Probability of Origin of Life by Chance just went way UP.

[bhsmte]

No problem. Show it exists, using science to do so, with a test that is falsifiable, to determine when it is present.

And off we go.......................

 

[Larniavc]

A cell is an example of systems that have the human like design features we recognize as design. These systems and functions are recognizable designs found in intelligent design.

That's fascinating! I'm a bit unsure about what you mean when you say 'recognisable designs found in intelligent design': which specific designs have been found in the cell that can only be intelligently designed?

Do you mean we have evidence that they very definitely have been designed? I can't get my head around what the hallmark of design is: do you mean irreducibly complex?

Thanks in advance.

 

[The Cadet]

I don't have to.

Yes, you do. The claim is that we observe design in nature. the evidence for this must be clearly defined, discrete, objective, and independently verifiable. Otherwise, it cannot be said that we actually observe it.

Also, you still have done nothing to even hint at evidence for a "purpose", or to even explain what you mean by that.

How would we know if it were mimicking it if it is not recognized and has been observed by scientific methods to show it exists?

It has not been observed by scientific methods! At least, you've provided absolutely no evidence that that is the case. That's kind of the problem, isn't it? There is nothing "scientific" about your claims. You refuse to accept anything resembling a burden of proof with regards to demonstrating that what we observe actually is design, and doesn't just look like design. When I look at this picture, it looks like the boxes are moving at different speeds and irregularly:

Does that mean that this is evidence that they are moving irregularly? Nothing that you have provided falls outside the bounds of perfectly ordinary cognitive biases. And the scientists you appeal to? They all agree that it is an illusion. That there's nothing actually there. Because there's no way to examine it! How could you possibly tell that your belief "this looks designed" is actually valid in reality? What if I was led to believe that the shape of a certain cloud was designed, with the purpose of sending me a message like the people in "The Fortuneteller" (S1E14 of Avatar: The Last Airbender)? Look, that one looks like a bunny, it means something! That one looks like a dragon, it means something! That one looks like the entire contents of the wikipedia page on Pareidolia! That's gotta mean something!

You think we observe design. It is up to you to demonstrate that this observation is a legitimate, objective, independently verifiable observation of reality, rather than simply a subjective cognitive bias towards seeing design and patterns that aren't there. But instead of doing that, you simply throw up excuse after excuse, trying desperately to shift the burden. "I see it, it's up to you to prove that it is just a cognitive bias!" No dice. That's your job. Otherwise, all that you're doing amounts to building constellations and reading messages in the clouds.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sorry that you are unable to given an example of a designed organ or structure.

You mean like a tooth?

 

[Larniavc]

You mean like a tooth?

I'd be fascinated to see how that is an example of design, do go on. The design inference is an interesting idea.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's fascinating! I'm a bit unsure about what you mean when you say 'recognisable designs found in intelligent design': which specific designs have been found in the cell that can only be intelligently designed?

Do you mean we have evidence that they very definitely have been designed? I can't get my head around what the hallmark of design is: do you mean irreducibly complex?

Thanks in advance.

We observe in the cell systems and subsystems that resemble in form, function and purpose as those we find in engineered forms, function and purposes in human engineering.

 

[Larniavc]

We observe in the cell systems and subsystems that resemble in form, function and purpose as those we find in engineered forms, function and purposes in human engineering.

I'm sorry, I'm a doofus at engineering. Which sub systems in the cell do we find in human engineering?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, you do. The claim is that we observe design in nature. the evidence for this must be clearly defined, discrete, objective, and independently verifiable. Otherwise, it cannot be said that we actually observe it.

The evidence of design is clearly defined as that which we recognize by experience and objective knowledge to be that of human engineering, the only intelligent design known on earth. I don't know what you mean by discrete and why that would be a requirement for objective evidence and it is verified by the biological scientists who observe it. All biologists observe the design in nature, there is a consensus on the fact that apparent design with a purpose is clearly observed in all living organisms.

Also, you still have done nothing to even hint at evidence for a "purpose", or to even explain what you mean by that.

Can you see purpose in this system:

It has not been observed by scientific methods!

Yes, it has. Look at the video above. This is an actual animation of the process as observed by scientific methods.

At least, you've provided absolutely no evidence that that is the case. That's kind of the problem, isn't it? There is nothing "scientific" about your claims. You refuse to accept anything resembling a burden of proof with regards to demonstrating that what we observe actually is design, and doesn't just look like design. When I look at this picture, it looks like the boxes are moving at different speeds and irregularly:

It is actual design as in evidence or it is an illusion of deliberate design produced by evolutionary processes. No evidence has been provided as to how evolutionary processes produced this design in living organisms.

Does that mean that this is evidence that they are moving irregularly? Nothing that you have provided falls outside the bounds of perfectly ordinary cognitive biases.

I disagree and so do other biologists that recognize that this design must have an explanation and they make the claim that it is there due to evolutionary processes mimicking deliberate design. I've quoted Dawkins and Crick as examples.

And the scientists you appeal to? They all agree that it is an illusion.

No, the majority of them agree it is an illusion but equally trained and educated biologists disagree and feel the design is not an illusion.

That there's nothing actually there. Because there's no way to examine it!

Examine in the video above.

How could you possibly tell that your belief "this looks designed" is actually valid in reality?

What is the best explanation of the appearance of design with a purpose in living organisms that is recognizable to the only intelligent agents we have experienced which forms, features, systems and functions? We have valid intelligent design in reality in that which human engineers produce which compares to the design we observe in living organisms. We have not been shown any evidence that shows evolutionary processes produced this design that is recognized as intelligent design from the only intelligence on earth that we have.

What if I was led to believe that the shape of a certain cloud was designed, with the purpose of sending me a message like the people in "The Fortuneteller" (S1E14 of Avatar: The Last Airbender)? Look, that one looks like a bunny, it means something! That one looks like a dragon, it means something! That one looks like the entire contents of the wikipedia page on Pareidolia! That's gotta mean something!

Nonsense and no evidence.

You think we observe design.

Correction, all biologists see design. They just attribute it to mimicking due to evolutionary processes but no evidence has been provided for that claim.

It is up to you to demonstrate that this observation is a legitimate, objective, independently verifiable observation of reality, rather than simply a subjective cognitive bias towards seeing design and patterns that aren't there. But instead of doing that, you simply throw up excuse after excuse, trying desperately to shift the burden. "I see it, it's up to you to prove that it is just a cognitive bias!" No dice. That's your job. Otherwise, all that you're doing amounts to building constellations and reading messages in the clouds.

The evidence is there, it needs explanation if one wishes to claim that the living organisms apparent design is one of an illusion produced by evolutionary processes. The burden is on them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm sorry, I'm a doofus at engineering. Which sub systems in the cell do we find in human engineering?

WE see factories, assembly lines, transportation lines, production lines, we have rotor systems, we have transportation systems and we have structures that are built in the way humans have built to do the same function.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No problem. Show it exists, using science to do so, with a test that is falsifiable, to determine when it is present.

And off we go.......................

Can you make an image of your consciousness? Can I show it exists to you except to ask that you believe it does? And yet actual consciousness is an ongoing debate as to if it really exists. I can assure you that it does, but I could never prove it to you scientifically.

 

[Larniavc]

WE see factories, assembly lines, transportation lines, production lines, we have rotor systems, we have transportation systems and we have structures that are built in the way humans have built to do the same function.

Which structures in the cell?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you make an image of your consciousness?

Using fMRI, yes you can.

http://www.nature.com/news/brain-decoding-reading-minds-1.13989

 

[The Cadet]

The evidence of design is clearly defined as that which we recognize by experience and objective knowledge to be that of human engineering, the only intelligent design known on earth.

Oh. Humans don't design biological systems like that.

Want to try again on that definition thing? In fact, you've only pushed the problem further down, as you have rejected my suggestion on an objective way to identify human engineering, and have yet to provide your own. In fact, you might want to take a mulligan on a couple of those things.

Can you see purpose in this system:

I have no idea what you mean by purpose. I see chemistry. I see that this is an organelle that has certain functions within the body. But I don't know what you mean by "purpose" in this context and would like a definition before answering. I keep asking you, and I keep on getting nothing back.

Yes, it has. Look at the video above. This is an actual animation of the process as observed by scientific methods.

That is an actual animation of a molecular process. I'm asking for objective, scientific evidence of design! Just pointing back to yet another organelle you cannot believe evolved (oh, and by the way, you might want to google "ATP evolution"; we're not exactly taking shots in the dark here) doesn't help your case. You haven't shown me any scientific observation of design, and it doesn't matter how many different videos you can show me of cellular mechanisms, because you're missing the point! Please show me how you objectively came to determine that the ATP synthase in the above video was designed, and show me how I can objectively come to the same conclusion!

I disagree and so do other biologists that recognize that this design must have an explanation and they make the claim that it is there due to evolutionary processes mimicking deliberate design. I've quoted Dawkins and Crick as examples.

But neither Dawkins nor Crick believes that what is observed is actually design, so I'm not sure what point you see in claiming this over and over again. What do you think they attribute the illusion to, hmm? Oh, and by the way? That's two biologists. Not a majority, not most, not all, two, and it's their personal opinion in parlance, not anything published as scientific research.

Nonsense and no evidence.

Congratulations on missing the point again. Please demonstrate that what you observe as design is independently verifiable and objective. Please explain the mechanism you use to determine this. I'm kind of getting sick of asking the same really basic question and not getting an answer.

 

[Smidlee]

The code is the abstraction of the existing data. You can craft a code by imposing a pattern onto any semi-random system (the example I keep bringing up being the location and type of atoms in a rock, where you take a rock and the code gives you back a list of 4-tuples in the form (x-pos, y-pos, z-pos, atom type)); this does not mean that DNA is a code. Similarly, the eye does not send a "code" to the brain, it sends a pattern of electrical pulses onto which a pattern can be imposed in order for us to read out that information. This is, however, ostensibly not how the brain processes the information, just like it is not how ribosomes code for proteins. When you take the code analogy too far, you can get confused about these things.

The retina does send a digital code to your brain. As man is learning more about this visual code they can help the blind to see. They are even starting to crack the visual code in the brain to "see" a muddy image of something a person saw on TV. You are only a few I read who denies the genetic code. Do you know there is more than one genetic code? (most involves in just a few changes)

Using fMRI, yes you can.

http://www.nature.com/news/brain-decoding-reading-minds-1.13989

This is only decoding part of the code sent from your retina to your brain (visual code) and from not your imagination.

 

[The Cadet]

I have no idea what you mean by purpose. I see chemistry.

This is something I feel the need to stress.

The most powerful thing about the scientific method is that your bitter enemy who has everything to lose and nothing to gain by accepting your hypothesis can repeat your experiment and come up with the same results. And given that you've provided no objective evidence of design, it's trivial to look at, say, the ATP synthase, and say, "Nope, that doesn't look designed".

Because to me, it honestly doesn't. I don't see any elements of design in there. I don't see anything that hallmarks this as designed. And without some objective measure of "designedness", we're kind of at an impasse - an impasse where you, @Oncedeceived , the person making the positive claim, has a clear burden of proof.

 

[Smidlee]

This is something I feel the need to stress.

The most powerful thing about the scientific method is that your bitter enemy who has everything to lose and nothing to gain by accepting your hypothesis can repeat your experiment and come up with the same results. And given that you've provided no objective evidence of design, it's trivial to look at, say, the ATP synthase, and say, "Nope, that doesn't look designed".

Because to me, it honestly doesn't. I don't see any elements of design in there. I don't see anything that hallmarks this as designed. And without some objective measure of "designedness", we're kind of at an impasse - an impasse where you, @Oncedeceived , the person making the positive claim, has a clear burden of proof.

It's impossible to prove to someone the universe exist outside their mind and it's also impossible to prove it's design if that person refused to believe.
If living system doesn't involve the supernatural then it must have a ton of informational code to run on the known laws of physics. If living system is supernatural then it falsifies materialism and atheism.

 

[The Cadet]

It's impossible to prove to someone the universe exist outside their mind and it's also impossible to prove it's design if that person refused to believe.

Seriously, we're going to bring solipsism into this? Let's assume for the moment that the person you're trying to demonstrate design to isn't a complete sophist, and work from there. It sort of comes with the territory that if you're talking about science, you've already accepted that you aren't a brain in a vat, and anyone coming in and saying, "You can't prove anything" is just wasting everyone's time.

So with that out of the way, it's impossible to prove that it's designed if a person refuses to believe? Congratulations, you've just accepted that your claim is unscientific and based purely on your own cognitive biases rather than anything objective. We can demonstrate color to the colorblind to such an extent that only the dishonest could possibly say "no, color doesn't exist". We can show gravity to anyone by just lifting and dropping them. These are objective, clear demonstrations of the phenomenon. So when someone claims "I can recognize design", I expect some similar degree of demonstrable evidence! Not "if you don't believe I can't show you". In science, that's an admission of defeat.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is something I feel the need to stress.

The most powerful thing about the scientific method is that your bitter enemy who has everything to lose and nothing to gain by accepting your hypothesis can repeat your experiment and come up with the same results. And given that you've provided no objective evidence of design, it's trivial to look at, say, the ATP synthase, and say, "Nope, that doesn't look designed".

Because to me, it honestly doesn't. I don't see any elements of design in there. I don't see anything that hallmarks this as designed. And without some objective measure of "designedness", we're kind of at an impasse - an impasse where you, @Oncedeceived , the person making the positive claim, has a clear burden of proof.

Yes, the positive claim is Dawkins when he claims that evolution has mimicked deliberate design.

That is ok, I don't know of any biologists that do not agree that design with a purpose is apparent in living organism. I don't believe you are being honest either with me or yourself about not seeing features that resemble those that humans design. If you don't see production lines, assembly lines, rotor systems, artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of pre-fabrication and modular construction; the literal factory analogy is so striking that to deny it makes it look like your materialistic bias are so ingrained that you can't be even honest with yourself.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, the positive claim is Dawkins when he claims that evolution has mimicked deliberate design.

That is ok, I don't know of any biologists that do not agree that design with a purpose is apparent in living organism. I don't believe you are being honest either with me or yourself about not seeing features that resemble those that humans design. If you don't see production lines, assembly lines, rotor systems, artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of pre-fabrication and modular construction; the literal factory analogy is so striking that to deny it makes it look like your materialistic bias are so ingrained that you can't be even honest with yourself.

Exactly. The positive claim is Dawkins' claim and there's not a bit of evidence for his claim. Others who suggest illusion of design will only offer their subjective opinion which is also completely void of evidence.

They've strayed away from science in a futile effort to promote their worldview.

 

[JacksBratt]

A habitable planet has been discovered a mere 1400 light years away. Considering our tiny galaxy spans a 100,000 light years but still has a hundred billion stars this indicates a dramatic increase in the likely number of habitable planets. Our galaxy may be full of them. If life originates by chance, the more habitable planets the greater the odds that life will originate. You guys believing in a 6 day creation event better start rethinking your positions.

http://www.theladbible.com/articles...lanet-they-re-almost-certain-can-support-life

The discovery of an environment that will support life does not increase the chances of it spontaneously forming.

They still cannot produce it in a lab, cannot prove that it happened here, cannot prove that it even happened once.

Finding another planet is just another lab..... good luck with that when evolution doesn't even try to answer how it started on it's own. Now, all of a sudden, you want to say the odds are better?

Bob Isumi, a famous fisherman in Canada, while fishing in the north, hooked a fish and it broke free.

Later he caught the same fish but the miracle was that his hook went right through the eye of the hook the fish had in it's mouth from the previous time Bob caught it......

If he has more fish break his line.... does it increase the chance of him doing this once in a lifetime thing?

Not at all.....

Even less if it never happened in the first place.