Conclusive evidence for Design!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JDaniel said:
Candide:

What were they then? Extraterrestrial?
Click to expand...
No, they turned out to be natural.
Or, it may turn out to be really unanswerable by science.
Click to expand...
God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
It may be, but clearly it would extremely premature to jump to that conclusion when research into the mind is only just getting started and making such rapid progress as well.

For hundreds of years and more people have been claiming that various things across many fields are too complex to ever be understood, and for hundreds of years scientists have been showing those statements to be incorrect. I expect this trend to continue for the foreseeable future.,
 
Candide_West said:
In order to be a “design denier” presumably I would need to have something to deny? Thus far I’ve not been given anything to deny (beyond baseless assertions like the one you provided above of course).

Unless of course you by the same argument classify people as “Bigfoot deniers”, “lochness monster deniers”, “fairy deniers”, “alien abduction deniers”… Etc.

My question again was whether any evidence of design (other than things which were designed by humans).
Click to expand...
So your claim is that the highest form of design was made by humans?
 
zro_x said:
@ buffalo

I did a little more thinking about polygenesis, and I came to the conclusion that it really isn’t a threat to Catholicism after all. Cain, Abel, Seth, and rest of Adam and Eve’s children could have mated with other biological humans, who would not have immortal souls and were therefore spiritually animals. The offspring of a biological human and a spiritual human would always be a spiritual human. Eventually, all the non-spiritual humans would die out. Thus, Adam and Eve could have been part of a population of “humans” and still be the stem of all humans today.
Click to expand...
How do you know they would have died out?
 
JDaniel said:
Tony:

I think it means, “weedy,” in other words, it occurs like a weed occurs. But, I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
That fits the bill perfectly, JD!
The term weed is used in a variety of senses, generally centering around a plant that is not desired within a certain context. The term weed is a subjective one, without any classification value, since a plant that is a weed in one context is not a weed when growing where it belongs or is wanted. Indeed, a number of plants that many consider “weeds”, are often intentionally grown by people in gardens or other cultivated-plant settings. Therefore, a weed is a plant that is considered by the user of the term to be a nuisance. The word commonly is applied to unwanted plants in human-controlled settings, especially farm fields and gardens, but also lawns, parks, woods, and other areas. More vaguely, “weed” is applied to any plants that grow and reproduce aggressively and invasively.[1] The term weed has also been generalized to any species, not just plants, that can live in diverse environments and reproduce quickly, and the term has even been applied to humans.[2]
Click to expand...
In short the term “natural” is meaningless because it is arbitrarily used to reflect the materialists’ interpretation of reality. It can be taken to mean anything that suits them but they cannot produce any definite criteria for determining whether something is natural or not. It is a subterfuge to propagate their view that everything is a weed, i.e. undesigned and utterly purposeless…
 
buffalo said:
So your claim is that the highest form of design was made by humans?
Click to expand...
No, what I am saying is that to date I know of no evidence of rational design other than that performed by humans.

So again, I’m curious if anyone has actually identified any evidence of Design which was not performed by our own species.
 
buffalo said:
So your claim is that the highest form of design was made by humans?
Click to expand...
It baffles me why materialists believe in any form of design at all. If everything has a physical cause surely rational activity is a total fantasy… 😉
 
Candide_West said:
No, what I am saying is that to date I know of no evidence of rational design other than that performed by humans.

So again, I’m curious if anyone has actually identified any evidence of Design which was not performed by our own species.
Click to expand...
The DNA code.
 
Candide_West said:
This sees reasonable.

I would only add that to date every activity of the human body which we have come to understand has turned out to be… NOT supernatural. And the research to date strongly indicates that this will turn out to be the case with consciousness as well. Nonetheless, it is at least possible that on this occasion the answer will indeed turn out to be magical.
Click to expand...
This seems to at least approach science of the gaps. There are basically two possiblilities, that everything has a natural cause or that some things have natural causes and some have supernatural causes. As we learn more about the world around us, we can only learn about the natural causes, not the supernatural ones. If there were some supernatural causes, They would obviously be the last ones we could discover.
 
tonyrey said:
A superb example of begging the question!

How can we decide what is natural and what isn’t?
Click to expand...
Like?
Click to expand...
I suppose I should have given an example, but I thought it would be obvious. When I let go of a rock, Gravity is what directly causes that rock to shorten the distance between itself and the earth. Gravity is a natural cause, in this example.
 
tonyrey said:
Science of the gaps pops up once more… What makes you so sure science can explain everything?
Click to expand...
You can’t accuse me of supporting the science of the gaps fallacy just because I recognise the God of the gaps fallacy when I see it.
 
buffalo said:
How do you know they would have died out?
Click to expand...
From what I’ve heard, at one point the entirty of human population could have fit in the yankee stadium. I find It hard to beleive that a pure line of non-spiritual humans could have remained to this day.
 
zro_x said:
I suppose I should have given an example, but I thought it would be obvious. When I let go of a rock, Gravity is what directly causes that rock to shorten the distance between itself and the earth. Gravity is a natural cause, in this example.
Click to expand...
How does one know gravity is not designed?
 
zro_x said:
This seems to at least approach science of the gaps. There are basically two possiblilities, that everything has a natural cause or that some things have natural causes and some have supernatural causes. As we learn more about the world around us, we can only learn about the natural causes, not the supernatural ones. If there were some supernatural causes, They would obviously be the last ones we could discover.
Click to expand...
Zro x:

Personally, I believe there is but one imperative possibility: design. There is no consensus definition of “natural.” To most, it means that which occurs, grows, germinates, etc., outside of our gardens. Men, and women, tend to call everything that comes to be as ‘natural’. Therefore love, hate, willingness to cooperate, truth, thought, and so on, are all ‘natural’. Well, yes they are to some extent! But not in their totality. That everything is simultaneously natural and designed is the best summation of actuality. Isn’t it?

God bless,
jd
 
zro_x said:
Science of the gaps pops up once more… What makes you so sure science can explain everything
Click to expand...
The question is whether you can recognise the science of the gaps fallacy. How do you determine the limits of scientific explanation?

A widespread mistake is to think reality consists only of things we can see, hear, smell, taste and touch. Or at least it is thought that material objects are more certain than anything else. The truth is the exact opposite. If we didn’t have a mind we wouldn’t know anything exists! Our sole certainty is that we are thinking, feeling, perceiving, choosing and making decisions.

We infer that material things exist. We don’t have direct knowledge of things whereas we do have direct knowledge of our mental activity. It doesn’t make sense to put what is observed and interpreted before the observers and interpreters. As far as we know the universe began with the Big Bang but it doesn’t follow that nothing else existed. It is folly to think minds didn’t and don’t exist because they can’t be detected with scientific instruments (designed by minds!) There is not one jot of evidence that inanimate objects are capable of designing anything.

It is ironic that people use their minds to “prove” minds don’t exist. They are living in a dream world constructed by themselves! Eventually they will discover the truth - which is beyond the scope of microscopes, telescopes or anything else and designed not by minute particles but by creative minds…
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top