Conclusive evidence for Design!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JDaniel said:
But that’s precisely it: time is relative to mobile beings in motion.
Click to expand...
So time on earth only appears slow (as per Schroeder’s ‘slow’) to someone on the edge of the observable universe and who has remained at that position for the duration.

And that someone is…?
 
buffalo said:
The flagellum came first, the TTSS after.
Click to expand...
Buffalo:

From Miller: “Remember the claim that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?” As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of “precursors” to the flagellum that are indeed “missing a part,” and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.”- Ibid

God bless,
jd
 
Bradski said:
So time on earth only appears slow (as per Schroeder’s ‘slow’) to someone on the edge of the observable universe and who has remained at that position for the duration.

And that someone is…?
Click to expand...
Bradski:

The above makes no sense, as a response to my post.

To some, time has ontological existence. To others, it doesn’t. To these latter folks, time is a kind of abstraction that is intelligible to humans only. (Oh, and to mechanical and electrical clocks.)

To Aquinas it is true that time exists in its most perfect form in the intellect of man, and in this respect there is something to be said for Kant’s argument that time is only in our minds. But contrary to Kant’s view, time outside the mind must have at least an imperfect existence. (Commentary on the Physics, Bk. IV, les. 23, n. 1212)

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Bradski:

The above makes no sense, as a response to my post.

To some, time has ontological existence. To others, it doesn’t. To these latter folks, time is a kind of abstraction that is intelligible to humans only. (Oh, and to mechanical and electrical clocks.)

To Aquinas it is true that time exists in its most perfect form in the intellect of man, and in this respect there is something to be said for Kant’s argument that time is only in our minds. But contrary to Kant’s view, time outside the mind must have at least an imperfect existence. (Commentary on the Physics, Bk. IV, les. 23, n. 1212)

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Can you please tell me what time it is?
 
Bradski said:
Good Lord, it wasn’t my statement. It was Behe’s. I said at some point (it may have been in an earlier life), that Behe discounts all explanations except ID. You said:

So I then quoted a statement by Behe himself where he confirmed this, and gave a link to it, where he said:

‘It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on’. creationscience.com/onlin…andNotes6.html

Again, these are Behe’s words not mine. And now you have taken up the argument with Behe! He’s on your side, he makes a statement that backs your position and you want to argue with it? You can come up with 5 separate points that disagree with it?

I think this leaves you open to the accusation that you’re not really spending a lot of time listening to any opposing arguments, Tony. You’ve assumed that I wrote that quote and you have therefore, without any attempt to understand what it means, automatically assumed it must be wrong. You’re just putting forward arguments for the sake of doing so.

If you don’t make any attempt to understand what’s being written, how can we trust your replies?
Click to expand...
It is ironic you attack me for not following the discussion after leaving a trail of unanswered points and questions behind you and choose to go off at a tangent about Behe when you have agreed - that Design is **not **ID.

Here is a sample of the latest points you have chosen to ignore:

1.The fundamental “mechanisms” of life have nothing to do with natural selection - which presupposes the existence of life.
  1. The term “mechanisms” begs the question - which is whether life has a mechanistic or **teleological **explanation.
  2. If we are to base our conclusions on the existing evidence the only purposeful mechanisms** we know** are those that are designed.
  3. If we are no more than biological mechanisms all our physical and mental activity has physical causes, is not under our control and we are not responsible for our thoughts or deeds.
  4. “us” suggests that only certain enlightened individuals know beyond all shadow of doubt that natural selection is the sole solution.
 
JDaniel said:
Bradski:

I’ve read many of the various so called refutations of Behe’s “irreducible complexity” argument. What I find very interesting is that none of them wholly refute the argument. That is, each one leaves rather large back-door escapes from a full committal to the author’s purpose.

For example, Kenneth Miller points out that the earlier version of the eukaryote, the one that had the first five or six amino acid structures found to be present in the final flagellum, and the TTSS, was transitional. This transitional mutation consisted of the first five (or six) amino acid structures that are parts of the complete TTSS apparatus. This, he says, disproves Behe’s contention that the flagellum did not evolve in simple steps, over a long period of time, based upon the efficacy of each of the parts for another purpose. Now, what could possibly be wrong with that? Could it be that Miller left out of consideration each of the first five - six steps, or rather, structures? Oh, and we didn’t even consider the last nine - ten steps (to the flagellum) yet?

Instead, Miller says,"If we are able to search and find an example of a machine with fewer protein parts, contained within the flagellum, that serves a purpose distinct from motility, the claim of irreducible complexity is refuted. As we have also seen, the flagellum does indeed contain such a machine, a protein-secreting apparatus that carries out an important function even in species that lack the flagellum altogether. A scientific idea rises or falls on the weight of the evidence - The Flagellum Unspun - Kenneth Miller"But that is wrong. Either the evolutionary pathway for the TTSS is itself a product of evolution as well, or the TTSS was formed almost entirely simultaneously as a sort of “bulk mutational evolution event;” otherwise it too underwent evolution and each of its proteins had a functional purpose that enhanced the organism in some way, and thus each mutation survived being cast off. I am not saying that this latter postulation is incorrect, but I am saying that since it isn’t shown to be a product of an evolutionary process, necessary to the organism, why should each mutant part (and its mutational event) survive? Further, where are the transitional organisms that show each step of the development of the pre-TTSS mechanism all the way up to the final TTSS apparatus?

What we are to believe is that the first amino acid structure was probably the result of a mutation. And then, we are to believe that that mutant structure gave rise to another mutant structure. And, that second mutant structure gave rise to a third mutant structure, etc., etc., until voilà, a TTSS apparatus appears that finally has an intrinsic value (as a complete 5 - 6 part apparatus) to the organism. However, until that fifth or sixth mutation of a mutation, none of the prior mutations’ mutations added any known intrinsic value to its immediately prior mutation (and the eukaryote), and, for all intents and purposes, should have been a relatively singular event that is discarded, like a dead weight, in the course of time.

Now, I will admit to not reading all of the literature that has ever come out on this subject, as I simply don’t have that much time. nor do I have the burning inclination. So, if there is an article answering the above questions, somebody please point me to it.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
👍 An excellent post, jd, but it is in the danger zone…
 
Portofino said:
If we are no more than biological mechanisms all our physical and mental activity has physical causes, is not under our control and we are not responsible for our thoughts or deeds…
Click to expand...
It is only a paradox for materialists who rule out anything but physical causes.
Will causes behavior; it would be paradoxical for us to say that nothing causes behavior. But this same logic can further ask, "what causes will? Free will is tantamount to saying that there is no antecedent cause for will (Voltaire, to the contrary, observes, “we can do as we will, but not will as we will”). Thus, if will is the antecedent cause for human behavior, what is the antecedent cause for will?
Click to expand...
That question presupposes an atomistic view of persons. We are the cause of our thoughts actions, and decisions - as we find out in any court of law.
If free will is an uncaused cause, it becomes something God-like – the prime mover of our actions. It cannot itself be explained causally, and thus is acausal.
Click to expand...
Precisely! From a physical point of view.
But a need for causality has been enlisted even in proofs for the existence of God – the universe must have a cause. Just so, the determinist reasons that not only must behavior have a cause, but will itself must have a cause.
Click to expand...
The need for physical causality doesn’t extend to all forms of causality. To put the Ultimate Cause in the same category as other causes is clearly unjustifiable.
Regarding design, the source of the difference of viewpoint between the theist and the non-theist seems to be the following:
Click to expand...
*Theist: natural selection cannot explain all of the order in the universe, nor the experience of purpose and meaning ---- only design can explain this — therefore, it is self-evident that design by a higher intelligence is the most obvious and most likely explanation, until proven otherwise — design is not a hypothesis needing to be proven, but a self-evident experiential truth that needs to be disproven
Click to expand...
*Non-theist: natural selection cannot explain all of the order in the universe, nor the experience of purpose and meaning – there are things that science does not yet know, especially as regards the most fundamental questions of why the universe exists in the state that it does (why there is gravity; time; space; matter and energy); design is a hypothesis – and, like any hypothesis, is a possibility, until definitively disproven – but cannot be regarded as an established fact, nor as the only possible explanation; in fact, a designer would introduce still more questions, such as, “what is the cause or origin of the designer itself?”
Click to expand...
An excellent synopsis!
That, indeed, is another parting of ways – the theist who believes in design is content to say, “the universe is designed” and does not seem to believe that the question, “what is the antecedent cause of the designer?” is a relevant question.
Click to expand...
For the reason I have just given. 🙂
Indeed, the very idea of studying or seeking to explain the origin of the designer, would be considered practically blasphemous! The designer cannot itself be studied – it is supernatural, outside of nature.
Click to expand...
Theology - and philosophy to some extent - is directly concerned with those issues.
I cannot blame the scientist for not being satisfied with this explanation… If supernatural explanations were invoked at any point during the history of science, scientific knowledge would not have come as far as it has (for example, “what is the cause of thunder”? “What is the cause of epilepsy?”) Demons were thought to cause epilepsy, at one point; and the gods were presumed to cause thunder.
Click to expand...
Do you believe science is a potentially adequate explanation of everything? If not why not?
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
👍 An excellent post, jd, but it is in the danger zone…
Click to expand...
Tony:

Understood. But, it has been a question that’s been gnawing at me for some time now (again, no pun intended!) If I am wrong, I would really like someone to point out an article that would cogently explain it. I’m sorry to have usurped your thread for sort of selfish, but, certainly personal purposes. (Did we establish that “purpose” exists yet?) :o

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Tony:

Understood. But, it has been a question that’s been gnawing at me for some time now (again, no pun intended!) If I am wrong, I would really like someone to point out an article that would cogently explain it. I’m sorry to have usurped your thread for sort of selfish, but, certainly personal purposes. (Did we establish that “purpose” exists yet?) :o

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
I understand your frustration, jd, and sympathise with it but a life is at stake - the life of this thread. 🙂

I doubt that there is an explanation. Progress is not inevitable in a purposeless world…

God bless
 
Reproduction is purposeful activity and thus evidence of design. The ability to reproduce must have been present in the first lifeforms, but there is no natural reason to suppose this ability should have been imminent. It seems to presuppose its own necessity: without this ability, any randomly generated life would quickly go extinct. The ability to reproduce, though, ensures the continuation of life.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
Reproduction is purposeful activity and thus evidence of design. The ability to reproduce must have been present in the first lifeforms, but there is no natural reason to suppose this ability should have been imminent. It seems to presuppose its own necessity: without this ability, any randomly generated life would quickly go extinct. The ability to reproduce, though, ensures the continuation of life.
Click to expand...
👍 The more it is examined the greater the weakness of non-Design becomes. It always turns out to be a belief in physical necessity. Yet there is nothing whatsoever in nature to explain the increase in complexity of the universe right from the moment of the Big Bang - long before life appeared.
 
tonyrey said:
I understand your frustration, jd, and sympathise with it but a life is at stake - the life of this thread. 🙂

I doubt that there is an explanation. Progress is not inevitable in a purposeless world…

God bless
Click to expand...
Tony:

Did you notice how often we invoked “purpose?”

God bless,
jd
 
prodigalson2011 said:
Reproduction is purposeful activity and thus evidence of design. The ability to reproduce must have been present in the first lifeforms, but there is no natural reason to suppose this ability should have been imminent. It seems to presuppose its own necessity: without this ability, any randomly generated life would quickly go extinct. The ability to reproduce, though, ensures the continuation of life.
Click to expand...
Prodigal:

Precisely. What we would be witness to would be a plethora of individuated life forms, with very few, if any, of them nestled within a classification, such as, “species,” or “genera.” (Just another bold example of order and design.)

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Tony:

Did you notice how often we invoked “purpose?”

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
That’s because we put purpose rather than physical necessity at the centre of our lives, JD. 🙂

God bless (another invocation of purpose!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top