Conclusive evidence for Design!

[JDaniel]

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.

Zro x:

Gravity came into existence simultaneously with the creation of the universe. How can you say it is “natural” unless you’re willing to say the creation of the universe is also natural, that it is natural for something to come to be where there was absolutely, uncategorically, beyond any shadow of a doubt, nothing.

Gravity is a correlate of mass-objects. Without mass-objects, there would be no gravity. (And this includes fields.)

So, it seems reasonable to admit that gravity was designed too, doesn’t it? What kind of world would this be if we all, upon birth, just floated away?

God bless,
jd

 

[zro_x]

How does one know gravity is not designed?

Zro x:

Gravity came into existence simultaneously with the creation of the universe. How can you say it is “natural” unless you’re willing to say the creation of the universe is also natural, that it is natural for something to come to be where there was absolutely, uncategorically, beyond any shadow of a doubt, nothing.

Gravity is a correlate of mass-objects. Without mass-objects, there would be no gravity. (And this includes fields.)

So, it seems reasonable to admit that gravity was designed too, doesn’t it? What kind of world would this be if we all, upon birth, just floated away?

God bless,
jd

God may have been the ultimate cause, but gravity was the proximate cause.

 

[zro_x]

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

Well, no. If you believe in miricles, that would be an example of something that is designed but not natural. When I speak of supernatural causes, I mean things that fall into this category. You might define natural causes as everything else. Of course, in the broad perspective, if god exists, nothing is natural. And if he doesn’t, nothing is designed. I’m saying that just from viewing nature and our own minds, both are equally possible.

 

[Candide_West]

All languages, codes, maps and symbols come from a mind.

Righto, but all languages, codes, maps and symbols that our species has ever encountered have come from human minds.

 

[buffalo]

Righto, but all languages, codes, maps and symbols that our species has ever encountered have come from human minds.

Humans did not design the DNA language.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

True. It is possible that our understanding of consciousness will stop developing at some point in the future and we will simply be unable to improve any further. That would be consistent with dualist expectations and would leave the dualistic explanation as “valid”(although there would of course not be any evidence FOR the dualist explanation).

However, at the moment the pattern of improving scientific understanding continues unabated. So pronouncements that we will never have a scientific understanding of consciousness are at best greatly premature.

 

[zro_x]

The question is whether you can recognise the science of the gaps fallacy. How do you determine the limits of scientific explanation?

I do recognise the fallacy. You can’t determine the limits of scientific explanation. but that isn’t the question. According to what I’ve seen so far the “conclusive evidence for design” is that there is no good scientific explanation for the world around us. That is the God of the Gaps fallacy. If I were to say that all things must have a scientific explanation, then I would be subscribing to the Science of the gaps fallacy. But that isn’t what I’m saying! I’m saying that the truth of naturalism and and the truth of theism are both simply inconclusive.

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.

I agree one hundred percent. “Cogito ergo sum” is part of how I try to discredit the null hypothesis.

It is ironic that people use their minds to “prove” minds don’t exist. They are living in a dream world constructed by themselves!

I know. The belief that the mind doesn’t exist is perhaps the most rediculous notion I’ve ever heard. It’s self-evident! However, that isn’t what I’m saying. The idea of most naturalists is that the mind does exist, but that material gives rise to it.

 

[Candide_West]

Humans did not design the DNA language.

On what basis do you say that DNA is a language, given that It is categorically different to every other language we have ever encountered?

 

[zro_x]

at the moment the pattern of improving scientific understanding continues unabated. So pronouncements that we will never have a scientific understanding of consciousness are at best greatly premature.

ageed.

It is possible that our understanding of consciousness will stop developing at some point in the future and we will simply be unable to improve any further. That would be consistent with dualist expectations and would leave the dualistic explanation as “valid”(although there would of course not be any evidence FOR the dualist explanation).

disagree here. If dualism is true, than our spiritual selves must in some way interact with our physical selves. Eventually, we will discover entirely how the brain works, and be able to predict its functions with machine like accuracy, (in which case we do not have free will) or else we will eventually discover something “miraculous” occuring in the brain; some sort of breaking in the laws of nature. (in which case we do)

 

[buffalo]

On what basis do you say that DNA is a language, given that It is categorically different to every other language we have ever encountered?

Science recognizes it as a language. In addition, it reads forwards and backwards.

                      **More support for IDvolution! :thumbsup:  God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the  “kinds” in the creative act.

**

**The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control **

“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” ** is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses**, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions:…

Abstract: Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation? Redundant, low-informational selfordering is not organization. Organization must be programmed. Intertwined circular constraints (e.g. complex hypercylces), even with negative and positive feedback, do not steer physicochemical reactions toward formal function or metabolic success. Complex hypercycles quickly and selfishly exhaust sequence and other phase spaces of potential metabolic resources.

“Chance and necessity are completely inadequate to describe the most important elements of what we repeatedly observe in intra-cellular life, especially. Science must acknowledge the reality and validity not only of a very indirect, post facto natural selection,** but of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible.**”

A new technical book, The First Gene, edited by Gene Emergence Project director David L. Abel, …" Materialists will not like this book because its arguments are 100% scientific, devoid of religious, political, or cultural concerns, and most importantly, compelling.

From reading The First Gene, a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:

*High levels of prescriptive information - :yup:
*Programming - :yup:
*Symbol systems and language - :yup:
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information - :yup:
*Formal function - :yup:
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life. - :yup:

Anti-ID conspiracy theorists love to say that those pesky creationists are always changing their terminology to get around the First Amendment. ID’s intellectual pedigree refutes that charge, but The First Gene adds more reasons why that charge should not be taken seriously. The book offers highly technical, strictly scientific arguments about the nature of information, information processing, and biological functionality. Even a cursory read of this book shows that its contributors are just thinking about doing good science. And this science leads them to the conclusion that blind and unguided material causes cannot produce the complexity we observe in life. Some agent capable of making choices is required to produce the first life.

 

[buffalo]

The language of DNA:

DNA Language
Nucleotide Character
Codon Letter
Gene Word
Operon Sentence
Regulon Paragraph

 

[Candide_West]

Science recognizes it as a language. In addition, it reads forwards and backwards.

In that case on what basis do you state that ALL languages are the product of a mind?

 

[buffalo]

In that case on what basis do you state that ALL languages are the product of a mind?

The only one’s we see are produced by a mind. They require a sender, receiver and key.

 

[Candide_West]

The only one’s we see are produced by a mind. *They require a sender, receiver and key.

In that case your argument is circular - your conclusion that DNA is designed is dependent on DNA being considered to be a language and ALL languages being designed. Your statement that ALL languages are designed is dependent on your conclusion that DNA is designed.*

Neat but tautological.*

 

[JDaniel]

In that case your argument is circular - your conclusion that DNA is designed is dependent on DNA being considered to be a language and ALL languages being designed. Your statement that ALL languages are designed is dependent on your conclusion that DNA is designed.*

Neat but tautological.*

Candide:

Often, intuitive arguments produce truth. They are not, precisely because they are intuitive, always fallacious. This is one of those instances. Or, shall we wait around for another billion years to see if that which possesses no rationality can produce a language Your purely argumentative argumentation belies your motives.

God bless,
jd

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

Often, intuitive arguments produce truth. They are not, precisely because they are intuitive, always fallacious. This is one of those instances. Or, shall we wait around for another billion years to see if that which possesses no rationality can produce a language Your purely argumentative argumentation belies your motives.

God bless,
jd

???

The title of this thread is “Conclusive evidence for Design!”. I asked if there was any and thus far have been given nothing more than a tautological argument. Needless to say this does not reach the standards of "conclusive evidence ".

If there is alternative evidence available then I’d be interested to hear it.

 

[buffalo]

In that case your argument is circular - your conclusion that DNA is designed is dependent on DNA being considered to be a language and ALL languages being designed. Your statement that ALL languages are designed is dependent on your conclusion that DNA is designed.*

Neat but tautological.*

You only need to show one that isn’t designed. You appeal to the god of BUC.

Is it your wish to throw out inductive reasoning?

It is the best explanation (now where have I heard that before).

 

[Candide_West]

You only need to show one that isn’t designed.

Sure, the language of DNA.

Yes, here I have assumed that the language of DNA is not designed, hence my argument is circular, just like yours. I have done this deliberately to show how pointless it is to use circular arguments as evidence for things in the real world. The same “evidence” simultaneously shows that DNA is both designed and undesigned.

Is it your wish to throw out inductive reasoning?

Nope, but tautological arguments cannot be used for evidence about things in the real world. So we should certainly throw them out of discussions of evidence.

 

[buffalo]

Sure, the language of DNA.

Yes, here I have assumed that the language of DNA is not designed, hence my argument is circular, just like yours. I have done this deliberately to show how pointless it is to use circular arguments as evidence for things in the real world. The same “evidence” simultaneously shows that DNA is both designed and undesigned.

Nope, but tautological arguments cannot be used for evidence about things in the real world. So we should certainly throw them out of discussions of evidence.

Show me steps that evo took?

 

[JDaniel]

???

The title of this thread is “Conclusive evidence for Design!”. I asked if there was any and thus far have been given nothing more than a tautological argument. Needless to say this does not reach the standards of "conclusive evidence ".

If there is alternative evidence available then I’d be interested to hear it.

Candide:

There is, but you refuse to address it. What is the definition of ‘natural’? This is very important as it is supposed to be the antithesis of “designed.”

But, allow me to postulate that ‘natural’ equals ‘undesigned’. Then, in all fairness, I must ask, “What is an example of undesignedness?” Point out that which is undesigned. That should be easy for you. And, while you are doing that, tell me how or why it is undesigned.

God bless,
jd