How do you detect "design"?

[YoursTrue]

No, I said that your expressing your religious beliefs at that point had nothing to do with what scientists say and that you remark was unconnected to what scientists say. Your religious opinions are scientifically unfounded, AFAICT. If they can create RNA strings through artificial means, that certainly goes a long way to validating the claim that such molecules arose naturally without any miraculous intervention by a deity. That's what is called a "proof of concept" demonstration.

I expressed my religious belief that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" because I want to make sure any proposals about what scientists say is not misunderstood in light of what I believe. Scientists may have put together elements making RNA strings but there is someone (human) putting the elements together. I don't think it was random.

 

[Copernicus]

I expressed my religious belief that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" because I want to make sure any proposals about what scientists say is not misunderstood in light of what I believe. Scientists may have put together elements making RNA strings but there is someone (human) putting the elements together. I don't think it was random.

Your belief in God has nothing to do with what scientists have done. None of it depends on circumventing natural physical interactions, and they have shown experimentally that RNA molecules--simple nucleotide chains--could have synthesized naturally in the atmosphere of the early Earth and rained down on the planet.

See:

How did life originate?​

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I continue reading, I see the following statement, "If the evolutionary speculations about RNA outlined above are correct, these early cells would also have differed fundamentally from the cells we know today in having their hereditary information stored in RNA rather than in DNA "
"If the evolutionary speculations about RNA are correct..." If the speculations are correct. I see. If they are correct then maybe the rest is correct, too. The RNA World and the Origins of Life - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.

Only parts are "speculation" it is dishonest to grasp at straws, and when they use the term they are not using it in that same sense that you are. Don't get your false hopes up.

By the way, you do know that evolution is a fact even if abiogenesis was by magic, at least I hope that you understand that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep using the word magic. I do not ascribe the creation of the heavens and the earth by God to be by magic, and neither does the Bible. Is that your postulate that God must have caused the heavens and the earth to come into existence by magic if, in fact, there IS a God as described in the Bible, which I know you don't believe in, but is that how you figure it if in fact,

Then you either have not read or not understood the myths of Genesis. Just because God does the magic does not mean that it is not magic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Only parts are "speculation" it is dishonest to grasp at straws, and when they use the term they are not using it in that same sense that you are. Don't get your false hopes up.

By the way, you do know that evolution is a fact even if abiogenesis was by magic, at least I hope that you understand that.

I'm not grasping at straws. The scientific description itself uses the word speculate or speculation. Meantime, evolutionists may claim it's a fact, however I'm not about to argue the word fact with you or others right now even if many conclude the theory of evolution or evolution itself is a "fact", and based on your continued description that humans are monkeys, I think it's about time I stopped discussing these things with you. Although it has been interesting in some aspects.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you either have not read or not understood the myths of Genesis. Just because God does the magic does not mean that it is not magic.

OK, take care and have a good night.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My test tells you If anything is designed.

With my test you can ether

1 determine if the data in the QR was designed

Or

2 determine if the values of the constants of the universe are designed


does that answer your question?

Then determine what the QR for the universe is and whether it is designed or not designed? If you can't do that for the universe as such, your test doesn't work for the universe. You can do the same for say a human and if you can't do that for a human, your test doesn't work for a human.
Do you understand? I don't care if it work for QR as such. Deos it work on humans or the universe? Answer that.

 

[McBell]

Only parts are "speculation" it is dishonest to grasp at straws, and when they use the term they are not using it in that same sense that you are. Don't get your false hopes up.

By the way, you do know that evolution is a fact even if abiogenesis was by magic, at least I hope that you understand that.

Rather annoying that they ask for information only to seemingly do a search for the one time the article presented to them uses the word "speculation" and then uses the single use of a single word to claim the article presented does not answer the question it was presented in answer to.

 

[Brian2]

Yeah, as long as you understand that the limit to science as you claim it, doesn't mean that it is evidence for God. You do understand that, don't you?

Yes, I understand that.
It's a bit like the god of the gaps argument. When science finds a proposed mechanism for what used to be a gap, that does not mean that it is evidence that God does not exist.

 

[Brian2]

I heavily disagree, off course, but let's run with it for the sake of argument.

Then the argument "for" design is still nothing but an argument from ignorance.
And I put "for" between quotes, because it's not actually an argument FOR anything... At best, it's a half-arsed argument against some idea that is deemed to be rivaling design.

It's just an argument from the gaps disguised in a lab coat. Nothing more or less.

Science cannot prove a negative, that things were not designed, even if a potential "natural" mechanism is found for all processes.
Science cannot prove that there is a designer even if it seems that there is no way for something to have happened "naturally".

Again with the negative nonsense. You still haven't learned your previous lesson it seems.
Sure, it doesn't show that it is "not" designed. Just like relativity doesn't show that undetectable graviton pixies are "not" involved.
Just like how germ theory doesn't show that evil sick-making spirits are "not" involved.



As a statement, it is completely meaningless.

As long as you agee with me.

No. A hypothesis is a clear and detailed testable model, which itself is already based and supported by some evidence (actual POSITIVE evidence FOR the idea... not mere ignorant negative "evidence" against some different idea)
Not some bare faith based claim that is based on nothing but ignorance and an argument from the gaps.


It's not my bias that is showing.
It's your incredibly juvenile and ignorant idea of what a hypothesis is, that is showing.

Well you are probably right about my ignorance on what a hypothesis entails, but your bias is always showing.

 

[Brian2]

Mechanism and pathway are different aspects of explanation. The mechanism for how any biological population or structure evolved is what the theory asserts, namely, natural selection applied to genetic variation in populations over generations. The specific pathways are interesting if they can be elucidated, but that may not always be possible, and it is never necessary. Nor does the theory depend on that being done.

True, the mechanism of evolution exists even without knowing pathways.
Even if potential pathways are shown to be untenable that is not going to destroy the mechanism because it will always be argued that another tenable mechanism might exist.
Trying to show that pathways are untenable can be seen to be reverting to a god of the gaps idea, but I think the IC people don't really want to do that even if that is where we can end up.

Agreed. The scientists know that. So do most people posting on this thread.

Possibly, but the way the god of the gaps theory is spoken of on this forum, it appears to me that discovered mechanisms for a pathway have negated the existence of God.

Correct again. The whole universe might have been designed, which is more than enough for the creationist to conclude that it was. I say more than enough because even were there a way to disprove that claim, the creationist would go on believing it anyway.

Just as many seem to believe that filling the gaps has shown that God does not exist, or is not needed. And even the latter (is not needed) is not shown.

Agree again. Science is the study of reality, real things being those objects and processes which can be found somewhere at some time interacting with other real things, like cats and the sun, like clouds and earthquakes. So far, no gods or pixies have ever been spotted anywhere at any time, so they are not the purview of science. These remain creatures from fiction and man's imagination until we have reason to believe otherwise.

When you say "Science is the study of reality", that is just a claim of faith.

No. That's shifting the burden of proof. The one proposing the hypothesis must also make a case for why he believes that it is fact. If he does that, then THAT is what others attempt to falsify, not the original bare claim.

No again. That the ignorantium fallacy stated as succinctly as I've ever seen it.

Yes I agree.

 

[Brian2]

Is it? When have you demonstrated a "designer" to being an actual possibility?
Just claiming it is a possibility isn't enough.

Your double standards show up again.
Why don't you demonstrate that it is possible that there is no designer?

I could also simply claim that undetectable graviton pixies are a "possibility" for gravity. Does that make it so?

Of course not, and nobody ever claimed anything like that.

Also, since you seem to think that bare claims are valid "possibilities", how did you conclude that there are just 2 possibilities? If bare claims count as possibilities, I'ld rather say that the actual amount of possibilities is potentially infinite....

No, either there is a designer or there is not.

Yes and it is not allowed to just make stuff up and declare it to be valid "just because". Like you are doing.
This is a strength of science, not a weakness...

What am I making up and declaring to be valid?

Indeed it doesn't. Why would it? Why should it?
There is no reason to. So it doesn't. Why do you imply that this is some kind of problem?

It seems to me that it is a GOOD thing that it doesn't get to just make stuff up.

I did not say that it is some kind of problem.

Only because there is nothing there to study.............

That is the presumption of skeptics. The truth is that science cannot find something to study, not that there is nothing there to study. You are reading your atheism into what science does.

Nobody is saying that and you have been informed of that multiple times already.
But alas................

Yes that is what I am informed by you and others even after your language shows that you believe god is a fiction, a fantasy.
Science does not show that god does not exist, but you believe (by your language) that God does not exist, so your belief is unsupported faith.
Then comes the atheist hiding place. "Oh no, you are wrong, we don't believe God does not exist, we just do not believe that God exists".
Basically it's a big game for you and others, something you have done over and over and know all the moves, but it is dishonest imo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your double standards show up again.
Why don't you demonstrate that it is possible that there is no designer?



Of course not, and nobody ever claimed anything like that.



No, either there is a designer or there is not.



What am I making up and declaring to be valid?



I did not say that it is some kind of problem.



That is the presumption of skeptics. The truth is that science cannot find something to study, not that there is nothing there to study. You are reading your atheism into what science does.



Yes that is what I am informed by you and others even after your language shows that you believe god is a fiction, a fantasy.
Science does not show that god does not exist, but you believe (by your language) that God does not exist, so your belief is unsupported faith.
Then comes the atheist hiding place. "Oh no, you are wrong, we don't believe God does not exist, we just do not believe that God exists".
Basically it's a big game for you and others, something you have done over and over and know all the moves, but it is dishonest imo.

I agree with you and I am an atheist. We have a group of in effect strong atheists, who hide behind claiming to be weak, but when I read their posts to the effect of facts being absolute, unuversal and so for the real universe, then I can spot that they are strong atheists.

 

[McBell]

The truth is that science cannot find something to study, not that there is nothing there to study.

Since the dawn of science there has been exactly nothing found to study.
Now since there has not been anything found to study, nor has anything been presented to study, science does not bother with it.
Which means unless/until something to study is found/presented, it will be as though god does not even exist outside the minds of those who insist god exists.

Science does not show that god does not exist, but you believe (by your language) that God does not exist, so your belief is unsupported faith.

You really should just flat out ask someone if they believe that god does not exist instead of just assuming it.

Then comes the atheist hiding place. "Oh no, you are wrong, we don't believe God does not exist, we just do not believe that God exists".

Are you saying you do not know the diffence?

 

[Brian2]

You can say the exact same meaningless negative statement about ANY demonstrable natural process.
Plate tectonics, germs, gravity, atomic decay, super novae, volcano eruptions, rain, ....

"Natural process" does not actually mean that God has had nothing to do with the creation of the process.

Hey, the natural process explanation of lightning formation doesn't exclude Jupiter and Thor.

Hey you're right, the natural process explanation of lightning formation does not exclude Jupiter and Thor if you want to read gods throwing lightning as symbolic of what the gods actually do to throw it.

No. People have claimed to have interacted with god(s) for thousands of years.

True, and it is a choice as to whether we believe them or not,,,,,,,,,,, and it is a choice as to whether we believe the legitimacy of fulfilled prophecies.

Yes. We have established already that science can only study things that have detectable manifestation. AKA which are demonstrably real.

Just as we reject Biblical end times prophecies about Israel which we can see are being fulfilled, and that rejection is probably based on a preconceived idea of the Bible God and prophecy, so also we can say that God is not real because He is not demonstrably real.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When science finds a proposed mechanism for what used to be a gap, that does not mean that it is evidence that God does not exist.

No discovery of science can disprove the existence of a god, but if science shows us that the world works automatically without intelligent supervision, then the question of whether a god set it all in action becomes irrelevant and any such god becomes irrelevant. It's also an unanswerable question.

Science cannot prove a negative, that things were not designed, even if a potential "natural" mechanism is found for all processes.
Science cannot prove that there is a designer even if it seems that there is no way for something to have happened "naturally".

What you are saying is that the god to which you refer is undetectable by any means at any time or place, which means that it has no discernible impact on reality, and once again, the question of its existence becomes irrelevant. It also makes it indistinguishable from a fictional character, which also cannot affect reality. The ideas that such things exist can affect individual realities, but if their referents don't exist or don't impact existence, they are indistinguishable from the nonexistent and can be treated as nonexistent.

When you say "Science is the study of reality", that is just a claim of faith.

I disagree. That's a description of what science does. You want to cling onto concepts like gods, a spiritual realm, and supernaturalism. You want to call them real but beyond science's purview, and you can, but empiricists are free to disregard all such claims. Their attention is on what IS discernible, not what cannot be detected.

Why don't you demonstrate that it is possible that there is no designer?

Besides being impossible, it would be a useless demonstration to an empiricist, who already has no designer in his worldview.

"Natural process" does not actually mean that God has had nothing to do with the creation of the process.

It means that the process runs itself automatically. If a god were once involved in that, it's not now. The god you describe actually does nothing anymore and is needed for nothing if nature can unfold according to ancient principles that act automatically.

 

[F1fan]

"Natural process" does not actually mean that God has had nothing to do with the creation of the process.

What God? Show us one exists, and then does things. OK?

Hey you're right, the natural process explanation of lightning formation does not exclude Jupiter and Thor if you want to read gods throwing lightning as symbolic of what the gods actually do to throw it.

Glad you understand that gods are irrelevant to explaining how things are.

True, and it is a choice as to whether we believe them or not,,,,,,,,,,, and it is a choice as to whether we believe the legitimacy of fulfilled prophecies.

Thus far there’s no evidence of any gods, and there is no evidence of any prophecy. So the choice is to reject what believers believe.

Just as we reject Biblical end times prophecies about Israel which we can see are being fulfilled,

As have all the other failed beliefs.

and that rejection is probably based on a preconceived idea of the Bible God and prophecy, so also we can say that God is not real because He is not demonstrably real.

The fact that there’s no factual basis for your religious beliefs means they are rejected by logical default. Show us facts that your beliefs are rational. Until then we throw them out.

 

[shunyadragon]

In reference to humanity being responsible for its own outcome, would you say evolutionists' believe that aggressive behavior passed on such traits in their genes?

Yes, All animals have territorial instincts that may result in aggression, protext of group, herd or flock. Females will show aggression to protect the young. Humans are territorial and tribal, and will resort to violence to protect their turf and group. Mental illness may also motivate aggression.

This was all well and good in the tribal world of the past, but in the future we need to change or perish by our own hand.

It is remotely the subject since these types of discussions like intelligent design or non intelligent structure because design implies a designer or a random factor, are not integral to help mankind.

Design would not imply any sort of random factor. It only implies a designer of sorts by definition. Any sort of randomness would be independent on whether a designer or design exists.

Non-intelligent structure is confusing and no meaning.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, All animals have territorial instincts that may result in aggression, protext of group, herd or flock. Females will show aggression to protect the young. Humans are territorial and tribal, and will resort to violence to protect their turf and group. Mental illness may also motivate aggression.

This was all well and good in the tribal world of the past, but in the future we need to change or perish by our own hand.

Design would not imply any sort of random factor. It only implies a designer of sorts by definition. Any sort of randomness would be independent on whether a designer or design exists.

Non-intelligent structure is confusing and no meaning.

I believe God Almighty will not allow mankind to perish by its own hand, although I realize many do not care what harm they cause. It is declared so in the Bible that God will ruin those who ruin the earth. I realize not everyone agrees but that is what I believe, and understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

Design would not imply any sort of random factor. It only implies a designer of sorts by definition. Any sort of randomness would be independent on whether a designer or design exists.

Non-intelligent structure is confusing and no meaning.

I see what you are saying about design would not imply any sort of random structure. I can't answer for that right now but I wonder what you mean when you say non intelligent structure is confusing, although I can understand when you imply that it has no meaning. However, please explain what you mean by non-intelligent structure. You mean things that just happen and stick, like what I read about RNA that does not dissolve before it sticks around?