The stumbling block for atheists.

[Michael]

And how do we tell if something is aware? How can I show that a bacterium is aware?

You'd probably have to study it's behaviors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In all cases however, you would assume that the jar was "intelligently designed"?

A jar is a jar is a jar.
It is a manufactured object, by definition.

 

[quatona]

You know what I am talking about since I ask you on other threads to give me an explanation and you just run away like you are doing now.

i just know that usually when you ask me to explain "my idea" it turns out it isn´t my idea that you want to be explained.

 

[Michael]

A jar is a jar is a jar.
It is a manufactured object, by definition.

True. Then again I have no evidence to suggest that the first life form was not an intelligently manufactured object, even if it formed "naturally".

 

[Kylie]

In all cases however, you would assume that the jar was "intelligently designed"? Even something that forms 'naturally' (by living organisms) can be "intelligently designed'. That's pretty much how I envision DNA.

But you still aren't giving me the criteria by which I can make that determination.

 

[Kylie]

You'd probably have to study it's behaviors.

And what specific behaviours are indicative of self awareness?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then explain exactly how they set up a DNA self repair sequence and what was happening before that sequence was established to deal with damage.

Explain why the first DNA genomes would require DNA repair.

I mean having a repair system without nothing to repair doesn't make sense.

Argument from incredulity.

Neither could the DNA survive without it while continually suffering irreparable damage.

That seems to be an assertion without any evidence to back it.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know what I am talking about since I ask you on other threads to give me an explanation and you just run away like you are doing now.

Funny how you are never willing to give such an explanation.

 

[Michael]

But you still aren't giving me the criteria by which I can make that determination.

Actually I have, but you don't want to discuss it. That's fine, as long as you can accept the fact the even if DNA formed "naturally", it still would not demonstrate that DNA wasn't "intelligently designed" from my perspective.

 

[Michael]

And what specific behaviours are indicative of self awareness?

Hmmm. I tend to doubt that they are "self aware". I was thinking more along the lines of primitive awareness of environment, like we might find in a single celled organism.

 

[Kylie]

Actually I have, but you don't want to discuss it. That's fine, as long as you can accept the fact the even if DNA formed "naturally", it still would not demonstrate that DNA wasn't "intelligently designed" from my perspective.

No, you have not given me any criteria that I can use.

You've just said that I would "assume" the jar was designed. But I'm not silly enough to think that I can assume something about reality and have it be guaranteed accurate.

So tell me - what criteria can I use to determine if something has been designed?

 

[Kylie]

Hmmm. I tend to doubt that they are "self aware". I was thinking more along the lines of primitive awareness of environment, like we might find in a single celled organism.

So if something is capable of responding to changes in it's environment, it is alive?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True. Then again I have no evidence to suggest that the first life form was not an intelligently manufactured object, even if it formed "naturally".

I also do not have evidence that first life was
- not created by life-giving pixies
- not the result of an interdimensional unicorn laying an egg
- ....

Sneaky shift of the burden of proof, is what that is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually I have, but you don't want to discuss it. That's fine, as long as you can accept the fact the even if DNA formed "naturally", it still would not demonstrate that DNA wasn't "intelligently designed" from my perspective.

If "intelligently designed" can't be contrasted with "formed naturally", then it seems to me that "intelligently designed" is pretty meaningless...

 

[Michael]

But you still aren't giving me the criteria by which I can make that determination.

I already listed a number of desirable "features" which might be included in an "intelligent" design of living organisms. Furthermore, even if abiogenesis is involved in the process, and life did indeed form "naturally", it still would not exclude the possibility of "intelligent design" anymore than the jar is excluded from being an example of 'intelligent design'. I'm not sure what more I could do.

 

[Michael]

I also do not have evidence that first life was
- not created by life-giving pixies
- not the result of an interdimensional unicorn laying an egg
- ....

Sneaky shift of the burden of proof, is what that is.

So why do you get a free pass with respect to abiogenesis or any belief that you *think* excludes the possibility of "intelligent design"?

 

[Michael]

So if something is capable of responding to changes in it's environment, it is alive?

No, I'm suggesting that "awareness" in some rudimentary form is an indication of "life". The response is a function of awareness.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... even if abiogenesis is involved in the process, and life did indeed form "naturally", it still would not exclude the possibility of "intelligent design" anymore than the jar is excluded from being an example of 'intelligent design'. I'm not sure what more I could do.

Not a lot, apparently.

The problem I see for your position is that if 'intelligent design' is indistinguishable from natural processes, then it's effectively redundant; natural processes alone are sufficient to account for the results. 'Parsimony rules OK'.

 

[Michael]

If "intelligently designed" can't be contrasted with "formed naturally", then it seems to me that "intelligently designed" is pretty meaningless...

I'm still waiting for you two to acknowledge that the two ideas (formed naturally and intelligent design) are not mutually exclusive. Life may have indeed formed "naturally" by design.

 

[Michael]

Not a lot, apparently.

Well, it's not personal. I can't demonstrate abiogenesis either, and neither can you.

The problem I see for your position is that if 'intelligent design' is indistinguishable from natural processes, then it's effectively redundant; natural processes alone are sufficient to account for the results. 'Parsimony rules OK'.

You'd lose the "parsimony" argument in a heartbeat in terms of cosmology theory, so I don't think so.