Evidence to expect given a designer

This is only a trick question of course. Since we are only finite beings how would we ever observer the infinity of something? Let's suppose I were to look at some object that did in fact exist infinitely. How would I know that it did? Since I have not existed infinitely, I couldn't state for sure the object did or didn't.However infinity as a concept is something we most definitely can observe. The concept of directions like East or West are infinite. So is the end of the value of Pi. A sequence of numbers is infinite, and likewise is the concept of time... infinite. Many similar examples can be given.

No reason but the specificity observed in the universe.

Hey Doc, I have already responded a couple of times to your broad painting accusations that all the (insert professional title here) disagree with me. But you continue on with bliss. Also I have nothing really to say to someone who just replies basically with, "Na uh!"I wish you nothing but good health, long life, and to be prosperous my friend.

Yes it is true by definition. But why do we know it is true? Because of observation. Therefore I meant exactly what I said. We seem to be in agreement that intended objects by nature require an intelligent source. The problem is when anyone tries to nail down just what constitutes a fair means by which one can accurately detect and asses "intent." This is where there seems to be a gross double standard on the part of atheists and agnostics. As I have already pointed out, no one seems to have any problem using the specificity of the information in a dolphins communication, to detect and determine levels of intelligence. And no on has trouble with an archaeologist using patterns of specific information that he foreknows from completely independent sources to determine if an object he is examining is man made or naturally formed. Actually I can not think of a single case in which "intent" is detected apart from the use of specificity as I have already defined here. However Katy bar the door and all hell brakes loose the moment someone points out that this same specificity is observed in something that implies the involvement of a Supreme Being.The moment someone does that, then in a desperate attempt to find a loop hole, the conversation suddenly degrades into quibbling over the definition of words... to the point that you practically have to define the very word "DEFINE." Its all really quite very comical to watch. I fully understand that patterns can be produced by unintelligent sources, but you seem to be using pattern and "code" as if they were synonymous. I would like to see an example of a "code" that was observed having formed by unintelligent sources. Think about what you are saying. That's like saying that out of 500 billion dump-trucks full of marbles you find only one marble with a perfect biosphere and intelligent organisms living on it, and saying "Oh well there is nothing really all that unique about it."

Since we only know about the life that is found on Earth, we have no grounds with which to even speculate. Any speculation of how life could form (or be created) had the universe been different, would be pure H.G. Wells fantasy. Right now we know that carbon is one of the key elements necessary to have life. Any slight change in just one of the proportions of virtually all the laws of physics would render the existence of carbon impossible.

I think though you were trying to trip me up in my words, you inadvertently supported my point. My point again is that we have never observed something come from nothing. And that science is based on observation not speculation. The fact that we have neither the means nor the ability to observe something come from nothing should it happen, does nothing to change that point. All things we have observed come into existence thus far in our human experience have come from something else. Therefore based on that observation we have no reason to suppose the universe came from nothing.

I'm not disagreeing with you that there is no evidence that something existed prior to the formation of the universe. However there is ample evidence to suggest that the universe did have a beginning. Therefore when we are trying to speculate about that beginning, we must use the only frame of reference available. What do we observe now? We must take that observation and utilize it to postulate the most logical conclusions of what happened then. I wouldn't look at what we observe now and say, "Gee I guess the universe poofed in to existence from nothing all by itself." There is nothing observable today that one can use to make such an illogical conclusion. Lol. Since the existence of a computer must already exist in order for me to know to wave my wand and create one, then the actual device necessarily would have to have been designed and I would merely be "poofing" a replicated copy. If you are inferring that that was how Christians believe God created things, then you are sadly mistaken. We believe that He could design every facet of something all in His head at instantaneous speeds. His sketch, his "paton," his research, his tests, his blueprints, all took place in his mind in an instant of time. From the smallest proton up to the inter workings of the heart and eyes, ears, and everything else.But now we have strayed away from talking about what I can prove, and gone to talking about what I believe. Something I think no one in this thread really cares about.

My apology there Doc. I was just doing something that us under educated lay people call, "communicating within operating constructs of an abstract analogy."

You are just busting at the seems to talk about bacteria aren't you? Its incredible to me how someone can take a single celled organism which bares almost no resemblance to the incredible diversity of multi-celled organisms found on Earth and use it as their sole biological argument for universal common decent. An interesting thought to chew on for a few moments, is to consider what a designer might have created bacteria for to begin with.They seem to be required as tiny micro recyclers in the soil and in the ocean, performing the major role in the decomposition process of organic matter. Without them there would be no recycling of the carbon and nitrogen needed to support life. Plants and animals just cant create some of these much needed chemicals. Scientists have even recently found that bacteria play a significant part in cloud formation and precipitation of rain and snow. Bacteria are needed inside the body to aid in the digestive process and to help us actually get more nutrients out of the food that we eat. There are more than 200 different species of bacteria living on the skin of the average human, helping to prevent many other harmful bacteria from taking up residence there.If you consider that a designer might have had an important purpose for creating bacteria, then you also have to consider that an intelligent designer would realize that they just can't pick up and migrate to a new location when food becomes scarce, like multi-celled organisms can. A designer would therefore probably "design" bacteria to have very unique and novel ways of finding food sources where they are, in order to perpetuate the species. This is one of the reasons I am so adamant about seeing an example in a multi-celled organism and not bacteria. And since you brought up nylonase bacteria, I will use them as an example to make my point.For those reading this who aren't familiar with the whole "nylon eating bacteria" argument, allow me a second to bring you up to speed. Basically the idea is that since nylon is a man made product that didn't exist until 1935, then these bacteria developing the ability to digest the manufacturer waste product (according to the argument) must have "evolved" to be able to do so. The Nylonase flag was raised by atheists and planted firmly into the hill of intelligent design, and touted as a great victory!But hold da phone somebody... notice the very first line in Taq's abstract:

quote:

---

Flavobacterium sp. strain KI725 harbors plasmid pOAD21, a derivative of nylon oligomer-degradative plasmid pOAD2, in which all of nylA (the gene for 6-aminohexanoate cyclic dimer hydrolase [EI]) was deleted but nylB (the gene for 6-aminohexanoate dimer hydrolase [EII]) was retained.

---

I just want to first point out that all the changes occurred in the plasmids. But I'll get back to that. Since none of these new enzymes have been found to catalyze with any naturally occurring amide compounds, it is assumed that the enzymes are completely new and not just modified existing enzymes. The argument is usually made that this new enzyme (EII) was the result of a frame shift mutation, while others insist that it is actually the result of a loss of specification. And that is actually what the whole nylonase debate boils down to (frame shift mutation or loss of specification). Most ID proponents suggest that because five transposable elements exist on plasmid pOAD2 that it could be interpreted as evidence of it being "designed" to be adaptive.Opponents to ID argue that because the transposons jump around at random without regard to the cell’s need, therefore the mechanism is purely random mutation and natural selection. But considered the fact that transposons cleave to the DNA strand by use of an enzyme called transposase, which recognize specific sequences of nucleotides and these transposons insert into the DNA molecule. This in turn creates direct repeats on each side of the transposons, known as insertion sequences. When they are activated, transposase enzymes coded within, cause genetic recombination. External forces such as exposure to poison, starvation or high temperature are known to activate transposases.That tells us that it is in fact with regard to the cells need! Contrary to just randomly jumping around transposase existing with in the transposons, recognize specific nucleotide sequences and therefore there number on the plasmid does in fact suggest it is pre-designed to adapt under stress from outside forces. Its actually the existence of these five transposable elements that leads many scientists to doubt the claim that nylonase is an example of random mutation and natural selection generating new enzymes.Finally my case in point is this. For those of you who aren't familiar with plasmids, they are a small circular unit of DNA that replicate within a cell completely independent of the chromosomal DNA and are mostly only found in bacteria. But wait a second, the whole argument using nylonase is that they are an example showing us how DNA could have formed by natural processes. But if almost all other forms of life do not even have plasmids, then how is a bacterias "plasmid" manipulation a good example of evolution at work? It seems to me that instead of supporting universal common decent, they are in reality an example of the awesome wisdom of an intelligent designer.So again Taq, show me an example in the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism and we can talk.

Yes I don't intend to really sway the one's I am debating. I am aimed more at reaching the ones that just curiously sit on the side and watch. I want them to know that we aren't the bumbling fools the world paints us to be. That you don't have to check your brain at the door with the hats when you enter a church. That its not a blind leap into a dark chasm, but rather a faith based on evidence.Thank you for your kind words my friend.
Brad

That's just being stupid with my comments. I never said a supernatural deity is the conclusion for things that began. I said coming from something else is the conclusion for things that began. Oh really? I can name several off the top of my head if you like that do make that claim. Spetner, Stephen Myer, Frank L. Marsh, Gary E. Parker, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Douglas Axe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Albert Voie, John A. Davison, D.W. Snoke, David Berlinski, Scott Minnich, Stephen Meyer, Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig, H. Saedler, Granville Sewell, David L Abel, Jack T Trevors, Robert Marks, Kurt Dunston and David KY Chiu, etc. No rather you are slinging the "bulls" crap. Your crappy rebuttal relies on the notion that there are any number of possibilities that exist. In other words, that there is something like a "barn" to paint a bull's eye on when the bullet hits. The notion that life could have formed any number of ways given any number of variables is just a way of stinking up the facts. Like I told Percy, in order to validate this argument it becomes necessary to present at least one life form that exists which could not have come from these particular Earth parameters. How many actual non Earth life forms can you name? I'll give you a hint... you can count them all on zero hands.

So was it that a fat hippo sat on Thumbelina's umbrella, or did an intelligently designed computer crunch out a configuration based on intelligently programmed algorithms?

Really... that's your big come back Paul? I just splattered a list off the top of my head of ID scientists, for speed, but you don't think if I slowed down picked through them more carefully I can come up specifically with microbiologists?

So... is science something we base on what we haven't observed, or on what we have?

Well again I don't think anyone here really want's us to debate what my "holy writ" book does or doesn't say. Suffice to say that just because it doesn't tell us the how, doesn't mean there wasn't a "how." But that's the great thing, as some refer to it as the "Living" Word, it speaks to each of us right where we are. From the simplistic to the analytic, it will meet you right on your level. Lol. I could pinch myself and see if I wake up. (grin) Seriously though you are very right. How could I know. However that kind of reminds me of a saying my old Pastor used to say. "Even puppy love is real to the puppy." Excuse me? Unfalsifiable? Lets look again and see if that is true.Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing. (Can be falsified by observing one case of something coming from nothing.)Scientific observation B: the universe "began." (Can be falsified by observations which show it has always existed.)Scientific observation D: When artifacts are studied basic facts about their origin can be conferred. Such as the observation that only things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern, are produced by intelligent sources. (Can be falsified by one observed case of something with this kind of specificity being formed by unguided natural processes.)Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes. (Can be falsified by just one case to the contrary)Scientific observation F: The 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems. (Can be falsified by observing one other case of another planetary system with the existence of native life)