|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
quote: thanks RAZD. this helps a lot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I am arguing front-end design. I don't want to argue where that design came from other than to make the assumption that design is an idea derived from intelligence. RAZD writes: In other words, the universe was designed so that abiogenesis and evolution would occur, and that they are the means by which the diversity of life as we know it has occurred This conforms to the evidence so I would conclude this was the design yes.
RAZD writes:
yes yes and yes. However, I do not argue against intervention. It would certainly be possible within my posit, however I have seen no credible evidence to conclude that it has occurred. Further activity by god/s if you want to call it that is not necessary, but then again it is not impossible either.
Or to be more explicit: what is designed is the set of "natural laws" that govern how thinks work, how gravity works, how fusion and fission work, how chemistry works, etc etc etc and once set in motion, no further activity by god/s is necessary. RAZD writes:
I do not know enough about science to offer an opinion of whether science should investigate how but not why. If the field of science decides it needs to know the why I would have no problem with that.
Thus science can investigate how things work but not why they work the way they do instead of some other way. Since the idea (design) involved in my notion is primal, it cannot by definition have anything to borrow from. All arguments requiring borrowing are therefore moot. RAZD writes: Nor can there be any way to determine design from non-design, ie - that an organism was designed to be as we see it today (a concept that I have some issues with, such as why were there so many wasted paths - extinctions - before getting to the design today) or that the universe was designed to produce an organism as we see today (which I don't have issues with), no matter how sophisticated you consider the organism to be. You can't have it both ways. I am not sure exactly where you are going here. Are we talking about the intent of the original design? Design toward a specific predetermined outcome v something else? In my belief system, The Tao continuously creates itself. Intent is not spoken of much. I suppose it could be creating through nothing but front-end design, or using infrequent manipulation as well or using frequent manipulation as well. Taoists don't speculate on that very much in my reading. In fact, there is a warning in Taoism to not think too much on the Tao itself or on creation as this can drive you crazy.
RAZD writes:
interesting. I think it's a good analogy that fits in my cosmic model.
Note that computer programs have been written and run using evolution algorithms to develop objects to perform certain functions, and it appears to be a very robust method of achieving the end goal - in spite of the dead-ends abandoned along the way. If design is not, therefore, a good word to use, please give me a better one. RAZD writes: Design applies to art as well as to engineering, architecture, and vengeful people (), so I don't have much quibble with just the aspects of design per se, but I do with the concept that any specific organism was intended. nothing in my system requires specific organisms as intended Enjoy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
If my statement causes confusion, please give me the constraints that science uses beyond which it presumes anything is not real. I will use those constraints with the same questions. ThanksPercy writes: Your statement didn't cause confusion. I was simply pointing out that science doesn't restrict itself to the laboratory. The scientific method of studying our world and universe can be applied anywhere. The laboratory has the advantage of a controlled environment, but not all phenomena can be studied in the laboratory. Science can't answer questions about whether undetectable phenomena are real. If you claim there is more to reality than what we can detect, science can't verify that claim. Percy, thank you. I am not trying to be arbitrary, but could you point me to where I suggested answering questions on undetectable phenomena? I did suggest answering questions on phenomena that, by concensus at least, are real. Specifically I questioned whether science could answer questions on the reality of ideas. If so, what would that science look like?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
RAZD,
I know you excluded the previous message quotes to avoid producing one what would be much longer yet. However, I am having a very hard time jumping into these things mid-quote and figuring them out. I will go back to the original post and do the best I can but it will take me a while.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
thanks RAZD. Since these are all concepts referring to the use of the scientific method, could you give me the scientific method?
thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I have looked back over my posts with you. I do not see the word undetectable except in your mentioning it and in reference to you mentioning it.
I also don't see where I had objected to your interpretation. Since I apparantly communicated badly in the past, I will try it again. I simply want to know if there is anything which science agrees is real but that it also agrees cannot be studied using the scientific method. If the answer is no, then I am ok with that. If the answer is yes, then please give me an example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Thanks RAZD
If it would not be too much to ask, could you provide me an explicit list of any and all a priori assumptions used by science RE as to what is real or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes: I have looked back over my posts with you. I do not see the word undetectable except in your mentioning it and in reference to you mentioning it. Percy writes: As I just said, it was your description of the concentric circles that led me to believe you were talking about undetectable phenomena. You have an outer circle that is all of reality, and then you have a circle inside that that is only what "man CAN observe, measure, test and validate." I interpreted you to mean that the outer portion of the outer circle was undetectable phenomena. Well ok then. When I read what seemed (to me) to be a statement of fact that I had claimed the non-inclusive portion of the outer circle to be undetectable phenomena, I was reading instead your belief that I was leading you to this conclusion. Is this correct? If that is accurate, then my answer is that no, I was not leading you to believe that all outer circle only phenomena are undetectable.
I simply want to know if there is anything which science agrees is real but that it also agrees cannot be studied using the scientific method. Percy writes: Since we can only establish that something is real by observing it, I don't think any such thing exists. Is your statement "Since we can only establish that something is real by observing it" an a priori assumption that anything that cannot be observed is not real?
Percy writes: Black holes were hypothesized to exist long before there was any possibility of observational evidence, but that was a technological limitation. Naturally, in the absence of evidence there was no agreement within science that they were real. But once the technological limitations were overcome observational evidence accumulated within just a few decades sufficient to form a consensus that they're real. This reference to the black holes existence hypothesis seems (to me) to answer my above question to the negative, but I do not wish to put words in your mouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined:
|
RAZD,
Yes, I think we agree on many things based on our confluence so far. I have begun reading the "What Pursuit of ID Should Be" thread. Very interesting and I plan to begin asking questions there soon. I have started reading what I can find on the net re Deism. Interesting as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined:
|
This is interesting RAZD. I have some ideas and am going to take the science side on this one. I am a hobby artist, which is no particular qualification. But also as part of being a hobby artist, I have an avid interest in art history and development.
I hope to come up with some things you find interesting. Will take a bit of time, so will have to get back to you later on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined:
|
RAZD writes: I've edited Message 428 to add background quotes for clarity. Thanks RAZD. I haven't forgotten this one. I am answering stuff as time is available and I am guilty of answering the ones that can be done quick and dirty first. Thanks for the patience and all the help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Food for thought.
If a designer were to be tasked to produce a design for the simplest example of buidling block for matter (please don't quibble subatomic building blocks... I use them as material in this argument)........... could a designer come up with a better design than ...... danger here...... what is the apparent design...( to me.).. of the hydrogen atom? Edited by taiji2, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Dr. Adequate writes: Legos?Perhaps you could explain, if atoms were designed to be building blocks what are the inert gasses for? Dr. Adequate.Before we get off too far into the wild blue yonder, let me qualify my statement. I am a non-science person. My degrees are in Business Administration and Accountancy. I am also an individual with a world-view that presumes intelligent design. I chose to enter a forum where intelligent design is being discussed and debated. The non-design side of the debate seems to be mostly science oriented. To move forward in the discussion, I am forced to do so using science analogy and terminology to the best of my ability. I will most surely commit faux pas along the way. I would hope to be granted some leeway for making not exactly correct scientific references unless the references I make violate the point being made in the discussion. Elemental atoms as building blocks is a concept I took away from school. Simplistically, I understand the concept of combining two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom to yield water. I did not pursue scientific education to a higher level where reference to elemental atoms as building blocks would be considered silly and require further lecture. If referencing atoms as building blocks is an error, I retract that reference. Let me restate then. Could anyone propose a better design for a hydrogen atom. If the argument then becomes semantics over using the word design when referencing the structure of the hydrogen atom, then let's consider changing the name of the debate to Intelligent Structure. I really don't see the difference. All that said, I love science. I love reading science. If legos wishes to present some interesting reading on inert gases, I would be pleased to read it. Edited by taiji2, : I misspelled Legos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Could anyone propose a better design for a hydrogen atom.
Dr. Absolute writes: I dunno, what do you want to use it for? I mean, if you want to open bottles with it it should be a lot bigger and shaped like a corkscrew. I would like to begin with an apology. My previous response must have sounded like a quip. It was not intended that way. I presumed Logos (Legos) was the member name of another forum member you were calling forward to give (to me) information on inert gases for my benefit and enlightenment. I was expecting a reply from Logos. I even had initially responded on the post with Logos in my comments, so that was in my mind. After post, I noticed you had said Legos, not Logos so I posted a correction. It still had not occurred to me you were refencing the childs toy. Check my post and you will see that I edited the message giving the reason mispelled Legos. It was only after going back and rereading the message again that the lightbulb came on and I realized you were speaking of Legos, the childs' toy. I feel pretty redfaced about the whole thing. I am not as quick on my feet as I should be and apologize. So, if you will believe me that I meant no sarcasm, I will respond as I would have had I "gotten it" when I first read the note. Not knowing much about inert gases, I consulted Wiki. I understand what you are asking. Inert gases are highly UNreactive because their electron shells are full? Therefore inert gases are not good building blocks for much of anything because it is difficult to have them react with other atoms? A good question. My answer is I don't know. Perhaps inert substances coming into play would be useful in some scenarios for higher construct, but I have no knowledge on that one way or the other. Perhaps some designs require no further engineering to be useful. In my reading it did say Helium was substituted for Hydrogen in dirigibles since the inert gas is less flammable? In this case at least, the building block meets the need without further construct. Does the existence of less useful elements in the building blocks toolkit destroy my original question? I was simply making comment that, to me, the structure of an atom is a pretty incredible piece of design. I was inviting comments on that, nothing more. Sorry again. I really appreciate you being willing to engage me in conversation and hope my stupidity in this instance doesn't change that. And, by the way, thanks for forcing me into a quick science lesson. I recalled inert gases vaguely from the distant past, but had forgotten all details. I now feel more better informed having needed to look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3462 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Dr. Absolute writes:
The whole periodic table as a construction kit is the idea I remember from my science classes. I didn't want to overcomplicate my original post by bringing in all the elements. Maybe I should have
Let me explain about the inert gasses.Hydrogen atoms on their own are useless as building blocks. All you can make out of them are hydrogen molecules, H2. Boring. To make anything interesting you really need lots of sorts of atoms. We would have to postulate that the whole periodic table is a sort of construction kit. Dr. Absolute writes: Except that we have all these elements knocking about like helium and radon and argon and neon and xenon which you can't connect to anything. They're like a bunch of screwheads without shanks, you can't do anything with them. But they are sometimes useful on their own right? No more building required to fulfill a useful purpose? Also, are there any occasions where inert gases are useful in a process which "makes something interesting" with other elements? If that's not clear, I'm asking if they have utility as part of a process, even though their own atoms do not survive into the end result?
Dr. Absolute writes: So we have to think that if the periodic table was designed as a set of building blocks, it was designed badly, since it's got lots of "building blocks" that you can't build anything out of. See my above. This is interesting stuff. My layperson guess is that the very fact that there are unreactive parts (or tools) in the parts (or tool) box might make it a more interesting kit to use overall. Kinda makes me wish I had become a chemist rather than an accountant.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024