Is there evidence of something beyond nature?

[PsychoSarah]

Creation, evolution; it all requires magic. I don't pretend to understand it, I just believe it. In fact the more science tries to explain evolution, the more I see creation. Strange, eh?

Not strange to see what you want and expect to see

 

[Smidlee]

Creation, evolution; it all requires magic. I don't pretend to understand it, I just believe it. In fact the more science tries to explain evolution, the more I see creation. Strange, eh?

Not really. In your worldview design requires a designer, engineering requires an engineer, code requires a programmer and even magic requires a magician. As someone said before Evolution is like trying to put a rabbit out of a hat without a hat and a magician. Evolution is the idea you can get engineering (as in Natural Genetic Engineering) without an engineer, design with a designer, code without a programmer and a brain without a creator.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would agree. Creation fits with the reality we see in the universe. We see what we should see if God created the universe.

You would make that claim no matter what evidence is observed, hence the dogmatic belief of design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You would make that claim no matter what evidence is observed, hence the dogmatic belief of design.

Are you saying that design is a strictly human construct?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You would make that claim no matter what evidence is observed, hence the dogmatic belief of design.

Really? The scientists who are top in their field see design, why do you feel I would make the claim otherwise? What do you base this assertion on?

 

[Gracchus]

Really? The scientists who are top in their field see design, why do you feel I would make the claim otherwise? What do you base this assertion on?

Could you give examples of "scientists who are top in their field"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Really? The scientists who are top in their field see design, why do you feel I would make the claim otherwise? What do you base this assertion on?

-_- intelligent design is by far not supported by the majority of scientists in physics or biology. Why do I know that? Because in most of those fields, theism is way lower than in the general population.

 

[Dizredux]

Really? The scientists who are top in their field see design, why do you feel I would make the claim otherwise? What do you base this assertion on?

No they don't. What most say is what they see what might look like design but probably is not.

You are still proposing that if something looks designed, it is designed.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Could you give examples of "scientists who are top in their field"?

Ok for instance, Jane Goddall - Primatologist, Alan Guth - Inflationary Cosmology and Stephen Hawking - Physics and Cosmology.

Those scientists that influence or contribute to the scientific field in their own field in a substantial way.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No they don't. What most say is what they see what might look like design but probably is not.

You are still proposing that if something looks designed, it is designed.

Dizredux

No, they claim it appears as design but their opinion is that it probably isn't.

I have made it very clear as to what I am proposing and you continue to dismiss what I am saying.

 

[Oncedeceived]

-_- intelligent design is by far not supported by the majority of scientists in physics or biology. Why do I know that? Because in most of those fields, theism is way lower than in the general population.

I never claimed it was.

 

[bhsmte]

No, they claim it appears as design but their opinion is that it probably isn't.

I have made it very clear as to what I am proposing and you continue to dismiss what I am saying.

Yes, appearance of design, we all get that piece.

Have you had a chance yet, to define what is designed and what is not, that is falsifiable?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No they don't. What most say is what they see what might look like design but probably is not.

You are still proposing that if something looks designed, it is designed.

Dizredux

If by all accounts it shows design in form and function it was probably designed or planned. Man is a designer and planner and therefore recognizes design and planning (he who has eyes to see, etc.). Another criteria would be, does the organism show design when illustrated forensically. A maple seed would be a good example. Was it's helicopter 'wing' a product of purposeful design, or an evolutionary accident?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, appearance of design, we all get that piece.

Have you had a chance yet, to define what is designed and what is not, that is falsifiable?

My claim is the appearance of design as described by Scientists like Paul Davies and Fred Hoyle is that the universe has an underlying order and has the appearance of a planned or fixed nature. It would be falsifiable if indeed if the values were not necessary or so precise.

 

[bhsmte]

If by all accounts it shows design in form and function it was probably designed or planned. Man is a designer and planner and therefore recognizes design and planning (he who has eyes to see, etc.). Another criteria would be, does the organism show design when illustrated forensically. A maple seed would be a good example. Was it's helicopter 'wing' a product of purposeful design, or an evolutionary accident?

Lets assume for a moment this design is real and exists, which is a huge assumption I will add.

Can you prove to me, this design did not come about and was planted by intelligent life from another planet, that visited earth and planted the seed?

 

[bhsmte]

My claim is the appearance of design as described by Scientists like Paul Davies and Fred Hoyle is that the universe has an underlying order and has the appearance of a planned or fixed nature. It would be falsifiable if indeed if the values were not necessary or so precise.

Could you elaborate on this falsification?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Could you elaborate on this falsification?

Seeing no order or necessity in the values that are found in the universe.

 

[bhsmte]

Seeing no order or necessity in the values that are found in the universe.

And how would this falsify design, when you haven't even come up with a falsifiable test as to how to identify design in the first place?

 

[Dizredux]

If by all accounts it shows design in form and function it was probably designed or planned. Man is a designer and planner and therefore recognizes design and planning (he who has eyes to see, etc.). Another criteria would be, does the organism show design when illustrated forensically. A maple seed would be a good example. Was it's helicopter 'wing' a product of purposeful design, or an evolutionary accident?

The problem here is to give an operational definition of design in order to determine if something is designed or not. Just saying that something appears to someone as being designed is not enough. You have to say what measurable characteristics lead you to believe that something looks like it was designed.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

My claim is the appearance of design as described by Scientists like Paul Davies and Fred Hoyle is that the universe has an underlying order and has the appearance of a planned or fixed nature.

The Face on Mars appears to be a human. That doesn't mean it is.

It would be falsifiable if indeed if the values were not necessary or so precise.

That would be true if the universe were not designed.