Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 10:04 PM
25 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, edge (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,225 Year: 12,261/19,786 Month: 2,042/2,641 Week: 551/708 Day: 110/135 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 72 of 185 (485410)
10-08-2008 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by LucyTheApe
10-08-2008 7:51 AM


Re: Anthropic reasoning voided
Hi Lucy,

LucyTheApe writes:

Parasomnium writes:

life arises only there where it is possible for it to arise

And what conditions would make this possible Parasomnium?

In the context of what is being discussed here, namely the distance of the Earth from the sun, the answer is simply distance from the sun. This is not the only requirement for life of course, but it is the one which is relevant here.

For life to exist, a planet needs to be within a certain range of distance from it's sun, not too hot, not too cold, but "just right". This is why the habitable zone of a solar system is referred to as the "Goldilocks Zone". This is why there is no Earth-like life anywhere else in the solar system; it simply isn't possible.

We should not be surprised to find ourselves in the middle of the habitable zone. Where else could we be?

As for creating life in labs, that is not relevant here. True, we have not made life in the lab. We don't know how. That doesn't mean that it is impossible.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by LucyTheApe, posted 10-08-2008 7:51 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by LucyTheApe, posted 10-08-2008 8:35 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 74 of 185 (485415)
10-08-2008 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by LucyTheApe
10-08-2008 8:35 AM


Re: Anthropic reasoning voided
That's a circular argument.

It might be if I were using it to prove any specific proposition, but I'm not. I am simply disagreeing with assertions that the Earth's position is evidence of design.

The way this thread is being argued is thus:

Side a: The earth must be habitable to contain life.

Side b: The earth is habitable because it contains life.

Same argument, different philosophical disposition.

Not really. Both of those statements amount to the much same thing. I would take issue with the second statement mind you; the Earth is not habitable because it contains life. The Earth contains life partly because it is habitable, not the other way around. Of course, a planet that is known to support life, is habitable by definition.

The main difference in this discussion is that Doubting Too seems to think that the fact that the Earth is in the habitable zone is proof of design, whereas others simply see this as being inevitable, given that we know that life does exist here. It shouldn't be surprising. Being surprised that the only planet known to support life is in a habitable zone is like being surprised to find an apple on an apple tree. No-one is having this conversation on Venus. There is a reason for that.

Ironically, the further out we look for life, the less probable it appears that we will find it.

The more desperate our attempts to create life, the less likely it seems that we'll succeed.

I don't suppose you would care to substantiate either of those statements would you?

Of course neither of them really matter. Human attempts to create life are simply not the issue here and no matter how rare life might be, it still does not argue for a creator.

Maybe that's the way it's designed!

Well maybe, but simply pointing out that Earth is in a habitable zone does not constitute evidence of a designer. It isn't really evidence of much at all, except that life depends on the sun.

Arguing that our presence in a habitable zone is so astonishing that it can only be attributed to a designer is the circular argument here.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by LucyTheApe, posted 10-08-2008 8:35 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 11:31 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 80 of 185 (485509)
10-09-2008 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by NOT JULIUS
10-08-2008 11:31 PM


Re: Read Post # 75
I'm not arguing that the earth being habitable as the SOLE argument of design.

Fair enough. I am arguing that it is not even evidence for design at all.

I am arguing that a combination of factors--the right distance of the earth from the sun, AND the right condition of the earth, among others--is towards a GOAL, Life.

Yes, I realise that. You have completely failed to give any evidence for this though.

You seem to be surprised that the only known life-supporting planet is capable of supporting life. This is as ludicrous as being surprised to find the number 3 between 2 and 4.

We know that the Earth can support life. That is a fact. The chances of life existing on Earth are 1 in 1. Given this, it is a necessity that the Earth is in the Goldilocks zone and has the right conditions for life. It could be no other way.

This is the point that Deftil and the rest are trying to prove wrong. For my reply see post #75.

This is the point that has been proved wrong, you just haven't realised it yet.

So far as post #75 is concerned, all I see is confused nonsense. Sentences like this;

Child: Why would life and not death result in the right distance of the sun and earth?

make zero sense. I think that your child/Dad conversation is just making things more confused.

The bottom line is this. Non-directed natural processes can produce results, but only an intelligence can have goals. You are using the word "goal" without first providing evidence of an intelligence. That is where you are going wrong.

You must demonstrate the presence of an intelligence before you can speak of goals.

You are using the word "goal" without any basis whatsoever and then going on to claim that you have evidence of an intelligence. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Added by Edit;

That's the trouble with me. I oftentimes think outside the box.

The box is there for a reason. I suggest that you get back inside the box as soon as possible.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Friendly advice.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : Fixing a few typo's.


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 11:31 PM NOT JULIUS 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