An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[Armoured]

It has been characterized as such by several of the creationists on this board.

Oh. Well I don't really feel compelled to cater to their strawman.

 

[Radrook]

It's your theory, that's what you're supposed to be telling us.

You are the one expressing confusion as to what does and doesn't indicate intelligent design. So save yourself the conundrum and confusion and declare everything non-designed. That way there is no need to struggle.

 

[Armoured]

You are the one expressing confusion as to what does and doesn't indicate intelligent design. So save yourself the conundrum and confusion and declare everything non-designed. That way there is no need to struggle.

It's your theory. You need to be able to explain what does and doesn't indicate intelligent design. Stop trying to shift the burden. I don't think any natural phenomena is indicative of design, otherwise there's be evidence of it, there's no confusion at this end.

You're the one trying to convince us of ID. It's not up to us to try to prove it for you.

 

[Speedwell]

You are the one expressing confusion as to what does and doesn't indicate intelligent design. So save yourself the conundrum and confusion and declare everything non-designed. That way there is no need to struggle.

One could also declare that everything is "designed" thus abandoning ID and becoming a theistic evolutionist. It certainly requires no struggle to abandon ID.

 

[Radrook]

It's your theory. You need to be able to explain what does and doesn't indicate intelligent design. Stop trying to shift the burden. I don't think any natural phenomena is indicative of design, otherwise there's be evidence of it, there's no confusion at this end.

You're the one trying to convince us of ID. It's not up to us to try to prove it for you.

Thanks for the honesty.

 

[Armoured]

Thanks for the honesty.

I don't know why you'd expect anything else. Now, are you going to support your theory with any specifics?

 

[Radrook]

I don't know why you'd expect anything else. Now, are you going to support your theory with any specifics?

Well, you honestly admitted that you don't consider anything which is part of nature as capable of displaying intelligent design. Since all I have to offer you is part of nature then that would make any effort on my part nonsensical since you have already declared it insufficient.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, you honestly admitted that you don't consider anything which is part of nature as capable of displaying intelligent design. Since all I have to offer you is part of nature then that would make any effort on my part nonsensical since you have already declared it insufficient.

But you haven't provided any specifics. For example, let us us consider an hypothetical Eukaryote family, breeding and evolving by variation and selection. By and by, these creatures find themselves in a situation in which a flagellum would increase their fitness, but variation and selection is not quite up to evolving one. What happens then, according to ID theory, is that your designer comes in and "nudges" the evolutionary process. How does that happen? What physical forces are in involved?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

IIRC, gene pruning doesn't create new functions.

Gene pruning? what's that?

I was referring to the creation of synthetic genes that code for novel proteins.

 

[Armoured]

Gene pruning? what's that?

I was referring to the creation of synthetic genes that code for novel proteins.

Functional proteins?

 

[durangodawood]

Well, you honestly admitted that you don't consider anything which is part of nature as capable of displaying intelligent design. Since all I have to offer you is part of nature then that would make any effort on my part nonsensical since you have already declared it insufficient.

I dont either.
But I dont know every single thing in nature.
I could be wrong! Maybe something out there that i wasnt aware of does indicate ID?

 

[Armoured]

Well, you honestly admitted that you don't consider anything which is part of nature as capable of displaying intelligent design. Since all I have to offer you is part of nature then that would make any effort on my part nonsensical since you have already declared it insufficient.

My position is based on the evidence I am familiar with. It's not an a priori position. If you have some evidence of design in nature, by all means, present it. If it is what you say it is, I'll have to change my understanding of the universe.

I have an open mind. If I'm wrong, I want to know. So if you have evidence that I am wrong, I would welcome you sharing it.

Now, being honest, I've been promised evidence before, and when I ask to see it, I get a collection of excuses as to why the person making the claim doesn't have to actually show me the evidence, and every instinct I have tell's me that thats what's about to happen again. But I'd be really pleased to be proven wrong this time.

So... all of that said, whaddya got?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Functional proteins?

Yes. There's also a growing interest in synthetic DNAs ('XNA's), where different nucleotides are added or replace the natural ones (Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine). These have been used to make functional proteins including artificial enzymes.

 

[Michael]

My position is based on the evidence I am familiar with. It's not an a priori position. If you have some evidence of design in nature, by all means, present it. If it is what you say it is, I'll have to change my understanding of the universe.

I have an open mind. If I'm wrong, I want to know. So if you have evidence that I am wrong, I would welcome you sharing it.

Now, being honest, I've been promised evidence before, and when I ask to see it, I get a collection of excuses as to why the person making the claim doesn't have to actually show me the evidence, and every instinct I have tell's me that thats what's about to happen again. But I'd be really pleased to be proven wrong this time.

So... all of that said, whaddya got?

If you're looking for evidence of a "living universe", something capable of creating life "naturally", you might take a gander at the thread below.

An Empirical Theory Of God

One might try to argue that the existence of awareness is evidence of "intelligent design". Even single celled organisms seem to show signs of 'intelligence", without the benefit of a brain.

 

[Armoured]

If you're looking for evidence of a "living universe", something capable of creating life "naturally", you might take a gander at the thread below.

An Empirical Theory Of God

One might try to argue that the existence of awareness is evidence of "intelligent design". Even single celled organisms seem to show signs of 'intelligence", without the benefit of a brain.

Thanks. I don't see much compelling evidence for those claims, either. Sorry.

 

[Michael]

Thanks. I don't see much compelling evidence for those claims, either. Sorry.

We'd have to start with the term "evidence" and look at how you're defining it. Exactly what kind of "evidence" would you expect to see/observe from a living universe?

 

[Radrook]

If you're looking for evidence of a "living universe", something capable of creating life "naturally", you might take a gander at the thread below.

An Empirical Theory Of God

One might try to argue that the existence of awareness is evidence of "intelligent design". Even single celled organisms seem to show signs of 'intelligence", without the benefit of a brain.

My position is based on the evidence I am familiar with. It's not an a priori position. If you have some evidence of design in nature, by all means, present it. If it is what you say it is, I'll have to change my understanding of the universe.

I have an open mind. If I'm wrong, I want to know. So if you have evidence that I am wrong, I would welcome you sharing it.

Now, being honest, I've been promised evidence before, and when I ask to see it, I get a collection of excuses as to why the person making the claim doesn't have to actually show me the evidence, and every instinct I have tell's me that thats what's about to happen again. But I'd be really pleased to be proven wrong this time.

So... all of that said, whaddya got?

Nothing I guess. Just the same thing that you always say doesn't mean anything because the chemicals did it all by themselves because all you see is the chemicals doing it all by themselves. Which is similar to saying that if you see a machine functioning all by itself then it must have designed and assembled itself.

 

[Armoured]

We'd have to start with the term "evidence" and look at how you're defining it. Exactly what kind of "evidence" would you expect to see/observe from a living universe?

That's not how science works. Theories are formulated in response to evidence. You don't go looking for evidence after you compose a theory.

If you have evidence of a living universe, by all means, present it. But you're the one making the claim, it's your job to support the claim with objective facts, not my job to help you convince me subjectively..

 

[Michael]

Nothing I guess. Just the same thing that you always say doesn't mean anything because the chemicals did it all by themselves because all you see is the chemicals doing it all by themselves.

I'd like to know which specific chemical processes he believes gives rise to awareness in something like a slime mold, which is apparently capable of making "intelligent" choices.

https://phys.org/news/2016-06-slime-mold-insight-intelligence-neuron-less.html

 

[Armoured]

Nothing I guess. Just the same thing that you always say doesn't mean anything because the chemicals did it all by themselves because all you see is the chemicals doing it all by themselves.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. But argument from incredulity is not evidence.