Conclusive evidence for Design!

[zro_x]

If it were true you wouldn’t be responsible of any of your thoughts, beliefs or conclusions which would depend on factors entirely beyond your control and worth no more than anyone else’s, i.e. they would have negligible significance.

Right. That’s why theism is so much more hopeful than atheism

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

But there is! If there is nothing that is undesigned, then it logically follows: everything is designed. And, there is nothing that is undesigned.

Righto, so go ahead and present evidence that this is the case. To be clear, assertions are NOT evidence. If we accept assertions as evidence then we 'll rapidly run into logical impossibilities again.

But you can’t; no one can. Which further adds to the conclusivity of the evidence!

What evidence? Thus far you haven’t identified any.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

Would you then say, “It is not true that a motion picture is designed?” We have zero examples of things as complex and directed to an end, or final cause, as DNA is, just as we have zero examples of a motion picture that was not designed.

The reason we know motion pictures are designed is NOT just that we don’t know of any undesigned ones. We know they are designed because we have clear EVIDENCE that they were designed.

Again, do you have any evidence of design by something other than humans?*

Then this is a perfect example of a tautology (if that’s what it is) that represents the truth.

Great, so I successfully achieved my aim. Glad you got it.

But you have not defined your most critical term for your argument. Design proponents have, and to my knowledge, no one seems to have a problem with it.

No problem, I used the terms in whatever way Buffalo was using them.*

Not so: Find me a definition of “motion” - anywhere in Physics (except Aristotelean Physics) - that is not circular. Yet physicists the world over are perfectly fine with them.

Languages are closed tautological systems. That is why we don’t use words as evidence for things in reality. Otherwise you can do this:

1. I define “unicorns” as something which exists
2. Things which exist are real
3. Therefore unicorns are real.

Does this provide evidence that unicorns are real? No of course not. That’s why you can’t define things into existence and you need information from the real world to use as evidence for descriptions of the real world.

For a thread about evidence of design there seems to be a surprising lack of willingness to talk about evidence in here.

 

[Jesusaves777]

I am, don’t worry. No, I’m not saying Stalin was bad because he was an atheist. I’m pointing out the obvious fact that a religious worldview or lack thereof does not determine the moral character of a person. Those who have done evil in the name of Christianity were acting in direct, blatant contradiction of the faith they professed. The problem is not Christianity, it is the corrupting influence of power on human nature. That this corruption applies equally across the board is demonstrated more than well enough by the handful of atheistic leaders who have, in just the past century, managed to shed more blood than all the religious wars and persecutions of the previous 2000 years.

Slavery is another issue, like democracy, that was planted in the very foundation of the Church and which developed steadily over time. As early as the 4th century, St. Augustine taught that slavery was totally incompatible with natural law, but he and most other theologians, who agreed with him on that point, believed it was an institution that could be tolerated, so long as slaves were treated humanely and justly. But the Catholic Church has a long history of combating and denouncing the type of slavery most people associate with the term, the like of which was seen in America and Europe from the 1500s on.

And, yes, let’s consider those other things…

Misogyny: Christianity elevated the status of women to an unprecedented level. This development, again, is a direct result of SCriptural teaching. Again we return to the teaching that, in Christ, there is “neither male nor female…” Some of the most important people in Christian history have been women, starting with Mary, whom so many say we worship; St. Therese of Lisieux, who is considered a doctor of the Church; Mary Magdalene and the other female witnesses and disciples of the Early Church whose testimony is given primary citation in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection at a time when the testimony of women was considered culturally worthless. I could go on and on. Women have played an important and esteemed role in Catholic culture from the very beginning and continue to do so. Consider Joan of Arc, Mother Theresa, and Mother Angelica, or Dorothy Day or any of countless other revered Christian women.

Racism: has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity and the Catholic Church has, in fact, always been opposed to it. The fact that many professing Christians were racist had aboslutely nothing to do with Christianity, any more than the existence of secular racists implies that secularism is inherently racist. This is only, once again, an example of the failure of individuals to conform to the teachings of the faith they supposedly hold.

Homophobia: disapproval of homosexual behavior does not amount to homophobia. Homophobia is a pathological fear of homosexuals, which the Church has never experienced or fostered. Homophobia is a complex psychological issue which is usually associated with uncertainty about one’s own sexuality and repressed homosexual feelings. The most homophobic people I’ve ever met haven’t been religious at all, rather they’re usually the type who are obsessed with their body image, the number of women they’ve bedded, being “macho men”, etc. This is not to say that there aren’t homophobic Christians–there are undoubtedly true homophobes in every sect of society from Muslim to atheist–but Christianity does not condone or promote homophobia, any more than it promotes adulteraphobia or blasphemophobia.

Oppression: Christianity promotes the freedom of conscience and equal treatment for all. Again, the fact that secular institutions and leaders and even clergy members have abused those teachings does not imply that oppression is a tenet of Christianity, any more than the corruption and abuses of political leaders in our own country implies that the Constitution condones or encourages corruption. These kinds of examples are really just vacuous. These issues pop up in any and all human civilizations.

As for the case of Mrs. Halappanavar, this has been yet another case of shameless exploitation on the part of the pro-choice movement. The facts behind the case are much more complex and much less sensationalistic than they have been made out to be. Of course, it’s a tragedy that this woman lost her life, but the pro-life laws of Ireland have nothing to do with it. This rabid attack on Christian morality is based upon the hysterical accusations of her husband, who is no doubt out of his mind with grief and understandably angry. My heart goes out to him, but the fact is that this case had nothing to do with abortion and there is nothing in Catholic teaching that would have prevented the proper procedures from being carried out. This was simply a case of poor judgment and bad practice on the part of the medical staff. See: catholicvoicesmedia.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/no-evidence-that-catholic-ethos-of-galway-university-hospital-in-any-way-prevented-savita-from-receiving-proper-medical-treatment/

 

[Jesusaves777]

Awesome answers!! I get hit with these questions too. It’s really disturbing and absurd what people are being told in these Atheistic books and videos. Their knowledge of Christianity is abysmal!! My I keep these words that you have? Their more eloquent than I could tell them? Thank you and God Bless!!

 

[Jesusaves777]

The reason we know motion pictures are designed is NOT just that we don’t know of any undesigned ones. We know they are designed because we have clear EVIDENCE that they were designed.

Again, do you have any evidence of design by something other than humans?*

Great, so I successfully achieved my aim. Glad you got it.

No problem, I used the terms in whatever way Buffalo was using them.*

Languages are closed tautological systems. That is why we don’t use words as evidence for things in reality. Otherwise you can do this:

1. I define “unicorns” as something which exists
2. Things which exist are real
3. Therefore unicorns are real.

Does this provide evidence that unicorns are real? No of course not. That’s why you can’t define things into existence and you need information from the real world to use as evidence for descriptions of the real world.

For a thread about evidence of design there seems to be a surprising lack of willingness to talk about evidence in here.

 

[Jesusaves777]

Actually the unicorn that everybody knows is a mythical creature…However, if you look in a 200 year old Noah Webster dictionary it is a Rhinoceros. The side notes is unicornus, rhinoceros. Therefore, the Unicorn does exist and is another name for rhinoceros. God bless!!

 

[Candide_West]

Not Designed? *

Get a load of this: *Visualization

%between%

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • Abstract
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • The bacterial flagellum is a *motility organelle that consists of a rotary motor and a helical *propeller. The flagella usually * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * work individually or by forming a loose *bundle to produce thrust. However, the flagellar apparatus of marine *bacterium MO-1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * is a tight bundle of seven flagellar *filaments enveloped in a sheath, and it has been a mystery as to how the *flagella rotate * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * smoothly in coordination. Here we have *used electron cryotomography to visualize the 3D architecture of the *sheathed flagella. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The seven filaments are enveloped with 24 *fibrils in the sheath, and their basal bodies are arranged in an *intertwined hexagonal * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * array similar to the thick and thin *filaments of vertebrate skeletal muscles. This complex and exquisite *architecture strongly * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * suggests that the fibrils counter-rotate *between flagella in direct contact to minimize the friction of *high-speed rotation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * of individual flagella in the tight bundle within the sheath to enable MO-1 cells to swim at about 300 µm/s.

…Instead of being a simple helically wound propeller driven by a rotary *motor, it is a complex organelle consisting of 7 flagella and 24 fibrils *that form a tight bundle enveloped by a glycoprotein sheath… the *flagella of MO-1 must rotate individually, and yet the entire bundle *functions as a unit to comprise a motility organelle.

Indeed, flagella are fascinating. And there are thousands of different types ranging from the very simple to the impressively complex which use an array of different proteins.

There’s some really interesting research going on at the moment into how the different adaptations evolved. Really interesting stuff. Biology is awesome isn’t it.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.*

 

[Candide_West]

Actually the unicorn that everybody knows is a mythical creature…However, if you look in a 200 year old Noah Webster dictionary it is a Rhinoceros. The side notes is unicornus, rhinoceros. Therefore, the Unicorn does exist and is another name for rhinoceros. God bless!!

Er… Ok, you understand that has nothing to do with my post or the subject of this thread right?

 

[tonyrey]

If it were true you wouldn’t be responsible of any of your thoughts, beliefs or conclusions which would depend on factors entirely beyond your control and worth no more than anyone else’s, i.e. they would have negligible significance.

Much more hopeful, undoubtedly more positive, incomparably more realistic and infinitely more inspiring…

 

[tonyrey]

It shows our thinking capabilities would be imaginary and all theories equally worthless! If we couldn’t think for ourselves there would be no guarantee any of our conclusions are true.

The success of philosophy - on which the success of science and technology are based - is conclusive evidence.

In a discussion of Design God doesn’t come into the picture.

ummmm… yes he does. When you started this thread, you probably meant: conclusive evidence that God designed the world.

Not at all. I’ve specialised in the subject of Design for many years.

The issue is whether reason is a reality or a fantasy.

That’s part of the design debate, certainly. But just as certainly not all of it.

It is the fundamental issue.

Science doesn’t even come into the picture either! It is restricted to physical reality and cannot tell us anything about anything else.

Yes it can. If our research continues, we may hit an insurmountable scientific roadblock.

The insurmountable scientific roadblock is science itself! Nothing in the universe is self-explanatory.

but it is equally possible that we might discover that everything in the universe can be explained scientifically.

How could science explain science?

Or else we will discover localized miracles, like in the brain, that prove God and free will do exist.

“in the brain” implies that the existence of the brain is more certain than the existence of the mind - which we have agreed is false.

It shows that the success of science is evidence of Design because it demonstrates the power and value of reasoning.

No it doesn’t.

1. We may not have reasoning powers at all, in which case everything we know is worthless.

How would we **know **we don’t have any reasoning power?

1. It is possible that we are able to reach correct conclusions about the universe without resorting to spiritual rationality. We would essentially be biological computers, and we wouldn’t have responsibility for our own thoughts, but it is a possibility.

Then they wouldn’t be** our **thoughts!

Our lives are based on probability not on possibilities. Otherwise we wouldn’t survive for very long!

That’s a good point. Even when we don’t know something for certain, we have to base our lives and decisions around how probable something is. In that context, I think that Theism is more probable because of miracles like the Sun dance, the incorruptible saints, etc., which is why I’m a Catholic. Without those miracles, I see both as equally probable.

At all events I’m sure you would agree theism is the most realistic and inspiring explanation.

Thank you for your original ideas!

 

[buffalo]

The reason we know motion pictures are designed is NOT just that we don’t know of any undesigned ones. We know they are designed because we have clear EVIDENCE that they were designed.

Again, do you have any evidence of design by something other than humans?*

Great, so I successfully achieved my aim. Glad you got it.

No problem, I used the terms in whatever way Buffalo was using them.*

Languages are closed tautological systems. That is why we don’t use words as evidence for things in reality. Otherwise you can do this:

1. I define “unicorns” as something which exists
2. Things which exist are real
3. Therefore unicorns are real.

Does this provide evidence that unicorns are real? No of course not. That’s why you can’t define things into existence and you need information from the real world to use as evidence for descriptions of the real world.

For a thread about evidence of design there seems to be a surprising lack of willingness to talk about evidence in here.

You just redefined unicorns. So, things that exist are now called unicorns. Now the challenge is to see who will agree with your new definition. Will it stand the test of time?

So man needs to look to Revelation to guide him. This Revelation comes from outside our own frame and is very useful indeed. Materialists box themselves into a corner by their a priori bias that excludes the possibility of the supernatural. They fail to see the limitations that the definition of science has imposed on them. They readily accept it without reservation.

So we have clear evidence that shows language, symbols, codes, etc. are created by a mind. (you admit a human mind) You only need to show one that is not. You have not done so. Until you do and can observe, repeat and predict, it is most reasonable to conclude the DNA language is created by a mind.

Now it is clear that the DNA code was present early on (I submit from the get go) you need to show the evolutionary steps early on.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Amazing, for tens of millions of years ( or whatever ) the human race has waited for the brilliant minds of the Enlightment and their modern day acolytes to tell pronounce that God does not exist, the universe caused itself, and the order evident throughout the universe is just happenstance !!! I think the rude hunter gatherer of ages past far surpassed the intelligence of our modern intellectual lights. They at least had common sense.

 

[buffalo]

Indeed, flagella are fascinating. And there are thousands of different types ranging from the very simple to the impressively complex which use an array of different proteins.

There’s some really interesting research going on at the moment into how the different adaptations evolved. Really interesting stuff. Biology is awesome isn’t it.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.*

Sure it does. This is essentially a “super flagella”. Every time we see these levels of sophistication the materialist explanation gets harder. The odds get worse for the god of BUC. I wish I could show the visualization in this post.

For those of you who didn’t check this *Visualization out do so. The design just jumps right off the page.

 

[buffalo]

Amazing, for tens of millions of years ( or whatever ) the human race has waited for the brilliant minds of the Enlightment and their modern day acolytes to tell pronounce that God does not exist, the universe caused itself, and the order evident throughout the universe is just happenstance !!! I think the rude hunter gatherer of ages past far surpassed the intelligence of our modern intellectual lights. They at least had common sense.

and less arrogance and more humility.

 

[JDaniel]

The reason we know motion pictures are designed is NOT just that we don’t know of any undesigned ones. We know they are designed because we have clear EVIDENCE that they were designed.

Candide:

Let’s go through this one last time: If nothing that exists is undesigned, then, ipso facto, everything is designed. That is a proof, a completely logical one. And, it is an ontological one, besides. It is a proof from an extensive dialectic, from which a perfect induction follows.

Again, do you have any evidence of design by something other than humans?*

Again, I refer you to the immediately above statements.

Languages are closed tautological systems. That is why we don’t use words as evidence for things in reality. Otherwise you can do this:

1. I define “unicorns” as something which exists
2. Things which exist are real
3. Therefore unicorns are real.

Seriously? Really, seriously?

Does this provide evidence that unicorns are real? No of course not. That’s why you can’t define things into existence and you need information from the real world to use as evidence for descriptions of the real world.

Not so. We have no evidence for “infinity,” yet the assumptive math for it is used quite frequently in today’s science and technology. If there is no possible actual infinity, how is all that possible? Sometimes, we have to rely on the intellects God gave us.

For a thread about evidence of design there seems to be a surprising lack of willingness to talk about evidence in here.

Well, you have succeeded in running me off - now for a second time. You are argumentative and almost always show a not-surprising lack of “good faith.”

God bless you Candide,
I shall say four Glory Be’s for you at 11 AM EST,
jd

 

[Candide_West]

You just redefined unicorns. *So, things that exist are now called unicorns. *Now the challenge is to see who will agree with your new definition. Will it stand the test of time?

Exactly, and that’s why we don’t use terminology as evidence for things about the real world. Which was my point.*

So man needs to look to Revelation to guide him. This Revelation comes from outside our own frame and is very useful indeed. *Materialists box themselves into a corner by their a priori bias that excludes the possibility of the supernatural. *They fail to see the limitations that the definition of science has imposed on them. *They readily accept it without reservation.

No, science doesn’t a priori exclude the supernatural. Indeed science has at times been used to study phenomena which were believed to be supernatural, and it was through that study that we discovered they weren’t supernatural.*

The accurate thing to say is that thus far, every phenomena for which an explanation has been found has turned out to be not supernatural.*

So we have clear evidence that shows language, symbols, codes, etc. are created by a mind. *(you admit a human mind) You only need to show one that is not. *You have not done so. *

I did - the DNA language.*

Remember? The whole thing about your argument being circular so me using another circular argument to refute it?*

Now it is clear that the DNA code was present early on (I submit from the get go) you need to show the evolutionary steps early on.

Why? Once again this thread is about evidence for design. Not the evolutionary history of DNA. So if you know of some evidence for Design then how about we talk about that?

 

[Candide_West]

Sure it does. *This is essentially a “super flagella”. *Every time we see these levels of sophistication the materialist explanation gets harder. *The odds get worse for the god of BUC. * I wish I could show the visualization in this post. *

I’m afraid it sounds like you may have misunderstood how evolution works. You see sophistication and complexity aren’t a problem for evolution. As long as there is a steady increment of improvements, each offering a benefit in itself evolution can reach astonishing levels of sophistication. And of course flagella (fascinating and complex as they are) are still relatively simple biological systems.

What would be a problem for evolution is irreducible complexity (something which cannot be reached by a series of small incremental improvements).

Interestingly, years ago bactial flagella were put forwards by some people as possibly being irreducible, but of course this has proven incorrect as we have found a whole host of different flagella using different proteins and at different levels of complexity, each useful in its own way.*

 

[buffalo]

Exactly, and that’s why we don’t use terminology as evidence for things about the real world. Which was my point.*

No, science doesn’t a priori exclude the supernatural. Indeed science has at times been used to study phenomena which were believed to be supernatural, and it was through that study that we discovered they weren’t supernatural.*

The accurate thing to say is that thus far, every phenomena for which an explanation has been found has turned out to be not supernatural.*

I did - the DNA language.*

Remember? The whole thing about your argument being circular so me using another circular argument to refute it?*

Why? Once again this thread is about evidence for design. Not the evolutionary history of DNA. So if you know of some evidence for Design then how about we talk about that?

You still offer no evidence that it is not designed. If you can show the step by step empirical evidence that it is not designed then I am with you.

What it boils down to is we know design exists. We know that languages are designed.

Here are the possibilities.

1. god of BUC did it ( no evidence and odds getting worse)
2. God did it
3. Aliens did it (pushes question back to 2)
4. Humans desinged it. ( we know they didn’t)

The best explanation is 2. In addition Revelation supports it.

 

[buffalo]

I’m afraid it sounds like you may have misunderstood how evolution works. You see sophistication and complexity aren’t a problem for evolution. As long as there is a steady increment of improvements, each offering a benefit in itself evolution can reach astonishing levels of sophistication. And of course flagella (fascinating and complex as they are) are still relatively simple biological systems.

What would be a problem for evolution is irreducible complexity (something which cannot be reached by a series of small incremental improvements).

Interestingly, years ago bactial flagella were put forwards by some people as possibly being irreducible, but of course this has proven incorrect as we have found a whole host of different flagella using different proteins and at different levels of complexity, each useful in its own way.*

Absolutely they are. We now know that DNA actively fights against mutations. This now requires much more time. How about a trillion years?

Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more

http://www.blogger.com/goog_1096933095

When Theory and Experiment Collide

…As other scientists have found with other enzymes, it turned out not to be a snap. The technical details are reported in a paper just published in BIO-Complexity. [2] Here we’ll keep it simple.
Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
Now, if I were a Darwinist a result like this would bother me. I’m sure some of my fellow Darwinists would try to dismiss it as irrelevant… but that would bother me all the more.
The excuse for shrugging it off would, I expect, be that the transition we examined isn’t actually one that anyone thinks occurred in the history of life. That’s true, but it badly misses the point. As Ann and I made clear in the paper, our aim wasn’t to replicate a historical transition, but rather to identify what ought to be a relatively easy transition and find out how hard or easy it really is. We put it this way in the paper [2]:
Whether or not a particular conversion ever occurred as a paralogous innovation (or the direction in which it occurred if it did) is not the point of interest here. Rather, the point is to identify the kind of functional innovation that ought to be among the most feasible …] and then to assess how feasible this innovation is. So, if I had a Darwinist alter ego, here’s the problem he’d be facing right now. To dismiss our study as irrelevant, he’d have to say (in effect) that he sees no inconsistency between these two assessments of the power of Darwin’s mechanism: