A simple case for intelligent design

[exchemist]

Coal, it looks like anthracite:

¿Qué es y de donde proviene el carbón? - POR QUÉ, CÓMO Y DÓNDE

Ah so not quite a semi-metal, though graphite is nearly metallic in two dimensions.

 

[exchemist]

Well then why assuming that airplanes can not be created naturally from junkyards? Airplanes are physical objects, so why inferring the existence of a designer.

The reason why you need a designer is because airplains have many parts that have to be placed in a very particular order and pattern, the same is true with life, you need to place amino acids in a very specific order and pattern in order to produce life (self replicating proteins.)

As far as we know there is nothing in the laws of nature that prevent any other of the trillions and trillions of possible patterns, Iron, aluminion, rober, plastic etc. can be organiced in many possible ways, but only 1 (or few) combinations would produce a functional airplane, the same is true with amonacids, the laws of nature allow for trillions and trillions of different patterns, but only 1 (or few) would produce self replicating proteins.

In this analogy the junk yard would be the primordial soup, and the airplain would be “life”

Honestly where does my analogy fails?

N a t u r a l S E L E C T I O N.

 

[leroy]

I have already made it very clear, REPEATEDLY, what is required for Intelligent Design to be “scientific”:

1. ID needs to be “FALSIFIABLE”: which ID (particularly the Designer) is not.
2. ID needs to have empirical and verifiable evidences to verify the concept of “Designer”: ID have none.
3. ID needs to be reviewed by the peers from respective and specific scientific peers: it has never been reviewed.

That’s 3 strikes against Intelligent Design.

ID, the Discovery Institute and everyone who are members of ID (particularly Chapman, Gilder, Johnson, Meyer and Behe) are nothing more than phonies.

1 ID is falsifiable, the argument is based on 2 assumptions,

a) That specified complexity can only come from a mind

b) Life is specified and complex

Each of these assumptions is testable, and could in theory be proven wrong.

Is natural abiogenesis falsifiable? How?

2 well as an agnostic you do grant that the existence of the designer is at least possible. Given that the existence of a designer is at least possible and given that it is possible that a designer would what to create life. I don’t see why shoud one reject design by default

3 well because science presupposes naturalism,

 

[leroy]

N a t u r a l S E L E C T I O N.

The analogy concerns the origin of life. There was no natural selection before the origin of life

 

[wellwisher]

I have already made it very clear, REPEATEDLY, what is required for Intelligent Design to be “scientific”:

1. ID needs to be “FALSIFIABLE”: which ID (particularly the Designer) is not.
2. ID needs to have empirical and verifiable evidences to verify the concept of “Designer”: ID have none.
3. ID needs to be reviewed by the peers from respective and specific scientific peers: it has never been reviewed.

That’s 3 strikes against Intelligent Design.

ID, the Discovery Institute and everyone who are members of ID (particularly Chapman, Gilder, Johnson, Meyer and Behe) are nothing more than phonies.

If you look at various scientific theories for the creation of the universe, there is more than one. There is the standard model, a wave model, and others like String Theory. These all can't be right at the same time since they each address the same things differently. However, they all have passed the three tests you listed above. If all but one mode turns out to be valid, this show that modern science can support conceptual mythology if so chooses.

The science alternative, to ID, is based on a statistical or random model. This model sounds to me to be God based, also. In random models, anything can happen since there are finite odds for everything. That sounds Divine and sort of an omnipotent claim.

This God of random can do anything, if given enough time. However, he is not that smart. Rather he tends to be lucky as he blindly evolves a beautiful universe without any goal in mind. He is an idiot savant. The black box approach of statistics has gap of understanding that is filled via faith in the Lord of dice. That type of God may have been chosen because he makes some humans feel like they are better than God, since humans can reason and plan and the God of random, cannot, since he wings it without aim or purpose. In this mythology only humans can intelligently design things.

One main science observation that appears to support ID, over a random model of the universe, is quantum theory. The question is what is the purpose of a quantum universe? To answer this question consider the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom has only a limited number of energy levels, which are quantized and distinct. There are gaps between these energy levels. What this quantum approach does is load the dice of the God of random, by eliminating most of the options implicit of continuous models; there is no longer odds for everything. The hydrogen atom energy level has zero odds in the gaps and odds of 1.0 at the energy levels. This saves time by preventing certain outcomes and it save time by funneling things toward a smaller number of outcomes.

In other words if A and B needed to happen before we go to C, quantum by limited options allows us to reach A and B sooner. While going to C can happen faster due to gaps and limited options. This is not the work of an idiot savant God who could takes forever to get to certain steps; infinitesimal odds. The God of ID stacks the deck, loads the dice and counts the cards. He is intelligent.

 

[tas8831]

Is that a joke? If we accept taxonomically that a land animal eventually birthed a dolphin, ALL those SYSTEMS had to be in place simultaneously in a single (or very few) generations.

Ok, so dopey strawman about birthing dolphins aside, I guess when you wrote this:

For example, sea to land or land to sea requires all this and more:

1) New respiratory system while old works
2) New reproductive system
3) New mating system
4) New caring for young system
5) New prey for food
6) New circulatory system
7) New ambulatory system
8) New endocrine system
9) Etc.​

You were just trolling.

Nice.

 

[tas8831]

Deal - now you stop making ridiculous claims about science.

But seriously, if WHAT is axiomatically true?

This:

"In the end, I fail to see why your hero-worshipping and unyielding faith in the infallibility of those heroes trumps my actual knowledge of the subject matter."

I was obviously referring to your belief that what your hero claimed was true by virtue of your adoration of him, not by your ability to discern whether or not the things Behe claims are true or rooted in fact.

Why was that so difficult for you to get?

The point: If you claim your biology or evolution knowledge trumps mine, my Bible knowledge by the same measurement trumps yours, inviting you to leave ReligiousForums.com and join EvolutionForums.com.

This is the Evolution vs. Creation forum.

Don't let the door hit you....

 

[tas8831]

Behold, a skeleton:

Almost looks like an odd dog skeleton, of sorts - 2 forelimbs, 2 hindlimbs...

and the skeleton, skin on:

Amazing Design.

 

[tas8831]

1 ID is falsifiable, the argument is based on 2 assumptions,

a) That specified complexity can only come from a mind

A HUMAN mind.

b) Life is specified and complex

After the fact - at least that is how the IDC crowd does it.

 

[tas8831]

Again, your level of ignorance on this subject, despite your years of debating it, is astounding.

That seems to be the norm. Although, I must say that the recent auto-exposure of a creationist that gives the pretense of being scientifically literate and well read, while in reality being unable to interpret even basic scientific papers, is a new one for me.

 

[leroy]

A HUMAN mind.

I would argue that if we find specified complexity in another planet, one would be rational to infer “non human design”

After the fact - at least that is how the IDC crowd does it.

I don’t understand, what is that suppose to mean?

 

[tas8831]

A HUMAN mind.

I would argue that if we find specified complexity in another planet, one would be rational to infer “non human design”

How would this specified complexity be inferred?

If we found something that looked like a car or a building or some quasi-recognizable technology, would we posit that an intelligent species or something we might define as 'animal' had done it, or would we posit a disembodied Deity had willed it into existence with The Word?? Which is, after all, the actual goal of the 'Intelligent Design' movement...

After the fact - at least that is how the IDC crowd does it.

I don’t understand, what is that suppose to mean?

It means that I have a history with ID advocates who boast of being able to 'see' CSI in DNA. And when I have presented DNA sequences to them, they invariably ask what it is - is it a gene, is it noncoding DNA, etc. - IOW, they have to work backwards, or 'after the fact', despite claiming that they were in possession of the methods to discern it on their own.

ID advocates sort of remind me of this crazy youtuber I came across last night, I forget his name, but he is a big advocate of massive cover-ups and the subsequent brainwashing of everyone but him (much like many ID creationists) regarding things like previous civilizations on Mars.

In the video I watched, between rounds of him declaring everyone else to be brainwashed idiots, he would show publicly available pictures from the Mars rovers that he would then enhance and alter the color and contrast of, and run through various color filters, and 'amazingly' see all sorts of not rocks, but debris of a massive catastrophe. He would alter some aspect of color, and a couple of the rocks would then appear shiny - Metal! he would declare. He would enhance the contrast and brightness of another rock that had some cracks in it - and now it was broken Masonry!

That is, when you alter how you look at what you actually see, what is a actually there (e.g., the DNA sequences), you can 'see' what you wanted to.
And sure, you could say the same about my side. But I would then point out the citations I have provided a couple of times - the establishment of the reliability of a method, followed by the application of that method. That is a sensible, logical, scientific manner of looking at evidence.
Convincing yourself that everyone else is brainwashed, looking at the same data without understanding (or just dismissing) the rationale behind it all, and seeing the mystical hand of one's favorite deity is very much like fiddling with the contrast of pictures from Mars and seeing ancient building and crashed ships...

 

[leroy]

How would this specified complexity be inferred?
.

Well you have something with:

1 Many parts

2 organized in a pattern (for example a pattern that would allow a function)

3 the laws of nature allow many (trillions and trillions) of possible combinations, but only one (or few) combinations would produce the pattern

Take for example a car,

1 it has many parts

2 each of the parts is organized in a pattern that allows a function (move and transport people)

3 the laws of nature allow for many combinations, there are trillions and trillions of possible ways in which one can put each of the parts.

Is there any question on how specified complexity can be inferred?

If not

Which of the assumptions would you say is wrong

1 specified complexity can only come from a mind?

2 life has this attribute of specified complexity?


How can natural abiogenesis be falsifiable? Why are you avoiding this question?

If we found something that looked like a car or a building or some quasi-recognizable technology, would we posit that an intelligent species or something we might define as 'animal' had done it, or would we posit a disembodied Deity had willed it into existence with The Word?? Which is, after all, the actual goal of the 'Intelligent Design' movement...

ID tries to show that life was intelligently designed, whether if the designer is God, an Alien or something is beyond the scope of intelligent design.


Sure I personally believe that God is the designer, but I am not claiming that one can arrive at that conclusion by this argument. (Additional evidence would be required)

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, a land animal did not give birth to a dolphin. Sheesh.

A land animal gave birth to another land animal that found fish tasty. That taste spread through the population over a few generations.

Then, one of those land animals gave birth to a land animal that also swam a bit better. That ability spread through the population over the course of several generations.

Then, a land animal gave birth to another land animal that had slightly webbed feet, making it easier to swim. That adaptation spread through the population over several generations.

After a few more generations, these animals were spending a fair amount of time in the water, but also spending a fair amount of time on land. Some had adapted to water life in other ways: being able to hold their breath for longer.

After a while longer, some of the population of animals were spending the majority of time in the water, even though they also spent some time on the land, say to procreate.

Over more generations, some gave birth in the water before moving to land for a while. They still spent most of their time in the water. They had adapted by being able to hold their breath for longer and having blood that binds oxygen a bit better.

As more generations passed, more and more time was spent in the water, including giving birth. It became rare to go on land.

As more generations passed, some of these animals never go back to the land. They spend their whole lives in the water.

As even more generations pass, they become more and more adapted to life in the water.

We now have a water animal. At no point did a purely land animal give birth to a water animal.

STOP STOP STOP. I NEVER SAID a land animal gave birth to a dolphin. I said if X births Y multiple systems have to move at once. You are adding the ridiculous odds of multiple needed systems to your odds for your JUST SO STORY.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Irrelevant. We use known physical principles to extrapolate. Violation of those principles goes beyond the science. Suggesting a water enclosure for the observable universe goes so far beyond known physical principles as to be laughable.

Please explain which physical principles show what must lie BEYOND the universe:

1)
2)
3)

I call baloney.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Clearly not. Those are accomplished without any great changes through adaptation.



Do you realize that penguins, otters, and sea lions derived from land animals? They are *prefect* examples of species in transition from land to water. is it really so difficult to see that sea lions, given a bit more adaptation, would be very similar to dolphins?

Again, please avoid smokescreens for the real issue, animals bear after their kind/family.

 

[Jose Fly]

That seems to be the norm. Although, I must say that the recent auto-exposure of a creationist that gives the pretense of being scientifically literate and well read, while in reality being unable to interpret even basic scientific papers, is a new one for me.

Well there ya' go.....you've seen something new since joining RF!

 

[Polymath257]

Please explain which physical principles show what must lie BEYOND the universe:

1)
2)
3)

I call baloney.

We use the physical principles we discover within the observable universe and extrapolate to the nearby, unobserved, universe.

All you seem to be saying is that we cannot know anything about the universe past what we observe. To some extent that is correct (but not completely so). But then there is no reason to even postulate the silly water layer.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, please avoid smokescreens for the real issue, animals bear after their kind/family.

I am NOT putting up a smokescreen. These are real animals that are showing the transitional stages between land and water based life. They show that stages you seem to think are impossible are, in reality, quite possible and even common.

 

[Polymath257]

STOP STOP STOP. I NEVER SAID a land animal gave birth to a dolphin. I said if X births Y multiple systems have to move at once. You are adding the ridiculous odds of multiple needed systems to your odds for your JUST SO STORY.

Well, since *nobody* thinks that is how things happened, your position is a strawman. it is simply not the case, as i showed, that multiple systems have to move all at once. They can, and do, happen in stages with adaptation at each stage.