How We Detect Design

Oncedeceived · Jul 7, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Read a biology book.
Evolution explains exactly that. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
It's public info. Look it up.

Evolution did it....read a book is not evidence. General hand waving doesn't provide evidence for the design we see in nature being an illusion. The evidence for evolution, any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations, is there in the evidence. The evidence of design is everywhere in nature and is overwhelming. The one, evolution does not provide evidence for why this other evidence, which is everywhere and overwhelming, is an illusion.

Oncedeceived · Jul 7, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Read a biology book.
Evolution explains exactly that. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
It's public info. Look it up.

No it doesn't explain exactly that. There are stories that try to explain away the evidence of design but there is no evidence that shows the design and purpose we see in life forms is an illusion.

Smidlee · Jul 7, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
You only require faith the believe things for which you have no evidence.

Says who?

I spoke about how "arguing from common sense" is not a valid pathway to explain phenomena that our outside the scope of our natural senses. Our natural common observations and experience.

We don't move at the speed of light, so the weird stuff that happens at that speed is exactly that to us: weird. Counter-intuitive. Not what common sense would lead you to believe.

If "we" can't move at the speed of light then common sense tells me we will not experience that "weirdness" you are referring to. Now common sense tells me if we could move at the speed of light it would take a power and ability that is greater than man.

The same thing goes for what goes on inside atoms or under conditions with tempuratures of millions, billions of degrees.

and common sense tells me where did man get that ability to understand atoms except from the Creator. See my faith is based on evidence.

Just like the fly who doesn't care about gravity as much as it cares about surface tension.

A fly is not "wired" to do science. We only know what we already know. Everything we know about the outside world in an interpretation of our minds. No one has a direct contact with the outside world.

As already mentioned, there are evolutionary pathways to get to systems where the end result no longer works if you remove one or some of the parts.

Hell, every organism in the world is such an example.
Every single one of us living things has vital parts that need to be present or we die.
And every single one of those parts are evolved features.

since there is no evidence of IC systems have evolved then by you believe this by faith from your own definition.

It's not an assumption. And the reason is evidence. Plenty of it. From multiple independent lines. All converging on the same answer: common ancestry.

all of this is faith.

They aren't ignorant about the evolution of IC systems at all.
They are ignorant about plenty of things, sure. Which is why we still train biologists and other scientists. We don't know everything.

What we do know, which is not a little, all points to evolution.

If you stop trying to prove this systems had evolved then that remove "argument from ignorance" you referring to.

Anyhow, evolution is not about how life originated. I'm sure you know that, because plenty of people have already told you. Including me.

Who talking about the origins of life? I thought we are talking about the origins of IC systems found in life.

DogmaHunter · Jul 7, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
Evolution did it....read a book is not evidence. General hand waving doesn't provide evidence for the design we see in nature being an illusion.

You have been presented with PLENTY of examples of supportive evidence on this forum. Those examples aren't even the tip of the iceberg.

You have shown zero interest and honesty in addressing those. I have concluded from that, that you really aren't interested in it. So instead of wasting time by re-introducing such topics, I just tell you to go read a biology book. There are thousands to choose from.

I'ld imagine that if you were really honestly intrested in the topic - then I wouldn't even need to tell you this. You would do it out of your own initiative.

So don't come on here saying that I'm "handwaving" anything.

You have been presented with plenty of evidence (which doesn't even scratch the surface) and YOU handwaved it all away.

Einstein once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results".

Why would I expect different results this time? By Einstein's definition, I am already insane enough to have myself engaged in another round of talking-to-wall.

Smidlee · Jul 7, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
Evolution did it....read a book is not evidence. General hand waving doesn't provide evidence for the design we see in nature being an illusion. The evidence for evolution, any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations, is there in the evidence. The evidence of design is everywhere in nature and is overwhelming. The one, evolution does not provide evidence for why this other evidence, which is everywhere and overwhelming, is an illusion.

These evolutionist who thinks design is an illusion then they turn around and tell you to read a book as if design is real. According to their logic their book is the product of evolution and not design.

Smidlee · Jul 7, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Einstein once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results".

Why would I expect different results this time? By Einstein's definition, I am already insane enough to have myself engaged in another round of talking-to-wall.

Why should we care what Einstein think since he forsake his own children?

Oncedeceived · Jul 7, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
You have been presented with PLENTY of examples of supportive evidence on this forum. Those examples aren't even the tip of the iceberg.

You have shown zero interest and honesty in addressing those. I have concluded from that, that you really aren't interested in it. So instead of wasting time by re-introducing such topics, I just tell you to go read a biology book. There are thousands to choose from.

I'ld imagine that if you were really honestly intrested in the topic - then I wouldn't even need to tell you this. You would do it out of your own initiative.

So don't come on here saying that I'm "handwaving" anything.

You have been presented with plenty of evidence (which doesn't even scratch the surface) and YOU handwaved it all away.

Einstein once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results".

Why would I expect different results this time? By Einstein's definition, I am already insane enough to have myself engaged in another round of talking-to-wall.

Dogma, this post consists of assertion and accusations of dishonesty. You have provided zero evidence for why the evidence of design in all living things and the universe itself is only an illusion. ZERO evidence. You want to throw out there the old mantra of "mountains of evidence" and that I am ignorant of biology to hand wave away the evidence of design with a purpose in all of life and the universe too.

If there was evidence that showed this design as an illusion it would have been presented immediately with references. Dawkins has woven his creation story about how evolution could create all this appearance of design but doesn't provide any, he claims the evidence of design with a purpose is an illusion but give no evidence for it. You take his word for it and believe it hook line and sinker without one iota of evidence to show it. Then you call me ignorant and dishonest. Pot kettle black.

Oncedeceived · Jul 7, 2015

Smidlee said:
These evolutionist who thinks design is an illusion then they turn around and tell you to read a book as if design is real. According to their logic their book is the product of evolution and not design.

Right and Dogma just went on about how common sense is an evolutionary "problem" but I guess intelligence isn't? How can he think that if his intelligence is the product of a mindless process devoid of intelligence due to evolution that it is even a speck more reasonable or reliable than the common sense provided by the same means. Go figure.

bhsmte · Jul 7, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
The people with the credentials, known as the scientific community, reject the ideas of Behe and alike. I would assume these people are "trained or educated" well enough to judge those papers, wouldn't you agree?

So what is the problem?

The problem is, what acknowledging what you wrote does to her faith belief.

Oncedeceived · Jul 7, 2015

bhsmte said:
The problem is, what acknowledging what you wrote does to her faith belief.

My faith belief? I have the evidence on my side, what evidence do you have for yours? What evidence is there that show this evidence of design with a purpose is an illusion?

bhsmte · Jul 7, 2015

Smidlee said:
Why should we care what Einstein think since he forsake his own children?

Tells us a bit about how you evaluate information.

bhsmte · Jul 7, 2015

If you have so much evidence on your side, you should have no problem with this:

-give us a definition of design that is scientific
-provide a test to determine if design is present, that is falsifiable

Instead, it will be; there is evidence and no one has proven the appearance is an illusion.

Has anyone proven I wasn't abducted by aliens the other night? Let me know when you can.

Oncedeceived · Jul 7, 2015

bhsmte said:
If you have so much evidence on your side, you should have no problem with this:

-give us a definition of design that is scientific
-provide a test to determine if design is present, that is falsifiable

Instead, it will be; there is evidence and no one has proven the appearance is an illusion.

Has anyone proven I wasn't abducted by aliens the other night? Let me know when you can.

The fact that you can't comprehend that the evidence is the recognition of design with a purpose overwhelming in nature. To test it, we test whether natural processes are sufficient to explain the evidence. If it is not, which it is not, design is not created by natural processes. It is falsifiable if there is evidence that this design with a purpose so overwhelming present in life is an illusion.

bhsmte · Jul 7, 2015

Still no definition, still no test for ID's presence, that is falsifiable.

Let us know when you have the above.

Smidlee · Jul 7, 2015

bhsmte said:
Still no definition, still no test for ID's presence, that is falsifiable.

Let us know when you have the above.

Design - purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
"the appearance of design in the universe"

There is no test that proves an animal becoming a scientist either. You can't even prove science with science. Science itself is not falsifiable.

bhsmte · Jul 7, 2015

Smidlee said:
Design - purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
"the appearance of design in the universe"

There is no test that proves an animal becoming a scientist either. You can't even prove science with science. Science itself is not falsifiable.

Fail!!!

Smidlee · Jul 7, 2015

bhsmte said:
Fail!!!

Show me where my logic fails or unsound.

SkyWriting · Jul 7, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
Right based on their merit. Someone not trained or educated in the area in which they are being asked to rule on is not the same as some one writing a paper and having the right credentials for.

There are no specific credentials required.
Papers are supposed to be judged on their own merit
without ad hominem considerations.

SkyWriting · Jul 7, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
So when a plant uses the energy it gets from the sun to grow... What really happens is that it is "degrading"?
You are not making any sense.
Life isn't possible without workable energy. This energy, we ultimately get from the sun.

Water warms - this does not lead to life.
Water boils - this does not lead towards life.
Water evaporates, this does not lead toward life.

Adding heat to anything nonliving, does not lead towards life.
If there is some Frankenstein concept suggesting that adding energy
to a non-living thing leads toward life, please indicate where we can find
this idea, or natural law, or concept, or theory.

If "scientists are working on it" what theory are they testing?

Oncedeceived · Jul 7, 2015

bhsmte said:
Fail!!!

I think you are looking into a mirror here. You are the one that has failed. You have not provided one shred of evidence to show that the design and purpose in all the natural world is an illusion. Fail.

How We Detect Design

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Code Monkey

Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Veteran

The Librarian

The Librarian

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency