Criteria for determining design

[Subduction Zone]

Wow -- just wow.

Here's what God thinks of them ...

Hebrews 11:38a ( Of whom the world was not worthy: )

I prefer the word the Bible uses more: "saint."

"Christian" was conferred on us by our first century educated antagonists.

Nope, that is merely a verse in the Bible. It has nothing to do with Christian martyrs. You are merely cherry picking. That is an abuse of the Bible.

 

[sandybay]

It's a good thing religions use miracles and not magic.

Miracles are fit the exact same definition as magic.

Do you honestly think I don't know that?

Religions know that people will not believe in magic but they can be fooled into believing in miracles.

Religions are not about what is true they are about what people want to be true.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Do you honestly think I don't know that?

Religions know that people will not believe in magic but they can be fooled into believing in miracles.

It's really depends what you mean by magic. If by magic you mean the sort of thing which Duke university tossed out back the 70s i.e. the paranormal; or psychic i.e. Edgar Cayce ; or the David Copperfield tricks; or the old bending spoon routine i.e. Geller ; or Houdini in a barrel over the falls -- instead of say the intense feeling of wonder one gets when trying to contemplate the meaning of everything (you know the wonder of it all : Einstein, Hawking -- who'll be next????) and one's heart just overflows with what it is full of -- and you utter in a silly voice at seeing the Aurora, "Sho, (Nature) ... it's Magic!"

Or, you join Dean Martin and sing an line of 'It's Witchcraft!" (thinking about romance) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipMeVKd6eEw

'When a ballad is right, it is like poetry set to music' (Dean Martin)

Religions are not about what is true they about what people want to be true.

Maybe some, but here (on this forum) we are Christians, and our faith in God maybe be inexplicable -- BUT, then our religion isn't just about that -- we have Jesus Christ and well if you know anything at all about historical Christian Apologetic discourse, you will know you just stamped on your tongue. (fortunately out of the scope of this forum)

-->

Moving on, so to the actual sort of argument Christians use about this: Kalaam Cosmological Argument.* I don't bother with it, but you'd need to debunk that to get out of your barrel and say, "It's not magic?"

* http://www.philosophyofreligion.inf...cal-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.


Good luck.

 

[Kylie]

I've been talking about DNA, because imo any abiogenesis theory that doesn't result in living things has no explanatory power.

And what makes you say that DNA must have been there from the beginning? Maybe DNA was one of the adaptations these self replicating molecules developed to give them an advantage. In fact, if I recall correctly, there's quite a bit of evidence that RNA was around before there was DNA.

I find this unconvincing because I think it's storytelling, which you have confidence in but I don't.

It is based in science, and there is nothing in there that is impossible. I am not saying that this is definitely what happened, but it is plausible.

I see numerous interdependencies between the elements of cells that I consider evidence of engineering. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but imo it hasn't explained away those interdependencies.

Are you talking about irreducible complexity? That has been thoroughly disproven, you know.

 

[Kylie]

As I understand it, the Miller-Urey gadget needed a trap at the bottom (as depicted in the link) to trap gasses that would have destroyed the amino acids.

Nature has no such trap, and the same process that created the amino acids would have destroyed them.

Yes, there are many differences between the experiment and nature, AV. I'm quite certain that the experiment didn't include a rocky coastline, or extreme pressure (as life may have originally developed in rocks deep underground). Nevertheless, it is a proof of concept that indicates that getting amino acids is not that difficult.

 

[AV1611VET]

Religions know that people will not believe in magic ...

I totally, totally disagree with this.

I've been here for nine years, and I can attest that the word of choice among the educated here is "magic."

And it's not just "magic," it's a preference for "magic" over "miracles."

So if 'religions know', as you said, then it's because 'religions' haven't been reading these posts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nevertheless, it is a proof of concept that indicates that getting amino acids is not that difficult.

Ya ... I heard a rumor that our body produces amino acids regularly.

 

[sandybay]

Religions know that people will not believe in magic.

I totally, totally disagree with this.

I've been here for nine years, and I can attest that the word of choice among the educated here is "magic."

I think that's because the educated do not believe in "magic" or "miracles" that's why they refer to miracles as magic.
Believers will believe in miracles but they will not believe in magic, perhaps they think that miracles are "more grown up".

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that's because the educated do not believe in "magic" or "miracles" that's why they refer to miracles as magic.

According to them, they believe "magic" and "miracles" are one and the same thing ... synonyms.

I can't get around their text book education and explain to them they are two different things.

Jesus, for example, didn't walk on water, because Jesus didn't have the technology back then that Chriss Angel used to [allegedly] do the same thing.

 

[sandybay]

According to them, they believe "magic" and "miracles" are one and the same thing ... synonyms.

I can't get around their text book education and explain to them they are two different things.

Jesus, for example, didn't walk on water, because Jesus didn't have the technology back then that Chriss Angel used to [allegedly] do the same thing.

Why don't you try explaining to me what the difference is?

 

[ChetSinger]

And what makes you say that DNA must have been there from the beginning? Maybe DNA was one of the adaptations these self replicating molecules developed to give them an advantage. In fact, if I recall correctly, there's quite a bit of evidence that RNA was around before there was DNA.

I'll repeat myself: any theory of abiogenesis that tries to explain how life came to be must explain how cells came to be, because cells are our definition of life. If you're satisfied with the RNA world I think you're satisfied with half a loaf.

It is based in science, and there is nothing in there that is impossible. I am not saying that this is definitely what happened, but it is plausible.

I thought your answer was too vague to explain the supposed evolution of DNA repair mechanisms, that's all.

Are you talking about irreducible complexity? That has been thoroughly disproven, you know.

I've been talking about interdependencies between the contents of DNA and the products they are used to produce, specifically DNA repair mechanisms.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you try explaining to me what the difference is?

I'll try, but experience tells me I'll fail.

Magic runs on sleight-of-hand or some set-up prior to the performance (such as setting up the equipment for Chriss Angel to walk on water).

Miracles, on the other hand, rely on the laws of nature being suspended.

Such as:

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

 

[Strathos]

Well this has drifted off-topic once again.

 

[sandybay]

Magic runs on sleight-of-hand or some set-up prior to the performance (such as setting up the equipment for Chriss Angel to walk on water).

What you are describing is an illusion, what was Merlin and all of the other wizards famous for? magic.
Magic was once believed to be common place, it is even today in some backward parts of the world.

What started out as magic became miracles when religions realised that people had trouble believing in magic.

Would genuine magic need to be used in order to perform a miracle?

 

[Loudmouth]

First cells and the living things made of them.

Just wondering . . .

In order to accept the theory that clouds produce lightning through circulation of ice crystals, do you need a scientific explanation for the origin of matter?

 

[Kylie]

I'll repeat myself: any theory of abiogenesis that tries to explain how life came to be must explain how cells came to be, because cells are our definition of life. If you're satisfied with the RNA world I think you're satisfied with half a loaf.

Woah, hold on here. Since when are cells the definition for life?

I thought your answer was too vague to explain the supposed evolution of DNA repair mechanisms, that's all.

Any self replicating thing that has a means to correct any errors in the copying process is going to have a reproductive advantage, and will thus become more common.

You aren't thinking that the repair mechanism had to appear in the form we see it today, are you? Because it could have been a very basic thing. Even if it only fixed 1% of the errors, it would still have been better than nothing and would have given a reproductive advantage.

I've been talking about interdependencies between the contents of DNA and the products they are used to produce, specifically DNA repair mechanisms.

And since you seem to think that it could only appear in the same form it exists in today, that seems like irreducible complexity.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I'll try, but experience tells me I'll fail.

Magic runs on sleight-of-hand or some set-up prior to the performance (such as setting up the equipment for Chriss Angel to walk on water).

Miracles, on the other hand, rely on the laws of nature being suspended.

Then a person "that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch" is performing miracles?

 

[ChetSinger]

Woah, hold on here. Since when are cells the definition for life?

Since I've read that in biology textbooks and study guides. My wife has a degree in biology so I've got some of these things lying around.

Any self replicating thing that has a means to correct any errors in the copying process is going to have a reproductive advantage, and will thus become more common.

Sure.

You aren't thinking that the repair mechanism had to appear in the form we see it today, are you? Because it could have been a very basic thing. Even if it only fixed 1% of the errors, it would still have been better than nothing and would have given a reproductive advantage.

I've read that the DNA in each of our cells requires repair between 10,000 and 1,000,000 times every day. We're talking about broken rungs, etc. So I think almost all of the errors must be fixed.

What's more, the transcription specifications for these repair mechanisms just happen to be contained in the DNA itself. To satisfy me, your explanation must result in what we see today. Otherwise it has no explanatory power. As Karl Popper once said:

What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. .... The code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code.

And since you seem to think that it could only appear in the same form it exists in today, that seems like irreducible complexity.

When possible I try to talk specifically instead of broadly.

 

[Kylie]

Since I've read that in biology textbooks and study guides. My wife has a degree in biology so I've got some of these things lying around.

Can you show me a source on the net that shows that cells are the requirement for life? A legitimate source?

Sure.

Glad you agree.

I've read that the DNA in each of our cells requires repair between 10,000 and 1,000,000 times every day. We're talking about broken rungs, etc. So I think almost all of the errors must be fixed.

Citation needed.

What's more, the transcription specifications for these repair mechanisms just happen to be contained in the DNA itself. To satisfy me, your explanation must result in what we see today. Otherwise it has no explanatory power. As Karl Popper once said:

Yeah, science does that.

Or do you really think that this is something that science can't explain and they are just pulling the wool over the eyes of all the people studying to be biologists?

And as for that quote, he's wrong. I can use the exact same argument to show that it is impossible to build a freestanding stone arch. And yet we see stone arches, don't we?

When possible I try to talk specifically instead of broadly.

There's a problem with this. It's like trying to see what the completed jigsaw puzzle is by examining one single piece.

 

[whois]

This thread is for those who believe in Intelligent Design and also for those who believe in Evolution. I don't like using the word believe for either one but there it is.

i question them both, but since this a thread about "what determines design" i will give it my best shot.

i will use DNA as a basis.

DNA appears to be a database for construciton, so let's apply it to construction.
you have a database with the associated retrieval tools (RNA and such) to construct every type of building you see.
moreover, these buildings will be constructed with its surroundings in mind. it hardly ever constructs mud huts in the middle of downtown.

this seems to be designed.