How We Detect Design

[Smidlee]

Now, if I saw non-humans exiting said craft, then we would have identified extraterrestrial life, and have a basis for building a metric for identifying extraterrestrial structure in the future.

Like I wrote you need an eyewitness of the alien to believe it's an alien craft no matter if it's technology is greater than any known man-made craft. The same with me with the idea of a mythological ape-like creature becoming a scientist.

(I have no doubt if an alien spacecraft did crash here you would be in the minority. They should be able to easily recognized it's not man-made. If they found a Walmart smiley face on Pluto would be enough evidence of aliens for some people)

One thing for sure man believes there is life in the heavens enough to waste billions of dollars on searching for it.

 

[[serious]]

Like I wrote you need an eyewitness of the alien to believe it's an alien craft no matter if it's technology is greater than any known man-made craft. The same with me with the idea of a mythological ape-like creature becoming a scientist.

(I have no doubt if an alien spacecraft did crash here you would be in the minority. They should be able to easily recognized it's not man-made. If they found a Walmart smiley face on Pluto would be enough evidence of aliens for some people)

One thing for sure man believes there is life in the heavens enough to waste billions of dollars on searching for it.

depends. lets say that alien tech, devoid of alien life, crashed on earth. to ID it as alien, it would need to fall into a fairly narrow band such that it was similar enough to our tech to be recognizable as tech, but different enough to rule out human origin.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The general rule is when common sense makes sense there is no other reason to look for another sense.

If that were true, then Einstein would have never come up with relativity.

Again, the "argument of common sense" assumes that you know in advance what is sensible. You do not.

It's true our senses can sometimes be fooled but by default we accepted our senses are telling us about "reality" unless proven otherwise.

I'm not talking about the sensory input we get through our senses. That's not what "common sense" refers to.

Common sense = to draw conclusions about things based on what you already know.
Common sense, by definition, doesn't account for things that you DO NOT know (yet).

Just because our senses can be fooled at times doesn't mean it's smart to throw common sense out the window.

I'm not throwing anything out the window.
Common sense is okay to conclude that if touching a hot stove is a bad idea, then it's probably also a bad idea to touch a hot piece of iron.

But "common sense" stops there.
"Common sense" is not helpfull to explain things outside of our common experience and current knowledge.

If we found a space ship on Pluto this month are you claiming scientist couldn't determine if the ship is IC or not?

1. that would completely depend on the spaceship
2. IC is not an indicator of any kind of design. IC doesn't tell you how the thing originated. It only tells you something about the current state

If we recognise it as a manufactured machine, we'ld recognise it by analogy of our own machines and / or by clearly unnatural structures and/or materials. Probably also steering controls, writing and tools found inside the ship.

But this is all assuming that those aliens build machines in the same way we do. Who's to say what it would look like? Here's a thing to think about: perhaps Pluto itself is a spaceship, in a long orbit around the sun, studying our planet from a distance. How would you know?

I don't believe that off course, but I'm just saying.... theoretically/hypothetically, why couldn't an alien civilisation build a spaceship that looks like a planet? And without access to the inside, how would you know?

Again you are throwing common sense out the window just because there is a few cases where our senses are misleading. You are trying to use our ignorance of how something evolve as evidence it did which is complete nonsense.

Again, this has nothing to do with sensory input (or evolution for that matter). It has everything to do with you thinking that you know what is sensible in advance....
Because that is what an argument from "common sense" assumes.

IC doesn't say something is impossible but the only knowledge we have that produced something that is complex on multiply levels is intelligence.

Every other sentence, signs arise that you argue from ignorance.
If you are going to appeal to simply the entire body of knowledge we have to point out that there are no examples of X - so therefor there is no X, then you are making an argument from ignorance right of the bat.

It's evolutionist that is based on faith since they believe something that has not be proven to be true.

Evolution is wildly supported by evidence. This is not up for questioning tbh.

The only thing we are ignorant of is how something that is IC could have evolved.

Keep telling yourself that, eventhough this has been exposed as a PRATT many times.

There reason why we are ignorant how IC systems could evolve is because it didn't.

How can you demonstrate that assertion?

I do know IC systems are intelligent designed as I have experience that myself.

Really now? When did you visit god's species creation factory?

Just because I'm ignorant of how Windows 8 could evolve naturally is not evidence that it did evolve.

Windows is a not an organism that reproduces with variation and competes with peers for resources. Why would it evolve?

This is like saying that gravity doesn't exist because the space station doesn't crash to the earth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How could you falsify the sun let's off electromagnetic waves? Design is something "wired" into us and gives us the ability to create IC systems. Trying to falsify IC systems is like trying to falsify our own existence. This is why I found Behe Darwin's Black Box a little boring as IC just plain common sense. In order for naturalist to keep their faith they have to throw out common sense.

Rational people throw out common sense all the time.

Because our common sense evolved to avoid being eaten by lion in Africa.
Our common sense isn't helpfull to understand relativity, quantum mechanics, or indeed any phenomena that is not part of our day-to-day lives.

Just about every big discovery in the history of human kind defied "common sense".

Germs (little living things that you can't see but they make you sick and in one breath you can inhale millions of them)

Black holes.

Relativity.

Quantum mechanics.

Evolution.

Plate tectonics.

Atoms.

The awesome power of the nuclear force.

The sheer vastness of the cosmos.

.......


Every single one of these completely defied "common sense" when they were first proposed. And eventhough today all of them are accepted as solid science, most of these still defy "common sense".

Eventhough today we all understand relativity... is it really common sense? Is it really "common sense" that time is relative? That electrons can be seen in one place while being measured in another?

Our minds, our common sense, aren't "meant" to deal with such things. This is why we have a very hard time to grasp some of these concepts.
Our brains are wired to think about days, weeks, months, years. Perhaps decades. We are not wired to think about thousands or millions, let alone billions of years.

Likewise, our brains are wired to deal with speeds from 0 to, let's say 120 km/h. We aren't wired to "intuitively" understand what it means to break the sound barrier or to approach the speed of light.

Likewise, our brains are wired to deal with mid-range "macroscopic" objects, from a needle to things like trees our houses. Which is why we have problems wrapping our heads around the really small particles or the very large black holes.

Take a fly. His "common sense" doesn't care AT ALL about gravity. Gravity is neglectable at that level of existence. What the fly cares about is surface tension. That's what his "common sense" will inform him off. His "common sense" doesn't include keeping track of gravity.



Are you starting to understand?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is it embarrassing for him to admit scientist choose to be blind when it comes to ID and Creation?

No. The embarassing part is that he had to admit that if "ID and Creation" are to be seen as science, then astrology is also science. You know what astrology is, right? The whole horosope thingy?

Just because evolutionist want to be blind to ID of IC systems doesn't mean I have to.

Yeah and just because astronomers want to be blind to astronomy doesn't mean you have to either.

So go get your latest horoscope.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And who makes that determination...a judge. A judge that has no training in biological Science. Would you accept a scientific paper created by a mechanic? No?, same thing.

Paper? What paper?

 

[DogmaHunter]

As long as you keep thinking, we're good.

Was that an acknowledgement of my point?
It wouldn't be the first time you tried to deny that the earth gets feeded with workable energy from the sun 24/7.

So, do you agree?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Design is the evidence. Design is seen and admittedly seen by materialist and theists alike and there is no evidence that shows that evidence to be an illusion.

Only if you ignore entire branches of science. Like evolutionary biology.

 

[SkyWriting]

Was that an acknowledgement of my point?
It wouldn't be the first time you tried to deny that the earth gets feeded with workable energy from the sun 24/7.

So, do you agree?

I agree. But energy does not produce life.
Energy increases reactions in chemicals
causing them to oxidise or degrade.

Is there some rule or law of nature that things
heat up and come alive? The Frankenstein law?

This isn't the first time you've alluded to a Frankenstein Law
that high energy causes life.

 

[SkyWriting]

And who makes that determination...a judge. A judge that has no training in biological Science. Would you accept a scientific paper created by a mechanic? No?, same thing.

Valid concepts and publishings come from any source.
Papers are published based on their merit.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree. But energy does not produce life.

Evidence of this claim?

Energy increases reactions in chemicals causing them to oxidise or degrade.

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.

Is there some rule or law of nature that things heat up and come alive? The Frankenstein law?

I don't know how life originated. But I'm quite certain that, however it happened, some form of energy was likely required. Wouldn't you agree?

This isn't the first time you've alluded to a Frankenstein Law that high energy causes life.

I have never once said this.
You are free to try and quote me if you believe otherwise.

 

[Smidlee]

If that were true, then Einstein would have never come up with relativity.

Again, the "argument of common sense" assumes that you know in advance what is sensible. You do not.

I'm not talking about the sensory input we get through our senses. That's not what "common sense" refers to.

Common sense = to draw conclusions about things based on what you already know.
Common sense, by definition, doesn't account for things that you DO NOT know (yet).

And what we know about the outside world comes through our senses.

I'm not throwing anything out the window.
Common sense is okay to conclude that if touching a hot stove is a bad idea, then it's probably also a bad idea to touch a hot piece of iron.

But "common sense" stops there.
"Common sense" is not helpfull to explain things outside of our common experience and current knowledge.

Something that is outside if our common experience and current knowledge would require faith and we know how much atheist don't want to admit their faith.

1. that would completely depend on the spaceship
2. IC is not an indicator of any kind of design. IC doesn't tell you how the thing originated. It only tells you something about the current state

If we recognise it as a manufactured machine, we'ld recognise it by analogy of our own machines and / or by clearly unnatural structures and/or materials. Probably also steering controls, writing and tools found inside the ship.

But this is all assuming that those aliens build machines in the same way we do. Who's to say what it would look like? Here's a thing to think about: perhaps Pluto itself is a spaceship, in a long orbit around the sun, studying our planet from a distance. How would you know?

We going to find out in the next few months.

Again, this has nothing to do with sensory input (or evolution for that matter). It has everything to do with you thinking that you know what is sensible in advance....
Because that is what an argument from "common sense" assumes.



Every other sentence, signs arise that you argue from ignorance.
If you are going to appeal to simply the entire body of knowledge we have to point out that there are no examples of X - so therefor there is no X, then you are making an argument from ignorance right of the bat.

It's not ignorance of a IC system the only ignorance we have is how IC systems could have evolve. Why assume they did evolve then? Just because they are ignorant of evolution of IC systems is not evidence of evolution is true.

Evolution is wildly supported by evidence. This is not up for questioning tbh.

Evolution has become a dogma which is why it's not up to questioning.

Windows is a not an organism that reproduces with variation and competes with peers for resources. Why would it evolve?

Exactly and since something that reproduces itself is much more complex than man-made machines that can't then why assume living systems had to evolve. Man is just as ignorant of how Windows 8 evolve as much as IC systems found in life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Valid concepts and publishings come from any source.
Papers are published based on their merit.

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.

 

[Smidlee]

Rational people throw out common sense all the time.

Because our common sense evolved to avoid being eaten by lion in Africa.
Our common sense isn't helpfull to understand relativity, quantum mechanics, or indeed any phenomena that is not part of our day-to-day lives.

Just about every big discovery in the history of human kind defied "common sense".

Why would increase knowledge automatically defies common sense?

Germs (little living things that you can't see but they make you sick and in one breath you can inhale millions of them)

Black holes.

BH not only breaks common sense but every known laws of physics

Relativity.

Quantum mechanics.

QM doesn't break common sense as it teaches us that there is more to life than materialism. QM hints just that.

Evolution.

No question evolution throws common sense out the window.

Plate tectonics.

Atoms.

The awesome power of the nuclear force.

The sheer vastness of the cosmos.

I don't see those going against common sense just increase knowledge of the world around us.

Every single one of these completely defied "common sense" when they were first proposed. And eventhough today all of them are accepted as solid science, most of these still defy "common sense".

No it doesn't. The only two that defies common sense i saw was black holes and evolution.

Eventhough today we all understand relativity... is it really common sense? Is it really "common sense" that time is relative? That electrons can be seen in one place while being measured in another?

Our minds, our common sense, aren't "meant" to deal with such things. This is why we have a very hard time to grasp some of these concepts.
Our brains are wired to think about days, weeks, months, years. Perhaps decades. We are not wired to think about thousands or millions, let alone billions of years.

I agree the universe does not revolve around man's intellect. Common sense tells me there is something much greater and a lot more intelligent that man.

Likewise, our brains are wired to deal with speeds from 0 to, let's say 120 km/h. We aren't wired to "intuitively" understand what it means to break the sound barrier or to approach the speed of light.

Likewise, our brains are wired to deal with mid-range "macroscopic" objects, from a needle to things like trees our houses. Which is why we have problems wrapping our heads around the really small particles or the very large black holes.

Take a fly. His "common sense" doesn't care AT ALL about gravity. Gravity is neglectable at that level of existence. What the fly cares about is surface tension. That's what his "common sense" will inform him off. His "common sense" doesn't include keeping track of gravity.



Are you starting to understand?

How do you know what a fly cares about? Common sense tells us our brains is wired to do science or we would be able to do stuff like break the sound barrier.

No. The embarassing part is that he had to admit that if "ID and Creation" are to be seen as science, then astrology is also science. You know what astrology is, right? The whole horosope thingy?

I disagree as we already have stuff like astrology in science. Black holes breaks all known laws of physics and they are consider "science". Like Behe said man can included or excluded anything in science.

You also seem to believe in order for man to do science he has to throw common sense out the window.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Only if you ignore entire branches of science. Like evolutionary biology.

You are free to present evidence that explains why the evidence of design that we see in nature is an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Paper? What paper?

It was an analogy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not talking about the sensory input we get through our senses. That's not what "common sense" refers to.

How is this a reply to what you quoted??
I said that if you are going to use "common sense" to explain phenomena, then you assume to know what is sensible in advance.

And what we know about the outside world comes through our senses.

Didn't you just agree in the previous sentence that the "senses" is not what "common sense" refers to?

Then what is the point of the above?
Do you disagree with the statement that "common sense" is reasoning based on thing that you DO know and doesn't keep into account things that you do NOT know?

If you don't know that there is a link between speed, gravity and time... would "common sense" lead you to the conclusion of relativity?

Something that is outside if our common experience and current knowledge would require faith and we know how much atheist don't want to admit their faith.

:facepalm:

You only require faith the believe things for which you have no evidence.
I didn't speak about believing anyting without proper justification.

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.

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

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

We going to find out in the next few months.

Nice dodge of the point being raised. You are welcome and invited to still address it.

It's not ignorance of a IC system the only ignorance we have is how IC systems could have evolve.

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.

Why assume they did evolve then?

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.

Just because they are ignorant of evolution of IC systems is not evidence of evolution is true.

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.

Evolution has become a dogma which is why it's not up to questioning.

I didn't say evolution theory and evolutionary history isn't up for questioning.
I said that the fact that there is overwhelming support for the theory isn't up for questioning.

However, that creatures reproduce with genetic changes that are inherited by off spring and subsequently "filtered" by natural selection - is not up for questioning either.

In the exact same way that the facts of gravity aren't up for questioning: objects with mass, fall to the earth.

Exactly

You say "exactly", but that completely undermines your own argument.

and since something that reproduces itself is much more complex than man-made machines that can't then why assume living systems had to evolve.

Weird sentence.

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

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

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?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are free to present evidence that explains why the evidence of design that we see in nature is an illusion.

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

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

If you are going to respond to posts that I have presented, please actually read the posts and go back and understand what they are referring to.