Evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LittleSoldier said:
Whoa. We do *not *“all know that it exists.” It is certainly something that can be studied (although not in a science classroom) just as astrology can be studied and flower arranging can be studied but its existence is not something that we all know - not even a putative existence.

Please do not tell me that I know ID exists.
Click to expand...
You design computer programs. You know it exists.
 
inocente said:
Excellent points 👍 although atheists probably know what Brownian motion is, while ID fans think it’s a young girl scout running down a hill (or for the less sophisticated, a chocolate fudge cake sliding down a hill) :D.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
LittleSoldier said:
I would have thought it was a wild exaggeration, too, if I had not seen it with my own eyes. I was told that Pope John Paul II lied to the faithful of the world because he wanted the scientists to “feel good about themselves because he was a nice guy.” I was also told that my acceptance of what the Church has told me I can accept meant that my belief was wild, wacky, and a third “w” which I can’t remember (probably “weird”). That was in one thread. In another I was told that if things go on the way they are everyone will be forced to sign something that states they agree with the same thing the Church has stated I can accept or they won’t be let through the door for Mass. I’m not making this up nor am I exaggerating at all. I don’t lie.
Click to expand...
Personally, I wouldn’t draw conclusions from what a few people have said elsewhere and then bring them to this thread. We have over 1400 posts here so it might be best to just stay with what people have said here.
I’m not upset about anything except my misreading of a post which has evidently caused some hard feelings.
Click to expand...
Ok, it just seemed that you were upset about something that I cannot have reference to – some unnamed persons said things that you disagree with. You’ve repeated that above.
 
buffalo said:
You design computer programs. You know it exists.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly – intelligent design. Those software programs also include feedback loops, logic-based selections and repair mechanisms. The same things we see in cellular functions.
 
inocente said:
No. There are many approaches. If interested, I think the best place to start would be Conway’s Game of Life, a cellular automaton which has been around for donkey’s years, where order and complexity emerges from a the simplest of “physical law”, with no goals, no targets, no fine tuning. I think this gives a fascinating insight into how the whole can be more than the sum of its parts. It’s best to find a book rather than just the short articles on the web. Also I think Conway was a (vocal?) atheist.
Click to expand...
Conway’s Game of Life is a game – it does not use the real laws of physics and chemistry. The “order and complexity” that you’re referring to are merely patterns. They’re not living organisms with highly functional processes.

As for having “no fine tuning”, that’s not correct either. Conway intelligently designed his game. He built the parameters as a simulation. He did not use a random process to build the game. It cannot prove the spontaneous arise of organization because the game is built with design and organization for certain outputs. That is not chaos leading to complexity, but design leading to patterns. The program specifies (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs can only emerge based on the parameters.

If someone is going to claim that there are “laws” which drive Darwinian processes, then those laws need to be specified. What are the boundaries? What is the Edge of Evolution? What biological feature is not possible for evolution to produce?

Conway’s Game functions within specified limits and follows finite, well-defined rules. Again, there are no such rules governing the supposed natural development of life.

Natural selection itself is not a “law”. The Game of Life is not even a simulation of how nature works – it’s just a toy.
 
inocente said:
Moving the words around a bit didn’t make it more coherent to me - living organisms are part and parcel of the physical universe, they can’t have a separate existence without carbon, oxygen and so on. Can you pose it without any dualities?
Click to expand...
Your persistent evasion of straightforward questions makes further attempts at a rational discussion with you a waste of time and energy:
  1. Do living organisms have their own purposes?
  2. Is the physical universe is a necessary basis for living organisms?
I leave others to draw their own conclusions…
 
  1. In reality every moment of existence is a miracle
  2. God not only sustains but constantly cares for His creatures as individuals
  3. It is impossible for the laws of nature to minimise suffering **on an individual basis **
  4. Therefore God constantly minimises suffering by suspending the laws of nature
  5. To deny that God does so is to reject the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father
  6. “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?”
  7. The belief that the Christian God is a remote, unmoved spectator of events is absurd
  8. Therefore Christianity vindicates belief in Design based on philosophical and scientific facts
 
reggieM said:
Conway’s Game of Life is a game – it does not use the real laws of physics and chemistry. The “order and complexity” that you’re referring to are merely patterns. They’re not living organisms with highly functional processes.

As for having “no fine tuning”, that’s not correct either. Conway intelligently designed his game. He built the parameters as a simulation. He did not use a random process to build the game. It cannot prove the spontaneous arise of organization because the game is built with design and organization for certain outputs. That is not chaos leading to complexity, but design leading to patterns. The program specifies (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs can only emerge based on the parameters.

If someone is going to claim that there are “laws” which drive Darwinian processes, then those laws need to be specified. What are the boundaries? What is the Edge of Evolution? What biological feature is not possible for evolution to produce?

Conway’s Game functions within specified limits and follows finite, well-defined rules. Again, there are no such rules governing the supposed natural development of life.

Natural selection itself is not a “law”. The Game of Life is not even a simulation of how nature works – it’s just a toy.
Click to expand...
👍
A toy to amuse those who don’t believe there is any ultimate purpose for any form of life in the universe… not even for those who claim to understand the insignificance of their own existence - with no goals and no targets! :rolleyes:
 
tonyrey said:
👍
A toy to amuse those who don’t believe there is any ultimate purpose for any form of life in the universe… not even for those who claim to understand the insignificance of their own existence - with no goals and no targets! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
:clapping:

Those who have purposefully decided that life has no purpose are using the great **gift **of reason to destroy itself.
 
tonyrey said:
  1. In reality every moment of existence is a miracle
  2. God not only sustains but constantly cares for His creatures as individuals
  3. It is impossible for the laws of nature to minimise suffering **on an individual basis **
  4. Therefore God constantly minimises suffering by suspending the laws of nature
  5. To deny that God does so is to reject the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father
  6. “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?”
  7. The belief that the Christian God is a remote, unmoved spectator of events is absurd
  8. Therefore Christianity vindicates belief in Design based on philosophical and scientific facts
Click to expand...
A truly brilliant and beautiful argument. 👍 That definitely goes in my clipping file.

Those are maxims of Catholic wisdom. The argument from 3 to 4 especially – is magnificent. That’s how God changes the world, through grace. That’s how believers are transformed, and not doomed by the determination of natural laws. God made the laws constant (but not absolute and infallible) for a good reason. He constantly transcends and protects us from the suffering those laws would cause also – for a very good reason.
 
I accept your evidence for “Design”.

Now, would you kindly tell me how I can get to know God on a personal level?
 
reggieM said:
A truly brilliant and beautiful argument. 👍 That definitely goes in my clipping file.

Those are maxims of Catholic wisdom. The argument from 3 to 4 especially – is magnificent. That’s how God changes the world, through grace. That’s how believers are transformed, and not doomed by the determination of natural laws. God made the laws constant (but not absolute and infallible) for a good reason. He constantly transcends and protects us from the suffering those laws would cause also – for a very good reason.
Click to expand...
So then, please, explain the Japanese Tsunami.
 
reggieM said:
A truly brilliant and beautiful argument. 👍 That definitely goes in my clipping file.

Those are maxims of Catholic wisdom. The argument from 3 to 4 especially – is magnificent. That’s how God changes the world, through grace. That’s how believers are transformed, and not doomed by the determination of natural laws. God made the laws constant (but not absolute and infallible) for a good reason. He constantly transcends and protects us from the suffering those laws would cause also – for a very good reason.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Reggie. God is often thought **to be subject **to the laws He has created! There is a failure to distinguish the need for consistency with dependency…
 
Al_Moritz said:
That’s how God changes the world, through grace. That’s how believers are transformed, and not doomed by the determination of natural laws. God made the laws constant (but not absolute and infallible) for a good reason. He constantly transcends and protects us from the suffering those laws would cause also – for a very good reason.
Click to expand...
  1. Please explain how **every **natural disaster could be prevented without interfering with our ability to choose what to believe and how to live.
  2. Do you believe God does **absolutely nothing **to prevent disasters and mitigate the suffering in the world?
  3. If not why not?
  4. Can you explain how your view is consistent with the Christian belief that God is a loving Father who answers the prayers of His children?
Click to expand...
 
reggieM said:
Conway’s Game of Life is a game – it does not use the real laws of physics and chemistry. The “order and complexity” that you’re referring to are merely patterns. They’re not living organisms with highly functional processes.
Click to expand...
You’ve not read his thesis then, where he proves mathematically that complex, animated, self-replicating objects can come into existence from just a couple of rules and nothing else.

buffalo said he was curious, and Conway is a good place to start because it is a very simple route into the abstractions. As always, an open mind will learn more than a closed mind.
 
tonyrey said:
Your persistent evasion of straightforward questions makes further attempts at a rational discussion with you a waste of time and energy:
  1. Do living organisms have their own purposes?
  2. Is the physical universe is a necessary basis for living organisms?
I leave others to draw their own conclusions…
Click to expand...
There’s no point throwing a tantrum bro. You are, to me, asking whether the stuff from which Mount Everest is made is a necessary basis for the existence of Mount Everest. The answer is so blindingly obvious that either you’re wasting my time with a very stupid question, or else I don’t understand.

I asked you to rephrase your question because I didn’t understand the first two times, and there’s no point in you just lazily repeating the same words over and over. If you want to communicate rather than get upset, all I can think is you are using a private definition of life which you will need to explain to me. Here’s a couple of common definitions:

*Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. - thefreedictionary.com/life*

As to purpose, you are an utterly insignificant little pimple on the backside of an minor planet in the suburbs of an average galaxy which is one amongst billions. In the immensity of God’s creation you are nothing, zip, nada. Yet God sent His only Son for you, and He came to live inside you. I already said all creation sings to God. Is that really not enough?
 
tonyrey said:
👍
A toy to amuse those who don’t believe there is any ultimate purpose for any form of life in the universe… not even for those who claim to understand the insignificance of their own existence - with no goals and no targets! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Do you intend an inquisition to suppress mathematical truth, while exalting science frauds? What’s acceptable now depends on whether the metaphysics challenges what side of the bed you got up on rather than truth? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top