A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

The origin of life by random processes is near imnpossible. Even the smallest form of life reveals a complexity far beyond a modern fabric.

Lucky for us then that abiogenesis is based upon the laws of chemistry and not random processes.

 

[Jose Fly]

The origin of life by random processes is near imnpossible.

Agreed. Of course, I don't know of anyone who proposes that life arose "by random processes" in the first place.

 

[ecco]

Emphasis changed by ecco...

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)

By your definitions, the "intelligent designer" of all earthly living things is an example of something designed.

So, let's compare the two concepts:

• What is the origin of the natural universe? Answer: Don't know.
• What is the origin of the designed universe? Answer: A "designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who ∞

ETA: Obviously your simple case for intelligent design isn't so simple. I would refer to it as simplistic.

 

[Skwim]

The origin of life by random processes is near imnpossible. Even the smallest form of life reveals a complexity far beyond a modern fabric.

You mean fabric such as Kevlar, rayon, and Nomex?

.

.

 

[Valjean]

The origin of life by random processes is near imnpossible. Even the smallest form of life reveals a complexity far beyond a modern fabric.

Why do you say that, given the observed fact of complex life?
Why do you think modern, complex 'life' emerged fully formed, rather than in stages, from self-replicating molecules to archaea?

Where, on the life - non-life spectrum, you choose to call a structure "alive" is arbitrary.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

So, if I go to an art museum and see a blank canvas, am I supposed to consider it art even though there is no evidence of design? Do I go to customer service and demand a refund because I just looked at a blank canvas?

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

But people can see patterns in things that weren't designed with patterns, like cloudgazing.

the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Cuneiform was just some sticks and triangles on them. It's much easier to confuse them with natural phenomena.

The argument is that life is specified and complex

"Complexity", like patterns, are in the eye of the beholder, though.

Opening the cabinet door in the kitchen is pretty simple. My dog can't figure it out, though.

Well, I even provided an example, there is nothing in the laws of nature that “forces” ink to produce letters and words. This is what I mean with “independent”

If you found writing in nature that didn't involve humans making it up, you might be on to something regarding intelligent design. But you don't.

In the case of amino acids, there is no known natural principle that would “force” them to organice in such a way that they would produce self replicating proteins. The laws of nature dot seem to “try” to organize amino acids in to self replicating agents.

They do, though. If you have the right ingredients and the right catalysts, you get that result. It's not design, just how molecules work.

Yes natural selection forces life to be adapted, but it doesn't force life to become complex......using just "natural selection " and no other guiding mechanism, why would simple bacteria-like creatures evolve in to complex animals?

Single cells teamed up other single cells for survival. Everyone doing everything wasn't necessary, and specialization started to occur, like with sponges. Environmental triggers allowed the specialization process.

I have "problems" with both the idea that I amino acids became life, and the idea complex life came from simpler life by a proces of random genetic change and natural selection.

But dirt can become human?

Another good example is “S.E.T.I.”; looking for patterns of information. If they find them, would they assume these patterns arise by non-intelligent means? Of course not.

It's also a good example of anthropocentrism. We assume all life must be intelligent if it acts like us. What if they sent out spores or something that were encoded with messages instead of radio signals?

There are many natural mechanism that can create ink, one can even get big volumes of ink by natural mechanism, but in order to have a book with meaningful words and sentences, you need ink in a very specific pattern.

But words are easily identified PRECISELY because they don't occur in nature. We invented them. We use them. We change them. Nature has little to do with it except for the part where it is in our nature to communicate and we lack the anatomy to choose pheromone trails instead as a superior medium. Social animals (at the least -- well, and plants and fungi an stuff) have communication. The God of the bible doesn't even know about different gender options in humanity, much less forest-sized fungal networks used as a kind of internet for everyone in the forest. If He doesn't know about it, it can't be claimed He designed it.

2 I am not sure if I understood the question, but I don’t know which mechanisms where used by the designer, and I don’t think one needs to know/understand the mechanisms in order to infer design.

But if there were design, it could be reverse engineered as long as one had the same resources and talent.

There is no reason for why “simple life” evolved in to “complex life” natural selection could have maintained life “simple” but well adapted.

The problem was that there WERE reasons, many of which would have been environmental.

If actual evidence of magic poofing were produced, it would at least introduce an alternative for consideration.

Exactly. Leroy, head over to Home Depot, buy a bag of mulch, and pray to God for it to become a man. We'll wait.

What are the odds of typing letters in your computer randomly and end up with the instructions of how to bake a delicious chocolate cake?.....I would argue that the origin of the first replicating agent would be a lot like that.

You appear to have a problem understanding there was no goal. That you WANT a chocolate cake is irrelevant. Maybe it ends up being for fried salmon instead. Maybe it makes a goop only a bacterium would like. Nature is not out to please YOU.

The origin of life by random processes is near imnpossible. Even the smallest form of life reveals a complexity far beyond a modern fabric.

Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. To my Mom, a DVD player can be too complex to operate.

 

[The Bible Alone]

Emphasis changed by ecco...
By your definitions, the "intelligent designer" of all earthly living things is an example of something designed.

So, let's compare the two concepts:

• What is the origin of the natural universe? Answer: Don't know.
• What is the origin of the designed universe? Answer: A "designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who must have been designed by an even greater "intelligent designer" who ∞

ETA: Obviously your simple case for intelligent design isn't so simple. I would refer to it as simplistic.

This is a problem with false pagan religions but not with the true God. God has always been.

Genesis 1:1
[1]In the beginning God...

There was nothing before Him.

Colossians 1:16
[16]For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

God created all powers and all things invisible. This means He created the laws of science and nature and time. Where did these laws come from? To believe they have always been is to hold them up as a god. Whatever you believe to be the ultimate source of power governing everything else is your god. Everyone has a god whether they realize it or not.

Of course we know the universe around us could not have always been because we see it running down. Only a perfect God can be self-existent.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What if they sent out spores or something that were encoded with messages instead of radio signals?

If they were “encoded with messages”, that would indicate intelligence....no difference.

 

[Riders]

So sense you claim Pyramids can pop up out of no where created by nature is that what you think of the Egyptian and Maya pyramids and others? That question is to the OP.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If they were “encoded with messages”, that would indicate intelligence....no difference.

Nope, that is an equivocation fallacy. You are using the root word "coded" in two different senses.

 

[Bear Wild]

This is a problem with false pagan religions but not with the true God. God has always been.

Genesis 1:1
[1]In the beginning God...

There was nothing before Him.

Colossians 1:16
[16]For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

God created all powers and all things invisible. This means He created the laws of science and nature and time. Where did these laws come from? To believe they have always been is to hold them up as a god. Whatever you believe to be the ultimate source of power governing everything else is your god. Everyone has a god whether they realize it or not.

Of course we know the universe around us could not have always been because we see it running down. Only a perfect God can be self-existent.

Pagan religions are no more false than any other religions. The universe is not run by god. It is comforting to know at least you believe in evolution since you think that god created the laws of science and since evolution is a part of what we know about nature then you at least accept evolution.

Unfortunately these and all creations stories are myths made by mankind. They have meaning to the followers of that religion. In the case you quote, it is so the followers will follow the social dictates of those who formed the religion.

 

[rageoftyrael1987]

So sense you claim Pyramids can pop up out of no where created by nature is that what you think of the Egyptian and Maya pyramids and others? That question is to the OP.

The OP never actually claimed that pyramids can pop out of no where, to be clear. His claim was very much the opposite of that. He was saying that if we found a pyramid like structure on another planet, we could reasonably assume that it was designed. It was actually I who argued that it wasn't necessarily a reasonable assumption, as any other planet we found ourselves on would almost certainly have different "rules" if you will that apply to it. Not rules as in universal rules, but rules like what's the gravity, what's the magnetic field level, if it has any at all, what kind of environment does it have, how much sun is it getting. These things changing could potentially result in a large pyramid like structure. Or not, lol. Perhaps we'll hit a point where we can be absolutely certain no such thing would happen, in any circumstance, but until we hit such a level of understanding, simply pointing at something that we understood to be designed as designed, without being sure of all of the extenuating factors, just seems like anti science.

 

[Walterbl]

Lucky for us then that abiogenesis is based upon the laws of chemistry and not random processes

That’s like saying that a coin toss is not random because it follows the laws of gravity. Or that shuffling a deck and drawing cards is not random because the shuffling takes place according to the laws of physics. Random does not mean it follows no laws. Abiogenesis is random. There is a random nature in molecular movement.

Proteins are made up of a very specific sequence of amino acids, and there is no a priori reason why one combination should be favored over another one. Let’s say you need a specific chain of 30 amino acids to form a given protein. Even if you get a chain of 29 correct amino acids, the molecule that bonds to the chain in the 30th position can be almost any type of amino acid and not just the one you need. In other words, you are far more likely to get an amino acid that ruins your chain instead of exactly the one that completes it.

(from this article)

You mean fabric such as Kevlar, rayon, and Nomex?

The word I was looking for was factory instead of fabric, sorry

They do, though. If you have the right ingredients and the right catalysts, you get that result. It's not design, just how molecules work.

You got a reference for this? As far as I know, the spontaneus formation of proteins from simpler aminoacids has not been observed. The famous Stanley Miller experiment produced aminoacids, not proteins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s like saying that a coin toss is not random because it follows the laws of gravity. Or that shuffling a deck and drawing cards is not random because the shuffling takes place according to the laws of physics. Random does not mean it follows no laws. Abiogenesis is random. There is a random nature in molecular movement.

Proteins are made up of a very specific sequence of amino acids, and there is no a priori reason why one combination should be favored over another one. Let’s say you need a specific chain of 30 amino acids to form a given protein. Even if you get a chain of 29 correct amino acids, the molecule that bonds to the chain in the 30th position can be almost any type of amino acid and not just the one you need. In other words, you are far more likely to get an amino acid that ruins your chain instead of exactly the one that completes it.

(from this article)

The word I was looking for was factory instead of fabric, sorry



You got a reference for this? As far as I know, the spontaneus formation of proteins from simpler aminoacids has not been observed. The famous Stanley Miller experiment produced aminoacids, not proteins.

You really should try to educate yourself. And learn how to quote properly too.

Abiogenesis is far from random. You need to stop listening to dishonest and ignorant creationists, you make yourself look no better by doing so. First off you should not assume that there is a "correct" order. There are countless proteins possible, some will do specific jobs better than others. A poor working protein will still enable life to go on when there is no competition.

 

[Riders]

The OP never actually claimed that pyramids can pop out of no where, to be clear. His claim was very much the opposite of that. He was saying that if we found a pyramid like structure on another planet, we could reasonably assume that it was designed. It was actually I who argued that it wasn't necessarily a reasonable assumption, as any other planet we found ourselves on would almost certainly have different "rules" if you will that apply to it. Not rules as in universal rules, but rules like what's the gravity, what's the magnetic field level, if it has any at all, what kind of environment does it have, how much sun is it getting. These things changing could potentially result in a large pyramid like structure. Or not, lol. Perhaps we'll hit a point where we can be absolutely certain no such thing would happen, in any circumstance, but until we hit such a level of understanding, simply pointing at something that we understood to be designed as designed, without being sure of all of the extenuating factors, just seems like anti science.

OK Ty.

 

[Riders]

The OP never actually claimed that pyramids can pop out of no where, to be clear. His claim was very much the opposite of that. He was saying that if we found a pyramid like structure on another planet, we could reasonably assume that it was designed. It was actually I who argued that it wasn't necessarily a reasonable assumption, as any other planet we found ourselves on would almost certainly have different "rules" if you will that apply to it. Not rules as in universal rules, but rules like what's the gravity, what's the magnetic field level, if it has any at all, what kind of environment does it have, how much sun is it getting. These things changing could potentially result in a large pyramid like structure. Or not, lol. Perhaps we'll hit a point where we can be absolutely certain no such thing would happen, in any circumstance, but until we hit such a level of understanding, simply pointing at something that we understood to be designed as designed, without being sure of all of the extenuating factors, just seems like anti science.

However the original post is about how the earth is created intelligent design would mean God created the earth and they are talking about creationism or am way way off base? If I'm not right I am ignorant when it comes to science, so fill me in on what this thread is about.

If I'm right it would not make sense they were speaking about pyramids that had been built by men what does that have to do with creationism?

 

[Riders]

Infact I don't know what pyramids have to do with this thread at all. Egyptians created pyramids, no the ones in Egypt other groups built the other ones in other parts of the world what do those groups have to do with this topic the Mayans and Indians etc?

 

[louie]

We do not know. we do not know the properties or behaviour of the most basic force, the something.
The interaction of somethings, in great multiples, becomes a
pattern that the human brain recognizes.
Our position and movement here in the solid of infinity is our
reality.
Our little brains can't even grasp that everything in the night sky
is not there. Just past pictures.
Nothing made an intelligence that made.
Infinity is, creation was not.

 

[leroy]

Really? Can you give examples where the result tends towards simplicity?

The computer simulations go all the way back to the program Tierra, which simulated an ecosystem with mutations and competition for resources. It got as far as producing parasites and some very complex interactions. This was one of the first such programs. Later examples only supported the results.

Artificial life - Wikipedia

When one looks at the actual experiments with real organisms, one finds that the vast majority of examples of evolution are exoles of a decrease of complexity.
.......
Imagine the ancient world full of relatively simple unicelular organisms, that had access to an unlimited source of e energy (the sun) ..... My argument is that natural selection would tend to keap things as good as they are, with only small variations .
Why would natural selection "whant" to build complexity ?

 

[leroy]

Then at some point you have self-replicating nucleotides. That part has been demonstrated in the lab.

Source ?

Unless you have some actual probability calculations to share, you're not really making an argument as much as you're just making an empty assertion.

Well even if we make the generous and unrealistic assumption that all you need is a simple protein with 100 nucleotides to produce a self replicating protein. The probability of getting such protein would be 1 in 10^60.

Even assuming that there are trillions of possible paths that would produce such protein, you would still have a number with more that 50 digits.

You think is a strawman? Ok feel free to provide the accidente model with the accurate calculations.

The good news is that unlike naturalism, my claim is falsifiable, maybe you don't need 100 nucleotides for self replication, (maybe you just need 4 or 5)

maybe there are 10^58 possible paths (making the number 10^60) not so big in comparison.

Maybe there is a natural principle that "tries" to produce the specific path that would produce this self replicating protein.

These are all possible and realistic scenarios that could falsify ID.

Is there anything that would falsify naturalism? Is there anything that would falsify the idea that life had a natural origin?

Given how you've stated that arising outside of natural mechanisms is one of the criteria for "specified complexity", the above makes your argument circular.

That is a strawman, I never said that arrising outside nature is a criteria for specified complexity .

My claim is that if a complex system with many parts is organized in a pattern and this pattern is not imposed (independent) by the laws of nature, one can proclaim "specified complexity"

If the pattern is independent but simple, one can not proclaim specified complexity.