Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[DogmaHunter]

Would complexity be an indication of design? I think it would.

No, not at all.

First, because complexity is rather subjective. What is complex to you might not be complex to me.

Secondly, complexity can be natural. 2 H atoms and an O atom by themselves are relatively simple. After a natural reaction, they form the more complex H2O molecule.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you have an example of a universe that is the product of natural processes or even know how natural processes would go about designing a universe from nothing?

So I guess we are back to the original issue.

The origins of the universe are unkown, ED.

Don't try to turn it around.
This entire conversation is about certain religious people claiming design (by their deity of choice, off course) and other people responding to those claims.

Having said that, the universe being the result of natural processes is more likely then it being the result of supernatural processes. For the simple reason that we know natural processes exist, but we can't say the same for supernatural processes (or anything else).

 

[EternalDragon]

The origins of the universe are unkown, ED.

Don't try to turn it around.
This entire conversation is about certain religious people claiming design (by their deity of choice, off course) and other people responding to those claims.

Having said that, the universe being the result of natural processes is more likely then it being the result of supernatural processes. For the simple reason that we know natural processes exist, but we can't say the same for supernatural processes (or anything else).

Actually it is less likely that natural processes are the cause.

If you are going to go with natural processes then you will have to also concede that natural processes are responsible for the creation of ipods, computers and airplanes through it's process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually it is less likely that natural processes are the cause.

Why?

If you are going to go with natural processes then you will have to also concede that natural processes are responsible for the creation of ipods, computers and airplanes through it's process.

Why?

 

[EternalDragon]

Why?

Why?

If you can't work those two things out for yourself, I can see where
you are confused about other things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you can't work those two things out for yourself, I can see where you are confused about other things.

What should I conclude from your unwillingness to answer my questions and help me understand what you mean?

I ask again...

Actually it is less likely that natural processes are the cause

Why?

If you are going to go with natural processes then you will have to also concede that natural processes are responsible for the creation of ipods, computers and airplanes through it's process

Why?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How does this relate to the experts who have used scientific methods to determine fine tuning and how that has the appearance of design?


Do you feel the scientists are doing this?

-_- fine tuning has not been determined. If it actually had been, I wouldn't be debating you about it.


Everyone has bias to an extent

 

[Oncedeceived]

-_- fine tuning has not been determined. If it actually had been, I wouldn't be debating you about it.


Everyone has bias to an extent

That is exactly what I mean. The fine tuning is based on actual data collected by Scientists on the values of the constants of the universe. That is not biased. The appearance from this phenomena creates the appearance of design, that is not biased as it is clearly seen by scientists regardless of their religious views.

Where the biases come in are how those scientists interpret what the cause of that appearance means. Some feel that the appearance is due to it actually being designed and others feel it is due to a proposed Multiverse.

 

[Oncedeceived]

-_- fine tuning has not been determined. If it actually had been, I wouldn't be debating you about it.

You do so because you are either confused or unaware, fine tuning has been documented since 1972. You are debating the issue because you clearly do not understand what fine tuning is. Fine tuning is an established fact, that it appears to be intentional for a purpose is where the appearance of design comes in.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are we discussing consumer electronics or universes?

Does the design of certain products give the appearance of design? Yes or no?

We can recognize what something designed "looks" like right? Yes or no?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you have an example of a universe that is the product of natural processes or even know how natural processes would go about designing a universe from nothing?

So I guess we are back to the original issue.

Good point.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Would complexity be an indication of design? I think it would.

What is more complex, bricks randomly strewn into a pile or a brick wall?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Those things don't merely "appear" to be designed. They ARE designed. And the reason we know that is not even because we know of factories and actual human designers that design and produce these things.

We know it purely by contrasting it with other things in the world, things that we know are designed and things that we know are not designed.
Computers, for example, hold plenty of materials that don't exist in nature.

How do we know that they are not designed?

What materials are they made of that don't exist in nature? All materials that are used to design things throughout history are made using the materials that were created when the universe came into existence.

In order to draw the same conclusion for the entire universe, we would have to be able to contrast it with other universes - preferably universes that ARE designed and universes that aren't.

That is a red herring. We don't know of any other universes designed or otherwise. We know of only one and this one has the appearance of design. It is either due to design or another cause. We don't need other universes to know our own, which we do.

Are random rocks designed? Do they appear to be?

Do they require over 20 features to hold certain values for life to exist? No. They don't have to "do" anything. Yet if our universe didn't have the values it does even rocks couldn't form.

Are you sure I can't come up with random natural rocks that appear designed?

You are just showing your ignorance about fine tuning. Things can "look" designed by sight. It takes confirmation and scientific methodology to determine whether that appearance is due to apophenia or to the measured and tested constants that hold a value that allows for life to exist. We can recognize design. If a set of random rocks were gathered together and spelled out "Dogma was here" and were seen flying in a plane do you think that someone would claim that they were placed in that specific order (value) or that they just happened to fall into that order and the words are just an illusion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes.

However...

- "appearance of X" is subjective to the observer. What appears to be designed to you, might not appear to be designed to me.

- your a priori religious beliefs require you to believe the universe is designed even before the question is asked. So it's not surprising to me that you take the position that you do.

So that only bolsters my point. Regardless of religious views the scientists in the field agree that the result of the fine tuning has the appearance of design. So the majority of observers, scientifically trained and educated claim the universe appears designed.

My a priori religious beliefs? What are those a priori beliefs? See my a priori belief was not Christian. Furthermore, my religious views have nothing to do with the fine tuning of the universe and its appearance according to scientists that have studied the phenomena. The fine tuning of the universe was established long before I became religious.

It seems you are more biased than I. You disregard all scientific evidence for fine tuning and the result appearing designed due to your own biased subjective opinion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is more complex, bricks randomly strewn into a pile or a brick wall?

What say you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, not at all.

First, because complexity is rather subjective. What is complex to you might not be complex to me.

Secondly, complexity can be natural. 2 H atoms and an O atom by themselves are relatively simple. After a natural reaction, they form the more complex H2O molecule.

Even this rests on the fine tuning of the universe. Our chemical makeup for those reactions, the chemicals themselves all depending on the fine tuning of the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The origins of the universe are unkown, ED.

Don't try to turn it around.
This entire conversation is about certain religious people claiming design (by their deity of choice, off course) and other people responding to those claims.

Having said that, the universe being the result of natural processes is more likely then it being the result of supernatural processes. For the simple reason that we know natural processes exist, but we can't say the same for supernatural processes (or anything else).

Why? Tell me why you think that the universe being a property of natural processes is more likely?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not necessarily.

I can design a rock as a piece of art and it could very well be indistinguishable from a non-designed rock.

So it could not be tested and found lacking in the chemical makeup of a rock? How would you do that?

 

[DerelictJunction]

What say you?

Bricks randomly strewn into a pile is a more complex system than a brick wall. A brick wall can be accurately represented with a simpler mathematical formula than randomly placed bricks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bricks randomly strewn into a pile is a more complex system than a brick wall. A brick wall can be accurately represented with a simpler mathematical formula than randomly placed bricks.

While a random assortment or pile of bricks could in a sense be designed a brick wall would be recognized as designed is that not true?