Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

Conclusive evidence for Design is concerned with fact rather than popular fiction - which may be entertaining but is a poor substitute for the immense value, beauty and significance of real life…

 

[Trurl]

I think it’s a great name for you - and very apt



Oh, you are very clever

Love it

Sarah x

Thank you. I knew I can count on you! Gotta love Stanislaw Lem. He was the greatest thinker of our age. Cheers, Sarah!!!

 

[Trurl]

Conclusive evidence for Design is concerned with fact rather than popular fiction - which may be entertaining but is a poor substitute for the immense value, beauty and significance of real life…

Coming from the mouth of someone, who is unable to differentiate between an argument and a question. Pathetic…

 

[Trurl]

I don’t know and I don’t care.

A perfect summary of your whole existence. You don’t know and you don’t care… there is that one, empty, meaningless slogan that you keep repeating until everyone is ready to puke… and you don’t know and you don’t care!

Maybe you should select that phrase for your signature.

 

[ManRay]

Those terms are universal and have been used by human beings with clearly defined meanings for thousands of years in philosophy, religion and daily life to distinguish rational beings from other forms of life.

They are universal in the fact that they have been used but there is no universal standard as to what they mean without context - which is my whole point. One that you apparently will never understand. I would argue that there is a universal standard for complexity then it should bare out in it’s effect. This has never been the case, and never proven to be true. Would you argue that a a jet fighter is more complex, than a bicycle…sure.? Would it surprise you that a bicycle is the most efficient means of human transportation ever developed? Would you automatically know this? Of course not. It would seem to me that the most complex, and advanced things would have the most logical and efficient effects. There is no evidence of this in relation to what you are talking about.

This is an unverifiable assumption made by materialists which undermines the validity of their own conclusions! Utility is not the sole criterion of what is true or false.

Never said it was Straw dog.

According to your argument your own reasoning is defective because it is the product of blind forces which have programmed all your mental activity over which you have no control whatsoever! The conclusions of a cog in the machine of nature are worthless!

Poppy cock. Who said they were blind forces?..Oh - you did.

 

[tonyrey]

Coming from the mouth of someone, who is unable to differentiate between an argument and a question. Pathetic…

A blatantly false assertion which infringes the forum conduct rules, fails to further the discussion and reveals more about the character of its author than the issue at stake.

 

[tonyrey]

A perfect summary of your whole existence. You don’t know and you don’t care… there is that one, empty, meaningless slogan that you keep repeating until everyone is ready to puke… and you don’t know and you don’t care!

Maybe you should select that phrase for your signature.

A blatantly false assertion which infringes the forum conduct rules, fails to further the discussion and reveals more about the character of its author than the issue at stake.

 

[tonyrey]

Those terms are universal and have been used by human beings with clearly defined meanings for thousands of years in philosophy, religion and daily life to distinguish rational beings from other forms of life.*

The words “intelligent”, “complex” and “design” are understood by the vast majority of people with a basic education regardless of their context. It doesn’t take a genius to know what they mean.

One that you apparently will never understand.

Argumentum ad hominem which does precisely nothing to further the discussion.

I would argue that there is a universal standard for complexity then it should bare out in it’s effect. This has never been the case, and never proven to be true.

The precise degree of complexity is irrelevant to the question of its meaning. Otherwise people wouldn’t understand words like probability.

Would you argue that a a jet fighter is more complex, than a bicycle…sure.? Would it surprise you that a bicycle is the most efficient means of human transportation ever developed? Would you automatically know this? Of course not. It would seem to me that the most complex, and advanced things would have the most logical and efficient effects. There is no evidence of this in relation to what you are talking about.

Your argument could be applied to many words which are readily understood by the vast majority of people with a basic education

This is an unverifiable assumption made by materialists which undermines the validity of their own conclusions! Utility is not the sole criterion of what is true or false.

Never said it was Straw dog.

It is the direct implication of your statement:

There are** forces at work** in relation to what we call “design” that have shaped it - evolutionarily borne from, **need, utility, wants, etc…etc… **

According to your argument your own reasoning is defective because it is the product of blind forces which have programmed all your mental activity over which you have no control whatsoever! The conclusions of a cog in the machine of nature are worthless!

Poppy cock. Who said they were blind forces?..Oh - you did.

If you are honest you will admit that your entire argument is intended to refute Design in favour of purposeless forces…

 

[Trurl]

A blatantly false assertion which infringes the forum conduct rules, fails to further the discussion and reveals more about the character of its author than the issue at stake.

Hey, Mr. “I don’t know and I don’t care”. What is false about a verbatim quote of your own words? No, there is no “infringement” on the forum rules when a verbatim quote is presented. But you can ensure that your irrelevant words will not be quoted back unto you… if you stop bothering me with them. I make a solemn promise, if you shut up, I will gladly forget about your useless existence… Mr. “I don’t know and I don’t care”.

 

[ManRay]

I already know why you believe in god…reinforcing it is appreciated. thank you.

Purposeless forces…wheeeeeew weeeeee! bwahahahahaaa!

The words “intelligent”, “complex” and “design” are understood by the vast majority of people with a basic education regardless of their context. It doesn’t take a genius to know what they mean.

Argumentum ad hominem which does precisely nothing to further the discussion.
The precise degree of complexity is irrelevant to the question of its meaning. Otherwise people wouldn’t understand words like probability.

Your argument could be applied to many words which are readily understood by the vast majority of people with a basic education It is the direct implication of your statement:
If you are honest you will admit that your entire argument is intended to refute Design in favour of purposeless forces…

 

[ReapReason]

Will this stupid topic never die out? Without a proper epistemological method to decide if something is **natural **or designed, the whole question is nonsensical. As a matter of fact, here is one question to the proponenets of “design”: “Is there anything natural (undesinged)?” If you say “yes”, then comes the second one: “how do you know?”. If you say “no”, then your whole proposition is ridiculous.

Natural is simply to say that things in their immediate circumstance behave according to their nature rather than being directly moved by an intelligent being to a particular end.

 

[tonyrey]

I already know why you believe in god…reinforcing it is appreciated. thank you.

Purposeless forces…wheeeeeew weeeeee! bwahahahahaaa!

The issue is not the existence of God but whether there is conclusive philosophical, scientific and other types of evidence for Design - or for non-Design for that matter. It is theoretically possible there is Design without God in the usual sense of the term but that takes us away from the topic.

 

[tonyrey]

Hey, Mr. “I don’t know and I don’t care”. What is false about a verbatim quote of your own words? No, there is no “infringement” on the forum rules when a verbatim quote is presented. But you can ensure that your irrelevant words will not be quoted back unto you… if you stop bothering me with them. I make a solemn promise, if you shut up, I will gladly forget about your useless existence… Mr. “I don’t know and I don’t care”.

You are the one who chose to participate in this thread - although in your scheme of things you (a biological robot) had no choice in the matter! If you are exasperated by your inability to deny such facts as the immense value of life the most logical course of action is to seek your entertainment elsewhere - if you are genuinely in control of your decisions (contrary to your beliefs).

 

[buffalo]

Let’s talk about languages a little more. The example of the bees already proves that not all languages come from a mind. Of course, just because something comes from a mind, it does not mean that there was a conscious effort, deliberation and “design” behind it. Observe the senseless grunts and mumblings of a poor person in the looney bin. He has a “mind”, a very simple one, but nothing what he might “say” has any informational value in it. So there is no mind <–> language connection.

That brings us to information. When you look at a bunch of symbols, and you look for information, you will need a lot of “non-information” or redundacy even to start the deciphering process. If you are familiar with information theory, then you will know that “pure” information (without redundancy) cannot be differentiated from white noise - which is yet another nail into the coffin of that poor, idiotic SCI meter. It cannot be used to detect information either.

Just for the fun of it, are these symbols just a random collection, or do they form something legible?

+0||||s/|-|/|_|[sup]-[/sup]//|+

Is your claim here that bees created their own language? or they have no minds?

You are trying to communicate to me with a language or cipher of your own creation? If so, give me the key.

 

[buffalo]

There is no such thing as “inherent” complexity. Complexity is the measurement of the investigator’s knowledge.

I am not just talking about you and me. I am talking about the “detectability” in principle. All you can see is some small deviation from a “norm”, where the “norm” is just an arbitrary interval of tolerance around some approximate value, which we selected for convenience’s sake. (It has no objective meaning.) Whether this deviation was planned and executed in a lab, or it was the result of random mutation, is unknowable. You cannot start with the end result, and ascertain its origin. Bayes theorem is not applicable here.

What the heck does THIS mean?

“Could have been?” If my grandmother would have had “you know what”, she/he could have been my grandfather. If you say that everything is “designed”, then there is nothing to talk about. The words: “designed” are “undesigned” make no sense any more.

Nonsense. You cannot even find out if a “rock” is inanimate or not. I will assert that the rock is alive, it walks, it talks, it eats, it procreates, but the timescale is so different, that we cannot detect any of these activities. The lifespan of the rock is 100 million years. One second in the life of that rock equals our whole lifetime. There is no way to detect what that rock does at this moment. (I am sorry to say but this example was not my concoction. Michael Crichton used it in the “Andromeda Strain”.)

Irrelevant. I can quote you some text and ask you to decide if it is a language with meaning or pure gibberish. You can apply your “CSI-meter” and figure out which one I presented. Prediction: you cannot. At best you can toss a coin, and make a guess, That is the worth of your CSI meter.

Oh, brother. The point of this whole exercise was to “prove” that the universe (or that bee) is “designed” or not. You were supposed to look at the “language” of the bees. and figure out if it was created by a “mind”, or is it just an instinctual phenomenon. Obviously the bees have no mind, so their language cannot come from a mind. Now you try to reverse it?

No, you cannot see it without a-priori KNOWING that it was designed. Nothing in the internal workings tells that it was “designed”, unless you already know it. Look at a sun-dial, which is just a stick pushed into the ground, and people can tell what the time is, if the sun is up. There are no ticks on the ground. So, how do you know if it was conscious decision to create a sun-dial, or it was just a random stick which happened to fall there. Looking only at the “workings” of the stick, you cannot. So much again for your CSI meter.

If you cannot use your CSI meter to decide if the sun-dial “looking thing” was “designed” or not, you will be unable to apply it to anything. You can throw it into the trash can, where it belongs.

Yes, we do. Look at those bees.

Complexity is the measure of the design. Recognizing complexity is a function of the abilities of the one trying to ascertain it. The CSI content is designed in. One can recognize design because it was cognized to begin with.

you - You cannot start with the end result, and ascertain its origin. me - So there is no sense in studying the origins of life?

The universe is designed and therefore so is everything in it. We do not totally understand the purpose of a rock. The designer does, since it occurs within the frame he designed/created.

Languages are designed to communicate. Is it necessary for bees to create their own language or can the language be created for them?

Sun dial - yes a simple design to tell time. By itself the stick does not have this function, but placed by someone for the purpose of telling time it does. The humble stick can be used for other functions to. Now let’s take the same stick and with others form an assembly such as a house. Now we see that same stick laid horizontally acting as part of a window frame. CSI increases in this case and is more easily to spot. The CSI meter does work. Take the simple sundial stick and print the word sundial on it. The CSI meter has gone crazy.

The lower the CSI the simpler the design as you well proved in your example. The more parts specified for complex function the higher the CSI rating.

It is apparent that ALL life has a high CSI rating.

me -In a macro sense, yes, everything in our frame is designed from outside our frame. You - What the heck does THIS mean?

We humans are limited by the boundaries of our frame of reference. Our frame was designed from outside this frame. It is fair to ask what is the purpose of the universe. We cannot know it unless we are told by the one who made it. One can ask the purpose of man. We cannot know our purpose without revelation from outside the frame.

 

[ManRay]

I would like to listen to a catholic on here argue with Cardinal George Pell in regards to evolution -30 minutes in, the old Cardinal claims we came from Neanderthals!!! Awesome!!! Love this guy!
40 minutes in he will not succumb to intelligent design quackery, and a few minutes after that he states that an atheist can go to heaven…

youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA&feature=related

 

[Peter_Plato]

The universe is designed and therefore so is everything in it. We do not totally understand the purpose of a rock. The designer does, since it occurs within the frame he designed/created.

Buffalo,

You must realize by now the futility of arguing with someone (who shall go unnamed) who thinks he enjoys the personal privilege of setting the ground rules of a game and the authority to change them when he feels it to his advantage to do so.

He is convinced that he is being completely consistent when he can claim in one instance (post #110):

You cannot even find out if a “rock” is inanimate or not. I will assert that the rock is alive, it walks, it talks, it eats, it procreates, but the timescale is so different, that we cannot detect any of these activities. The lifespan of the rock is 100 million years. One second in the life of that rock equals our whole lifetime. There is no way to detect what that rock does at this moment. (I am sorry to say but this example was not my concoction. Michael Crichton used it in the “Andromeda Strain”.)

Then follow up with:

"There is no such thing as “inherent” complexity.

He sees no inconsistency by posturing the impossibility of even minimal knowledge in the first instance, but absolute certainty of knowledge in the second.

Obviously, it is impossible to score points on someone who can move the goalposts on a whim or choose which socks to put in the drawer.

 

[buffalo]

Looks like some others are challenging long held beliefs:

Nature’s IQ - Smart Animals Challenge Darwin

*“When we ask ourselves how an instinctive pattern of behavior arose in the
first place and became hereditarily fixed we are given no answer.”

(Gordon Rattray Taylor, former BBC

editor and science writer, in his book

The Great Evolution

Mystery)*

 

[minkymurph]

The topic is Design not the Designer. It is a philosophical interpretation of reality with metaphysical, epistemological, moral, personal and scientific evidence that it is most economical, cogent, comprehensive, verifiable and fertile explanation of the immense value, beauty, complexity and significance of the universe, nature and rational beings.

Firstly I would say tonrey thank you for responding to the questions I posed - the only person to do it.

I have often said I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

However, I have to disagree with you. I will explain why.

Intelligent design - is it not all about a God? The reason I say this relates to the questions I posed. You talk about a philosophical interpretation, metaphysical etc. etc.
I pose the questions I did because God calls us to develop and nurture the faith of others. What you have said are not answers to the questions I posed. If we can prove beyond any doubt there is an intelligent designer - OK, there is an intelligent designer, and the point is? Why do we need to believe in an intelligent designer? This is a question an atheist may pose to you. Why do they need to believe there is an intelligent designer? Can we believe whatever we choose in relation to the intelligent designer? If we do not know who the intelligent designer is, why not and does it matter? I have no objection to using scientific evidence in relation to support belief. I have a vested interest in the relationship between science and religion. But if we are to use science to develop and nurture faith in others, there has to be a reason.

I pose the question again. If there is an intelligent designer, who is the intelligent designer? What benefit lies in believing in the intelligent designer? I pose these questions because I would argue it is not enough to establish an intelligent designer. If we are to draw people to God, which I believe we are charged to do, it is not enough to assert there is an intelligent designer. There needs to be a reason for belief in an intelligent designer, and a reason to enter into a relationship with the intelligent designer.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I pose the question again. If there is an intelligent designer, who is the intelligent designer? What benefit lies in believing in the intelligent designer? I pose these questions because I would argue it is not enough to establish an intelligent designer. If we are to draw people to God, which I believe we are charged to do, it is not enough to assert there is an intelligent designer. There needs to be a reason for belief in an intelligent designer, and a reason to enter into a relationship with the intelligent designer.

You seem to be implying that it makes no difference whether the universe was designed or not.

It seems to me that question makes all the difference in the world. If the universe does have a purpose, i.e., it is here because a supernatural Cause with intent put it here, then trying to understand the purpose for the universe would be paramount because it affords the possibility of working in harmony rather than at cross purposes with the ends intended by this causal Agent.

Furthermore, even if you believe that faith founded on revelation provides an understanding and motive for belief in God, then the secondary “data” of intended design that can be reasonably derived from nature would provide a kind of corroborating support for the interpretation of revelation.

I believe the traditional Catholic view is that God has written two “books:” Scripture and Nature. The two books augment and support each other in aiding natural reason to understand the revealed Word. In the Catholic view God has also worked in history to write his intentions into the experience (inspired tradition) of humankind. This is where the magisterium of the Church comes in. It is the amalgamation of inspired human wisdom guiding humanity.

Thirdly, Christ is the Logos or “Word” of God, “through whom all things were made.” He is the “Intelligence” (Logos means the principle of order and knowledge) that designed all that has been made. So understanding the design gives us clues into the mind of the Logos, the Christ, who designed it. In a real sense, denying the design is denying the Designer, Christ.

This is kind of a Sherlock Holmesian view of creation. By analyzing the “crime” scene, we can deduce certain things about the agent(s) who left it behind. Doing so, however, presupposes that you allow for the possibility of an agent (or agents) who “did it.”

Intelligent Design proponents are deliberately being careful about what conclusions can be drawn from the actual design evidence, which is why most of them will hesitate and conclude that the evidence, to date, does not adequately demonstrate a theistic conception of God, but only an undetermined intelligent agent.

Naysayers, obviously, deny intelligence by presumption rather than preponderance of evidence.

Dismissing the possibility of intelligent cause in the natural order outright is like a forensic pathologist who a priori refuses to entertain the possibility of someone having committing the crime to begin with, claiming that only natural causes brought it about, even though vast evidence exists to show the probative likelihood of design.

This kind of skeptic insists on defending their position by assuming (without warrant) that design is merely a subset of human activity and cannot be extrapolated to nature, missing the point that human design exists only as a subset of the larger design found in nature (Buffalo and others’ position).