My favorite argument for the existence of God

[quatona]

Self-replicating watch:

 

[doubtingmerle]

That is called question dodge, merle

Interesting.

So If I see a penguin, that is called a robot.

And if a see a flagellum, that is called an electric motor.

And if I ask a question, that is called a question dodge.

Just trying to learn the lingo around here.

 

[dmmesdale]

Interesting.

So If I see a penguin, that is called a robot.

And if a see a flagellum, that is called an electric motor.

And if I ask a question, that is called a question dodge.

Just trying to learn the lingo around here.

You are not trying to learn anything. That much is for sure.

 

[dmmesdale]

How is it that you detect design?

I understand that you've possibly seen robots created, spoken with their designers, viewed their inner workings...so you "know" robots are designed.

Imagine that you came across something you've never seen before. You don't know if it's alive, you don't know what it's made of, you certainly don't know how it works...

How would you figure out if something designed it or not?

You don't have a clue?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You don't have a clue?

The questioner probably has his own idea of how he'd determine design. The point of the question may be to discover what the other's criteria are, so as to establish - without priming - whether there are any differences between his and the other's criteria, and if so, what they are.

Possibly.

 

[xianghua]

No, we have indications that nature started to exist the way it does now. It obviously existed in some different form before that point. So nature never BEGAN, it simply changed to what it is now.

Prove me wrong!

so your are saying that earth always exist and all the radiometric dating are wrong?

 

[xianghua]

How do you know that?

so you are saying that we dont know if a watch parts cant evolve naturally?

 

[xianghua]

Yes, you succesfully repeated it again.

Indeed, just because something looks the same, doesn't necessarily mean it is identical

so if someone will create a human it will be a robot by definition?

 

[xianghua]

How is it that you detect design?

I understand that you've possibly seen robots created, spoken with their designers, viewed their inner workings...so you "know" robots are designed.

i actually never seen someone created a robot. and still, when i see something like a robot i conclude design. so we can conclude d esign for a robot e ven if we will never see their designers.

Imagine that you came across something you've never seen before. You don't know if it's alive, you don't know what it's made of, you certainly don't know how it works...

good question. if i will find something that looks like a walking robot, but with a self replicating system and made from special matter, i will still conclude design. what about you?

 

[Obliquinaut]

i actually never seen someone created a robot.

Really? YOu've never watched a science fiction movie? You've never seen a news story about robots? You were unaware that Roombas at the store were man-made?

and still, when i see something like a robot i conclude design. so we can conclude d esign for a robot e ven if we will never see their designers.

"Design" is very difficult concept to quantify. There are crystals that grow naturally that are more accurately "built" than materials that humans make. On an atomic level. Perfect symmetry.

This looks man-made it is so smooth and perfect. But it isn't. It perfectly natural. And all because Pb and S atoms arrange in a very specific manner due to charge and atom size.

Design in function is no less difficult to quantify.

And here's the BIG QUESTION: DO YOU NEED DESIGN TO EXPLAIN THE FUNCTIONAL UNIT?

I ask this question because it is key to the debate. Is it even remotely possible that a functional feature could arise through perfectly natural non-designed processes?

And IF SO: to propose design does not provide any additional explanatory value.

That's the key. All of the examples of "Irreducible complexity" are usually rendered moot because they are NOT irreducibly complex. Eyes which are amazingly complex arise out of photosensitive patches in slight depressions on the surface of some cells.

And the development of features through transitional forms which we see in the fossil record point to a slow, gradual development of these features.

We have a very workable system that explains almost every aspect of the development of a feature. It is evolution + lots and lots of time. We have a passive filter which selects AGAINST maladaptive features and, when it doesn't impact reproduction, we even see "poor designed features" remain in the system.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You don't have a clue?

No...can you explain or not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

i actually never seen someone created a robot. and still, when i see something like a robot i conclude design. so we can conclude d esign for a robot e ven if we will never see their designers.

How do you know a robot is designed then?

good question.

Which you avoided...I want to know how it is that you're going around detecting design in the first place? That was the whole point of asking about something you've never seen before. I've never seen a robot that looked like a tiger...so tigers aren't designed? I've never seen a robot that looks like a jellyfish...so jellyfish so aren't designed? Water lilies? Dogwood trees? Algae?

 

[Kylie]

Oh my!!!

dad's contagious.

Hey, having arguments that are just claims without the need to support those claims does make things very easy!

It doesn't make them necessarily ACCURATE, but it does make them easy!

 

[Kylie]

so your are saying that earth always exist and all the radiometric dating are wrong?

When did I say Earth? I was talking about the entire universe. Don't assume I mean one thing when I don't.

 

[dmmesdale]

How do you know a robot is designed then?

Inference to the best explanation, for one. They do it all the time. Kids do it automatically when they observe the carvings of Presidents on Mount Rushmore.

Which you avoided...I want to know how it is that you're going around detecting design in the first place?

Was Stonehedge designed or natural? If designed then who designed? If they do not know the identity then does that show it was not designed for a purpose? The inference to design is from the observed facts and not from philosophy, like yours where philosophy trumps the observed facts. Everyday judgments of design are suspended when it comes to living things. Minds create complex specified information, not matter or laws absent a mind. It's a double standard.

If a computer code comes from programmers, then the functional information in cells come from a mind. That is an inference to the best explanation for the source of the codes in cells.

What stops you and others are not the evidence but prior convictions to fiction realities.

 

[dmmesdale]

"Design" is very difficult concept to quantify.

Not really, They do it all the time.

There are crystals that grow naturally that are more accurately "built" than materials that humans make. On an atomic level. Perfect symmetry.
This looks man-made it is so smooth and perfect. But it isn't. It perfectly natural. And all because Pb and S atoms arrange in a very specific manner due to charge and atom size.

So what are you excluding here in your visual? Assuming your example is valid then it would be nothing more than an anomaly attributed to crystals in nature. It could easily be mistaken for the product of a mind. You would be hard put using your crystal example as a means to argue Mount Rushmore is not the product of a mind, but natural processes carved it out.

Design in function is no less difficult to quantify.
And here's the BIG QUESTION: DO YOU NEED DESIGN TO EXPLAIN THE FUNCTIONAL UNIT?
I ask this question because it is key to the debate. Is it even remotely possible that a functional feature could arise through perfectly natural non-designed processes?

Design or the product of a mind would be the inference to the best explanation. The actual factory is more complicated then the product produced. In bacteria you have the factory and parts working and can duplicate. The whole shebang.

And IF SO: to propose design does not provide any additional explanatory value.

So to propose design for Stonehedge has no explanatory value so it can be rejected? It sounds like you are pulling out unscientific standards in the first place. Ad Hoc rescues. They certainly cannot be applied consistently when evaluating designed or natural and can only be applied selectively, so it is a worthless standard.

That's the key. All of the examples of "Irreducible complexity" are usually rendered moot because they are NOT irreducibly complex.

The whole point of the argument is any one piece is removed then the organism is non functional. There is no step by step process to make it with the motor running. It has to be assembled whole for it to function. Yours is assuming a bottom up process for construction. His is addressing molecule machine (bacteria flagellum) which drives bacteria through the fluids. If pieces are removed then the motor does not run and the bacteria is dead in the water. They need all the pieces in place for the motor to run and perform its function. In your bottom up scenario, (unguided, undirected blah blah blah) there is no way it could self assemble in the first place. A sub can be used as an anaology to a bacteria and motor. If the prop (screw) and rudder not working then the sub cannot function. It is dead under the water.

And the development of features through transitional forms which we see in the fossil record point to a slow, gradual development of these features

Most of the bones they dig up are creatures that already exist and the others are bits and pieces, nuts and bolts, not whole. They don't tell you anything about their heritage or lineage. That is all ginned up after the fact. It's all to comply to an invented story based on a materialistic philosophy, not evidence.

 

[Obliquinaut]

So what are you excluding here in your visual? Assuming your example is valid then it would be nothing more than an anomaly attributed to crystals in nature.

The point being: the chemical rules (called "Paulings Rules") that dictate how the atoms arrange can produce these nearly perfect shapes without any "design". Literally the only things that dictate how that crystal or any crystal forms so nicely can be summed up in 5 relatively simple relationships related to charge and size of the atoms. (LINK)

You would be hard put using your crystal example as a means to argue Mount Rushmore is not the product of a mind, but natural processes carved it out.

So why does LIFE look like it has to be the product of a mind? Do you think that when a baby is born someone has to literally put it together? Or do you think that babies are created in the womb by God's (or some external intelligence) hand putting the pieces parts together?

No, we know exactly how babies are formed. And it follows basic chemical processes.

If life can self-assemble why do we need to envisage some intelligence to have generated the first one.

So to propose design for Stonehedge has no explanatory value so it can be rejected?

I am not saying design doesn't exist. I'm saying that in order to utilize design and an intelligence to create a naturally occuring item provides no additional explanatory value if it can be explained without "design".

The whole point of the argument is any one piece is removed then the organism is non functional.

And time and again whenever irreducibly complex structures are used to justify I.D. they are shown to still have utility with pieces missing, or even to have precursor variants with fewer parts in earlier forms.

His is addressing molecule machine (bacteria flagellum) which drives bacteria through the fluids. If pieces are removed then the motor does not run

The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. The parts of it can and do serve other uses.

The base of the "motor" bears striking resemblances (even down to the proteins) to the Type III Secretory Apparatus which bacteria use to inject materials across cell walls of hosts.

Here's the "motor"

Here's the Type III Secretory Apparatus:

(Source: The Flagellum Unspun)

The fact of the matter is irreducible complexity seldom is truly irreducible.

Most of the bones they dig up are creatures that already exist and the others are bits and pieces, nuts and bolts, not whole.

Can I ask what paleontology you have done? You and so many others here on CF talk so loud about what is or isn't true in the sciences. I'd LOVE to know what paleontology or geologic research you have personally done in order to understand your real experience of this topic.

They don't tell you anything about their heritage or lineage.

And here you are going to tell biologists they don't know what they are doing as well? Wow!

That is all ginned up after the fact. It's all to comply to an invented story based on a materialistic philosophy, not evidence.

Not really. But I'll wait to hear what your actual experience of this area of expertise is. You talk so big about it, so 'fess up. What is your experience in this field?

 

[doubtingmerle]

so your are saying that earth always exist and all the radiometric dating are wrong?

So you are still making statements of the form, "So you are saying X" where X is something that the person never said? Why do you keep doing this?

Nobody said the earth always existed. Nobody (on our side) said radiometric dating is wrong.

If we assume for a moment that the word "always" had a meaning before the Big Bang, then I think most scientists would say that something "always" existed. This something could have been nothing more than rudimentary laws of physics that allowed other laws of physics to develop in certain "regions" that eventually allowed quantum fluctuations to create universes.

If, as you say, eternal things do not need a cause, and if the physical laws that led to quantum fluctuations that created universes were "eternal", then they did not need a cause.

We do not know ultimately what is behind the universe, but an eternally existing base quantum physics seems more likely to me than an eternally existing Jehovah with an eternal interest in whether people could eat pigs or who could sleep with whom.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Most of the bones they dig up are creatures that already exist and the others are bits and pieces, nuts and bolts, not whole.

I never knew that.

So which is this? Something that exists today, or just bits and pieces?

 

[dmmesdale]

The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. The parts of it can and do serve other uses.

Who cares? Relative to the bacteria it cannot be broken down, or it will not function. That makes it irreducibly complex. A battery in your car can serve other purposes. So can the tires. It (battery) is still there for a purpose, and if it is removed then it will not start and if it does not start then, it will not function. What you are doing here is tap dancing. If you wish to falsify then the start is to show how the device in question could have self-assembled naturally (step by step)while everything is running and good luck with that. That is your burden, not ours. Serving other purposes is not even in dispute. If you need the part for the motor to run then you need the part. Who cares if it serves other purposes.

The fact of the matter is irreducible complexity seldom is truly irreducible.

Do you even understand the argument? Go out in the middle of a lake with a boat and motor and remove the spark plugs. Then wait for natural processes to generate a counter function to get your motor going again. Bring along some bologna sandwiches because you may be sitting out there for a while.

Can I ask what paleontology you have done?

Go ahead. You don't need my permission. In the meantime, you can ask them why they spend so much time digging up the remains of animals that already exist.

And here you are going to tell biologists they don't know what they are doing as well? Wow!

Not when it comes to motors.

Not really. But I'll wait to hear what your actual experience of this area of expertise is. You talk so big about it, so 'fess up. What is your experience in this field?

As long as you are making it about me, you are not addressing the arguments.