The stumbling block for atheists.

[Michael]

It also depends on how yo define "intelligence", as there are examples of very simple machines that have displayed some remarkably intelligent behaviour. Animal Behavior - Futility Closet

So how do we know that DNA wasn't "intelligently designed'? We still can't build such machines from scratch in the lab even with our "intelligence".

 

[Kylie]

So how do we know that DNA wasn't "intelligently designed'? We still can't build such machines from scratch in the lab even with our "intelligence".

Tell ya what. Let's come up with a list of parameters that we both agree are indicative of design. Then we'll see if DNA fits them. How does that sound?

 

[Michael]

Tell ya what. Let's come up with a list of parameters that we both agree are indicative of design. Then we'll see if DNA fits them. How does that sound?

Shall we start with self replication and the ability to adapt to almost any planetary environment that contains water?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Shall we start with self replication and the ability to adapt to almost any planetary environment that contains water?

My pc is factually "intelligently designed" and it does not self-replicate nore has it any ability to adapt to any environment that contains water. In fact, water is one of its biggest enemies.

So clearly, that definition doesn't work to distinguish "intelligent design" from "non-intelligent design".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tell ya what. Let's come up with a list of parameters that we both agree are indicative of design. Then we'll see if DNA fits them. How does that sound?

I wonder what about this post @Radrook found so funny.

Perhaps the idea of actually trying to come up with a working list of parameters that are indicative of design?

 

[Michael]

My pc is factually "intelligently designed" and it does not self-replicate nore has it any ability to adapt to any environment that contains water. In fact, water is one of its biggest enemies.

So clearly, that definition doesn't work to distinguish "intelligent design" from "non-intelligent design".

Maybe, but that wasn't really the question she asked though.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Tell ya what. Let's come up with a list of parameters that we both agree are indicative of design. Then we'll see if DNA fits them. How does that sound?

That would be fine if you could agree on them.

 

[Michael]

Tell ya what. Let's come up with a list of parameters that we both agree are indicative of design. Then we'll see if DNA fits them. How does that sound?

It sounds quite reasonable. You'll have to let me think about it a bit. Can we agree on the first two parameters that I suggested?

 

[Michael]

That would be fine if you could agree on them.

Cue the Jeopardy theme song....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe, but that wasn't really the question she asked though.

Seems exactly what he asked.

Tell ya what. Let's come up with a list of parameters that we both agree are indicative of design. Then we'll see if DNA fits them. How does that sound?

 

[Michael]

Seems exactly what he asked.

Pretty much all data can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The design elements I'd start with wouldn't necessarily rule out other ways of life beginning. I'm simply suggesting what I'd start with in terms of basic design elements.

If I was trying to "design" something to populate planets, I'd start with self replication and adaptation to any water bearing environment. As long is it could self replicate with typical elements found on planets, and it could adapt over generations to various environments, it might be likely to survive and flourish.

I'd also want to "program" it to become more complex and sophisticated over time so that more "intelligent" adaptations could emerge over time.

I'd say that those are some of the key design elements that I'd begin with at least.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Pretty much all data can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The design elements I'd start with wouldn't necessarily rule out other ways of life beginning. I'm simply suggesting what I'd start with in terms of basic design elements.

If I was trying to "design" something to populate planets, I'd start with self replication and adaptation to any water bearing environment. As long is it could self replicate with typical elements found on planets, and it could adapt over generations to various environments, it might be likely to survive and flourish.

I'd also want to "program" it to become more complex and sophisticated over time so that more "intelligent" adaptations could emerge over time.

I'd say that those are some of the key design elements that I'd begin with at least.

Or how to assume a conclusion.

 

[Michael]

Or how to assume a conclusion.

And what exactly is abiogenesis or panspermia?

You have to admit that the basic features of living organisms are pretty much exactly what someone might try to intentionally "design" into them if they wanted life to flourish throughout the universe.

 

[Kylie]

Shall we start with self replication and the ability to adapt to almost any planetary environment that contains water?

And since my coffee mug can do neither, that tells me that my coffee mug was NOT designed.

Thank you, this was most enlightening. You apparently want to set up your premises to fit the conclusion you want to reach. Not an honest thing to do, is it?

 

[Kylie]

So how do we know that DNA wasn't "intelligently designed'? We still can't build such machines from scratch in the lab even with our "intelligence".

Because there are things in DNA that make the most sense if it developed naturally. Lots of things, actually.

 

[Kylie]

Maybe, but that wasn't really the question she asked though.

Why don't you show me why those criteria are good ones to determine design?

 

[Kylie]

Seems exactly what he asked.

*She. lol

 

[Michael]

And since my coffee mug can do neither, that tells me that my coffee mug was NOT designed.

I thought that we were talking about the design elements of living things, not just categorizing "intelligently designed" things in general. My bad.

Thank you, this was most enlightening. You apparently want to set up your premises to fit the conclusion you want to reach. Not an honest thing to do, is it?

I'd try to explain to you how that same exact criticism applies to your beloved big bang theory, but you'd ignore it and blame me for hijacking the thread. Suffice to say that pretty much every 'hypothesis" begins with some bias or another in the premise itself.

 

[Michael]

Because there are things in DNA that make the most sense if it developed naturally. Lots of things, actually.

The same could be said for your coffee cup. Coffee cups are made of the very same exact elements that exist on Earth. It would make more sense if the coffee cup developed "naturally", and ultimately it *was* created by "natural" living beings. The actual coffee cup however did require an "intelligent design". The same might be true of first forms of DNA, even if they formed "naturally".

 

[Kylie]

I thought that we were talking about the design elements of living things, not just categorizing "intelligently designed" things in general. My bad.

Okay, I completely understand the source of this confusion.

Please tell me how I can differentiate between living and non-living things.

I'd try to explain to you how that same exact criticism applies to your beloved big bang theory, but you'd ignore it and blame me for hijacking the thread. Suffice to say that pretty much every 'hypothesis" begins with some bias or another in the premise itself.

And then it's tested, isn't it? Either by experiment or observation. And peer review. Helps to remove the bias, I think?