A simple case for intelligent design

[metis]

All material objects, and even energy itself, have a "design" [pattern] because they exist. No design = no existence.

Therefore, the real question is whether these designs are the byproduct of Divine creation, and the answer is there's no way to prove it one way or another.

As any serious theologian would tell us, believe in God (or Gods) is based on our faith, not objectively-derived evidence. If the latter was possible, it would have already been done and broadcast over the ages in flashing neon lights.

 

[Polymath257]

It is not a God of the Gaps,

it is an appeal to the best explanation based on the scientific evidence that we have to date, but if you have a better explanation for the origin of life feel to share it, and explain why is that explanation better than design

The problem is that it's not an explanation at all.

For example, suppose I ask how the pyramids came about. To say 'someone built them' is NOT an explanation of how it happened. For that matter, saying 'The Ancient Egyptians built them' isn't an explanation either.

To get an explanation, you would need to describe the *methods used* to build them.

Now, in the case of the pyramids, we have an idea who the Ancient Egyptians were, what their capabilities were, etc, so at least getting the actors helps to decipher the process. Even that isn't the case for ID.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not a God of the Gaps,

it is an appeal to the best explanation based on the scientific evidence that we have to date, but if you have a better explanation for the origin of life feel to share it, and explain why is that explanation better than design

Sure it is. The "best explanation" appears to be the the one that is supported by scientific evidence and does not use magic. You are trying to say in effect "science cannot explain this yet, therefore God". You are trying to stick God into places where the answers are not clear yet. The only problem with your God of the Gaps is that your God is getting smaller every day. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs, there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. You probably do not understand the concept. Most creationists are afraid to learn.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure it is. The "best explanation" appears to be the the one that is supported by scientific evidence and does not use magic. You are trying to say in effect "science cannot explain this yet, therefore God". You are trying to stick God into places where the answers are not clear yet. The only problem with your God of the Gaps is that your God is getting smaller every day. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs, there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. You probably do not understand the concept. Most creationists are afraid to learn.

I see @leroy is still busy trying to find a way to trick others into taking on his burden of proof. How many ways do you think he will try to reword his attempts before he gives up?

 

[tas8831]

in the context of the origin of life:
Do you have a positive, testable and falsifiable case for naturalism? would you share it?

Wait - where was Dembski's test?

Is that the test for which he admitted to most results being false positives?

Here is some DNA - apply the Dembski test, and get back to me:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see @leroy is still busy trying to find a way to trick others into taking on his burden of proof. How many ways do you think he will try to reword his attempts before he gives up?

Unless he lets himself learn it will be an endless process. And I do not see much chance of that.

 

[leroy]

Sure it is. The "best explanation" appears to be the the one that is supported by scientific evidence and does not use magic. You are trying to say in effect "science cannot explain this yet, therefore God". You are trying to stick God into places where the answers are not clear yet. The only problem with your God of the Gaps is that your God is getting smaller every day. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs, there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. You probably do not understand the concept. Most creationists are afraid to learn.

If you think there is a better explanation than design, please share it and explain why you think the explanation is better.


ID supporters like Demski have already provided positive and testable evidence for ID, it is your turn to:

1 refute the argument
2 make an argument of your own supporting naturalism

 

[leroy]

Wait - where was Dembski's test?

Is that the test for which he admitted to most results being false positives?

Here is some DNA - apply the Dembski test, and get back to me:

When applying Demskies test one can have a false negative.

For example if you show me text in a language that I don't understand I might confuse it with random letters and dismiss it as non-design

But what you have to do to refute the test is provide an example of a false positive, something that passes the test, that was not design.

In your DNA example, my response would be "I don't know" , because I personally can't read DNA "letters"

In order to apply the test I would have to ask 3 questions

1 does the set of letters have an independent pattern like a meaning or a function?

2 according to the laws of nature, can those letters be arrange in many possible orders, where only 1 or few combinations would have a meaning or a function?

3 according to the natural laws, is there a bias towards creating a pattern with a meaning or function.


If the answers are yes, yes no, then it would pass the test and design could be inferred.

As a naturalist you have 3 options
1 show that the test is wrong by showing a false positive

2 show that the first living thing (say the first organic thing capable of reproducing) didn't pass the test

3 play semantic games. Send red herrings, lie, and pretend that you have already falsified the argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you think there is a better explanation than design, please share it and explain why you think the explanation is better.


ID supporters like Demski have already provided positive and testable evidence for ID, it is your turn to:

1 refute the argument
2 make an argument of your own supporting naturalism

We already have. Models supported by scientific evidence are better than those that are not.

Ooh, there is that nasty old burden of proof that you love to dodge so much.
If
And no, Demski either lied to you or you did not understand. He has no evidence.

 

[leroy]

We already have. Models supported by scientific evidence are better than those that are not.

Ooh, there is that nasty old burden of proof that you love to dodge so much.
If
And no, Demski either lied to you or you did not understand. He has no evidence.

Then Pick your favorite model and explain why is it better than design

You can't simply dismiss Demski, you have actually deal with his argument and show that he is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then Pick your favorite model and explain why is it better than design

You can't simply dismiss Demski, you have actually deal with his argument and show that he is wrong.

Of course I can dismiss Demski. Hitchens ' Razor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you think there is a better explanation than design, please share it and explain why you think the explanation is better.


ID supporters like Demski have already provided positive and testable evidence for ID, it is your turn to:

1 refute the argument
2 make an argument of your own supporting naturalism

Present an argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course I can dismiss Demski. Hitchens ' Razor.

He just hates that he has to defend his position. Wants to drop that burden of proof like it was on fire.

 

[rational experiences]

A simple test.

Do any human being male scientists exist without 2 adult human beings, as humans having sexual intercourse?

For those 2 human being parents, are living, are whole, do not exist as DATA....are living whole bodies and lives. Have sex...and our consciousness comes from INFERRED DATA...sperm and an ovary, that is not adult human consciousness.

It is a consciousness aware that its own human self came from advice of sperm and also an ovary as cellular advice.

How is that not difficult to understand...seeing consciousness, the conditions was a spiritually advised medical teaching that was relative to humans lying to self.

Those 2 human being parents only live for about 100 years from sperm and the ovary and then die.

So in relative human applied thinking, you only own life and presence for 100 years.

And both sperm and that ovary also deplete its owned ability to remain the same active bodies in the bio life form.

Egotism was already proven to be a true human thinking problem when a self cannot contend that the self one day will not exist...….seems like you are searching for some form of answer to keep yourself from dying.

Now if a medical advice against occult radiation said, that in the Year 2012, the atmospheric Christ mass of CH gases that were irradiated and heated and nearly do not exist....yet remain just because of cooling effects, stone wandering star gas released cooling irradiated space....like we were taught.

Are you researching for medical advice to tell self that you are destroying Genetics? So that radiation sciences is stopped as that proof.

For it makes no other logical sense, what drives you all to be applying studies relating to human Genesis, when you know radiation metallic mass from out of space has changed natural bio genetics on Earth before.

Only when a human can say.....if I stopped having sexual intercourse, and mean it......then all life would live, then it would all die. And no human being would even be living on Earth as a use of real and true medical information.

The fact that human sexual intercourse is the only reason that human genetics even exists today is an advice about how irrational science has become.

 

[rational experiences]

Then Pick your favorite model and explain why is it better than design

You can't simply dismiss Demski, you have actually deal with his argument and show that he is wrong.

If you challenge science and ask it, what are you searching for.

And many would own a theme about eternal life...which we do not even own.

For we live today by the act of human sexual intercourse.

Without sex, no bio human life or genetical material would even exist...…..we are only in survival mode.

So then you would ask humans who read the God and bible themes about life returning to the eternal...and then science today wanting a cosmological design for a non stop resource that never ends, never runs out.

And then ask why those scientists are researching bio Genetics, when we do not even own eternal, without change, without ever being changed or existed forever.

What their studies are being occult applied upon, that sort of research claiming where did we come from.

For if a human life can continue to produce cells, then they claim that they can emulate that model.

Yet our body is the cell...and cellular reproduction is our encoded living condition as that bio life form, unless too much radiation kills us off earlier.

Therefore the biblical God information inferred to a time in human evolution when the Destroyer male psyche in the occult condition arises. And as he researches our bio life information he is looking for a place of separation between bio existence and the created existence of energy/force and power, knowing that the 2 were never joined.

And that is what he is really researching for, based upon his ancient memory of the cult self.

As the only logical reason for that research.

For medical science knows already in science that life is dying unnaturally on Earth due to too much radiation in conversion science. For life lives and survives and ages in 100 years and then the cell dies. If life not even given the ability to age dies before its time...then we are being destroyed.

 

[Tiberius]

Wrong, even if evolution where true and successful in producing CSI you would still have to deal with the origin of life, (the origin of the first organic thing that can reproduce)

It has not been shown that the first molecule that was capable of replicating could not have arrived by natural methods.

In any case, it still leaves you utterly incapable of applying Intelligent Design to any life form existing today.

 

[ecco]

Wrong, even if evolution where true and successful in producing CSI you would still have to deal with the origin of life, (the origin of the first organic thing that can reproduce)

So?

Two hundred years ago we didn't know the atom was made up of smaller things. One hundred years ago we didn't know those smaller things were made up of even smaller things. One hundred years ago we didn't know continents moved. Today, we don't know the origin of life. What makes you think fifty years from now we still won't know.

One thing I do know, if you were alive three hundred years ago you would have been arguing that there is no way that the earth can be going around the sun.

Ignoring science leads to ignorance.



ETA:

it is an appeal to the best explanation based on the scientific evidence that we have to date,

"to date" Please re-read and understand what I wrote about scientific knowledge advancing.

 

[ecco]

The fact that human sexual intercourse is the only reason that human genetics even exists today is an advice about how irrational science has become.

Human sexual intercourse has been occurring for over 100,000 years. Please explain how that has made science irrational.

 

[ecco]

1 find an objective method that would allow us to detect design (even if there is no prior evidence for the designer)

2 Apply that method to life, and see if life was designed

ID proponents like Dembski have provided both steps,

You haven't been able to show that Dembski provided proof of #1. Why is that?

 

[leroy]

You haven't been able to show that Dembski provided proof of #1. Why is that?

You have to deal with Debkies argument, he did claims to have a method that would allow is to detect design, so why is he wrong? What is wrong with his method?