Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
73 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Phat, Tangle (4 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,321 Year: 4,433/6,534 Month: 647/900 Week: 171/182 Day: 4/47 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


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?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 185 (485502)
10-08-2008 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by NOT JULIUS
10-08-2008 10:49 PM


Re: Is Life the Result or the Goal
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 10:49 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 11:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 77 of 185 (485504)
10-08-2008 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Granny Magda
10-08-2008 9:11 AM


Re: Read Post # 75
Granny writes:

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.

I'm not arguing that the earth being habitable as the SOLE argument of design. 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. This is the point that Deftil and the rest are trying to prove wrong. For my reply see post #75.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 10-08-2008 9:11 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Granny Magda, posted 10-09-2008 12:53 AM NOT JULIUS has taken no action
 Message 85 by Parasomnium, posted 10-09-2008 5:20 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 78 of 185 (485505)
10-08-2008 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by New Cat's Eye
10-07-2008 11:24 PM


Read Post # 75
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?

I've tried to clarify that this is appears only a false dichotomy. But, really is a valid argument. For further explanation see post # 75.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-07-2008 11:24 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 79 of 185 (485506)
10-08-2008 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2008 11:20 PM


Re: Is Life the Result or the Goal
cath writes:

it is inevitably governed by the laws of physics?

Can you answer this child's question: But why?

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

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2008 11:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2008 8:59 AM NOT JULIUS has taken no action
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2008 9:20 AM NOT JULIUS has taken no action
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 10-10-2008 12:47 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 74 days)
Posts: 2384
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 taken no action

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 81 of 185 (485511)
10-09-2008 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by NOT JULIUS
10-08-2008 10:49 PM


Re: Is Life the Result or the Goal
For a while I thought you got me there--changing the word "goal" to "result". Are you a lawyer, by chance?

We are not trying to "get" you, we are trying to teach you something.

Now, let me try to show why life is the "goal" AND the "result".
A series of "why" questions--posed by a child would really reveal this,
I think. Here is a discussion between a child and his Dad

Very well.

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

Dad: Because it is the result of natural processes.


Uhm...The right distance of the earth from the sun is indeed the result of natural processes. Once conditions are right, life is inevitable.

2nd why: But why? I am not satisfied. Is process and result enough to explain life? Uh...Uh.. feeling unable to answer the question?

What do you mean why? Again, once the the conditions are right on a planet, life is inevitable. Since there are a gazillion planets, that this one would have the right conditions for life to arise is VERY VERY likely.

Dad: Because, child, the process and/ or the result was what was INTENDED by the designer/ maker. Remember Gideon? Just like our cook Gideon when he specifies these ingredients, and equipment, for baking muffins. His intention (or Goal) is to give us muffins. Kid, while muffins is the result of his baking prowess it is also his goal. He gets satisfaction with that. In other words my child Results and Goals are do not really contradict each other--they are complementary. Kid, if you still aren't satisfied, here is another. If Dad drives you to this street and that street, what would be the RESULT? We arive at the Mall. But, why would Dad take you to the mall? Because your intention--your GOAL--is to silence this smart kid.

I think I explained it better. At least I have evidence for the natural processes.

Dad: Do you now see the point?

Child: Oh, yes I see.


Indoctrination, how bad of daddy. He should encourage the child to find it out on his own. Not put himself up as the ultimate authority on things.

Dad: Now, do you know who designed the earth?

Child: No, his name is not written on it. But, I now know that life is a RESULT and a GOAL.


The earth is NOT designed, please show evidence when you make statements like that. And you still haven't shown ANYWHERE that life is the goal, you again assume it because there is life here! That's not how it works. If there is a designer, and he had an intention, it should be simple to point to him and say; "there he goes! Hey Mr. designer, you did have an intention right?". Instead you assume he did.

Dad: Suppose, I tell you he is GOD.

Child: I may believe you, but there seems to be no proof--except that there is INTELLIGENCEdisplayed here. But, Dad, can we accept INTELLIGENCE without GOD.


You lie to your child? We all know it's the Flying spaghetti monster that created the earth. See what I did there? You can tell a child anything you like, but it's best to back up your statements with facts.

Dad: Does that sound reasonable to you? Can you have a functioning brain--the seat of intelligence--without a person?

Child: It's hard to believe.

Dad: Whew! I finally got ya, I think.


Intelligence without a body? Sure! Does artificial intelligence ring a bell?

Deftil and the rest trying to falsify P3. Did you get the point?

Yes, I get the point, and it's still false.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 10:49 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 3732 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 82 of 185 (485514)
10-09-2008 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by NOT JULIUS
10-08-2008 10:49 PM


Re: Is Life the Result or the Goal
Now, let me try to show why life is the "goal" AND the "result".

if LIFE is as you state above the what we can clearly see is that we have a very very poor designer ..

firstly our sun has , in galatic time scales .. a very very short life span .. and for much of that span is very unfriendly to LIFE as we know it ..

not to mention the hazards from near by stars .....

next the earth .. again for much of its time is totally hostile to LIFE , i mean why did it start with such a nasty collection atmoshperic gases... why has it allowed large rocks from space to cause such disruptuion ...

why has its cilmate changed so much making LIFE impossible in vast areas ...

and how long will this earth last ?

LIFE is around dispite everything else , not because of it ..

Even us limited humnas can see how hostile a place this is to LIFE ..

and we could come up with far better designs for enviroment as well as the living creatures ....

If we are a result of a design a bare 1 out of 10 would be a fair score ......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 10:49 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 185 (485525)
10-09-2008 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by NOT JULIUS
10-08-2008 11:43 PM


double post

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 11:43 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 185 (485528)
10-09-2008 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by NOT JULIUS
10-08-2008 11:43 PM


Re: Is Life the Result or the Goal
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 11:43 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 85 of 185 (485577)
10-09-2008 5:20 PM
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. 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.

Compounding the issue is inconsequential, the principle remains the same. It is true that more than one condition must be fulfilled for life to arise somewhere. But is it also a fact that life arose on earth. Therefore, all the necessary conditions must have been fulfilled, or life would not have arisen.

Think of a lottery. If all of a million tickets are sold, then it's guaranteed that someone will win the lottery. The person who wins may think it an extraordinary event, but viewed objectively, it's obvious that someone had to win.

Sometimes thinking outside one box just results in thinking inside another box.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 11:31 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1937 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 86 of 185 (485658)
10-10-2008 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by NOT JULIUS
10-08-2008 11:43 PM


Re: Is Life the Result or the Goal
Hi, Doubting Too

DT writes:

CS 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

You're really quibbling the analogy. The analogy is about the shapes of the water and the pothole, not about how it was made or filled. What you have done is the equivalent of arguing that, in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, a person who has repented after a lifetime of wickedness is represented by the fatted calf that the father killed.

I'm beginning to think you're intentionally playing dumb in an effort to prolong the debate.

DT writes:

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.

I am arguing that a combination of factors--the right size of the pothole, AND the right conditions of the pothole, among others--is towards a GOAL, the puddle.

Same argument.

-----

The conditions on the Norwegian coast are perfect for the formation of fjords: the right rock formations, the perfect distance from the ocean, the right latitude for glaciers to form... that must mean that the purpose of Norway is to produce fjords. In other words, Norway "is towards a GOAL": fjords.

And, since all the continents in the northern hemisphere are in the perfect positions for Norway to be at the right latitude and have the right ocean currents for the perfect weather for fjord formation, the entire northern hemisphere was designed with the goal of making fjords on Norway's coast.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-08-2008 11:43 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 87 of 185 (485676)
10-10-2008 3:45 PM


Why are u are giving correct answers to the WRONG question?
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?

Catholic writes:

It's an inevitability governed by the laws of physics

gRANNY M writes:

We know the earth can support life...The bottom line is this, non-directed processes can produce results...

Huntard writes:

The right distance of the earth to the sun is indeed the result of natural processes...What do you mean why?

Most of you are answering the question HOW? My questions are WHY?
Why the laws of physics? why the correct distance? Why the natural
processes? why is the condition of earth just right for life?

I am sensing that you are avoiding the issue. Trying to confuse me or other readers. My guess is you are afraid to answer the question WHY? "Why" questions require reason/purpose/ or goal that's why. And, I sense that you won't admit this.It's scary for you because it will make P3 valid...and...

Let me illustrate the difference between HOW and WHY?

Fact: Salmon goes upstream--overcoming great obstacles--on the way.

How does the Salmon do it? By means of natural process, bodily clock, perhaps, etc.

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-10-2008 4:25 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2008 4:47 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 92 by dogrelata, posted 10-10-2008 5:06 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action
 Message 93 by Huntard, posted 10-10-2008 5:32 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 185 (485678)
10-10-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by NOT JULIUS
10-10-2008 3:45 PM


Re: Why are u are giving correct answers to the WRONG question?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-10-2008 3:45 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-10-2008 4:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 89 of 185 (485683)
10-10-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
10-10-2008 4:25 PM


Warning To Catholic Scientist
Cath writes:

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

That admission I agree. Did you not notice that my proof is not scientific but by argument--a branch of philosophy?

You lose because you lost your cool. I'm calling Admin to warn you. How do I do that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-10-2008 4:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-10-2008 9:34 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 90 of 185 (485684)
10-10-2008 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by NOT JULIUS
10-10-2008 3:45 PM


Re: Why are u are giving correct answers to the WRONG question?
Most of you are answering the question HOW? My questions are WHY?
Why the laws of physics? why the correct distance? Why the natural
processes? why is the condition of earth just right for life?

I am sensing that you are avoiding the issue. Trying to confuse me or other readers. My guess is you are afraid to answer the question WHY? "Why" questions require reason/purpose/ or goal that's why. And, I sense that you won't admit this.It's scary for you because it will make P3 valid...and...

Let me illustrate the difference between HOW and WHY?

Fact: Salmon goes upstream--overcoming great obstacles--on the way.

How does the Salmon do it? By means of natural process, bodily clock, perhaps, etc.

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.

Why is the hole the exact shape for the puddle created?
Because the goal of the hole was the puddle.

Do you really not see the problem here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-10-2008 3:45 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-10-2008 5:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022