How do you detect "design"?

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


That I don’t know………….why can´t a designer create something random?

Yeah, but then biological evolution could be random.

 

[Pogo]

But there truely can't be anyrthing random, if the universe is designed.

I love it, using Paley's watchmaker argument to prove that the heath is designed. LOL

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I love it, using Paley's watchmaker argument to prove that the heath is designed. LOL

Well, I was trained to look out of in the end selfrefering contradictions.
Here is one: I think that only that independent of thinking is real.

 

[Pogo]

That I don’t know………….why can´t a designer create something random?

That isn't the question, the question is how can you tell? CS, CSI and all of your attempts to identify design fail for the reason you just stated. LOL

 

[Pogo]

Well, I was trained to look out of in the end selfrefering contradictions.
Here is one: I think that only that independent of thinking is real.

And I think that I am thinking to hard about the first sentence in your post.
Could you enlighten me?

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, but then biological evolution could be random.

And maybe something else filters out some of the random designs?

 

[leroy]

Yeah, but then biological evolution could be random.

evolutino is not random..........(btw no idea why is this comment relevant)

 

[firedragon]

I don't agree and see no reason to limit things in that fashion (it's not as if humans can actually turn off their emotions in the first place), but I stepped out of this thread some time ago so that's probably all I'm going to say about it.

Why don't you agree? I can show evidence. Can you?

 

[leroy]

That isn't the question, the question is how can you tell? CS, CSI and all of your attempts to identify design fail for the reason you just stated. LOL

The question has been answered………………….if the QR opens a website then it is SC and therefore designed

if the QR Doesn’t do anything apparent, then we don’t know……..it could have been designed or it could have been the result of a random mechanism.

 

[gnostic]

Einstein said, "I do not believe that God chose to play dice with the universe." This meant he sensed that the universe did not form without a systematic plan. If we assume a random universe, the laws of physics should not be rational. How can random processes, lead to logical rules? Einstein's various equations are clean, and have no fuzzy dice; rational equations. How can you make that appear with fuzzy dice? A fuzzy dice approach needs too much time and will never allow rational law, like the one's we use; entropy has to increase.

You are editorialising and misconstruing what Einstein said.

Einstein wasn’t talking about the Universe, when he said “God is not playing at dice”. There was no “universe“ in that statement.

He was referring to quantum mechanics, of how the nature of randomness of quantum or subatomic particles don’t play well with General Relativity. He came to realisation that try as he might, he cannot unify QM & GR into single theory, because the nature of low-mass particles at quantum level were counter-intuitive to gravity that work with large massive structures (eg planets, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc).

You are taking what he said out-of-context. I’d guess that you did that so you can promote the pseudoscience Creationism & Intelligent Design.

Like every creationists I have come across in these forums, they forget several very requirements that are essential in developing sciences:

1. That the model(s) in a hypothesis must be FALSIFIABLE.
2. These models must be TESTED with OBSERVATIONS.

Observations would include -

1. EVIDENCE
2. EXPERIMENTS
3. DATA

Data are seen as evidence too. They are information acquired from the available evidence discovered or from experiments performed. These data would include information about the structure & properties of the evidence, detection of the evidence, quantities, measurements, etc.

Only these TESTS & OBSERVATIONS can determine whether the hypothesis is probable (hypothesis has been verified & validated), or improbable (hypothesis has been refuted).

The problem with Creationism is God, and the problem with Intelligent Design is the Designer.

You cannot test or observe or measure God or Designer, hence you would have evidence that either of them exist. If there are no evidence, then the model for Creation or for ID is that they are unfalsifiable concepts.

You gave an example of bridge construction, required engineers to design & plan the bridge, and construction company to build the bridge. That’s all true…but you are forgetting that you can show evidence all the companies, employers & employees involved in bridge design & construction that are real people, and that they exist.

So you equating bridge building to God creating the Universe or creating life is weak argument with fatal flaws. God cannot be tested: he cannot be observed, nor measured. Your example of God is the ultimate planner, is not the same as humans designing and building bridges, because you can verify humans and human activities, but not those of God or his ability to create.

The two examples are false equivalence.

 

[Pogo]

The question has been answered………………….if the QR opens a website then it is SC and therefore designed

if the QR Doesn’t do anything apparent, then we don’t know……..it could have been designed or it could have been the result of a random mechanism.

The thread topic is how do you detect design, we have established that while QR codes are an example of known human design, they provide nothing useful to the question of detecting design in general.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really? What argument? Quote my words and explain how my actual argument was dismissed………ohhh lets me guess……………..you are just making this up?

Is this part of a conspiracy theory against me? it seems to me that people like and you are lying unropes so that I reply with some insult so that I get banned form the forum?

I usually don’t buy conspiracy theories, but I see no other explanation for why are you making things up in a very shameless way.

Easy solution .... just don't insult people.

It's a better solution than, insulting people, and then blaming everyone else for "forcing" you to insult them.

 

[leroy]

The thread topic is how do you detect design, we have established that while QR codes are an example of known human design, they provide nothing useful to the question of detecting design in general.

Again.

1 The input of data that one would put in the "QR generator" could have been designed or could have been “non designed.”

2 We don’t know a priori if it was designed or not. (If I send you a QR you wouldn’t know if the input of data was designed or not)

3 The test that I suggested would tell you if it was designed. // if you perform the test that I suggested, and if the QR opens a website…………… you would that it was designed.

Note that I organizes my claims in 3 points………..Please start your next post with

“I disagree with point …. Because….”

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I think that I am thinking to hard about the first sentence in your post.
Could you enlighten me?

In philosophy there is a concept of self-referential. I used the wrong word, since English is not my native language.

So a sentence can be about the sentence itself and amount to a contradiction. The designetof the universe created something truely random and not designed. I.e. self-referential contradiction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again.

1 The input of data that one would put in the "QR generator" could have been designed or could have been “non designed.”

2 We don’t know a priori if it was designed or not. (If I send you a QR you wouldn’t know if the input of data was designed or not)

3 The test that I suggested would tell you if it was designed. // if you perform the test that I suggested, and if the QR opens a website…………… you would that it was designed.

Note that I organizes my claims in 3 points………..Please start your next post with

“I disagree with point …. Because….”

I disagree with point 1 and 2, because "QR generator", input of data and QR are not all of the universe.
If your example should be relevant for the universe, it should be about the universe as such and not just a part of it.

 

[Pogo]

In philosophy there is a concept of self-referential. I used the wrong word, since English is not my native language.

So a sentence can be about the sentence itself and amount to a contradiction. The designetof the universe created something truely random and not designed. I.e. self-referential contradiction.

mikkel_the_dane said:
Well, I was trained to look out of in the end selfrefering contradictions.
Here is one: I think that only that independent of thinking is real.

LOL, yes for and of are easily mistyped and autocorrect may have done it for you.
It is not even a dead pants problem.

 

[Quintessence]

Why don't you agree?

I already told you in the post you replied to:

I don't agree and see no reason to limit things in that fashion (it's not as if humans can actually turn off their emotions in the first place), but I stepped out of this thread some time ago so that's probably all I'm going to say about it.

I can show evidence. Can you?

Yes, but I won't. If you didn't already understand what I was driving at in my earlier responses to this thread, there's nothing for it. And I really don't care what you (or others) do or don't believe anyway beyond, say, appreciation of cultural diversity and different ways of seeing and knowing.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, but then biological evolution could be random.

Objectively I do not believe biological evolution as well as all outcomes of cause and effect events in nature are random except for the timing of each event,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objectively I do not believe biological evolution as well as all outcomes of cause and effect events in nature are random except for the timing of each event,

I don't play with you anymore. We are both to far apart and to set in our respective ways.

 

[Pogo]

Objectively I do not believe biological evolution as well as all outcomes of cause and effect events in nature are random except for the timing of each event,

That's nice but rather missed the point in terms of randomness and objectivity in terms of evolution.