Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Argument from Design

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 12:56:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

Even scientists are fooled by our Creator who made them believe that atomic elements were real.

Evolutionists and religious fools don't have a clue to how God created everything.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 7:39:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 12:56:49 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

Even scientists are fooled by our Creator who made them believe that atomic elements were real.

Evolutionists and religious fools don't have a clue to how God created everything.

Why would the creator fool people?
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 7:52:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 7:39:30 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:56:49 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

Even scientists are fooled by our Creator who made them believe that atomic elements were real.

Evolutionists and religious fools don't have a clue to how God created everything.

Why would the creator fool people?

I'm just going to give you a heads up, if don't know bornofgod is the rejected lunatic preacher who thinks he is God, God's prophet, and God's last saint all at the same fuking time. So don't waste any energy responding to him.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 8:58:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

I agree with this, but some of the design argument cannot be explained by time. For example, Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros. These cannot be explained by increased complexity over time. At least to my knowledge it can't, but if you know of a way in which it can be then I would love to hear your thoughts.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 10:11:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

1. How does one know that God doesn't intervene?

2. Evolution is how organic material changes over time. It doesn't solve how mater came to exist, how organic material came to exist, or how the Universe came about.

The material universe has a cause at the big bang. But it does not say what caused the big bang to happen.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 12:17:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 10:11:37 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

1. How does one know that God doesn't intervene?

Evolution is science. In science this kind of question is really kind of silly. For example if when you explained gravity to me, and I asked how do you know that fairies don't intervene, you would probably think of this as a joke. In reality, there is plenty of evidence that natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, are all factors in evolution. There is no evidence that God, the easter bunny, or Richard Dawkins are drivers of evolution. So these are not even hypotheses.

2. Evolution is how organic material changes over time. It doesn't solve how mater came to exist, how organic material came to exist, or how the Universe came about.

So? That was never my point. I never claimed that evolution solves how matter came into existence. I said that evolution shows how complexity can increase with naturalistic processes. Therefore, the assumption that only designers can build complexity is silly.

The material universe has a cause at the big bang. But it does not say what caused the big bang to happen.

The big bang did not cause the material universe. It only expanded it. We do not know where the initial energy at the beginning of the universe came from. According to some quantum physicists, it popped into existence. I think that this energy existed timelessly. Others think that God made it out of nothing. We also don't know what caused the big bang on this matter. Some think that God did it. I suspect that it is a naturalistic phenomenon.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 12:20:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 8:58:59 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

I agree with this, but some of the design argument cannot be explained by time. For example, Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros. These cannot be explained by increased complexity over time. At least to my knowledge it can't, but if you know of a way in which it can be then I would love to hear your thoughts.

Well, this all seems to assume that there is only one universe, and that other states of the universe could never lead to any kind of complexity. I don't see why this has to be the only universe. If the big bang is simply a naturalistic phenomenon on compressed version of this universe, maybe there are more of these particles that big bangs happened to. It is more likely that there are many of a certain thing that that thing being the only one of its kind in existence.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 12:33:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 12:17:24 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 9/13/2013 10:11:37 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

1. How does one know that God doesn't intervene?

Evolution is science. In science this kind of question is really kind of silly. For example if when you explained gravity to me, and I asked how do you know that fairies don't intervene, you would probably think of this as a joke. In reality, there is plenty of evidence that natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, are all factors in evolution. There is no evidence that God, the easter bunny, or Richard Dawkins are drivers of evolution. So these are not even hypotheses.

It is indeed a science. However, your logic is rather hypocritical. You can not prove that randomness exists anymore then I can disprove it. The same is said about divine intervention. However, I can prove that complexity comes from complexity, and not from randomness or simplicity. So say, the robots we design. They are complex and came from a even more complex person. The same logic can be applied to all the complex things around us, including ourselves.


2. Evolution is how organic material changes over time. It doesn't solve how mater came to exist, how organic material came to exist, or how the Universe came about.

So? That was never my point. I never claimed that evolution solves how matter came into existence. I said that evolution shows how complexity can increase with naturalistic processes. Therefore, the assumption that only designers can build complexity is silly.

Your stating that evolution is a explanation for why the rejection of a creator is rational, I have stated evidence to the contrary.


The material universe has a cause at the big bang. But it does not say what caused the big bang to happen.

The big bang did not cause the material universe. It only expanded it. We do not know where the initial energy at the beginning of the universe came from. According to some quantum physicists, it popped into existence. I think that this energy existed timelessly. Others think that God made it out of nothing. We also don't know what caused the big bang on this matter. Some think that God did it. I suspect that it is a naturalistic phenomenon.

I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on the issue of faith. Though our conclusions differ...
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 12:45:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 12:33:42 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 9/14/2013 12:17:24 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 9/13/2013 10:11:37 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

1. How does one know that God doesn't intervene?

Evolution is science. In science this kind of question is really kind of silly. For example if when you explained gravity to me, and I asked how do you know that fairies don't intervene, you would probably think of this as a joke. In reality, there is plenty of evidence that natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, are all factors in evolution. There is no evidence that God, the easter bunny, or Richard Dawkins are drivers of evolution. So these are not even hypotheses.

It is indeed a science. However, your logic is rather hypocritical. You can not prove that randomness exists anymore then I can disprove it.

Randomness is a mathematical concept which is true logically. We already see how this concept can be used. Theologians once though that the likelihood that we would find a planet just right for life was infinitesimally small. However now we know that at the very least there are billions of planets in the universe so getting one like earth really isn't so hard.

The same is said about divine intervention. However, I can prove that complexity comes from complexity, and not from randomness or simplicity. So say, the robots we design. They are complex and came from a even more complex person. The same logic can be applied to all the complex things around us, including ourselves.

We are both pretty confident that some complex things come from designers but that does not mean all do. That is where we differ I guess. I don't make the same assumptions.

2. Evolution is how organic material changes over time. It doesn't solve how mater came to exist, how organic material came to exist, or how the Universe came about.

So? That was never my point. I never claimed that evolution solves how matter came into existence. I said that evolution shows how complexity can increase with naturalistic processes. Therefore, the assumption that only designers can build complexity is silly.

Your stating that evolution is a explanation for why the rejection of a creator is rational, I have stated evidence to the contrary.

It is not a rejection of a creator all by itself. It only refutes arguments that try to conclude design from complexity.

The material universe has a cause at the big bang. But it does not say what caused the big bang to happen.

The big bang did not cause the material universe. It only expanded it. We do not know where the initial energy at the beginning of the universe came from. According to some quantum physicists, it popped into existence. I think that this energy existed timelessly. Others think that God made it out of nothing. We also don't know what caused the big bang on this matter. Some think that God did it. I suspect that it is a naturalistic phenomenon.

I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on the issue of faith. Though our conclusions differ...

I see faith as strongly believing something with very little evidence. My approach was to pick out the idea that seemed most likely and believing it weakly. Works for me I guess. Personally I am a huge critic of faith, at least the way that most people define it. It just seems like an excuse to have poorly thought through beliefs.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 5:14:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree with this, but some of the design argument cannot be explained by time. For example, Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

How many big bangs were there before the one that produced the current universe? For all we know there have been some innumerable amount of expansions/contractions with this being one for which the initial conditions were correct or produce life.

The problem making any assumptions on a scale for which our experience has no relevance is they are completely unfounded.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 5:19:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. How does one know that God doesn't intervene?

We don't but we also don't know that Santa Claus doesn't intervene. All we can say is there is no evidence of a God so assuming that God takes actions is illogical.

2. Evolution is how organic material changes over time. It doesn't solve how mater came to exist, how organic material came to exist, or how the Universe came about.

But neither does the argument from design. The real problem with the argument design is that while everything needs a designer then what designed God? You can't make a absolute rule (everything needs a designer) and then make an exception for the one case you want to be true (God). So the argument from design just leads to infinite regress.

The material universe has a cause at the big bang. But it does not say what caused the big bang to happen.

To which we can say "We don't know".
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 11:17:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 7:39:30 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:56:49 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

Even scientists are fooled by our Creator who made them believe that atomic elements were real.

Evolutionists and religious fools don't have a clue to how God created everything.

Why would the creator fool people?

If you're serious, ask for my email address and I'll send you the answer.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 11:19:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 5:19:31 AM, Floid wrote:
1. How does one know that God doesn't intervene?

We don't but we also don't know that Santa Claus doesn't intervene. All we can say is there is no evidence of a God so assuming that God takes actions is illogical.

2. Evolution is how organic material changes over time. It doesn't solve how mater came to exist, how organic material came to exist, or how the Universe came about.

But neither does the argument from design. The real problem with the argument design is that while everything needs a designer then what designed God? You can't make a absolute rule (everything needs a designer) and then make an exception for the one case you want to be true (God). So the argument from design just leads to infinite regress.

The material universe has a cause at the big bang. But it does not say what caused the big bang to happen.

To which we can say "We don't know".

Good answer.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 12:18:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The OP sounds like a gambler's fallacy. It is still an amazingly low chance, and a designer is the more rational option.

As for how we came to be, there is time when we need to say "We don't know". I mean come on with the whole evolution stuff. Is there any evidence of a mechanism that allows single-celled creatures to become multi-celled? Evidence of a mechanism that allows complex organs to form?
Really, there seems to be design, and even stupid designs need some form of intelligence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 12:52:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 8:58:59 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

I agree with this, but some of the design argument cannot be explained by time. For example, Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

Who says the rate of expansion could have been different than what it is? How do you know that are rate of expansion is not just "how she goes"?

Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros.

Yes, but this assumes that a different value could have been the case. What evidence is there for this assumption? Just because we can imagine different values, doesn't mean that they were actually possible. Our values being the way they are could be a required function of the universe itself.

These cannot be explained by increased complexity over time. At least to my knowledge it can't, but if you know of a way in which it can be then I would love to hear your thoughts.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 12:55:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 12:18:47 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The OP sounds like a gambler's fallacy.

I'll grant you that it does sound like it, however it does not apply in this circumstance. The gambler's fallacy only states that the frequency of a particular outcome occurring doesn't change based on prior outcomes. For instance, if you flip a coin 4 times and all four times it landed tails, doesn't increase the chance of the next flip being heads, the probability of the next flip being heads is still 50-50 regardless.

What the OP speaks of is, the more times you flip the coin the more likely one of those flips will result in a heads, which is mathematically true. The larger the set, the more likely a particular outcome will occur at least once. Does this make sense?

As for how we came to be, there is time when we need to say "We don't know". I mean come on with the whole evolution stuff.

The "whole evolution stuff" is empirically validated by a plethora of scientific literature.

Is there any evidence of a mechanism that allows single-celled creatures to become multi-celled? Evidence of a mechanism that allows complex organs to form?

yes.

Really, there seems to be design, and even stupid designs need some form of intelligence.

"Seems to be design" isn't something you can verify.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:18:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ya, after billions of years of chemical reactions on such a large scale, life popping up at least once shouldn't be shocking to anyone.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:34:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 12:20:20 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 9/13/2013 8:58:59 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

I agree with this, but some of the design argument cannot be explained by time. For example, Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros. These cannot be explained by increased complexity over time. At least to my knowledge it can't, but if you know of a way in which it can be then I would love to hear your thoughts.

Well, this all seems to assume that there is only one universe, and that other states of the universe could never lead to any kind of complexity. I don't see why this has to be the only universe. If the big bang is simply a naturalistic phenomenon on compressed version of this universe, maybe there are more of these particles that big bangs happened to. It is more likely that there are many of a certain thing that that thing being the only one of its kind in existence.

That's a good post. I think the part about the other states of the universe is a better point because I just don't think there's any good evidence at all for a multiverse of any kind.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:36:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 5:14:49 AM, Floid wrote:
I agree with this, but some of the design argument cannot be explained by time. For example, Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

How many big bangs were there before the one that produced the current universe? For all we know there have been some innumerable amount of expansions/contractions with this being one for which the initial conditions were correct or produce life.

That's a fine question to ask, but I don't think it effects those particular arguments the odds still stand for the specific big bang that we typically think of.

The problem making any assumptions on a scale for which our experience has no relevance is they are completely unfounded.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:41:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:18:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Ya, after billions of years of chemical reactions on such a large scale, life popping up at least once shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

What would be the minimum number of years where it would be shocking to you. I'm just thinking because we are talking about probabilities of percentages where there are billions of 0's. Sorry if that's not clear but I'm saying like the chances of this are .(billions of 0's)1%
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:41:07 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:18:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Ya, after billions of years of chemical reactions on such a large scale, life popping up at least once shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

What would be the minimum number of years where it would be shocking to you. I'm just thinking because we are talking about probabilities of percentages where there are billions of 0's. Sorry if that's not clear but I'm saying like the chances of this are .(billions of 0's)1%

Yes, but that's the chance of X happening with only one shot for it to happen. That says nothing on billions of years, over HUGE scales with billions of chances for X to occur each minute or second, with billions of years at play. It doesn't matter how improbable something is, with enough time it will happen. I mean, if you have infinite time, EVERYTHING that can happen WILL happen for example.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:53:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:41:07 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:18:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Ya, after billions of years of chemical reactions on such a large scale, life popping up at least once shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

What would be the minimum number of years where it would be shocking to you. I'm just thinking because we are talking about probabilities of percentages where there are billions of 0's. Sorry if that's not clear but I'm saying like the chances of this are .(billions of 0's)1%

Me dealing a Royal Flush right now after I shuffle a deck and deal out the random top cards is next to impossible, but if I had a team of 1000 people randomly shuffling all day every day in a factory, it may take a LONG time, but eventually someone will get it!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:54:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So ya, dealing a Royal Flush (analogous to life popping up) is extremely rare, but if you have enough people shuffling decks and trying (chemical reactions taking place) there will be a "click" or a "hit" eventually....And here we are.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:55:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 12:55:34 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 12:18:47 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The OP sounds like a gambler's fallacy.

I'll grant you that it does sound like it, however it does not apply in this circumstance. The gambler's fallacy only states that the frequency of a particular outcome occurring doesn't change based on prior outcomes. For instance, if you flip a coin 4 times and all four times it landed tails, doesn't increase the chance of the next flip being heads, the probability of the next flip being heads is still 50-50 regardless.

What the OP speaks of is, the more times you flip the coin the more likely one of those flips will result in a heads, which is mathematically true. The larger the set, the more likely a particular outcome will occur at least once. Does this make sense?




True.
However, the justification for the term "Highly likely" is gone. Unless we are talking relatively about the highly unlikely event between the two sets, but it remains highly unlikely.

As for how we came to be, there is time when we need to say "We don't know". I mean come on with the whole evolution stuff.

The "whole evolution stuff" is empirically validated by a plethora of scientific literature.


I care about the how and why much more than I care about the who. There is nothing wrong with questioning and digging, isn't that the point of science?

Is there any evidence of a mechanism that allows single-celled creatures to become multi-celled? Evidence of a mechanism that allows complex organs to form?

yes.


No.
If yes, please provide sources.

Really, there seems to be design, and even stupid designs need some form of intelligence.

"Seems to be design" isn't something you can verify.

Neither can you verify that there is no design. This is a probability thing that is to some extent subjective. From my observation, I find it more likely that the world was designed. If I saw a work of literature written on a notebook inside an empty room, I imagine the rational conclusion to be that an intelligent human wrote it. Yet, the chance that a monkey randomly typed it still exists.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:58:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 12:18:47 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The OP sounds like a gambler's fallacy. It is still an amazingly low chance, and a designer is the more rational option.

It is amazingly low, but the universe is just immense. For example it is amazingly low to get a planet that is right for life. But we have just so many planets that we are bound to find one that is right. We really don't understand such a scale of largeness that is existence because we are stuck on this isolated planet.

As for how we came to be, there is time when we need to say "We don't know". I mean come on with the whole evolution stuff. Is there any evidence of a mechanism that allows single-celled creatures to become multi-celled? Evidence of a mechanism that allows complex organs to form?
Really, there seems to be design, and even stupid designs need some form of intelligence.

Yes there is evidence for a mechanism that can do that, actually multiple mechanisms. They are natural selection and mutations. Selectable function construction is used to build complex biological structures. See the image below for an illustration:
http://www.millerandlevine.com...
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 2:19:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:34:08 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/14/2013 12:20:20 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 9/13/2013 8:58:59 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

I agree with this, but some of the design argument cannot be explained by time. For example, Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros. These cannot be explained by increased complexity over time. At least to my knowledge it can't, but if you know of a way in which it can be then I would love to hear your thoughts.

Well, this all seems to assume that there is only one universe, and that other states of the universe could never lead to any kind of complexity. I don't see why this has to be the only universe. If the big bang is simply a naturalistic phenomenon on compressed version of this universe, maybe there are more of these particles that big bangs happened to. It is more likely that there are many of a certain thing that that thing being the only one of its kind in existence.

That's a good post. I think the part about the other states of the universe is a better point because I just don't think there's any good evidence at all for a multiverse of any kind.

There is no good scientific evidence for a multiverse, but there also isn't any good scientific evidence for God. The evidence for the multiverse is logical. As stated before it is more likely that there are many of a general kind of thing than that there is just one of it. Therefore it is more likely that there are many universes than there is just one.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 2:23:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 2:19:56 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 9/14/2013 1:34:08 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/14/2013 12:20:20 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 9/13/2013 8:58:59 PM, stubs wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:42:44 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My thoughts on this argument is that it ignores that a highly unlikely event given enough chances is highly likely.

The theory of evolution shows how complexity can increase over time without the direct intervention of a God. This argument is 150 years out of date.

I agree with this, but some of the design argument cannot be explained by time. For example, Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros. These cannot be explained by increased complexity over time. At least to my knowledge it can't, but if you know of a way in which it can be then I would love to hear your thoughts.

Well, this all seems to assume that there is only one universe, and that other states of the universe could never lead to any kind of complexity. I don't see why this has to be the only universe. If the big bang is simply a naturalistic phenomenon on compressed version of this universe, maybe there are more of these particles that big bangs happened to. It is more likely that there are many of a certain thing that that thing being the only one of its kind in existence.

That's a good post. I think the part about the other states of the universe is a better point because I just don't think there's any good evidence at all for a multiverse of any kind.

There is no good scientific evidence for a multiverse, but there also isn't any good scientific evidence for God. The evidence for the multiverse is logical. As stated before it is more likely that there are many of a general kind of thing than that there is just one of it. Therefore it is more likely that there are many universes than there is just one.

The multiverse makes sense. We know the Earth wasn't fine-tuned to support us, it's just that out of all the planets there are going to be some fit for life by chance. Why not apply the concept to universes?
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 2:23:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:55:43 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

True.
However, the justification for the term "Highly likely" is gone. Unless we are talking relatively about the highly unlikely event between the two sets, but it remains highly unlikely.

Can you be more explicit here? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I care about the how and why much more than I care about the who.

I would agree with you that it is not the who that matters, rather what matter is the how -- In short, how did we arrive at this conclusion? The answer in regards to Evolutionary theory, is through the scientific method. I would venture to say that the scientific methods is perhaps one of the most reliable methods of learning about our world, second only to mathematics. The results of both being tangible.

There is nothing wrong with questioning and digging, isn't that the point of science?

The point of questioning, is not needless contrarianism, but rather to facilitate the search for answers. So when we are questionings, this is with the understanding that we need to acknowledge the answers that follow from those questions regardless of what those answers are.

No.
If yes, please provide sources.

How can you be certain the answer is no, before I have even given my sources?

http://www.helium.com...

Neither can you verify that there is no design.

We don't need to. Absence of negative evidence is not sufficient warrant to posit some explanation.

This is a probability thing that is to some extent subjective. From my observation, I find it more likely that the world was designed. If I saw a work of literature written on a notebook inside an empty room, I imagine the rational conclusion to be that an intelligent human wrote it. Yet, the chance that a monkey randomly typed it still exists.

And upon what are you judging the probability?