Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 541 of 638 (737122)
09-17-2014 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by taiji2
09-17-2014 1:19 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:
Would the discovery that DNA is frontloaded and the 92% of unused human DNA represents potential as well as evolution be considered relatively small?
You tell me. What earth-shattering changes in the theory of evolution would that discovery cause? Pertinent to the topic, how would it point toward design?
taiji2 writes:
This is a pet theory, not a real theory.
It's not even a real hypothesis until you propose a way of testing it.
taiji2 writes:
Why does everyone say "woo-woo" or some other equally derogatory term when mentioning design?
Because "design" suggests "designer" and "insert miracle here".
taiji2 writes:
If design is there it is simply design. If design is not there it is simply not there.
But it isn't simple, is it? Nobody seems to be able to tell us what "design" would look like if it was there. The only tests for "design" that I've seen are the equivalent of, "If it looks like an elephant it must be designed."
taiji2 writes:
I would never make the proposition that god said "let there be France"
Why not? What's the difference between designing France and designing DNA?
taiji2 writes:
ringo writes:
Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition.
I have consulted Merriam-Webster and did not see evidence mentioned.
That's odd. I consulted Merriam-Webster and I found:
quote:
1: marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience link
"Experience" would be evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 1:19 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 542 of 638 (737123)
09-17-2014 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by taiji2
09-17-2014 1:19 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:
ringo writes:
Nobody does. Science, by its very nature is "adjustable". Everybody who accepts science expects the theory of evolution to be modified on an ongoing basis.
Ok, I will take your word. I am pretty sure I have seen statements here that violate that, but I will accept what you say is true and that others might have misspoke.
Ringo is saying the same thing others have already said, that science is tentative. Our understanding of the natural world can change in light of new information or improved insight.
ringo writes:
However, we expect the modifications to be relatively small.
Would the discovery that DNA is frontloaded ...be considered relatively small?
No. That would be big.
Would the discovery that...92% of unused human DNA represents potential as well as evolution be considered relatively small?
No, because it wouldn't represent a change in our understanding. That unused DNA, also called junk DNA, can become coding DNA has long been an accepted view within science. Also, we're now coming to understand that a great deal of what was formerly thought to be unused DNA actually has a purpose, that it can perform regulatory functions. Given that evolution employs a "whatever works" approach we should expect the future to bring more unexpected surprises about how DNA works.
Why does everyone say "woo-woo" or some other equally derogatory term when mentioning design?
Because when you weigh the evidence for design against the evidence for "woo-woo" things like ghosts and sasquatch, they come out equal.
ringp writes:
Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition.
I have consulted Merriam-Webster and did not see evidence mentioned. Where should I look.
I think you should look within yourself and give a serious response next time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 1:19 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 5:12 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 543 of 638 (737124)
09-17-2014 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by taiji2
09-17-2014 11:33 AM


Re: The Tao
No, I want to make the natural laws is design argument
You haven't done so. In fact, I don't even see that you even brought it up until I tried to chase you off of your "beautiful atoms" argument.
So if you have an argument make it.
You failed to mention the negative charge of the lepton, but that is ok, I got it.
Was it necessary for me to do so?
Why protons, leptons and energy?
You would be doing exactly what RAZD is doing. Begging the question. You are asking 'have you stopped beating your wife, yet questions. Perhaps there is no answer other than that is how time/space/matter/energy work. Perhaps the only answer is that a property of the pre-cursor to the universe is bound to create energy in the form of quarks and leptons without any intervention.
What you are missing is that I am not trying to prove to you that the universe has no why answer or no ultimate creator. All I am suggesting is that you cannot infer any such designer from the simple fact that the universe can be described in either simple or complex terms. Accordingly, your claim to have reached that conclusion logically can be shown to be a farce.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 11:33 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by 1.61803, posted 09-17-2014 3:39 PM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 547 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 4:26 PM NoNukes has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 544 of 638 (737125)
09-17-2014 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by NoNukes
09-17-2014 1:57 PM


Re: The Tao
Hello NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
Perhaps there is no answer other than that is how time/space/matter/energy work.
I hate that saying, "it is what it is." That has become so popular in discussions.
I am reminded of my young daughter who always seems to have a "but why" at the end of every answer.
Inevitably I have to say, " I don't know." It is what it is.
But what a boring world we would live in if we knew everything.
The discovery of the Higgs was one of the most amazing achievments but it seems to have only opened the door to more questions, more but why? Why is the Higgs in the middle between a universe that may someday be explained or to one that is arbitrary. The mystery continues, the final answer postponed yet again.
We can choose to believe there is a reson de entre' or we can simply say it is what it is.
I tend to flip back and forth depending on my mood that day.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 1:57 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by Tangle, posted 09-17-2014 4:14 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 545 of 638 (737126)
09-17-2014 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 544 by 1.61803
09-17-2014 3:39 PM


Re: The Tao
1.6 writes:
We can choose to believe there is a reson de entre' or we can simply say it is what it is.
Or we just say that we don't know. Yet.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by 1.61803, posted 09-17-2014 3:39 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by 1.61803, posted 09-17-2014 4:23 PM Tangle has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 546 of 638 (737128)
09-17-2014 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by Tangle
09-17-2014 4:14 PM


Re: The Tao
Tangle writes:
Or we just say that we don't know. Yet.
But wHy???
Ok that is a third option. One that seems to be in line with "it is what it is." It is what is because we don't know yet what it is or why it is.
The natural laws of the universe operate in the way they do and exist the way they do because we do not know yet.
Edited by 1.61803, : redundant

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by Tangle, posted 09-17-2014 4:14 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 5:12 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 547 of 638 (737130)
09-17-2014 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by NoNukes
09-17-2014 1:57 PM


Re: The Tao
No, I want to make the natural laws is design argument
NoNukes writes:
You haven't done so. In fact, I don't even see that you even brought it up until I tried to chase you off of your "beautiful atoms" argument.
So if you have an argument make it.
Actually I have brought it up. I've brought it up several times in one context or another. I see you haven't read my prior posts. Admittedly, I have not written anything that qualifies as a position paper on it. I think even if I had, you would want for it to have been published before you consider it. So I choose not to make an argument again that I have already made. If you want, you can actually read my prior posts and ask for clarification on anything I have said. If you do not want, then that is ok too.
You failed to mention the negative charge of the lepton, but that is ok, I got it.
NoNukes writes:
Was it necessary for me to do so?
No, absolutely not necessary. I just found it curious you didn't. You found it important to mention the positive charge of the proton.
Why protons, leptons and energy?
NoNukes writes:
You would be doing exactly what RAZD is doing. Begging the question. You are asking 'have you stopped beating your wife, yet questions. Perhaps there is no answer other than that is how time/space/matter/energy work. Perhaps the only answer is that a property of the pre-cursor to the universe is bound to create energy in the form of quarks and leptons without any intervention.
And perhaps we just don't know. Doesn't mean it isn't important. You have a very valid point though, RAZD is much more qualified to discuss the question of why with you. It was his idea after all. I shall defer to RAZD your further observations as to why.
NoNukes writes:
What you are missing is that I am not trying to prove to you that the universe has no why answer or no ultimate creator.
Nor am I trying to prove to you the counter. We are having a conversation. I recognize coming to those proofs is beyond my capability. That is not to say I believe it impossible to come closer to the truth through logic and reasonable deduction and, yes science. It just hasn't been done.
NoNukes writes:
All I am suggesting is that you cannot infer any such designer from the simple fact that the universe can be described in either simple or complex terms.
Well yes one can infer that. Millions and billions of people have and have (do) make that inference. That is a large population of observers gathering evidence. The rub seems to be around pinning down what is design and what is evidence for design. That would be a good place to start if science ever chooses to discuss a way to properly pursue ID.
NoNukes writes:
Accordingly, your claim to have reached that conclusion logically can be shown to be a farce.
Put "My opinion is" in front of that and we are good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 1:57 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by 1.61803, posted 09-17-2014 4:45 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 549 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 5:01 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 557 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2014 12:00 AM taiji2 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 548 of 638 (737131)
09-17-2014 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by taiji2
09-17-2014 4:26 PM


Re: The Tao
Hello Taiji2,
Taiji2 writes:
Well yes one can infer that. Millions and billions of people have and have (do) make that inference. That is a large population of observers gathering evidence.
This is a appeal to popularity argument.
The rub seems to be around pinning down what is design and what is evidence for design.
Lets do that. How would you define design as and what evidence would you present.
Unless you are using your atom is complex therefore is designed
argument. Because it was refuted by NoNukes stating the atom is not complex. So you could perhaps come up with a complex system that could not possibly be non designed. Like the Rhodopsin cycle of the human eye, or the Kreb cycle.
Which NoNukes refuted that complexity is also not a adequate evidence of design.
So how about Goddidit? This requires no evidence. Just faith and belief. But that is for another forum other than Science que no?

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 4:26 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 549 of 638 (737134)
09-17-2014 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by taiji2
09-17-2014 4:26 PM


Re: The Tao
That is not to say I believe it impossible to come closer to the truth through logic and reasonable deduction and, yes science. It just hasn't been done.
I appreciate your honesty, and I apologize for the rather pointed nature of my inquiries. The majority of the people who come here and claim that the universe or conch shells must be designed pretend to have it all sorted.
RAZD is much more qualified to discuss the question of why with you.
Perhaps, but RAZD and I seem to be nitpicking each other with the dictionary for want of something better to do. Nothing will come from that.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 4:26 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 553 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 5:26 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 550 of 638 (737135)
09-17-2014 5:10 PM


My argument for design :
There is no underlying truth or reality, it is what it is. The Universe and humanity exist in the software of a alien super intelligent artificial sentient lifeform for the soul purpose of entertainment. It is a highly complex programming masterpiece.
The game is self running and models the cosmos completely.
It can not be predicted or understood because the operating parameters have been left out by the designers. The game resets after all available energy reaches maximum entropy.
Many of the underlying mechanisms of how the game manifest reality seem to point to various themes and overtime seem to merge into one unique principal of operation. But several key bits of information simply do not exist in this game and therefore it is unsolvable.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 551 of 638 (737136)
09-17-2014 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by 1.61803
09-17-2014 4:23 PM


Re: The Tao
The discovery of the Higgs was one of the most amazing achievments but it seems to have only opened the door to more questions, more but why?
Perhaps this notion that the laws of science 'operate' is simply flawed. Which laws do you think it makes sense to think of in this way?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by 1.61803, posted 09-17-2014 4:23 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by 1.61803, posted 09-17-2014 5:28 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 552 of 638 (737137)
09-17-2014 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 542 by Percy
09-17-2014 1:53 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:
ringo writes:
Nobody does. Science, by its very nature is "adjustable". Everybody who accepts science expects the theory of evolution to be modified on an ongoing basis.
Ok, I will take your word. I am pretty sure I have seen statements here that violate that, but I will accept what you say is true and that others might have misspoke.
Percy writes:
Ringo is saying the same thing others have already said, that science is tentative. Our understanding of the natural world can change in light of new information or improved insight.
I have no problem with what ringo said. I did observe other comments on the thread that were not what ringo said. I do not claim all other comments on the thread were not what ringo said. It is really a non-ussue with me for further remarks though, doesn't move the conversation forward.
ringo writes:
However, we expect the modifications to be relatively small.
Would the discovery that DNA is frontloaded ...be considered relatively small?
Percy writes:
No. That would be big.
I could ask what would that mean to the theory, but that would take us to another conversation which is not what I care to do at this time. So, my question is asked and answered.
Would the discovery that...92% of unused human DNA represents potential as well as evolution be considered relatively small?
Percy writes:
No, because it wouldn't represent a change in our understanding. That unused DNA, also called junk DNA, can become coding DNA has long been an accepted view within science. Also, we're now coming to understand that a great deal of what was formerly thought to be unused DNA actually has a purpose, that it can perform regulatory functions. Given that evolution employs a "whatever works" approach we should expect the future to bring more unexpected surprises about how DNA works.
Thank you. I was not aware of this accepted view. I just learned and you taught me. Do you have a revision to the old 92% junk number that floats around for us common folk? I have many questions, but presume you don't want to teach on this forum. If you have any references to reading though, I do have a keen interest.
Why does everyone say "woo-woo" or some other equally derogatory term when mentioning design?
Percy writes:
Because when you weigh the evidence for design against the evidence for "woo-woo" things like ghosts and sasquatch, they come out equal.
ringp writes:
Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition.
I have consulted Merriam-Webster and did not see evidence mentioned. Where should I look.
Percy writes:
I think you should look within yourself and give a serious response next time.
No lack of seriousness intended, truly. The word evidence has special meaning for science, correct? ringo made a flat statement that any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition, The word she referenced for definition was fanciful. I looked fanciful up in Merriam-Webster and found no reference to evidence in any of the accepted definitions. My suggestion is perhaps she should find a better word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Percy, posted 09-17-2014 1:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2014 9:04 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 559 by Percy, posted 09-18-2014 9:09 AM taiji2 has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 553 of 638 (737139)
09-17-2014 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by NoNukes
09-17-2014 5:01 PM


Re: The Tao
That is not to say I believe it impossible to come closer to the truth through logic and reasonable deduction and, yes science. It just hasn't been done.
NoNukes writes:
I appreciate your honesty, and I apologize for the rather pointed nature of my inquiries. The majority of the people who come here and claim that the universe or conch shells must be designed pretend to have it all sorted.
No sweat on the pointy stuff. It has been good for my skin actually .
I have been referred to as prickly and disputatious here. Though I don't intend that, I see how I might be interpreted that way.
RAZD is much more qualified to discuss the question of why with you.
NoNukes writes:
Perhaps, but RAZD and I seem to be nitpicking each other with the dictionary for want of something better to do. Nothing will come from that.
Perhaps. I have found it interesting reading though

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 5:01 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 554 of 638 (737140)
09-17-2014 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by NoNukes
09-17-2014 5:12 PM


Re: The Tao
NoNukes writes:
Perhaps this notion that the laws of science 'operate' is simply flawed.
Perhaps, but I tend to look at things from a human point of view. Being that I am human.
NoNukes writes:
Which laws do you think it makes sense to think of in this way?
In terms of operation? Then does that not imply a operator? (kidding) Not sure what you mean, I'll guess you mean that I am guilty of perhaps thinking of "natural laws" as "things" when they are simply the way physics happens and physics is the lingusitic description/representation of those phenomenon. Regardless the constants and laws that have been discovered do not need to make any sense at all. Humans are the ones that tend to look for symmetry, patterns and significance. At least I do. The universe could care less.
Edited by 1.61803, : spelling.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 5:12 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 555 of 638 (737149)
09-17-2014 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by taiji2
09-17-2014 5:12 PM


Re: The Tao
No lack of seriousness intended, truly. The word evidence has special meaning for science, correct? ringo made a flat statement that any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition, The word she referenced for definition was fanciful. I looked fanciful up in Merriam-Webster and found no reference to evidence in any of the accepted definitions. My suggestion is perhaps she should find a better word.
Well, after a few minutes with a thesaurus, how about baseless, conjectural, groundless, hypothetical, imaginary, notional, speculative, suppositional, unconfirmed, uncorroborated, unestablished, unevidenced, unfounded, unjustifiable, unproven, unsubstantiated, unsupported, unverified, or up in the air?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 5:12 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024