Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[PsychoSarah]

We don't have a fossilized ancient cell that can be compared. We have a possible cell structure that give away no details about how simple or complex it is.

By the way, I hadn't seen this before asking you again to answer it.

-_- we have fossilized cells indeed. should I post some pictures, even though they don't really look like much?

 

[Dizredux]

And this folks is a perfect example of evasion.

Since you are one of the leading practitioners of on evasion on the forum you should know but here I suspect you are wrong.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Inability to find evidence of a designer.

Wasn't it you that said that it could not be shown that the brick wall was designed, yet we know it was. So inability to find evidence the designer is not always the signpost of design. The brick wall has no evidence of who created it but it shows design in the intent by the designer for a purpose.

 

[justlookinla]

Since you are one of the leading practitioners of on evasion on the forum you should know but here I suspect you are wrong.

Dizredux

I suspect I'm not surprised at your suspicious supposition.

Got anything of value to add to the discussion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

-_- we have fossilized cells indeed. should I post some pictures, even though they don't really look like much?

No, now read what I am saying. WE do have fossilized cells. We do not have any detail other than a possible structure of them and nothing to compare them to present day cells.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, bipedal walking is far more inefficient than quadrupedal walking. The benefits of walking on two legs is that it frees up the hands. Why do you think our species has such bad back and joint problems?

Cheetahs have a far more efficient muscle and lung system than humans do.

Bipedal movement isn't more complex than quadrupedal movement, it is just different.

So walking may be more inefficient (in your opinion) but it can be seen that "freeing up the hands" has been monumental to the complexity of life that humans have over other animals that remain on four.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, now read what I am saying. WE do have fossilized cells. We do not have any detail other than a possible structure of them and nothing to compare them to present day cells.

What do you think the fossils are if not preserved bits of cell structure encased in a round bubble?

 

[HitchSlap]

The brick wall has no evidence of who created it but it shows design in the intent by the designer for a purpose.

How do you know?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So walking may be more inefficient (in your opinion) but it can be seen that "freeing up the hands" has been monumental to the complexity of life that humans have over other animals that remain on four.

Yeah, but in directly comparing the physical structures themselves, neither is significantly more complex than the other.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What do you think the fossils are if not preserved bits of cell structure encased in a round bubble?

I hope you are not serious.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah, but in directly comparing the physical structures themselves, neither is significantly more complex than the other.

There is something that you always add to be dismissive, even your own arguments.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you know?

A brick wall shows intent for a purpose.

 

[Delphiki]

A brick wall shows intent for a purpose.

Which only you can understand as a human... however, a random pile of bricks could very well show intent for a purpose as well.



The logical paradox in believing intelligent design is the fact that if everything is designed, there is no way to descern design from natural processes because you have nothing to compare design to. That's why you can't give a good answer as to how you can tell the difference between something designed or not without proving yourself wrong. Think about it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which only you can understand as a human... however, a random pile of bricks could very well show intent for a purpose as well.



The logical paradox in believing intelligent design is the fact that if everything is designed, there is no way to descern design from natural processes because you have nothing to compare design to. That's why you can't give a good answer as to how you can tell the difference between something designed or not without proving yourself wrong. Think about it.

I am not claiming I can. I am claiming that if there is an appearance of design it denotes the possibility of design.

 

[Dizredux]

I suspect I'm not surprised at your suspicious supposition.

Got anything of value to add to the discussion?

Not when one person feels that saying "I don't know" is being evasive.

Dizredux

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have never seen a tv or computer designed or constructed. Have you?

So it is completely unkown to you that humans manufacture tv's and computers? For all you know, they might grow on trees? Really?

If we were to go to a deserted island and we found a structure that had a roof made from leaves and was propped up with sticks that were tied with vines and inside was a bed made from more leaves and nothing else would you think this was designed or not?

Yes. Because I would be able to contrast it to the rest of nature as well as recognise the thing as a house and bed, both also things we have plenty of manufactured examples of. We even have words for them: "house" and "bed".

Synthetic plastics typically have high molecular weight which means that each molecule can have thousands of atoms bound together. The plastics we use are manufactured to mimic those things in nature that have that same molecular weight. Such as wood, horn and rosin to name a few. The plastic is produced by the conversion of natural products from nature or chemicals therein such as natural gas, oil or coal.

So where in nature can we find plastic that wasn't manufactured artificially?

Nothing existed when the Big Band happened

"nothing"? How do you know? And what does that mean?

but it is true that all that exists today from all the materials created in that moment, ourselves included.

No. As I've told you, in the young universe, it was far to hot for matter to exist. When it cooled, there was only hydrogen (and helium? don't remember). Those formed the first stars. Inside those stars, the heavier elements were created. Then they went super-nova. During that explosion, even heavier elements were created.

Very true and if not for fine tuning stars could not have formed and life could not have evolved.

Wait... you agree life evolved? Progress!

Do we need more than one watch to know if it is designed?

Category error. We have a whole universe full of objects to contrast a watch to. We also have a vast set of manufactured parts used in the watch on which we can base our comparision.

But we have only 1 universe.

That is due to the fact that you are either unaware or ignorant of fine tuning that produces the appearance.

No, it's because "appearance" is a subjective thing.

Lets get this straight. The fine tuning of the universe is an established fact, the finished product appears designed. These two things are confirmed by scientists.

I don't care who you can find to agree with you. Opinions are just opinions. Appearances are in the eye of the beholder. They are not objective facts.

The first is determined by measurement, testing and observation. The second, not based on any biased religious beliefs, is that this observation appears to be an intentional phenomena with the purpose for life to exist.

No. That is very much something based on a religious bias. And a teleological fallacy with a touch of narcism.

The subjective part of this is what is used to explain the phenomena.

"appears to be" is not a phenomena. It is an opinion.

Fine tuning is the evidence.

Evidence of design would be demonstrating the designing process or evidence of manufacturing.

Opinions are not evidence.

OH so you trust geologists to conclude that over 100 environmental factors and features have to be present at the right time in the right circumstances to end up with a specific rock but you dismiss astrophysicists conclusions that the universe is fine tuned to such a degree as to specifically end up with life and that it gives the appearance of an intent for a purpose?

Wauw. I don't think I ever read something so intellectually dishonest.

Notice what I have put in bold.

THAT is the source of your reasoning error. It's the basis of your teleological fallacy. "specifically end up with". Your choice of words is so loaded, it's not even funny.

No, I have no issue with saying that an enormous series of plenty of events, factors, etc lead to us. I have no issues with the idea of "the butterfly effect": the idea that going back in time and squashing a bug would have such ripple effects that humans might not even evolve because of that change in history.

The problem with your choice of words is precisely the teleological nonsense you imply with it: that all those things were meant to be so that humans could exist. That is the absolute point of disagreement here.

Do you get what I mean?

I have never claimed in this entire thread that human life is special.

You JUST did implicitly. By using the words "to specifically end up with...". Implying that the entire history of the universe was meant to lead up to the present intentionally. How can you not understand your fallacy?

 

[Delphiki]

I am not claiming I can. I am claiming that if there is an appearance of design it denotes the possibility of design.

What does design look like? What does non-design look like?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Due to the fact that design is recognized by an intention for a purpose. The brick wall was designed with an intent by an agent with a purpose.

That's just an assertion which doesn't answer my question.

Try again.

Also, why should there be an intent or purpose?

Suppose this brick wall is 1m high and 3m wide and sits in the middle of the Sahara desert. From that, you can't derive any intention or purpose.

But you'ld still recognise it as a non-natural formation. The question is why.

Try to come up with an actual explanation this time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is something that you always add to be dismissive, even your own arguments.

That's because I don't want to win. Or worse, make others lose their faith somehow.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I hope you are not serious.

I anticipate technology will likely improve enough that we'll get to see the little bits inside. We do X-ray fossils and whatnot to see internal structures, but it isn't refined enough for masses that small.