Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Design?

bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Complexity, contingency, Purpose.

You know what complex is. It is designed if it isn't contingent, so chance could not have produced it, and if it was made to do something or work, like solar systems and biological systems, then it has purpose.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:02:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

I take it what you have in mind is intelligent design. How do you tell the difference between something that is the way it is because some one or something "choose" it to be that way ?

Evolution produces "design" too, but that doesn't mean its "intelligent design", same with ice crystals.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.

contingency,
It is designed if it isn't contingent

I'm just going to go ahead and say that makes no sense.

Purpose.

I can write a book consisting of 400 pages of nothing but word salad; it would be utterly pointless; no one would read it; yet it was designed.

It's difficult for a theist to come up with a convincing method to determine what is or isn't designed when he believes the universe and every single thing in it is designed. "Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:24:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.

contingency,
It is designed if it isn't contingent

I'm just going to go ahead and say that makes no sense.

Purpose.

I can write a book consisting of 400 pages of nothing but word salad; it would be utterly pointless; no one would read it; yet it was designed.

It's difficult for a theist to come up with a convincing method to determine what is or isn't designed when he believes the universe and every single thing in it is designed. "Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.

Give the man a cigar. And as such there exists nothing that can be used by the design wannabe's to compare there alleged designed objects to. According to them a rock is designed as is the Statue of David, they can't tell the difference.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:29:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.
No, it is incredibly complex. To make a sheet of paper you must have the correct trees which are themselves incredibly complex, then you must have machines to turn them into paper and the intelligent beings to create the machines to make that paper. The end result is a paper, a woven fabric of bleached and treated trees.

contingency,
It is designed if it isn't contingent

I'm just going to go ahead and say that makes no sense.
If it could have arisen out of natural processes, then it is not necessarily designed.

Purpose.

I can write a book consisting of 400 pages of nothing but word salad; it would be utterly pointless; no one would read it; yet it was designed.
Not that sort of purpose. Purpose meaning if it has operative functions


It's difficult for a theist to come up with a convincing method to determine what is or isn't designed when he believes the universe and every single thing in it is designed. "Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:48:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

"Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.

Yes I agree, should one deny the possibility it all was designed? Is that not just point of opinion that is very logical?
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 5:08:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity, contingency, Purpose.

You know what complex is. It is designed if it isn't contingent, so chance could not have produced it, and if it was made to do something or work, like solar systems and biological systems, then it has purpose.

So, if something doesn't have these three things, then it isn't designed?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 5:11:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 4:48:41 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:

"Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.

Yes I agree, should one deny the possibility it all was designed? Is that not just point of opinion that is very logical?
And the reason that you know a designer exists is because you can recognise design. How?
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 5:13:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 5:11:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:48:41 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:



Yes I agree, should one deny the possibility it all was designed? Is that not just point of opinion that is very logical?
And the reason that you know a designer exists is because you can recognise design. How?

"Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 5:28:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 5:13:28 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:11:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:48:41 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:



Yes I agree, should one deny the possibility it all was designed? Is that not just point of opinion that is very logical?
And the reason that you know a designer exists is because you can recognise design. How?

"Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.
Quote mining is such a pathetic tactic. Here is the statement you lied about.
It's difficult for a theist to come up with a convincing method to determine what is or isn't designed when he believes the universe and every single thing in it is designed. "Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.

Now try answering the question.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 5:39:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 5:28:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:13:28 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:11:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:48:41 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:



Yes I agree, should one deny the possibility it all was designed? Is that not just point of opinion that is very logical?
And the reason that you know a designer exists is because you can recognise design. How?

"Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.
Quote mining is such a pathetic tactic. Here is the statement you lied about.
It's difficult for a theist to come up with a convincing method to determine what is or isn't designed when he believes the universe and every single thing in it is designed. "Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.

Now try answering the question.

I did. You are not worth replying to unless you start being honest. I did not lie, I did not make the statement. I agreed with it.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 6:14:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 5:39:31 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:28:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:13:28 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:11:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:48:41 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:



Yes I agree, should one deny the possibility it all was designed? Is that not just point of opinion that is very logical?
And the reason that you know a designer exists is because you can recognise design. How?

"Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.
Quote mining is such a pathetic tactic. Here is the statement you lied about.
It's difficult for a theist to come up with a convincing method to determine what is or isn't designed when he believes the universe and every single thing in it is designed. "Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.

Now try answering the question.

I did. You are not worth replying to unless you start being honest. I did not lie, I did not make the statement. I agreed with it.
You extracted a sentence from the statement that made the statement say the opposite of what it said when read in total. That is quote mining and lying. Go on run away again with your false indignation. Just like design you can't recognize honesty.
Go and tell your mother she wants you.
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 6:19:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 6:14:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:39:31 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:28:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:13:28 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 5:11:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:48:41 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:



Yes I agree, should one deny the possibility it all was designed? Is that not just point of opinion that is very logical?
And the reason that you know a designer exists is because you can recognise design. How?

"Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.
Quote mining is such a pathetic tactic. Here is the statement you lied about.
It's difficult for a theist to come up with a convincing method to determine what is or isn't designed when he believes the universe and every single thing in it is designed. "Designed" is a descriptor that would apply to literally everything in the universe.

Now try answering the question.

I did. You are not worth replying to unless you start being honest. I did not lie, I did not make the statement. I agreed with it.
You extracted a sentence from the statement that made the statement say the opposite of what it said when read in total. That is quote mining and lying. Go on run away again with your false indignation. Just like design you can't recognize honesty.
Go and tell your mother she wants you.

You need a hug.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:36:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 4:29:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.
No, it is incredibly complex. To make a sheet of paper you must have the correct trees which are themselves incredibly complex, then you must have machines to turn them into paper and the intelligent beings to create the machines to make that paper. The end result is a paper, a woven fabric of bleached and treated trees.

Excellent point. I call it the pro athlete's problem - when something is done extremely well, it looks easy.

Darwin's hypothesis is really an argument from ignorance. At the time, science didn't know that life is complex right down to the molecular level, and that the ability to have descent with modification is itself a work of surpassing genius.

And my $.02 on the OP question: While it is probably impossible to make a formula for identifying design, it is generally quite easy in real life. And perhaps that's the real point: Intelligence is recognized only by intelligence. Which is why recognizing the intelligent design of life is a matter of the will, not science. Those who reject the creator do so for spiritual reasons. He's blatantly obvious to anyone with an open mind, though of course we don't know much detail about him from observing nature. But the existence of intelligent design in life is not really debatable, not to intelligence itself, which knows intelligence when it sees it.
This space for rent.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:42:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity, contingency, Purpose.

You know what complex is. It is designed if it isn't contingent, so chance could not have produced it, and if it was made to do something or work, like solar systems and biological systems, then it has purpose.

I think the most important is "contingent". I would change this to artificial. It doesn't seem to occur in nature. This could mean a few things. One, we may not fully understand nature. Two, it could have been created by something transcendent. Three, something conscious created it. There may be more options, but here's a few I could think of. Importantly, the last one indicates design. I'm assuming that the design you mean is created by conscious, often intelligent beings.

Complexity. This has more and more variables, which need to be fulfilled why whatever created it. The more complex it is, the more things nature has to do to create it. It could also be created by a conscious being.

Purpose. He said something about functional outputs, doing work etc. I don't know. But it could be created in favour of a goal that a conscious being wants to attain. If it seems to have properties that are favourable to a conscious being, then it could be considered that such a being created (designed) it.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:50:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:36:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:29:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.
No, it is incredibly complex. To make a sheet of paper you must have the correct trees which are themselves incredibly complex, then you must have machines to turn them into paper and the intelligent beings to create the machines to make that paper. The end result is a paper, a woven fabric of bleached and treated trees.

Excellent point. I call it the pro athlete's problem - when something is done extremely well, it looks easy.

Darwin's hypothesis is really an argument from ignorance.

Everything is at some level, are you suggesting it is entirely inocrrect?

At the time, science didn't know that life is complex right down to the molecular level, and that the ability to have descent with modification is itself a work of surpassing genius.

And you don't think science is developing with that?


And my $.02 on the OP question: While it is probably impossible to make a formula for identifying design, it is generally quite easy in real life. And perhaps that's the real point: Intelligence is recognized only by intelligence.

You really think that if we can identify something, that we can't create categories, tests, hypothesis etc. ?

Which is why recognizing the intelligent design of life is a matter of the will, not science.

You'd like that.

Those who reject the creator do so for spiritual reasons.

Edit: rational reasons.

He's blatantly obvious to anyone with an open mind,

It's obvious that there is a god, one god, and the nature of that god is obvious? Are you joking?

though of course we don't know much detail about him from observing nature.

Just from storytelling?

But the existence of intelligent design in life is not really debatable, not to intelligence itself, which knows intelligence when it sees it.

So you're trusting in intuition? Because that's never wrong. You even go so far as to say intuition is the only way to work out these things, that is can't be done by science or reason, and they are very intuitive, even obvious. You provide no evidence for these claims.

The world is obviously flat. We can tell because when we walk, it is flat. It is obvious to beings who live here, who use common sense. We will never be able to test this theory using reason or science though, so let's not try. And anyone who says that our beliefs aren't backed by science, has a closed mind, and is in fact, stupid.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:52:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:36:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:29:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.
No, it is incredibly complex. To make a sheet of paper you must have the correct trees which are themselves incredibly complex, then you must have machines to turn them into paper and the intelligent beings to create the machines to make that paper. The end result is a paper, a woven fabric of bleached and treated trees.

Excellent point. I call it the pro athlete's problem - when something is done extremely well, it looks easy.

Darwin's hypothesis is really an argument from ignorance. At the time, science didn't know that life is complex right down to the molecular level, and that the ability to have descent with modification is itself a work of surpassing genius.

And my $.02 on the OP question: While it is probably impossible to make a formula for identifying design, it is generally quite easy in real life. And perhaps that's the real point: Intelligence is recognized only by intelligence. Which is why recognizing the intelligent design of life is a matter of the will, not science. Those who reject the creator do so for spiritual reasons. He's blatantly obvious to anyone with an open mind, though of course we don't know much detail about him from observing nature. But the existence of intelligent design in life is not really debatable, not to intelligence itself, which knows intelligence when it sees it.

See that's the thing though. Identifying design is perfectly plausible, if you believe there are things that aren't designed. For instance, in nature straight lines are absurdly rare. So, if you see a straight line in a desert or forest, odds are it is designed. But, if you assume everything is designed, then of course there is no reasonable way to differ between that which is designed, and that which is not. Because there is nothing to differ about.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:55:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:36:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:29:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.
No, it is incredibly complex. To make a sheet of paper you must have the correct trees which are themselves incredibly complex, then you must have machines to turn them into paper and the intelligent beings to create the machines to make that paper. The end result is a paper, a woven fabric of bleached and treated trees.

Excellent point. I call it the pro athlete's problem - when something is done extremely well, it looks easy.

Darwin's hypothesis is really an argument from ignorance. At the time, science didn't know that life is complex right down to the molecular level, and that the ability to have descent with modification is itself a work of surpassing genius.

And my $.02 on the OP question: While it is probably impossible to make a formula for identifying design, it is generally quite easy in real life. And perhaps that's the real point: Intelligence is recognized only by intelligence. Which is why recognizing the intelligent design of life is a matter of the will, not science. Those who reject the creator do so for spiritual reasons. He's blatantly obvious to anyone with an open mind, though of course we don't know much detail about him from observing nature. But the existence of intelligent design in life is not really debatable, not to intelligence itself, which knows intelligence when it sees it.
If you don't have non design to reference against you cannot possibly identify design.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:19:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:50:37 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/10/2013 7:36:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:29:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.
No, it is incredibly complex. To make a sheet of paper you must have the correct trees which are themselves incredibly complex, then you must have machines to turn them into paper and the intelligent beings to create the machines to make that paper. The end result is a paper, a woven fabric of bleached and treated trees.

Excellent point. I call it the pro athlete's problem - when something is done extremely well, it looks easy.

Darwin's hypothesis is really an argument from ignorance.

Everything is at some level, are you suggesting it is entirely inocrrect?


Everything is designed? Yes, I think everything is designed. So we're distinguishing between designs - between the canvas, which is one sort of design, and the painting, which is another sort of design.

I remember a project I had which involved generating random crypto keys for satellite TV. I had to get up to speed on the subject of random number generation. It turns out the best keys are generated from the random thermal noise in electronic devices. So, how interesting is it that the cosmos is bathed in noise? There are so many things we take for granted that are necessary to the functioning of life as we know it.

At the time, science didn't know that life is complex right down to the molecular level, and that the ability to have descent with modification is itself a work of surpassing genius.

And you don't think science is developing with that?


Some are, but those, like Behe, who have pointed out the implications of maximally optimized molecular machines have been, well, persecuted.


And my $.02 on the OP question: While it is probably impossible to make a formula for identifying design, it is generally quite easy in real life. And perhaps that's the real point: Intelligence is recognized only by intelligence.

You really think that if we can identify something, that we can't create categories, tests, hypothesis etc. ?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. This is a non sequitur, I think.

Which is why recognizing the intelligent design of life is a matter of the will, not science.

You'd like that.

Heh, nice irony :-)


Those who reject the creator do so for spiritual reasons.

Edit: rational reasons.

Reason can only be a function of the spirit. Remember, your guys are now saying free will is an illusion. If free will is an illusion, so is reason.


He's blatantly obvious to anyone with an open mind,

It's obvious that there is a god, one god, and the nature of that god is obvious? Are you joking?


Yeah, work on your reading skills, please, the highlighted line right below:

though of course we don't know much detail about him from observing nature.

Just from storytelling?

But the existence of intelligent design in life is not really debatable, not to intelligence itself, which knows intelligence when it sees it.

So you're trusting in intuition? Because that's never wrong.

How do you know? By intuition?

You even go so far as to say intuition is the only way to work out these things, that is can't be done by science or reason, and they are very intuitive, even obvious. You provide no evidence for these claims.


Science is the tool of intuition, not the other way around. Whatever name you want to give to that aspect of the human mind that can recognize its own error, that's what I'm calling spirit. Have you ever stopped to think how outrageous that is, that humans can see their own errors?

The world is obviously flat. We can tell because when we walk, it is flat.

No, I think this actually works the other way. In places where the planet is really flat, like at the beach, you can see the curvature of the earth. In most places there are some hills, and the overall shape is not observable. 'Flat earth' was really a matter of the elites telling the common man something that was just wrong. In that sense it's the model for evolution.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:23:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:55:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 7:36:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:29:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.
No, it is incredibly complex. To make a sheet of paper you must have the correct trees which are themselves incredibly complex, then you must have machines to turn them into paper and the intelligent beings to create the machines to make that paper. The end result is a paper, a woven fabric of bleached and treated trees.

Excellent point. I call it the pro athlete's problem - when something is done extremely well, it looks easy.

Darwin's hypothesis is really an argument from ignorance. At the time, science didn't know that life is complex right down to the molecular level, and that the ability to have descent with modification is itself a work of surpassing genius.

And my $.02 on the OP question: While it is probably impossible to make a formula for identifying design, it is generally quite easy in real life. And perhaps that's the real point: Intelligence is recognized only by intelligence. Which is why recognizing the intelligent design of life is a matter of the will, not science. Those who reject the creator do so for spiritual reasons. He's blatantly obvious to anyone with an open mind, though of course we don't know much detail about him from observing nature. But the existence of intelligent design in life is not really debatable, not to intelligence itself, which knows intelligence when it sees it.
If you don't have non design to reference against you cannot possibly identify design.

No. I understand this sentiment, but you need to think it through a little better. Have you, for instance, ever been in absolute silence, or seen total darkness? (Humans can't experience either, actually, because both our eyes and ears generate a bit of their own noise) All we need is variation in sound or light or design in order to recognize each of them.
This space for rent.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:31:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity, contingency, Purpose.

You know what complex is. It is designed if it isn't contingent, so chance could not have produced it, and if it was made to do something or work, like solar systems and biological systems, then it has purpose.

Wait, evolution can do this and evolution is not design.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:33:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity, contingency, Purpose.

You know what complex is. It is designed if it isn't contingent, so chance could not have produced it, and if it was made to do something or work, like solar systems and biological systems, then it has purpose.

Let's go through this one-by-one

1. Complexity: So, simpler things are less likely to be designed than more complex things?

2. Contingency: How do you determine whether or not something is contingent?

3. Purpose: How do you determine the purpose of something?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:36:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:23:36 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/10/2013 7:55:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 7:36:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:29:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.
No, it is incredibly complex. To make a sheet of paper you must have the correct trees which are themselves incredibly complex, then you must have machines to turn them into paper and the intelligent beings to create the machines to make that paper. The end result is a paper, a woven fabric of bleached and treated trees.

Excellent point. I call it the pro athlete's problem - when something is done extremely well, it looks easy.

Darwin's hypothesis is really an argument from ignorance. At the time, science didn't know that life is complex right down to the molecular level, and that the ability to have descent with modification is itself a work of surpassing genius.

And my $.02 on the OP question: While it is probably impossible to make a formula for identifying design, it is generally quite easy in real life. And perhaps that's the real point: Intelligence is recognized only by intelligence. Which is why recognizing the intelligent design of life is a matter of the will, not science. Those who reject the creator do so for spiritual reasons. He's blatantly obvious to anyone with an open mind, though of course we don't know much detail about him from observing nature. But the existence of intelligent design in life is not really debatable, not to intelligence itself, which knows intelligence when it sees it.
If you don't have non design to reference against you cannot possibly identify design.

No. I understand this sentiment, but you need to think it through a little better. Have you, for instance, ever been in absolute silence, or seen total darkness? (Humans can't experience either, actually, because both our eyes and ears generate a bit of their own noise) All we need is variation in sound or light or design in order to recognize each of them.

That depends how you define total darkness, or total silence. It is impossible to be in technical total silence, because our body makes noise. But technical total darkness is perfectly plausible.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:53:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity, contingency, Purpose.

You know what complex is. It is designed if it isn't contingent

My computer is contingent, yet it is designed. So, you have no clue what you are talking about. Also, most complexity we have evidence of is due to non-intelligence.

, so chance could not have produced it, and if it was made to do something or work, like solar systems and biological systems, then it has purpose.

Solar systems are produced by gravity (non-intelligence) and have no apparent purpose.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:54:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:23:36 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/10/2013 7:55:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 7:36:14 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:29:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/10/2013 4:17:04 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

Evidence, plain and simple. Any other method reveals itself to be arbitrary, misleading, or otherwise unhelpful upon scrutiny. For example...

At 6/10/2013 3:46:55 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Complexity,

A sheet of paper is a very simple thing, yet it was designed.
No, it is incredibly complex. To make a sheet of paper you must have the correct trees which are themselves incredibly complex, then you must have machines to turn them into paper and the intelligent beings to create the machines to make that paper. The end result is a paper, a woven fabric of bleached and treated trees.

Excellent point. I call it the pro athlete's problem - when something is done extremely well, it looks easy.

Darwin's hypothesis is really an argument from ignorance. At the time, science didn't know that life is complex right down to the molecular level, and that the ability to have descent with modification is itself a work of surpassing genius.

And my $.02 on the OP question: While it is probably impossible to make a formula for identifying design, it is generally quite easy in real life. And perhaps that's the real point: Intelligence is recognized only by intelligence. Which is why recognizing the intelligent design of life is a matter of the will, not science. Those who reject the creator do so for spiritual reasons. He's blatantly obvious to anyone with an open mind, though of course we don't know much detail about him from observing nature. But the existence of intelligent design in life is not really debatable, not to intelligence itself, which knows intelligence when it sees it.
If you don't have non design to reference against you cannot possibly identify design.

No. I understand this sentiment, but you need to think it through a little better. Have you, for instance, ever been in absolute silence, or seen total darkness? (Humans can't experience either, actually, because both our eyes and ears generate a bit of their own noise) All we need is variation in sound or light or design in order to recognize each of them.
No it's you who needs to think it through you said in relation to identifying design "it is generally quite easy in real life". So that computer was designed, that was easy. That horse was designed, easy. That statue was designed, easy peasy. That pebble was designed, what? You got anything not designed?
If all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:57:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's easy to tell design when everything is, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear the greatest rebuttal ever of the ID prank.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:00:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

You cannot. The reason is that intelligence is a mechanism, produced by another mechanism. The intelligence mechanism, can produce other mechanisms (it is all part of the same tree). So, intelligence is just a sub-set of non-intelligence mechanisms. Basically, when we "design" things, we are just imitating non-intelligent mechanisms. When we pull matter together to build, we are imitating gravity for example. When we cut and paste in Kindergarden pertaining to snow-flakes, we are just imitating clouds. So theists confuse cause and effect. They see complexity, and think it must be due to intelligence because we produce complexity. However, we are just imitating non-intelligent forces so line of reasoning is just flawed. With regards to complexity, intelligence should be the least likely candidate.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:14:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 9:00:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

You cannot. The reason is that intelligence is a mechanism, produced by another mechanism. The intelligence mechanism, can produce other mechanisms (it is all part of the same tree). So, intelligence is just a sub-set of non-intelligence mechanisms. Basically, when we "design" things, we are just imitating non-intelligent mechanisms. When we pull matter together to build, we are imitating gravity for example. When we cut and paste in Kindergarden pertaining to snow-flakes, we are just imitating clouds. So theists confuse cause and effect. They see complexity, and think it must be due to intelligence because we produce complexity. However, we are just imitating non-intelligent forces so line of reasoning is just flawed. With regards to complexity, intelligence should be the least likely candidate.
But that is the problem, theists claim that complexity proves design and their reasoning is based on the difference between complexity and simplicity. But they then claim that the simplest of things was designed. Hence the difference between simplicity and complexity can't possibly determine design! BAM
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:17:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 9:14:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/10/2013 9:00:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:42:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
How do you differentiate between something that has been designed and something undesigned?

You cannot. The reason is that intelligence is a mechanism, produced by another mechanism. The intelligence mechanism, can produce other mechanisms (it is all part of the same tree). So, intelligence is just a sub-set of non-intelligence mechanisms. Basically, when we "design" things, we are just imitating non-intelligent mechanisms. When we pull matter together to build, we are imitating gravity for example. When we cut and paste in Kindergarden pertaining to snow-flakes, we are just imitating clouds. So theists confuse cause and effect. They see complexity, and think it must be due to intelligence because we produce complexity. However, we are just imitating non-intelligent forces so line of reasoning is just flawed. With regards to complexity, intelligence should be the least likely candidate.

But that is the problem, theists claim that complexity proves design and their reasoning is based on the difference between complexity and simplicity. But they then claim that the simplest of things was designed. Hence the difference between simplicity and complexity can't possibly determine design! BAM

Exactly. It is like the old design argument with the watch on the beach. We "know" its designed. However, this is because of contrast. We know the beach, the sky, and the rocks aren't designed, this is how we know the watch was. However, if the sky, rocks, and beach weren't designed then God does not exist. So the old watch argument for design can actually be used as an argument for Atheism ha