Total Posts:208|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How we know evolution theory is false part 2

illegalcombat
Posts: 1,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 7:20:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Apparently the non believing atheists couldn't accept the rock solid logic that you only get a dog from a dog from a dog, refuting this whole fish to man fantasy that is evolution.

Putting how sad it is that atheists would rather believe that, than admit they deserve eternal hell fire from which only Jesus can save them, I present more proof against the satanic, anti bible, anti God, anti family values religion that is evolution theory, and remember it's JUST A THEORY, a stupid one at that for stupid people.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 9:16:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A video that like that is never going to change anybody's mind, but it's not meat to. It's intended audience are creationists who might wavering and need their prejudices refreshed.

Anti-evolutionists have a system of mutual support - they listen to each other dissing evolution and tell each other how smart they are, and how dumb evoltionists are.

That way they have built up a cocoon around themselves that mere facts can't penetrate.

As I pointed out in a different thread, at the top of the pyramid are people like WL Craig who give spurious gravitas and ersatz respectability to creationism. Who ever did that video is no WLC, but they were doing the same job of assuaging the doubts of the faithful with unscientfic nonsense and, not to put a fine point on it, lies.
Harikrish
Posts: 34,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 1:31:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 7:20:50 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Apparently the non believing atheists couldn't accept the rock solid logic that you only get a dog from a dog from a dog, refuting this whole fish to man fantasy that is evolution.

Putting how sad it is that atheists would rather believe that, than admit they deserve eternal hell fire from which only Jesus can save them, I present more proof against the satanic, anti bible, anti God, anti family values religion that is evolution theory, and remember it's JUST A THEORY, a stupid one at that for stupid people.



If only you could think for yourself, dog and cats are final products of evolution. They like humans also can be traced to a common ancestor.

Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is
Published January 15, 2014 5:22pm
By MIKAEL ANGELO FRANCISCO
http://www.gmanetwork.com...

Given how cats seem to have so much trouble getting down from trees, it must be embarrassing for them to admit that their prehistoric ancestor was a tree-dweller.

New fossils of Dormaalocyon latouri, a 55 million-year-old species believed to be closely linked to the origin of carnivoraformes " carnivorous mammals such as cats, dogs, bears, and weasels " were recently uncovered by scientists in the village of Dormaal (after which the animal"s genus was named) in Belgium.

The researchers examined the newly discovered specimens closely, providing a clearer look at the characteristics of the Eocene-era creature, as well as shedding light on the evolutionary development of today"s warm-blooded carnivores.

"Its description allows better understanding of the origination, variability and ecology of the earliest carnivoraforms," explained study lead Dr Flor"al Sol", a paleontologist from the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels. The team"s findings were published in the most recent issue of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

A tree of knowledge

Estimated to have been close to a foot in length and about a kilogram (approximately 2 pounds) in weight, the scientists surmised that Dormaalocyon lived on a diet consisting of small prey, like insects and smaller mammals.

The scientists were able to confirm that 280 of the nearly 14,000 teeth specimens that they found in Dormaal"s soil belonged to the ancient tree mammal. Remarkably, the team even found an entire row of the pint-sized prehistoric predator"s deciduous ("baby") teeth. This was a big step up from previous searches, which only yielded two of the carnivore"s upper molars.

Based on the scientists" findings, the primitive structure and age of Dormaalocyon"s teeth places it very close to the carnivoraforms" evolutionary roots. Carnivoraforms lived during the Paleocene (66-55 million years ago) and Eocene (56-33.9 million years ago) epochs, and are believed to have originated in Europe.

"The understanding of the origination of the carnivoraforms is important for reconstructing the adaptation of placental mammals to carnivorous diet," remarked Dr Sol".

Dr Sol"s team also discovered a few samples of Dormaalocyon"s ankle bones, which revealed that the creature spent most of its time scurrying from tree to tree in the warm, humid woodlands of its time. This supposedly occurred after the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), an extremely warm period of time that affected the evolution of carnivoraforms and other mammalian groups.

According to Dr Sol", Dormaalocyon"s arboreal (tree-dwelling) nature "supports the existence of a continuous evergreen forest belt at high latitudes during the PETM," especially since carnivoraforms began spreading to North America during this period.

Paws-itively primitive

In an interview with LiveScience, Sol" confirmed that Dormaalocyon "is one of the oldest carnivorous mammals which is related to present-day carnivores."

Much like its domesticated descendants, Dormaalocyon wasn"t Tyrannosaurus rex-levels of terrifying. "It wasn't frightening. It wasn't dreadful," assured Sol". Dormaalocyon is described to have looked like a cross "between a tiny panther and a squirrel, with a long tail and a catlike snout."

However, the scientists believe that the origin of carnivoraforms can be traced to an even more primitive group in an earlier era than Dormaalocyon"s - perhaps during the Paleocene, as previous studies suggest.

Additionally, the new discoveries reveal the possibility that carnivoraforms may have actually originated from Asia, spreading through Europe and then reaching North America.
"Therefore, Dormaalocyon provides information concerning the evolution of placental mammals after the disappearance of the largest dinosaurs (at the Cretaceous"Paleogene extinction event," observed Dr Sol". "Our study shows that the carnivoraforms were very diversified at the earliest Eocene, which allows hypothesizing that they were probably already diversified during the latest Paleocene."

Common ancestors of Man.
Darwin wrote in The descent of man: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 2:08:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 9:16:01 AM, keithprosser wrote:
A video that like that is never going to change anybody's mind, but it's not meat to. It's intended audience are creationists who might wavering and need their prejudices refreshed.

Anti-evolutionists have a system of mutual support - they listen to each other dissing evolution and tell each other how smart they are, and how dumb evoltionists are.


Well, this doesn't describe me, or any of my circle of mutual supporters. This is projection, Keith: It's the left that thinks that intelligence can bend reality. Guys like me are into objective reality. If it's the idiot looking out the window, then he's the one who can tell us if it's raining or not.

That way they have built up a cocoon around themselves that mere facts can't penetrate.


Eh, I really don't think I reject facts, at least not on this subject. No, you guys really need to find some way to deal with the fact that there are very intelligent reasons to disagree with your position. We are not defective because we disagree with you.

As I pointed out in a different thread, at the top of the pyramid are people like WL Craig who give spurious gravitas and ersatz respectability to creationism. Who ever did that video is no WLC, but they were doing the same job of assuaging the doubts of the faithful with unscientfic nonsense and, not to put a fine point on it, lies.

Yeah, there's the web, and then there's a world of people outside of the web. I'm sure I could start a thread about some sophomoric evolution video by, say, Richard Dawkins, if I wanted to. But then again, Dawkins probably DOES represent mainstream evo thought fairly accurately...
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 2:12:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 7:20:50 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Apparently the non believing atheists couldn't accept the rock solid logic that you only get a dog from a dog from a dog, refuting this whole fish to man fantasy that is evolution.

Putting how sad it is that atheists would rather believe that, than admit they deserve eternal hell fire from which only Jesus can save them, I present more proof against the satanic, anti bible, anti God, anti family values religion that is evolution theory, and remember it's JUST A THEORY, a stupid one at that for stupid people.



The video is actually pretty accurate, lol. Just change a few of the synonyms (like 'retard baby' for 'mutant') and that IS the theory.

Sometimes when people try to be clever they just end up being ironic.
This space for rent.
MrDelaney
Posts: 310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 2:13:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 2:08:13 PM, v3nesl wrote:
there are very intelligent reasons to disagree with your position.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider to be the strongest reasons?
Just the top one or two that come to mind.

I'm not asking you to justify them - I'm just curious to look into them for myself
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 2:28:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 2:13:07 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
At 7/27/2017 2:08:13 PM, v3nesl wrote:
there are very intelligent reasons to disagree with your position.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider to be the strongest reasons?
Just the top one or two that come to mind.

I'm not asking you to justify them - I'm just curious to look into them for myself

I'll summarize the while thing with a question: Have you ever been wrong when you inferred that something was designed?

Note, the question is not "can you always detect design", but is anyone ever wrong when they DO infer design. The inference of design is difficult or impossible to reduce to an algorithm because design is creative. Design is a matter of doing the non-obvious with raw materials, so there is no formula for it, or else we could all be the Beatles. But we know it when we see it, as a practical matter, and general markers of design can be given. That's why computers can do SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence). So, in short, by any reasonable indications of design, life is designed. By a supreme genius.

And let's also note, the claim of design can easily be refuted by showing how a given form can arise by non-designed means. And this has not been done for life. In fact the failure to reproduce any small example of creative evolution is quite spectacular, given the other technical achievements since Darwin's voyage, but not unexpected for anyone with a "bits and bytes" level understanding of how the physical world behaves.
This space for rent.
MrDelaney
Posts: 310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 3:17:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 2:28:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/27/2017 2:13:07 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
At 7/27/2017 2:08:13 PM, v3nesl wrote:
there are very intelligent reasons to disagree with your position.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider to be the strongest reasons?
Just the top one or two that come to mind.

I'm not asking you to justify them - I'm just curious to look into them for myself

I'll summarize the while thing with a question: Have you ever been wrong when you inferred that something was designed?

Note, the question is not "can you always detect design", but is anyone ever wrong when they DO infer design. The inference of design is difficult or impossible to reduce to an algorithm because design is creative. Design is a matter of doing the non-obvious with raw materials, so there is no formula for it, or else we could all be the Beatles. But we know it when we see it, as a practical matter, and general markers of design can be given. That's why computers can do SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence). So, in short, by any reasonable indications of design, life is designed. By a supreme genius.

And let's also note, the claim of design can easily be refuted by showing how a given form can arise by non-designed means. And this has not been done for life. In fact the failure to reproduce any small example of creative evolution is quite spectacular, given the other technical achievements since Darwin's voyage, but not unexpected for anyone with a "bits and bytes" level understanding of how the physical world behaves.

Sorry - I assumed you were talking about issues with theory of evolution.
So I thought you had reasons why you thought evolution was incorrect (not reasons why you felt intelligent design was correct). My fault for not clarifying what you meant first.

When I read what you wrote it I can't help but read it as "it just feels designed to me."
And because of your intuition for design you must now assume a 'supreme genius,' for which there is no evidence (other than the intuition you feel you have for design).

So while you say that "the claim of design can easily be refuted by showing how a given form can arise by non-designed means," the converse would also hold. The claim of design of life could be easily supported by showing how a given form can arise by a 'supreme genius.' And this has not been done.

(though as a side note, are you criticizing evolution here or abiogenesis? Because I would say that the theory of evolution by natural selection does support the claim that a given form can arise by non-designed means. But if you mean life itself, that is another topic).

I'm sure there is more to your belief, obviously - I don't want to delve too deeply into what you may or may not mean off just one short post.

But since you opted to answer my question with a question - let me ask one of my own that I'm curious about.

How does it even make sense to talk of non-design if we are in a world designed by a 'supreme genius.'? And how can you identify design in a world where everything was designed so there is no way to appeal to non-design?
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 4:13:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 3:17:12 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
...
Sorry - I assumed you were talking about issues with theory of evolution.
...

Yeah, I think it's incorrect. I think it didn't and can't happen. And I would easily be convinced otherwise if anybody could show that it could happen. But nobody can, of course.

And it's probably necessary to make the unnecessary clarification: I'm not disputing genetics, including genetic variations that are the result of mutations. I'm disputing the spontaneous emergence of all the novelty of the contemporary ecosystem from "one, or several, original forms". I consider that to be technically nonsensical.

When I read what you wrote it I can't help but read it as "it just feels designed to me."

Can you give any reason to doubt said feeling? Let's keep YOUR feelings out of it, too, eh?

And because of your intuition for design you must now assume a 'supreme genius,' for which there is no evidence (other than the intuition you feel you have for design).


Design => designer. That doesn't feel like too radical of logic to me. Genius design => Genius designer.

So while you say that "the claim of design can easily be refuted by showing how a given form can arise by non-designed means," the converse would also hold. The claim of design of life could be easily supported by showing how a given form can arise by a 'supreme genius.' And this has not been done.


Nah. (Why do these debates ALWAYS go like reading a script?) If the claim is that the natural, observable, everyday physics can create life features from everyday elements, that should be reproduceable. It's not at all the mirror image of inferring an unseen cause from seen evidence. If you see the burglar stealing the jewels, great, but you can still infer burglary without seeing the actual event, and without reproducing the burglary.

But as I'm sure you're aware, it's quite conceivable that scientists may one day synthesize a cell from scratch, which would be a demonstration of intelligent design. Genetic engineering is done all the time, so variation through deliberate means has very much been demonstrated.

Because I would say that the theory of evolution by natural selection does support the claim that a given form can arise by non-designed means. ...

Well of course the theory claims to explain what it claims to explain. The question is whether it's correct or not.


How does it even make sense to talk of non-design if we are in a world designed by a 'supreme genius.'? And how can you identify design in a world where everything was designed so there is no way to appeal to non-design?

Yeah, you're reading from a script. I hear this every time, and it's bogus. Can you detect light in an evenly lit room? So it's just really bad logic and you'll do yourself more good if you reason it out for yourself than if I read my script to you.
This space for rent.
MrDelaney
Posts: 310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 4:58:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 4:13:14 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/27/2017 3:17:12 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
...
Sorry - I assumed you were talking about issues with theory of evolution.
...

Yeah, I think it's incorrect. I think it didn't and can't happen. And I would easily be convinced otherwise if anybody could show that it could happen. But nobody can, of course.

And it's probably necessary to make the unnecessary clarification: I'm not disputing genetics, including genetic variations that are the result of mutations. I'm disputing the spontaneous emergence of all the novelty of the contemporary ecosystem from "one, or several, original forms". I consider that to be technically nonsensical.

Fair enough - was just trying to get a sense of where you were coming from.
Thanks for clarifying.


When I read what you wrote it I can't help but read it as "it just feels designed to me."

Can you give any reason to doubt said feeling? Let's keep YOUR feelings out of it, too, eh?

I would think we would want to keep all feelings out of it, personally.
To say that unless something should be taken as true solely on the fact that it can't be proven wrong is a shifting of the burden of proof and rather unreasonable.
By that same logic we can now claim to have proven every psychic/supernatural and alien phenomenon ever reported.


And because of your intuition for design you must now assume a 'supreme genius,' for which there is no evidence (other than the intuition you feel you have for design).


Design => designer. That doesn't feel like too radical of logic to me. Genius design => Genius designer.

So while you say that "the claim of design can easily be refuted by showing how a given form can arise by non-designed means," the converse would also hold. The claim of design of life could be easily supported by showing how a given form can arise by a 'supreme genius.' And this has not been done.


Nah. (Why do these debates ALWAYS go like reading a script?) If the claim is that the natural, observable, everyday physics can create life features from everyday elements, that should be reproduceable. It's not at all the mirror image of inferring an unseen cause from seen evidence. If you see the burglar stealing the jewels, great, but you can still infer burglary without seeing the actual event, and without reproducing the burglary.

I'm not sure what you meant by 'reading a script,' but I was just reacting to what you said originally.

I agree that natural claims should be reproducible.
But I would disagree with your burglary analogy.

In your analogy we can rationally infer burglary because we know that burglars exist.
We have experience and evidence of past burglaries and individuals who have committed them.

As soon as you can demonstrate even the possibility of a 'supreme designer' then it would most definitely be considered as a possible explanation for something. But we do not know if the existence of a supreme designer is even possible, much less true.

I'm not discounting it, mind you.
I'm simply saying that because something has not been shown to be impossible does not mean it is possible (and the converse would also hold, obviously).
For that reason I would say we cannot discount a supreme designer, but we most definitely cannot claim one either.


But as I'm sure you're aware, it's quite conceivable that scientists may one day synthesize a cell from scratch, which would be a demonstration of intelligent design. Genetic engineering is done all the time, so variation through deliberate means has very much been demonstrated.

Most definitely.
Agreed.


Because I would say that the theory of evolution by natural selection does support the claim that a given form can arise by non-designed means. ...

Well of course the theory claims to explain what it claims to explain. The question is whether it's correct or not.

Of course - I was just trying to clarify if you were talking about abiogenesis or evolutionary theory (which you clarified).
Thanks.



How does it even make sense to talk of non-design if we are in a world designed by a 'supreme genius.'? And how can you identify design in a world where everything was designed so there is no way to appeal to non-design?

Yeah, you're reading from a script. I hear this every time, and it's bogus. Can you detect light in an evenly lit room? So it's just really bad logic and you'll do yourself more good if you reason it out for yourself than if I read my script to you.

I am not reading from a script - honestly, I'm asking a question that I don't have a good answer to.
Feel free to dig through some of my past discussions on this site, and while you may see some of the same questions or issues pop up, I think you'll (hopefully) see that I am making a sincere attempt to understand the other person's point of view.

Yes, some questions are difficult to answer - and so they come up often.
There are questions that are difficult to answer on the evolution side as well - so they come up often (but I'm not about to accuse you of reading a script).

As far as your analogy, light is a physical thing. Design is an abstract trait.
So I'm not sure how that analogy holds.

I'm trying to think of something that would be more fitting as an analogy - but nothing is coming to mind.

Apologies if you feel like I'm reading a script.
My intention was to have a conversation, because you seemed to be very rational and level headed (and you still do, I'm not insinuating otherwise).
I think many of these conversations feel scripts because each 'side' has the issues that they can't get past. Often we just need to get past the 'script' stage to get into some real engagement.

If you'd rather not, I get it. I know it can get tiresome.
Just know that I'm never going off a script - and I'm legitimately not trying to argue.
I'm trying to understand.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2017 5:47:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 4:58:44 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
...
But I would disagree with your burglary analogy.

In your analogy we can rationally infer burglary because we know that burglars exist.
We have experience and evidence of past burglaries and individuals who have committed them.


We know that design and designers exist. Design is a well known phenomenon.


As far as your analogy, light is a physical thing. Design is an abstract trait.
So I'm not sure how that analogy holds.


I agree - I think design is ultimately meta-physical and may be why some people are so uncomfortable with the concept. However, no sane person would deny that design is a real something, whatever it is, and it's one of the more important causes in the human experience. So that's intellectual suicide, to reject a possible cause just because one doesn't understand it very well.


Apologies if you feel like I'm reading a script.

And my apologies if you did come up with that idea independently. I should remind myself not to drag all the ghosts of past pointless evolution debates into this one.

Just know that I'm never going off a script - and I'm legitimately not trying to argue.
I'm trying to understand.

And it's not that hard to understand the basic concept that somebody made life, right? That's what I don't understand, is when people act like design is not a natural and obvious explanation. It's the Occam's Razor answer, if you will. The obvious answer isn't always the right one, of course, but if I have to defend the possibility that a broken vase was likely dropped, I'm going to doubt the sincerity of the questioner.
This space for rent.
MrDelaney
Posts: 310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 12:53:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 5:47:44 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/27/2017 4:58:44 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
...
But I would disagree with your burglary analogy.

In your analogy we can rationally infer burglary because we know that burglars exist.
We have experience and evidence of past burglaries and individuals who have committed them.


We know that design and designers exist. Design is a well known phenomenon.

Agreed.
But we do not know that supernatural agents exist, or anything outside of space-time.
That was my point - I don't feel one lends support to the other.

I agree we understand that design and designers are a possible phenomenon.
It is the 'supreme' aspect (that you mentioned earlier) that I feel we have no support for as of yet.



As far as your analogy, light is a physical thing. Design is an abstract trait.
So I'm not sure how that analogy holds.


I agree - I think design is ultimately meta-physical and may be why some people are so uncomfortable with the concept. However, no sane person would deny that design is a real something, whatever it is, and it's one of the more important causes in the human experience. So that's intellectual suicide, to reject a possible cause just because one doesn't understand it very well.

I'm glad we can agree on the analogy.
We can also totally agree that we shouldn't reject anything based solely on the fact that we don't understand it very well. Agreed, that would be ridiculous.



Apologies if you feel like I'm reading a script.

And my apologies if you did come up with that idea independently. I should remind myself not to drag all the ghosts of past pointless evolution debates into this one.

I'm not claiming that I've ever come up with much of anything independently, to be clear.
And no worries - we all drag the ghosts of past debates around.

I generally try to approach these things as conversations, not debates (hopefully).
Granted, we disagree and we know it... so it's hard not to fall into those roles. But I really do want to understand WHY I disagree with people... not just what we disagree on.

Obviously we both believe we're right, and we both seem like rational and capable people. Something convinced each of us of our belief and that is what I'm usually the most interested in.

Something I try to always keep in mind is something a friend of mine says - "being wrong and no knowing it feels exactly the same as being right." And I always try to remember that pretty much all my beliefs could fall into that trap.


Just know that I'm never going off a script - and I'm legitimately not trying to argue.
I'm trying to understand.

And it's not that hard to understand the basic concept that somebody made life, right? That's what I don't understand, is when people act like design is not a natural and obvious explanation. It's the Occam's Razor answer, if you will. The obvious answer isn't always the right one, of course, but if I have to defend the possibility that a broken vase was likely dropped, I'm going to doubt the sincerity of the questioner.

I totally get the temptation to say 'it looks designed.'
But what I truly don't understand is when people try to frame it as a 'simple' solution (using Occam's razor for example). There is nothing that seems simple about a supreme designer. An eternal thinking agent that lives outside of space and time is not a simple thing.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 12:54:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2017 12:53:47 AM, MrDelaney wrote:
At 7/27/2017 5:47:44 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/27/2017 4:58:44 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
...
But I would disagree with your burglary analogy.

In your analogy we can rationally infer burglary because we know that burglars exist.
We have experience and evidence of past burglaries and individuals who have committed them.


We know that design and designers exist. Design is a well known phenomenon.

Agreed.
But we do not know that supernatural agents exist, or anything outside of space-time.
That was my point - I don't feel one lends support to the other.


"Supernatural" isn't required. You're rejecting this option because you know it leads to God, not because there's anything wrong with the logic. Designed object implies designer, that's all. Extreme elegance and genius of design implies a genius designer.

I agree we understand that design and designers are a possible phenomenon.
It is the 'supreme' aspect (that you mentioned earlier) that I feel we have no support for as of yet.


Well, do you know of any other designer capable of making the ecosystem from scratch? If not, then the designer of the ecosystem is "Supreme: superior to all others" that we know of. Again - you've got a problem with God, not with the logic.

And it's not that hard to understand the basic concept that somebody made life, right? That's what I don't understand, is when people act like design is not a natural and obvious explanation. It's the Occam's Razor answer, if you will. The obvious answer isn't always the right one, of course, but if I have to defend the possibility that a broken vase was likely dropped, I'm going to doubt the sincerity of the questioner.

I totally get the temptation to say 'it looks designed.'

And "temptation" suggests there is something untoward about considering this obvious step of logic. How so?

But what I truly don't understand is when people try to frame it as a 'simple' solution (using Occam's razor for example). There is nothing that seems simple about a supreme designer. An eternal thinking agent that lives outside of space and time is not a simple thing.

No, there's nothing simple about God, but the case I'm making here is one of simply following the evidence where it leads. There's nothing simple about constructing an atom bomb, but if you wake up one morning and see a flattened NYC on the news, you will immediately think "oh bleep, one of those crazies finally got the bomb". Big effects require a big cause. God suffers from the 'familiarity breeds contempt' problem and the professional athlete thing where he makes it look easy. But if one really stops and considers the technical sophistication of life, from DNA to the orbits of the earth and the supporting planets - it's way beyond breathtaking.
This space for rent.
Goldtop
Posts: 6,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 5:47:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2017 12:54:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:

No, there's nothing simple about God, but the case I'm making here is one of simply following the evidence where it leads.

The evidence, ALL of it, leads to evolution. People who do science for a living, their lives and education are in the pursuit of science, hence they know how to do science and how the scientific method works, unlike yourself.

So, when you say we "simply follow the evidence where it leads", what exactly are you trying to say? We know where the evidence leads, and it's not to Jesus.

There's nothing simple about constructing an atom bomb, but if you wake up one morning and see a flattened NYC on the news, you will immediately think "oh bleep, one of those crazies finally got the bomb".

And, if Jesus came down to Earth and proclaimed himself Lord and Savior over the entire world, who witnesses the event (like the flattening of NYC), then we'll know where that evidence would lead, to Jesus. Your analogy fails without an actual event occurring, like the flattening of NYC. Can't you see that?

Big effects require a big cause.

Where are the "Big effects" of God? Show us.

God suffers from the 'familiarity breeds contempt' problem and the professional athlete thing where he makes it look easy.

Makes what look easy? The flattening of NYC with an atomic bomb?

But if one really stops and considers the technical sophistication of life, from DNA to the orbits of the earth and the supporting planets - it's way beyond breathtaking.

But, not way beyond understanding how it all works.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 6:25:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2017 5:47:06 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 7/28/2017 12:54:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:

No, there's nothing simple about God, but the case I'm making here is one of simply following the evidence where it leads.

The evidence, ALL of it, leads to evolution. People who do science for a living, their lives and education are in the pursuit of science, hence they know how to do science and how the scientific method works, unlike yourself.


You're whistling past the graveyard, and I think you know this. I do science for a living.


Big effects require a big cause.

Where are the "Big effects" of God? Show us.


The ecosystem is the big effect. I don't need to show you, it's all around you. Go ahead, go take a walk, and really LOOK. I dare you :-)


But if one really stops and considers the technical sophistication of life, from DNA to the orbits of the earth and the supporting planets - it's way beyond breathtaking.

But, not way beyond understanding how it all works.

You think science understands how it all works? So why can't they stop heart attacks or cancer, or economic recessions?

Let's be real here: You say this because you have no freaking clue how ANY of it works, and because you're completely ignorant of science you have these romantic fantasies about the powers of scientists. But 2+2=4 whether you have a doctorate or only made it through 8th grade. Don't be afraid to think for yourself, that's my message (which I'm sure you'll happily accept after I've totally insulted you)
This space for rent.
Harikrish
Posts: 34,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 6:46:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2017 2:28:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/27/2017 2:13:07 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
At 7/27/2017 2:08:13 PM, v3nesl wrote:
there are very intelligent reasons to disagree with your position.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider to be the strongest reasons?
Just the top one or two that come to mind.

I'm not asking you to justify them - I'm just curious to look into them for myself

I'll summarize the while thing with a question: Have you ever been wrong when you inferred that something was designed?

Note, the question is not "can you always detect design", but is anyone ever wrong when they DO infer design. The inference of design is difficult or impossible to reduce to an algorithm because design is creative. Design is a matter of doing the non-obvious with raw materials, so there is no formula for it, or else we could all be the Beatles. But we know it when we see it, as a practical matter, and general markers of design can be given. That's why computers can do SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence). So, in short, by any reasonable indications of design, life is designed. By a supreme genius.

And let's also note, the claim of design can easily be refuted by showing how a given form can arise by non-designed means. And this has not been done for life. In fact the failure to reproduce any small example of creative evolution is quite spectacular, given the other technical achievements since Darwin's voyage, but not unexpected for anyone with a "bits and bytes" level understanding of how the physical world behaves.

The inference of design was reduced to a simple algorithm.
Creation was created in 6 days. It was further divided into separate days, each day bringing forth a new creation. Simple addition was used in the algorithm.
Goldtop
Posts: 6,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2017 7:15:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2017 6:25:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/28/2017 5:47:06 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 7/28/2017 12:54:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:

No, there's nothing simple about God, but the case I'm making here is one of simply following the evidence where it leads.

The evidence, ALL of it, leads to evolution. People who do science for a living, their lives and education are in the pursuit of science, hence they know how to do science and how the scientific method works, unlike yourself.


You're whistling past the graveyard, and I think you know this. I do science for a living.

Sure you do. That's why folks have to explain the scientific method to you, because you do it everyday.


Big effects require a big cause.

Where are the "Big effects" of God? Show us.


The ecosystem is the big effect. I don't need to show you, it's all around you. Go ahead, go take a walk, and really LOOK. I dare you :-)

Then, you don't seem to have anywhere to go considering the "ecosystem" is something science researches. Guess what, Mr. Scientist, that research and it's resulting evidence leads to evolution, not Jesus. So much for your "Big effects" argument.


But if one really stops and considers the technical sophistication of life, from DNA to the orbits of the earth and the supporting planets - it's way beyond breathtaking.

But, not way beyond understanding how it all works.

You think science understands how it all works? So why can't they stop heart attacks or cancer, or economic recessions?

Well, Mr. Scientist, understanding how evolution works does not instantly mean we can stop heart attacks or cancer. Of course, science is indeed working on those things, but they take a lot of time. Funny, how you, Mr. Scientist didn't know that. Curious.

Let's be real here: You say this because you have no freaking clue how ANY of it works, and because you're completely ignorant of science you have these romantic fantasies about the powers of scientists. But 2+2=4 whether you have a doctorate or only made it through 8th grade. Don't be afraid to think for yourself, that's my message (which I'm sure you'll happily accept after I've totally insulted you)

Again, you often project your own ignorance of science onto others, like you're doing now.

Yes, 2+2=4. That's called math. But, if we turn to science we also find a version of 2+2=4, which happens to be natural selection = diversity of species, the two main postulates and facts of evolution. Don't be afraid to think, Mr. Scientist.
MrDelaney
Posts: 310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 12:37:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2017 12:54:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/28/2017 12:53:47 AM, MrDelaney wrote:
At 7/27/2017 5:47:44 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/27/2017 4:58:44 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
...
But I would disagree with your burglary analogy.

In your analogy we can rationally infer burglary because we know that burglars exist.
We have experience and evidence of past burglaries and individuals who have committed them.


We know that design and designers exist. Design is a well known phenomenon.

Agreed.
But we do not know that supernatural agents exist, or anything outside of space-time.
That was my point - I don't feel one lends support to the other.


"Supernatural" isn't required. You're rejecting this option because you know it leads to God, not because there's anything wrong with the logic. Designed object implies designer, that's all. Extreme elegance and genius of design implies a genius designer.

Fair enough, that's a good point. I added 'supernatural,' you didn't.
I would say that I'm not rejecting any option, I am saying that an option is not truly an option unless we know it is possible.

Personally I would say that we can only go so far as to say 'this looks designed.'
Anything past that would need justification.


I agree we understand that design and designers are a possible phenomenon.
It is the 'supreme' aspect (that you mentioned earlier) that I feel we have no support for as of yet.


Well, do you know of any other designer capable of making the ecosystem from scratch? If not, then the designer of the ecosystem is "Supreme: superior to all others" that we know of. Again - you've got a problem with God, not with the logic.

I know of exactly no designer capable of making an ecosystem from scratch, that is my point.
We cannot assume one, it must be first shown to be a possibility

I don't have a problem with God, I just don't see how we can assume his existence.


And it's not that hard to understand the basic concept that somebody made life, right? That's what I don't understand, is when people act like design is not a natural and obvious explanation. It's the Occam's Razor answer, if you will. The obvious answer isn't always the right one, of course, but if I have to defend the possibility that a broken vase was likely dropped, I'm going to doubt the sincerity of the questioner.

I totally get the temptation to say 'it looks designed.'

And "temptation" suggests there is something untoward about considering this obvious step of logic. How so?

Not untoward, but I think there is something sloppy in the logic.
I should have been more clear in what I was trying to say.
I agree that certain things look designed, but the temptation comes in wanting to jump to an explanation for that apparent design (i.e. a supreme designer).

There is nothing wrong with seeing that there is order and apparent design in the ecosystem.
The problem in logic to me seems to be in jumping to something from that without sufficient evidence.

To be clear, I'm not saying that I think a supreme designer isn't possible.
But it has not yet been shown to be possible.


But what I truly don't understand is when people try to frame it as a 'simple' solution (using Occam's razor for example). There is nothing that seems simple about a supreme designer. An eternal thinking agent that lives outside of space and time is not a simple thing.

No, there's nothing simple about God, but the case I'm making here is one of simply following the evidence where it leads. There's nothing simple about constructing an atom bomb, but if you wake up one morning and see a flattened NYC on the news, you will immediately think "oh bleep, one of those crazies finally got the bomb". Big effects require a big cause. God suffers from the 'familiarity breeds contempt' problem and the professional athlete thing where he makes it look easy. But if one really stops and considers the technical sophistication of life, from DNA to the orbits of the earth and the supporting planets - it's way beyond breathtaking.

I agree, it is breathtaking. And I take your point regarding simplicity - that makes sense.
But as for your example (the atom bomb) once again, you are using things which we know exist, have experience with and already recognize.

Take your atom bomb example and place it in 500 B.C.
What would the explanation be then? Would people look at the flatted and charred earth and immediately think, "oh yeah, obviously a group of humans developed a dangerous technology and created a large explosion device." Probably not. They would probably think that an angry god had destroyed the city.

Or, if every planet on our solar system suddenly exploded tomorrow would we all think "wow, there must be other living beings on all those planets who developed the atom bomb." Now, obviously there would be something going on that we would want to investigate, but we wouldn't be justified in suddenly jumping to an explanation based solely on the fact that we have experience with explosions here on earth.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear in what I'm trying to get across - but it seems to me that it is a jump in logic to take what we experience in humans (i.e. designer) and then take that and use it to justify the existence of a supreme being that operates outside of space and time.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 12:45:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2017 12:37:06 AM, MrDelaney wrote:
...

Personally I would say that we can only go so far as to say 'this looks designed.'
Anything past that would need justification.


Design, ergo, designer. What's the problem here?


Well, do you know of any other designer capable of making the ecosystem from scratch? If not, then the designer of the ecosystem is "Supreme: superior to all others" that we know of. Again - you've got a problem with God, not with the logic.

I know of exactly no designer capable of making an ecosystem from scratch, that is my point.
We cannot assume one, it must be first shown to be a possibility


The design shows it to be a possibility. If you can't understand how to make a jet that flies at 500 mph and 30,000 feet, do you decide it must therefore have emerged spontaneously?

I don't have a problem with God, I just don't see how we can assume his existence.


Yeah, I think you do. Perhaps this is a blind spot for you, but clearly you don't want to follow straightforward logic on this one.


Not untoward, but I think there is something sloppy in the logic.
I should have been more clear in what I was trying to say.
I agree that certain things look designed, but the temptation comes in wanting to jump to an explanation for that apparent design (i.e. a supreme designer).


Yeah "wanting to jump to an explanation", that would kind of be a description of science, wouldn't it? You're trying to come up with some way to make my logic unsound, but the fact is, it's just simple, straightforward, and obvious. I'm not the one trying to avoid the obvious here.

There is nothing wrong with seeing that there is order and apparent design in the ecosystem.
The problem in logic to me seems to be in jumping to something from that without sufficient evidence.


The ecosystem is a mountain of evidence. Ain't nuthin subtle here, my friend. The genius of the ecosystem is overwhelming, as I pointed out earlier. It's not "well, that pile of rocks kind of looks like an arrow, but maybe not". No, the study of life is the study of ingenuity upon ingenuity, from the microbe to the Orca.

To be clear, I'm not saying that I think a supreme designer isn't possible.
But it has not yet been shown to be possible.


I'd say the design shows it IS possible. And I'm not ruling out the possibility of alternate explanations, but I don't evolution is viable, and I don't know of any other alternatives.

But as for your example (the atom bomb) once again, you are using things which we know exist, have experience with and already recognize.


And we know design exists, just as we know mutation exists.


I'm not sure if I'm being clear in what I'm trying to get across - but it seems to me that it is a jump in logic to take what we experience in humans (i.e. designer) and then take that and use it to justify the existence of a supreme being that operates outside of space and time.

Again - I didn't say anything about "operates outside of space and time". I just said "design". You work the chain one link at a time.

But I do get your point that knowing a potential cause does not rule out other possible causes, and I don't think I'm making that mistake. I've considered Darwin et al, very seriously, but I also consider the obvious explanation, and I think that's the one that works best.
This space for rent.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 1:05:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2017 12:45:50 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Again - I didn't say anything about "operates outside of space and time". I just said "design". You work the chain one link at a time.

Can you nominate something that is not designed?
If not then how do you recognise design?
MrDelaney
Posts: 310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 3:22:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2017 12:45:50 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/29/2017 12:37:06 AM, MrDelaney wrote:
...

Personally I would say that we can only go so far as to say 'this looks designed.'
Anything past that would need justification.


Design, ergo, designer. What's the problem here?

I think the difficulty we're having is that you see 'designer' as the sole possible cause of apparent design, whereas I don't see it as the only possible cause (or, more importantly, how we can assume it is the only possible cause).

If 'designer' is not the sole possible cause then the step from 'design' to 'designer' would be a faulty one without sufficient evidence to support it.

The use of analogies is obviously a problem here (especially given that I feel that the use of analogy is what is giving rise to the faulty assumption of a designer in the first place). But in order to try to clarify where I'm coming from I'm going to try another analogy (and please correct me if you feel I'm misrepresenting your position here).

It occurred to me this morning that you seem to be viewing design in the same way we would view a murder.
If there was a murder then, by definition, there was a murderer. Clearly.

On the other hand I think I'm viewing design in the same way we would view a death.
If we find a dead body then we investigate - there could be a murderer, or there could not.
It could be a suicide, or it could be a natural death.

When police arrive on the scene they see the clues, and obviously have a theory from the start ("this looks like a murder" or "this looks like a suicide"). But they still investigate the crime to prove their theory, they don't simply go off how it looks.

My point is - I feel I may be looking at apparent design as having multiple possible causes, whereas you begin with the thought that there is only one possible cause (intelligence).

Of course where things become difficult is that due to both our preconceptions we can't get past this point - because I can't use any examples of non-intelligently designed apparent design to show you as support because from your vantage point they would all be intelligently designed. Is that fair to say? (I'm thinking of things like cymatics or fractals).

So anything I might point to as an example of non-designed apparent design would, for you, be an example of a 'supremely designed' design. Does that sound fair?



Well, do you know of any other designer capable of making the ecosystem from scratch? If not, then the designer of the ecosystem is "Supreme: superior to all others" that we know of. Again - you've got a problem with God, not with the logic.

I know of exactly no designer capable of making an ecosystem from scratch, that is my point.
We cannot assume one, it must be first shown to be a possibility


The design shows it to be a possibility. If you can't understand how to make a jet that flies at 500 mph and 30,000 feet, do you decide it must therefore have emerged spontaneously?

No, of course not. I've never said that I believed there is not a cause for the apparent design of the world, only that I don't believe we have warrant to assign it to an intelligence.

And again, you are using examples we have experience with and knowledge of.
Much like I said with the atom bomb example, take that jet back to 500 B.C. and see what assumptions people make of it's abilities. Anyone arguing that there are natural explanations for its ability to fly would most likely be deemed a heretic.


I don't have a problem with God, I just don't see how we can assume his existence.


Yeah, I think you do. Perhaps this is a blind spot for you, but clearly you don't want to follow straightforward logic on this one.

Perhaps.
I'm not sure how I would be able to spot it if it were a blind spot.
If it is, I would definitely like to know.



Not untoward, but I think there is something sloppy in the logic.
I should have been more clear in what I was trying to say.
I agree that certain things look designed, but the temptation comes in wanting to jump to an explanation for that apparent design (i.e. a supreme designer).


Yeah "wanting to jump to an explanation", that would kind of be a description of science, wouldn't it? You're trying to come up with some way to make my logic unsound, but the fact is, it's just simple, straightforward, and obvious. I'm not the one trying to avoid the obvious here.

You lost me a bit at "wanting to jump to an explanation" being a description of science.
That actually sounds like the exact opposite of science to me.


There is nothing wrong with seeing that there is order and apparent design in the ecosystem.
The problem in logic to me seems to be in jumping to something from that without sufficient evidence.


The ecosystem is a mountain of evidence. Ain't nuthin subtle here, my friend. The genius of the ecosystem is overwhelming, as I pointed out earlier. It's not "well, that pile of rocks kind of looks like an arrow, but maybe not". No, the study of life is the study of ingenuity upon ingenuity, from the microbe to the Orca.

And the ingenuity that we see is also in line with what we should expect to see if life evolved to fit its environment. I agree it's amazing. But I don't see how we can ascribe it to an intelligence.

Again, I'm not saying that an intelligence is not a possibility.
But I don't see how we're warranted in saying it is the most likely possibility, much less the only one.


To be clear, I'm not saying that I think a supreme designer isn't possible.
But it has not yet been shown to be possible.


I'd say the design shows it IS possible. And I'm not ruling out the possibility of alternate explanations, but I don't evolution is viable, and I don't know of any other alternatives.

Even if we assume evolution is wrong, you would still need to somehow prove the possibility of a supreme designer. The fact that an explanation is consistent with what we see is not nearly enough to justify accepting it as true without further support for it's existence. The theory of miasma was consistent with what people saw in disease, for example. All the effects that were observed were perfectly consistent with the cause they had assumed. I'm not sure I could say that they were rationally justified in believing it, though.

Again - I didn't say anything about "operates outside of space and time". I just said "design". You work the chain one link at a time.

Fair enough.
I felt I was working the chain one link at a time.
But I also assumed you were saying that the universe appeared designed, which is how I got to space and time. If you are only saying that design appears evident on earth, then you're right and my leap to space and time is unjustified.

But going step by step, I assumed you were saying:
The universe appears designed.
If the universe was designed by an intelligence then this intelligence must be separate from it.
Space and time is contained within the universe.
Therefore this intelligence must be outside of space and time.

(cont.)
Goldtop
Posts: 6,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 3:45:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2017 6:25:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I do science for a living.

At 7/29/2017 12:45:50 PM, v3nesl wrote:

Yeah "wanting to jump to an explanation", that would kind of be a description of science, wouldn't it?

It certainly appears that the latter statement refutes the former.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 7:02:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2017 3:22:07 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
At 7/29/2017 12:45:50 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/29/2017 12:37:06 AM, MrDelaney wrote:
...

Personally I would say that we can only go so far as to say 'this looks designed.'
Anything past that would need justification.


Design, ergo, designer. What's the problem here?

I think the difficulty we're having is that you see 'designer' as the sole possible cause of apparent design, whereas I don't see it as the only possible cause (or, more importantly, how we can assume it is the only possible cause).


Well, yeah, I reject universal common descent as technical nonsense, you think it's an alternative explanation. nuf said on that point.


Even if we assume evolution is wrong, you would still need to somehow prove the possibility of a supreme designer.

No, I don't agree with that. One does not need to see a cause to infer its existence. We do not need to see black holes, only the effects of them. It certainly helps to be able to explain a cause, but if you think about it, we usually infer a cause first, and that's what leads us to explore the cause. So we 'know of' first, understand later.

But I also assumed you were saying that the universe appeared designed, which is how I got to space and time. If you are only saying that design appears evident on earth, then you're right and my leap to space and time is unjustified.

But going step by step, I assumed you were saying:
The universe appears designed.
If the universe was designed by an intelligence then this intelligence must be separate from it.
Space and time is contained within the universe.
Therefore this intelligence must be outside of space and time.


Well, yeah, actually, the big bang does require a creator outside of [our] space and time.

Since you brought it up :-) So already we are progressing from 'know of' the creator to learning more about him.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 7:13:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2017 3:29:58 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
(cont. from above)

At 7/29/2017 12:45:50 PM, v3nesl wrote:

But I do get your point that knowing a potential cause does not rule out other possible causes, and I don't think I'm making that mistake. I've considered Darwin et al, very seriously, but I also consider the obvious explanation, and I think that's the one that works best.

And I have no issue with saying it might be a possibility.
But when you make statements like "I don't know of any other alternatives" then it starts sounding like a argument from ignorance.


Yeah, but this is getting into sophistry. "I think I can cross the street now, I don't see any cars" "That sounds like an argument from ignorance, better stay on this side of the street" We can't live like that, of course. I'm not running a court case, just trying to figure out how I got here.

So I will firmly stand on the proposition that Intelligent Design of some sort is the only rational and scientifically sound explanation for life. If somebody comes up with an alternative explanation, fine, but for now there isn't one, as far as I'm concerned.


What I mean is, you cannot use the apparent design as evidence only for a designer. It is just as much evidence for evolution as it is for a designer.


I TOTALLY disagree. Evolution (as a theory of origins) is the mother of all junk science, to put it bluntly. If any sort of evolution could produce the sort of things we see in life, then somebody would be able to demonstrate that.

Your issues with evolution come from the specific data and testable theories from evolutionary science, I assume, right? Perhaps I'm putting words in your mouth, but I assume you disagree with interpretations of data, or findings or some sort.


I point out the emperor has no clothes. I point out the lack of results.

Meanwhile we have no specific data or testable theories for a supreme designer.


We CAN demonstrate design, as in genetic engineering. Sorry. The demonstration of intelligent design is so obvious and abundant that you may overlook it. What you're asking is the equivalent of me asking science to rerun the Pleistocene age. I'm not asking any such things, just to demonstrate the alleged creative powers of mutation.
This space for rent.
MrDelaney
Posts: 310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 7:17:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2017 7:02:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/29/2017 3:22:07 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
At 7/29/2017 12:45:50 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/29/2017 12:37:06 AM, MrDelaney wrote:
...

Personally I would say that we can only go so far as to say 'this looks designed.'
Anything past that would need justification.


Design, ergo, designer. What's the problem here?

I think the difficulty we're having is that you see 'designer' as the sole possible cause of apparent design, whereas I don't see it as the only possible cause (or, more importantly, how we can assume it is the only possible cause).


Well, yeah, I reject universal common descent as technical nonsense, you think it's an alternative explanation. nuf said on that point.

Agreed, fair enough.
)



Even if we assume evolution is wrong, you would still need to somehow prove the possibility of a supreme designer.

No, I don't agree with that. One does not need to see a cause to infer its existence. We do not need to see black holes, only the effects of them. It certainly helps to be able to explain a cause, but if you think about it, we usually infer a cause first, and that's what leads us to explore the cause. So we 'know of' first, understand later.

I would disagree slightly.
I don't know that we really "know of" first... we "suspect of" first.
And I think that's really the crux of what I'm getting at.

We may see certain things and think... hm... something we're going to call a "black hole" could cause something like this. THEN we go out and look to see if there is any further evidence of this thing we've proposed. We don't "know of" black holes first, we conceived of them as a possible solution and then check to see if anything else backs that up and aligns with it.


But I also assumed you were saying that the universe appeared designed, which is how I got to space and time. If you are only saying that design appears evident on earth, then you're right and my leap to space and time is unjustified.

But going step by step, I assumed you were saying:
The universe appears designed.
If the universe was designed by an intelligence then this intelligence must be separate from it.
Space and time is contained within the universe.
Therefore this intelligence must be outside of space and time.


Well, yeah, actually, the big bang does require a creator outside of [our] space and time.

Since you brought it up :-) So already we are progressing from 'know of' the creator to learning more about him.

Agreed on the big bang (though I think the rules of cause and effect would probably break down going back far enough, but that's another conversation). But agreed, the big bang would probably require something outside of our space and time.

Speaking of the big bang, that's another good example.
It was theorized as a possible answer to a question. We didn't suddenly "know of" the big bang. We "suspected" it might be a plausible solution. Then predications were made, further evidence was discovered (cosmic background radiation, for example), and the theory became more plausible and believable.

All these cases point to exactly what I've been trying to express - that we propose a solution as only the first step. We don't simply accept a solution because it is consistent, we then go out and examine, test and refine.

I'm certain you can see the distinction I'm drawing there. I guess I just don't see how or why you feel that a supreme designer wouldn't be treated in the same way as the big bang or black holes.
MrDelaney
Posts: 310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 7:28:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2017 7:13:51 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/29/2017 3:29:58 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
(cont. from above)

At 7/29/2017 12:45:50 PM, v3nesl wrote:

But I do get your point that knowing a potential cause does not rule out other possible causes, and I don't think I'm making that mistake. I've considered Darwin et al, very seriously, but I also consider the obvious explanation, and I think that's the one that works best.

And I have no issue with saying it might be a possibility.
But when you make statements like "I don't know of any other alternatives" then it starts sounding like a argument from ignorance.


Yeah, but this is getting into sophistry. "I think I can cross the street now, I don't see any cars" "That sounds like an argument from ignorance, better stay on this side of the street" We can't live like that, of course. I'm not running a court case, just trying to figure out how I got here.

That wouldn't be an argument from ignorance, though.
Not seeing cars on the street is a fact which you verify with your own experience.
An argument from ignorance would be, "there must not be cars on the street because everyone was abducted by aliens. I can't think of a better explanation."

I'm not sure what this has to do with running a court case - I was talking about having justified beliefs (which is very much how I would like to live). I don't see that as sophistry at all - but we may just disagree on that point.


So I will firmly stand on the proposition that Intelligent Design of some sort is the only rational and scientifically sound explanation for life. If somebody comes up with an alternative explanation, fine, but for now there isn't one, as far as I'm concerned.

Fair enough.
You're obviously free to do so - and I think I more clearly understand how you arrived at that now. Thanks for your patience in walking through your thought process with me.



What I mean is, you cannot use the apparent design as evidence only for a designer. It is just as much evidence for evolution as it is for a designer.


I TOTALLY disagree. Evolution (as a theory of origins) is the mother of all junk science, to put it bluntly. If any sort of evolution could produce the sort of things we see in life, then somebody would be able to demonstrate that.

Obviously, I don't quite agree with the second half of your statement (:
But I'm glad to agree on the point about evidence.


Your issues with evolution come from the specific data and testable theories from evolutionary science, I assume, right? Perhaps I'm putting words in your mouth, but I assume you disagree with interpretations of data, or findings or some sort.


I point out the emperor has no clothes. I point out the lack of results.

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'lack of results.'
But I also completely understand if you don't want to get into the weeds on evolutionary theory. That's a whole other rabbit hole.


Meanwhile we have no specific data or testable theories for a supreme designer.


We CAN demonstrate design, as in genetic engineering. Sorry. The demonstration of intelligent design is so obvious and abundant that you may overlook it. What you're asking is the equivalent of me asking science to rerun the Pleistocene age. I'm not asking any such things, just to demonstrate the alleged creative powers of mutation.

I think I get what you're saying.
But you seem to be saying that so long as we show that humans can engineer genetics from existing life then that lends support to the idea that a supreme designer built the entire universe. From what I understand you are saying that it is simply a different scale of design but we can assume that the principle is the same.

If so, that seems akin to saying that human's creation of the wheel is evidence for the fact that faster than light travel is possible. It's simply a different scale of speed, but the principle is the same.
MrDelaney
Posts: 310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 7:34:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2017 7:13:51 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/29/2017 3:29:58 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
What I mean is, you cannot use the apparent design as evidence only for a designer. It is just as much evidence for evolution as it is for a designer.


I TOTALLY disagree. Evolution (as a theory of origins) is the mother of all junk science, to put it bluntly. If any sort of evolution could produce the sort of things we see in life, then somebody would be able to demonstrate that.

I'm sorry, I obviously misread what you wrote when I responded.
Going quickly I thought you said you totally agreed about the evidence point.
My mistake.

My point, whether you believe evolution or not, was that the world as we see it today is what we would expect to see from evolution if it functions the way it is theorized to function.

The evolutionist looks at the world and says "yeah, that's what I would expect"
and the intelligent design proponent looks at the world and says "yeah, that's what I would expect."

The world as it is today is the 'effect' that we're both observing.
So we must find ways to prove and justify the 'cause' that we are proposing.

That was what I was trying to say.
I'm certain you disagree with it, I'm not trying to change your mind, just wanted to make sure I was being clear.

Apologies for misreading your reponse.
Goldtop
Posts: 6,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 7:54:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2017 7:02:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:

Well, yeah, I reject universal common descent as technical nonsense, you think it's an alternative explanation. nuf said on that point.

For clarity, you reject it out of hand without understanding it.

No, I don't agree with that. One does not need to see a cause to infer its existence. We do not need to see black holes, only the effects of them.

False example, we can test and measure the effects of a black hole, it's gravitational influence and find observable results to see clearly the remnants of a large star.

There's no measurable or testable effects from a supreme designer, especially when all of nature exhibits the effects of evolution when measured and tested. What are the effects of a supreme designer that coincide with the observable gravitational effects of a black hole? None.

If we see no cause of leprechauns or unicorns, can we still infer their existence, according to your logic.

It certainly helps to be able to explain a cause, but if you think about it, we usually infer a cause first, and that's what leads us to explore the cause. So we 'know of' first, understand later.

Okay, we infer the cause of a supreme designer, but on further exploration we find the actual results of evolution.

Well, yeah, actually, the big bang does require a creator outside of [our] space and time.

Why?
DuhUnenlightenedOne
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2017 7:56:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2017 12:54:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/28/2017 12:53:47 AM, MrDelaney wrote:
At 7/27/2017 5:47:44 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/27/2017 4:58:44 PM, MrDelaney wrote:
...
But I would disagree with your burglary analogy.

In your analogy we can rationally infer burglary because we know that burglars exist.
We have experience and evidence of past burglaries and individuals who have committed them.


We know that design and designers exist. Design is a well known phenomenon.

Agreed.
But we do not know that supernatural agents exist, or anything outside of space-time.
That was my point - I don't feel one lends support to the other.


"Supernatural" isn't required. You're rejecting this option because you know it leads to God, not because there's anything wrong with the logic. Designed object implies designer, that's all. Extreme elegance and genius of design implies a genius designer.

I agree we understand that design and designers are a possible phenomenon.
It is the 'supreme' aspect (that you mentioned earlier) that I feel we have no support for as of yet.


Well, do you know of any other designer capable of making the ecosystem from scratch? If not, then the designer of the ecosystem is "Supreme: superior to all others" that we know of. Again - you've got a problem with God, not with the logic.

And it's not that hard to understand the basic concept that somebody made life, right? That's what I don't understand, is when people act like design is not a natural and obvious explanation. It's the Occam's Razor answer, if you will. The obvious answer isn't always the right one, of course, but if I have to defend the possibility that a broken vase was likely dropped, I'm going to doubt the sincerity of the questioner.

I totally get the temptation to say 'it looks designed.'

And "temptation" suggests there is something untoward about considering this obvious step of logic. How so?

But what I truly don't understand is when people try to frame it as a 'simple' solution (using Occam's razor for example). There is nothing that seems simple about a supreme designer. An eternal thinking agent that lives outside of space and time is not a simple thing.

No, there's nothing simple about God, but the case I'm making here is one of simply following the evidence where it leads. There's nothing simple about constructing an atom bomb, but if you wake up one morning and see a flattened NYC on the news, you will immediately think "oh bleep, one of those crazies finally got the bomb". Big effects require a big cause. God suffers from the 'familiarity breeds contempt' problem and the professional athlete thing where he makes it look easy. But if one really stops and considers the technical sophistication of life, from DNA to the orbits of the earth and the supporting planets - it's way beyond breathtaking.
y can't energy be teh designer insted a genius designer...I mean energy causes water to flow from a river allowin it to shape different stones and rocks thus be its designer...a desiner does not require consciousness
"Thoose who kan makke u believe in absurtitties kan make u comet atrositties"- French Mary-Awey

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.