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

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.

bluegenes writes: Life, as others have pointed out, is only going to be found on a planet that suits it. Life fits the planet, rather than the other way around, and must have the capability to adapt to specific and changing environments on that planet.

Not only should the planet be suitable for life. But that its distance from the energy source should be right as well.

I agree with what parasomnium wrote:

parasomnium writes: if the earth had been too close to the sun, or too far away from it for life to arise, then life would obviously not have arisen on earth

bluegenes writes: If you assume a goal for the universe, then judging by its contents, the goal would seem to be to produce lots of empty space, along with huge quantities of gasses and rocks! If designed, it doesn't give the appearance of having been designed for the sake of a bit of green mould on the surface of one of trillions of planets.

I am not assuming anything. Besides rocks and gasses, and huge empty space, the universe also has so many wanders--creation and death of stars, etc. At present, earth is the only planet we know that has life. If it continues to be, then the goal for the vastness and "lifelessness" of the universe is to provide a contrast between what is a planet full of life and that one which is empty. I am just guessing--but this designer has sense of beauty,contrast, a purpose to challenge man's capacity to learn, etc.

bluegenes writes: weird design!

Not to me and many others.

Edited by Doubting Too, : correct name of paras...

Doubting Too 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

Your first mistake is assuming the Earth was "placed" here, while we have a perfectly natural explanation of how the earth came to be where it is now.

As for your combining your own questions, the way it "sounds to the man in the street" has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it being true. Something being true or not does NOT depend on popular oppinion.

---

I hunt for the truth

Doubting Too writes: I am not assuming anything.

Really? then why in the very next sentence you write:

If it continues to be, then the goal for the vastness and "lifelessness" of the universe is to provide a contrast between what is a planet full of life and that one which is empty.

That right there is an assumption.

---

I hunt for the truth

bluejay writes: Nobody on this thread has agreed with this so far. People on this thread have shown you how the distance between the Sun and the Earth varies by thousands of kilometers with the seasons and other cycles, and how they can go upstairs to use the restroom without burning to death. This means they disagree with you.

I thought they were humuoring me about the distance. Don't you agree with what Parasomnium wrote:

parasomnium writes: if the earth had been too close to the sun, or too far away from it for life to rise, then life would obviously not have arisen on earth and we would not be having this conversation

?

bluejay writes: Look at the pictures on This Wiki page about the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland. It looks like somebody was sculpting the rocks into geometric shapes, doesn't it? Well, that's not what happened. It only looks like somebody carved it: in reality, it's a natural feature.

I believe this is a way of diverting the topic. What about that mountain in the US(?)--i don't remember--where the faces of US presidents were sculpted? Did not somebody design these?

blue jay writes: this is not true. (Referring to the looks and quacking of a duck)

Pardon, but are you a 'determinist'? Why is it hard for you to believe that if one looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, does the thing of a duck... then it must be a duck?

Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

Doubting too writes: I believe this is a way of diverting the topic. What about that mountain in the US(?)--i don't remember--where the faces of US presidents were sculpted? Did not somebody design these?

The mountain's called Mount Rushmore.
Then what about "the face on Mars"? Was that designed? It looks like a face after all....

---

I hunt for the truth

DT writes: CS writes: If you saw a puddle in the road, would you think that the pothole was just the right shape to hold the puddle? Could you clarify what you mean?

Did the puddle form in the available hole or was the hole designed to form that exact puddle?

Hunt writes: Really? then why in the very next sentence you write:

DT writes: If it continues to be, then the goal for the vastness and "lifelessness" of the universe is to provide a contrast between what is a planet full of life and that one which is empty.

Hunt writes: That right there is an assumption.

What I meant was I am not assuming anything about the goal of the universe. That's beyond me. I am only guessing.

huntard writes: The mountain's called Mount Rushmore.

Thanks. So, what do you think were those faces on Mount Rushmore designed or not?

Hi, Doubting Too.

DT writes: Don't you agree with what Parasomnium wrote... Parasomnium writes: if the earth had been too close to the sun, or too far away from it for life to rise, then life would obviously not have arisen on earth and we would not be having this conversation ?

Yes and no. I agree that life as we know it would not have arisen if the earth were too close to the Sun, but I do not agree that another form of life couldn't have arisen if the earth were too close to the Sun for our kind of life to arise.

DT writes: Bluejay writes: Look at the pictures on This Wiki page about the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland. It looks like somebody was sculpting the rocks into geometric shapes, doesn't it? Well, that's not what happened. It only looks like somebody carved it: in reality, it's a natural feature. I believe this is a way of diverting the topic.

How is this diverting the topic? Do you believe that the Giant's Causeway was designed? It certainly looks designed.

DT writes: Why is it hard for you to believe that if one looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, does the thing of a duck... then it must be a duck?

This wasn't in response to ducks quacking and swimming and looking like ducks. It was in response to your using this analogy as if design works the same way.

I have seen insects that look and move like sticks... but, obviously, they are not sticks. A loon looks, acts and swims like a duck, but is not a duck. Some actual ducks do not quack like other ducks, but they are still ducks.

I have seen pictures of a rock formation that looks like it was carved into geometric shapes by skilled craftsmen, but it was actually formed by natural, non-intelligent processes. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, but it's not a duck.

Oh, wait: I'm diverting the thread again.

---

-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.

Thanks. So, what do you think were those faces on Mount Rushmore designed or not?

Those faces were designed, we know they were, we have evidence of the design process.

Now, please answer my question. Was the face on Mars designed? I mean, it looks like a face too.

---

I hunt for the truth

What I meant was I am not assuming anything about the goal of the universe. That's beyond me. I am only guessing.

But you are assuming that there is a goal. No?
Is that assumption not beyond you too?

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. But, here's my try.

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.

huntard writes: Now, please answer my question. Was the face on Mars designed? I mean, it looks like a face too.

I don't know. I haven't seen it. Have you? Or, was it formed by camera trick? If this is the case, the act of manipulating the camera to form a picture is by design, I guess.

huntard writes: those faces were designed, we know they were, we have evidence of the design process.

What's your evidence?

Doubting Too writes: What's your evidence?

My evidence? Well, let's start with an easy one shall we. Here's the Wiki on the construction of Mount Rushmore:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_Mount_Rushmore

Details perfectly well the design process and even the process of reshaping the mountain.

I don't know. I haven't seen it. Have you? Or, was it formed by camera trick? If this is the case, the act of manipulating the camera to form a picture is by design, I guess.

Here's a picture of it: http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/apr_mars_face_06921_ssv.jpg

The camera that took this picture was not manipulated. Furthermore, the point I'm trying to make here is just because something LOOKS designed, it doesn't mean it is. We KNOW the face is not designed, it is a natural feature of Mars, and only because the light hit it at that particular angle when the picture was taken did it look like a face.

---

I hunt for the truth