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

Hi Doubting Too,

DT writes: I mean if the earth was placed in just the right distance from the sun--give or take a few deviations from time to time--for life to flourish then that which caused it to be so must either

Ok, lets say it was placed...first off, by whom or what?

1. Naturally occuring cosmic events that lead to the formation of planets?
2. A postulated deity?

a)be a dumb, b) appears to be brilliant, or c) really brilliant--which implies high level of skill Which is which?

*Well, if we go with 'naturally occuring cosmic events that leads to the formations of planets...', then I would say that the laws of nuclear fusion, the attraction of gravity, and the time that it takes to unwind these events, is nothing short of amazing, but it would only require intelligence if it was programed to do all this. Is that what you are saying?

*if you mean placed there by a postulated deity, I would ask for proof that disproves the natural order of said cosmic events.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

DT writes: By whom or by what? Does it even matter? The

Yes it does. If you say a unicorn waved it's horn and placed the planets in their orbits for the purpose of biological life, I'd say 'you're crazy'. If you say, 'by naturally occuring events', I would agree with you and would have nothing further to debate on.

The fact is there is this earth placed just on the right distance to the sun.

The fact is that 'There is an Earth', period. The added word placed is what is NOT a fact. Please show how you determined it was placed, and show how you refute the scientific evidence that points to naturally occuring events.

As explained in my post just above yours, this to me is evidence of design.

Then this is an argument from incredulity. If you can show no other evidence other than 'I feel it is placed there', then you are simply invoking your belief.

And then you asked: 1) by naturally occuring events, or 2) by a postulated diety? There are other possibilities. A combination of both could be a possibility.

Yes, you could combine the 2, but what purpose would that be for? To satisfy you and your own personal interpretation of nature?

If you are going to invoke a designer, but you cannot prove whether a designer actually exists, then why invoke a designer when there is a perfectly good theory on planetary formation that explains it through just the natural processes?

In fact you're not even arguing that there aren't natural processes, you are just saying that an un-named intelligence did it for the purpose of life, with natural causes. If science is only the study of the natural world, and naturally occuring events explain just about everything, then 'design' is just to invoke purpose, and purpose cannot be proven just because you feel things are designed. This is a circular argument that you've presented.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Me4Him, and welcome to EvCforum,

Admin has asked that we not reply to your post, however, if you'd like to present any argument from your PoV, I suggest starting a thread on it...this is a debate forum and you'll find no shortage of people who would love to challenge each and everyone of your points.

I would however like to address this,

Me4Him writes: A lesson "Evolutionist" haven't learned yet.

I would be cautious if I were you of who you think you can teach lessons to on this site.

Also, try to be a bit more polite as a new member.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

And there is a lesson here--even the variety of taste that we have (as opposed to a monotonous one) is proof that the GOAL of the designer of fruits was to preserve life--so we won't die of boredom.

WHATTTT????????

You're not serious right?

Since Doubting Too is out of the debate, are there any creationist/IDist who are willing to support his goal theory on bananas?

To re-quote the gem,

quote:

---

the GOAL of the designer of fruits was to preserve life--so we won't die of boredom.

---

Anyone?

I have no more desire to answer questions here. I think I have said enough.

Yeah I think you did...

Wow!

Edited by onifre, : Added call out to IDist/creationist

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I like "the designer of fruits" bit the most.

:laugh:

Will that require a designer of vegetables as well? What was his goal to make vegetables taste disgusting to fat people?:laugh:

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi Abogot,

BTW nonsense is the belief in miracles as well as the belief that your interpretation of the current scientific level of knowledge states that there is no god.

I think you are using the term God here a bit losely.

God is defined only through religion. From Abrahamic back to mythology gods have an identity. Those identities are described in scriptures/religious texts. These are the types of gods that (a)theist disbelieve in and our current level of scientific knowledge can disprove those stories (from Zues and Apollo, to the 7 days of creation and the Flood), I believe you have agree with that.

Now, your discription of God is not likely to follow any religions discription of God, so you have just adopted the term God for lack of a better word. Just as Einstein did.

Atheist have nothing to do with your type of belief, we simply reject theological gods.

Can there exist a force that sets up the laws, who knows. You seem to think so, fine. That does not make you a theist though. Nor does it make our rejection of your concept an atheistic disbelief because you are using science, and the understanding of the laws of physics, to derive your answer, so this kinda becomes a scientific discussion and NOT theological.

We can then move on to disproving, or you proving, your theory using empirical data to describe the conditions of the universe and how the laws of physics apply to it, making neither of us theistic OR (a)theistic.

Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

BTW, if we survive for long enough we are destined to become semi-gods, it's inevitable.

Again it seems like the word God is just used for lack of a better word. I would say that we would be humans, just more advanced.

However, it's disgusting to see people claim science tells them there is no creator/god when just 140 years ago their relatives had no electricity and were riding horses and carts.

I think the problem originated in allowing the word God to signify something supernatural. It is a meaningless word outside of religion. However, the religious Gods can be disproven by science. A philosophical type God does not interfere with a knowledge about the nature of the world in a scientific sense, it just interferes with the talking snake type of God.

People seem to think they are already gods, masters of their own fate

I am master of my fate, couldn't I easily take my own life? This does not equate to being Godly though, at least not a Biblical type God.

It's plain stupid to look around and declare - "there is no creator, i don't find evidence".

I think its stupid to claim either one, that there is or isn't, I think both come from either religious denial or acceptance. God means nothing as a word outside of religion. I don't claim there is or isn't a God because I am not trying to disprove religious Gods. If you say there is a force that creates the universe, then you did not describe a God, you are discribing the forces of nature. I don't think you need to attribute intelligence to these forces in order to prove their power, because attributing intelligence to it means that it had to at one point not be intelligent and then aquired it. Unless it is unnatural, however, if it is unnatural then we are not talking about the forces of this universe, because those are natural forces.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll get to meet and understand that elusive force that drives everything in such harmony for almost 14 billion years.

Or we'll rise up and find out that there is no such force, or harmony, at least not an intelligent one. Then we may realize the true nature of existance, namely that it is meaningless.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Abogot,

First this one,

Abogot writes: First RNA --> Single cell organism --> Multicellular organism --> Fish --> Reptile --> Mammal --> Ape --> Hominid --> Homo sapiens --> ...

I don't know. After single cell organism the complexity level of the biological organisms that you mention above is similar, in fact some amphibians and reptiles are much more complex than us.

The only thing that seperates us from them in complexity is our consciousness, and that only seems important to us. No other species that we know of has it and yet they manage just fine without it. But I don't think the rise in complexity is leading to anything in particular, and I don't think that in a few 1000, or even 10,000 years, our morphology needs to change at all, unless there's a major climate change that will presure evolution. In fact if we become a Stage I society, like your buddy Michio says, then we can control the climate and natural forces that tend to drive an evolutionary change, thus never being presured to evolve.

Why would there be something instead of nothing? No reason? Isn't this type of resoning the same as the god of the gaps - i.e. you don't know yet and you attribute to it no purpose?

You worded this a bit tricky. I won't go as far as to say there is no purpose but purpose is subjective, so to us there is a purpose, to bacteria there isn't even the thought of purpose. One would have to know who is judging the situation. To me, personally, purpose is attained by the living. I give my life purpose and meaning. I am a sentient being. I am conscious of my existance therefore would like to make it purposefull for many reason i.e. self-worth, self-fulfilment, self-indulgence etc etc. But notice it starts with self. It is a subjectively experienced life.

I however, did not say purpose I said meaningless. In other words if Abogot or Onifre or Straggler (we should have a name for this group by the way:laugh: ), live a wonderfully fulfilling life and die what meaning do you give our individual lives? None. The meanfull part took place while we were alive, the rest is left to those we leave behind to find meaning for themselves.

IMO words like meaning and purpose get shoved into areas that can't be represented in the same way.

So if you took me out of context let me re-explain my position. Purpose or meaning IMO are attributes of conscious beings, to take these words and try to give them equal meaning when you are talking about the universe, which im assuming is not conscious, will not prove much other than you feel the universe has purpose and meaning. Then it becomes a subjective interpretation and because you are a sentient being you feel it makes sense. If it does to you then cool, but it does not to me.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Abogot,

We are conscious, I don't think most of the atheists quite understand what this means and entails.

If you seek out the threads on consciousness I think my posts, as an atheist, are pretty good and show a good understanding of it. Plus I did study philosophy. I think I have a good grasp of what is meant by consciousness, but I'll take a pop quiz if you like.;)

We are the eyes and consciousness of the universe. The universe has started revealing itself to us by creating us, it's revealing its secrets(how it started, how it proceeded, how it might proceed). All this is possible because the universe is so far comprehensible to us, who are the eyes of the uinverse(the laws that drive the universe). To me we being a tiny transient manifestation of the universe that could read its secrets is magical and magnificient. We are special, think about it... we are the only ones who know the universe exists. The universe is our mother, and it has been revealing its secrets to its children for a few millenia. I am not pushing the idea proposed by some scientists that the universe is alive in some sense, but merely stating that we being the eyes and consciousness of the immaterial universe, have a very peculiar relation with it.

Yes, thats all great to think about, but it was not its purpose. If it was its purpose then the universe would have needed to guild every step of the evolutionary process that lead to us. If the huge asteroid(or whatever it was) that struck the Earth 65Mya doesn't hit, the dinos continue their dominance, and man never comes to be. So we are lucky to be here, witnessing life from a conscous PoV, we are lucky to be able to study the universe, we are lucky to have adapted intelligence that helps us do this, we are lucky that no other cosmic event has whipped us out...shit we are lucky an asteroid hit Earth and killed off the other dominant species. Simply put, we are lucky that the random events that lead to our emergence from the trees took place, and yes its really fuckin cool to be able to step back and stare at our mother universe in wonder, but not in arogance like we deserve this. We got lucky, yay us!

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hello 1.61803, aka Frank :D its easier.

How we define conciousness may differ, but I am of the opinion that my dog is concious. My birds are concious as well, I am almost sure there are other organisms that are concious. Conciousness is not confined to humans in my opinion, but rather a emergent property of the brain.

I knew when I generalized consciousness I would get nailed on it. I agree that there are levels of consciousness and ours is, by our definition, the highest level. Which I would just describe it as conscious of ourselves and th magnitude of existance.

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

Yo Catholic Sci,

You should have said sentience, remember?

I do, I was just trying to bring you out of hiding. :P