did the puddle form in the available hole or was the hole designed to form that exact puddle? I don't exacly know where this line of questioning is leading.

If the Earth is some distance from the sun and then life evolves to fit within the conditions of that distance, then you'd be a fool to say that the sun was put at that distance so that life could fit.

In the same way, potholes are erroded into roads by natural process, then water fills them up and conforms to the shape of the hole. By the same reasoning above you would conclude that the hole was designed for the shape of the water. Its just a little easier to see the foolishness in the reasoning because obviously the water conforms to the hole, the hole does not conform to the water.

Stragler writes: So how exactly is the exact puddle formed in a randomly produced pothole any different to the "exact" conditions for life leading to life? Simply, your analogy does not apply. I think somebody has already confirmed that the analogy of the puddle/pothole has no Goal.

You're failing to understand and missing the point.

Using the logic from your argument in Message 51, if the pothole was shaped even slightly differently, then the puddle wouldn't fit inside it. Therefore, the pothole was designed to fit the puddle.

But we know that is not correct. the water conforms to the pothole.

In a similiar manner, life conformed to the position of our planet to the sun. Saying that this position was designed for life is just as falacious.

DT, I could come at this argument from multiple angles....

It is inherently false.

---

Conclusion: Therefore, from P1 to P4 we can conclude that the puddle in the pothole was not designed because there is no goal; or it was designed because there is a goal (child's fun).

How can you tell if something has a goal or not?

---

The puddle in the pothole has no goal-unless a child made the pothole to fit the puddle in that case the goal was for the child's fun.

This statement on its own is a false dichotomy.

Could the goal not simply be designed "to hold water" with no child to amuse at all?

Consequently, how can you identify the goal of the pothole without knowing whether or not a child made the hole?

Please realize that we don't know if the position and conditions of the Earth were designed or not and that you're claiming that we can tell from the position and conditions, themselves, that we can tell.

How?

---

P2: If something is made or executed in a highly skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind, then it is evidence of design.

How do you identify high skill?

Does the fact the the pothole perfectly fits the puddle suggest that it was designed? I say no.

What about that it has the right conditions to hold water and it perfectly fits the shape of the puddle? Still no, right?

In a similar manner, the fact that life fits the distance of the Earth from the sun (and we've established that is not even perfect) and that the conditions are right does not suggest that the distance and conditions were designed for life to fit.

---

Now, you can realize that your argument is invalid and try to learn something from it. The lack of this "obvious" design that you see is inconsequential.

Or, you can continue to maintain your argument's validity, and remain wallowed in your ignorance.

Its up to you.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

1st why: But why would life and not death? Answer: Because it is the result of natural processes. 2nd why: But why would that process result in life? Uh...Uh.. feeling unable to answer the question?

Its an inevitability governed by the laws of physics.

Just like when you put water into a pothole, it results in a puddle.

For a while I thought you got me there--

If you realize that people are trying to help you learn something rather than trying to "get" you, you'll be a lot better off.

double post

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

cath writes: it is inevitably governed by the laws of physics? Can you answer this child's question: But why?

You can ask "but why" until you're blue in the face.....

Are you asking why its inevitable or why they're teh laws of physics? Or wait, is the question rhetorical?

The laws of physics are properties of the Universe, itself. There isn't a reason why the Universe has properties.

Cath writes: Just like when you put water into a pothole, it results in a puddle. Then, that is already by design--the putting of water on the pothole. I showed this before, didn't I?

Except that it wasn't designed. Puddles form in potholes all on their own just like life forms on planets in a habitable zone all on its own.

But, why would that child go through the process and get that RESULT? Because he has a GOAL.

There is no child.... there is no goal....

Potholes form all by themselves like life does. There is no designer implied.

If you realize that people are trying to help you learn something rather than trying to "get" you, you'll be a lot better off. That's the trouble with me. I oftentimes think outside the box.

This doesn't have anything to do with thinking outside the box.

You're so far in the box that you can't even see it.

The trouble with you is that you're immature and are trying to argue.

Why is it that I am sensing that most who want to topple P3 are giving the right answer to the wrong question--or are you evading something?

Excuse me...... evading something? Why shouldn't I just tell you to fuck off and let you wallow in your ignorance? Why am I trying to help you understand something?

If you have something to say then say it.

Most of you are answering the question HOW? My questions are WHY?

Not me.

Me writes: you writes: But why would that process result in life? It's an inevitability governed by the laws of physics

That IS an answer to why.

The answer to how would get into the formation of organic chemicals from inogranic ones, the formation of amino acids, then phospholipids, thent he polymerization of nucleotides, and on and on.

Why the laws of physics?

That's not even a complete sentence..... Why the laws of physics what?

why the correct distance?

There is no reason why the Earth is the "correct" distance. Why is the tree in my backyard growing the that spot? No reason, really.

Why the natural processes?

Those are the only processes we are capable of accurately studying, by definition.

why is the condition of earth just right for life?

It isn't. But if it was, then there'd still be no reason why. That's just the way things ended up.

I am sensing that you are avoiding the issue. Trying to confuse me or other readers.

Well don't flatter yourself. You're kinda turning into an ass, btw.

We're not trying to confuse you. We're tyring to help you. But you have to be willing to be helped (which you're starting to seem like your not). And as soon as you demonstrate that you're not wililng to be helped is when I'll tell you to fuck off and let you wallow in your own ignorance. There's a lot of intelligent people here who are willing to help you understand things. But you're just going to end up being worse off if you disrespect them and refuse there help, even if it is within the spirit of the debate.

Let me illustrate the difference between HOW and WHY?

Don't you realize that science doesn't answer the why questions?

Why does Salmon do it? It wants to breed. But why? To pursue its GOAL to preserve and continue the salmon's specie. In other words, its goal is LIFE

Do you really think that the salmon is sitting there thinking: "Gee, I better head up this stream to lay these eggs so I can preserve my species."

:laugh:

They don't even have a well-enough developed cerebral cortex to have those kinds of thoughts.

That is not why the salmon swim upstream....

It does show how you are just making stuff up when it comes to answering the why questions. You're making up salmon thoughts and you're making up a magic sky-daddy when it comes to answering these why questions.

Don't you realize that its bullshit?

{Note added 10/17/08 - Catholic Scientist was suspended for 24 hours on 10/11/08, because of this now hidden message (and other messages?). This suspension was not previously noted anywhere other than at the temporary "hovertext message" and at the above linked to message. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide original message and add comments.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add mention of the "hovertext message".

I should have said 'no other animals has such a complex consciousness as ours'.

You should have said sentience, remember?