Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
108 online now:
nwr, PaulK (2 members, 106 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,958 Year: 5,070/6,534 Month: 490/794 Week: 116/89 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 81 of 638 (720286)
02-21-2014 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Drosophilla
02-21-2014 8:35 AM


Re: For the last time
As Dr Adequate points out the third element in Atomic Number order is Lithium - a white silvery alkali metal that is highly reactive and never found in free atomic form in nature but in compounds instead.

Lithium can be a bit reactive, so perhaps we should show concern when handling Lithium, but hardly scared.

Perhaps our new contributor is referring to Tritium (3H) instead. It does decay and produce high energy photons that could cause harm if Tritium is ingested, but not exactly the spookiest or most energetic of radioactive elements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Drosophilla, posted 02-21-2014 8:35 AM Drosophilla has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 82 of 638 (720287)
02-21-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by dadman
02-21-2014 10:03 AM


Re: pearls and swine
that's alright .. I don't waste time with those of puffed chests / grit teeth and clenched fists . . . . you have more important issues to deal with . . . later folks .... cheers

Perhaps dadman is following the advice of one of our previous Presidents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dadman, posted 02-21-2014 10:03 AM dadman has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 120 of 638 (720513)
02-24-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by dadman
02-21-2014 2:42 PM


Re: very good stile .... you are correct
information is the correct answer . . . now, how do I plan to make the connection to all life ?

Every single chemical and physical state has information. Finding information is not a way to distinguish life from non-life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dadman, posted 02-21-2014 2:42 PM dadman has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 121 of 638 (720514)
02-24-2014 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Coyote
02-21-2014 4:27 PM


Re: science and life
If you want a spider, why are you thinking Corvairs!???
Here's a spider!

Here's a ferocious Dino!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Coyote, posted 02-21-2014 4:27 PM Coyote has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 196 of 638 (725058)
04-23-2014 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Ed67
04-23-2014 7:10 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Now, do you agree that scientists have found what Crick called a 'code' embedded in the nucleic acids?

Can you show us where the code is in this picture?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:10 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:44 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 245 of 638 (725322)
04-25-2014 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Ed67
04-23-2014 7:44 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
good one. Any high school student can tell you that - in the base pair arrangement, of course.

No, seriously, you knew that, right?

I don't see a code. Can you please describe it for me?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:44 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Ed67, posted 04-25-2014 11:06 PM Taq has replied
 Message 255 by Omnivorous, posted 04-26-2014 8:54 AM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 313 of 638 (725677)
04-30-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Ed67
04-25-2014 11:06 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Here, I'll let the good folks at the University of Washington tell you what they see...

I want to hear it from you. What makes it a code? For example . . .

"Genomes contain both a genetic code specifying amino acids and a regulatory code specifying transcription factor (TF) recognition sequences. We used genomic deoxyribonuclease I footprinting to map nucleotide resolution TF occupancy across the human exome in 81 diverse cell types. We found that ~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (“duons”) that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites. "

How is it specified?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Ed67, posted 04-25-2014 11:06 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 314 of 638 (725679)
04-30-2014 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Ed67
04-26-2014 10:50 PM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
You are correct. The code necessary to sustain life is integrated with the chemistry of the DNA molecule, of course.

How is that any different than the code that is integrated into oxygen and hydrogen to make water?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Ed67, posted 04-26-2014 10:50 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 346 of 638 (734373)
07-28-2014 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by mram10
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


Evolution could have found a better way to allow for more anti-bodies and viral resistance than to make 2 different sets of organs, separate hormone levels, etc.

Huh? What does sexual reproduction have to do with anti-bodies and viral resistance?

There are the standard evolution talking points, but the complexity of nature is too much to LOGICALLY discount a designer.

Where is the evidence and testable mechanisms needed to logically include a designer in a scientific theory?

Perhaps you should read up on cosmic teapots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Where did natural selection get it's intelligence?

Begging the quesiton. First, show that natural selection has intelligence.

Where did the intelligence come from to make the different sexes?

The same type of intelligence that fluids use to put the hotter fluids on top of the colder fluids.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM mram10 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


(3)
Message 375 of 638 (736722)
09-12-2014 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by taiji2
09-12-2014 5:51 AM


Re: Welcome
My challenge to you is to show me anything in nature that doesn't reek of sophisticated design.

That's an easy one: the nested hierarchy.

The pattern of shared and derived characteristics in complex life screams evolution and blind inheritance. A designer would be free to swap and mix design units as he see fits. Therefore, with design we expect there to be a lack of a nested hierarchy, and this is true for human designs. For example, automobiles and computers do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Artwork even by the same artist does not fall into a nested hierarchy. The observation of a nested hierarchy is smoking gun evidence of evolution, and contrary to everything we would expect from a intelligent design process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 5:51 AM taiji2 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 388 of 638 (736747)
09-12-2014 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by taiji2
09-12-2014 4:21 PM


Re: Welcome
We are down to opinions I think.

It started with your opinion that there is sophisticated design.

I think it is much more fruitful to look at the objective morphological and genetic data to see if the pattern of shared and derived features matches what we would expect to see from design and evolution. What do you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 4:21 PM taiji2 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 389 of 638 (736748)
09-12-2014 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by taiji2
09-12-2014 4:33 PM


Re: Welcome
Not my place to argue why the architect put the sewer so close to the playground.

You can't ask someone to point to bad design, and then produce an excuse of why no one is allowed to judge designs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 4:33 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by taiji2, posted 09-12-2014 6:16 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 392 of 638 (736751)
09-12-2014 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2014 5:18 PM


Re: Welcome
and you could say "Oh, well, it's not my place to argue why the designer, in his infinite wisdom, chose to do that."

Reminds me of one of my favoritie quotes. I think I saw it first here at EvC, so credit goes to somebody for passing along this gem.

"[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so."— William Of Conches


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2014 5:18 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 477 of 638 (736983)
09-15-2014 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by taiji2
09-13-2014 3:58 PM


Re: the eyes have it
I am arguing front-end design.

What you are arguing for is a design argument where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution.

I consider this to be a dishonest argument. You are essentially saying that the best evidence for intelligent design is the complete lack of evidence for intelligent design.

Here are the facts. If evolution is true we would expect to see a nested hierarchy for independent phylogenies. That is exactly what we observe. All of the evidence is consistent with what we would expect from evolution. So how can this be evidence for design?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by taiji2, posted 09-13-2014 3:58 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by taiji2, posted 09-15-2014 3:56 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8523
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 487 of 638 (737010)
09-15-2014 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by taiji2
09-15-2014 3:56 PM


Re: the eyes have it
I do not concede that I am arguing "where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution". Could be, could also not be.

The tell us what the distribution of shared and derived features should look like if ID is true, and why.

However, I could make that argument and it would not be frivolous in my cosmological view. To use an analogy, the Tao (point of "intelligence" discussion on my cosmological view) could very well have metaphorically picked up the little glass ball, shook it, and sat back to observe the curious way the snow falls on the little village inside the glass ball. The Tao must needs have somehow come across the little glass ball to do this in the first place, ergo design. Where is the argument for design being preempted by the lack of intelligent intervention in subsequent events?

Then the designer is irrelevant and superfluous to the actual development of species. So much for ID.

I of course cannot control how you consider it. I can say it is not meant to be dishonest argument. And no, I am not saying all the rest of what you just said. Those are your words not mine.

If that is not what you are saying, then tell us how we can differentiate ID from evolution where it concerns the distribution of shared and derived characteristics. If you can't show us how the two are different, then you have tacitly conceded the point.

I am not claiming the footprint of non-intervened evolution is evidence for design. I am claiming that such evidence is equally not a solid premise for arguing against design. Nothing about evolution precludes the idea of a preexistent design.

Once again, you are given the chance to unmuddy the waters, and you just muddy them further. You still can't separate ID and evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by taiji2, posted 09-15-2014 3:56 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by taiji2, posted 09-15-2014 4:54 PM Taq 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