How do you detect "design"?

[Audie]

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



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.



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.



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.

There are people all about seeing
"Prophecy"being "fulfilled", like 911, for a
conspicuous example.
THAT is the who and where of preconceived
ideas, the intellectually dishonest and self deceiving.

Kinda like those who dismiss all gods for
reason of undetectability....all that is, but the
one of their chosen, preconceived, belief.
The One True.

We've noticed those who cannot be honest
with themselves are much given to dishonest
rhetoric.

 

[Audie]

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.

'Ruin those who" ? Do quote the verse.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

The phrase non-intelligent structure to me could only refer to simply a natural structure of natural origin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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".

You have your burden of proof wrong, which is why you keep screwing up. There is no need to "prove things were not designed". The null hypothesis is to assume that a claimed event did not happen. For example:

Q: Did Tim murder Bob? A: Well there is no evidence showing that he did not murder Bob!! He must be guilty

That is your thought process in regards to design. The burden of proof is not upon others to prove that there is no design. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that there is a design. Otherwise the proper rational assumption holds, that there is no design.

As long as you agee with me.

Why would any rational person do that.

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

Please, just learn. Quit diffing your hole even deeper.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

True, those who accept Theistic Evolution believe God Created our physical existence Naturally as scientific knowledge reveals.

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.

Religious beliefs and the interpretation of prophesies would be a separate issue and involve conflicting claims between religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and science for the most part not involved.

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.

As far as science goes here it would for the most separate science from above claims. The spiritual beliefs and the existence of God, supernatural are out of the realm of science, The main contention here is between religions and their divisions.

Science and specifically academic history and archaeology are involved in determining the objective history of the scriptures., as well as all the scriptures of the world.

 

[YoursTrue]

The phrase non-intelligent structure to me could only refer to simply a natural structure of natural origin.

In other words, without a purpose.

 

[leroy]

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.

I am not sure if I understand your questionbut I ll try to answer...


The data for the QR would be analogous to the FT values of the universe.

We know that the data QR is SC and therefore design because

1 it has an independent pattern (it can open a website)

2 it is complex, (it has many codes and many possible combinatios)

3 only a very small percentage of the possible combinations would give such pattern

4 the laws of nature (or the laws in the softwhere in this case) do not favor that specific combination

As for the universe

1 we have an independent pattern (the values are life permitting)

2 there are many possible combinations

3 only a small number of combinations would produce that pattern

4 there is nothing in the laws of nature that favors that combination

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not sure if I understand your questionbut I ll try to answer...


The data for the QR would be analogous to the FT values of the universe.

We know that the data QR is SC and therefore design because

1 it has an independent pattern (it can open a website)

2 it is complex, (it has many codes and many possible combinatios)

3 only a very small percentage of the possible combinations would give such pattern

4 the laws of nature (or the laws in the softwhere in this case) do not favor that specific combination

As for the universe

1 we have an independent pattern (the values are life permitting)

2 there are many possible combinations

3 only a small number of combinations would produce that pattern

4 there is nothing in the laws of nature that favors that combination

"As for the universe
1 we have an independent pattern"

Yeah, you didn't answer, because it is an indepednent pattern of human design. That is the point, we can show human design. You have to show that the universe is human design as your test can show.

 

[YoursTrue]

The phrase non-intelligent structure to me could only refer to simply a natural structure of natural origin.

Would you say that a bird's nest fits into that category? Such as what one might term a natural structure (nest) made by a naturally evolved being (the bird).

 

[shunyadragon]

Would you say that a bird's nest fits into that category? Such as what one might term a natural structure (nest) made by a naturally evolved being (the bird).

Yes. There is a not so subtle distinction between your use of intelligence, design, and non-telligent design and such things as natural structures.

I reserve design, and the concept of Intelligent Design as reflecting a designer. Human manipulation of nature and intelligently design objects are the classic example of what's design beyond nature

Your use of non-intelligent design reflect an odd oxymoron that is difficult to interpret intent. Things like the bird nest are constructs of nature, and are made by birds. and are not related to the subject to design as addressed in this thread. The question of intelligent manipulation of nature as humans do in creating intelligently designed objects based on Natural Laws like cars, but distinguishable from what are natural structures and things in nature such as bird's nests. Birds make the same nests year after year without change unless environmental pressures cause the birds to change the nests to adapt to a changing environment.

In the nature of humanity the beginning of advance intelligence for manipulation of nature can be found in our ancient past for over 300.000 years with the making of stone, would and animal parts to make tools. Some of our prehuman ancestors also did make primitive tools and manipulated nature for human benefit,

This in part reflects the question of "How do we detect design? "

Also What does "design" refer to?

​

 

[F1fan]

I believe God Almighty will not allow mankind to perish by its own hand,

But God will use cancer to kill children and young mothers.

Assuming any gods exist, as you do.

 

[Pogo]

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.

How is your God going to differentiate and selectively ruin those responsible for the CO2 and CH4 ruining the livability of huge segments of the populated earth? Is the increased destructiveness of storms directed at individuals or is god just ruining all of us?

 

[leroy]

"As for the universe
1 we have an independent pattern"

Yeah, you didn't answer, because it is an indepednent pattern of human design. That is the point, we can show human design. You have to show that the universe is human design as your test can show.

Don’t see your point…………..the test is not limited to human design

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not sure if I understand your questionbut I ll try to answer...


The data for the QR would be analogous to the FT values of the universe.

We know that the data QR is SC and therefore design because

1 it has an independent pattern (it can open a website)

2 it is complex, (it has many codes and many possible combinatios)

3 only a very small percentage of the possible combinations would give such pattern

4 the laws of nature (or the laws in the softwhere in this case) do not favor that specific combination

As for the universe

1 we have an independent pattern (the values are life permitting)

2 there are many possible combinations

3 only a small number of combinations would produce that pattern

4 there is nothing in the laws of nature that favors that combination

All of the above is either misleading assumptions based on ID, based on older physics like the Copenhagen agreement (not accepted as factual) or downright wrong.

The bottom line is we do not know that the data QR is SC and therefore design because . . .

For one your stretching an old concept to mean more than it is capable. It is not known what the possible range of constants in other possible would be. The variations may be small, and of course the "Dice may be loaded."

The Copenhagen Interpretation and Why It Is Wrong

Why Current Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are Deficient​

• Tammaro, Elliott

Abstract​

Quantum mechanics under the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most experimentally well verified formalisms. However, it is known that the interpretation makes explicit reference to external observation or "measurement." One says that the Copenhagen interpretation suffers from the measurement problem. This deficiency of the interpretation excludes it as a viable fundamental formalism and prevents the use of standard quantum mechanics in discussions of quantum cosmology. Numerous alternative interpretations have been developed with the goals of reproducing its predictive success while obviating the measurement problem. While several interpretations make distinct, falsifiable, predictions, many claim to precisely reproduce the results of standard quantum mechanics. The sheer number of interpretations raises several issues. If the experimental predictions are identical, how are they to be assessed? On what grounds can an interpretation be said to trump another? Without recourse to experimental findings, one may continue to assess an interpretation on its logical structure, self-consistency, and simplicity (number and plausibility of its assumptions). We argue, and where possible, demonstrate, that all common interpretations have unresolved deficiencies. Among these deficiencies are failures to resolve the measurement problem, fine-tuning problems, logical/mathematical inconsistencies, disagreement with experiment, and others. Shortcomings as severe as these call into question the viability of any of the common interpretations. When appropriate, we indicate where future work may resolve some of these issues.

 

[shunyadragon]

Don’t see your point…………..the test is not limited to human design

Don’t see your point…………..the test is not limited to human design

There is no objective evidence for any design beyond human design.

All the present evidence clearly demonstrate our physical existence is the result of Natural Laws and processes..

It is possible our physical existence is Created Naturally by God, and God did not leave fingerprints.

God is a Creator not an engineer who designs things.

 

[Eli G]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

 

[Pogo]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

Evolution which transfers the information from the environment to the organisms design.

This uses the words information and design in just as useless a form as your statement, it does however have the advantage of being demonstrable. Polar bears are white because their environment is white and it works as camouflage. ;(

 

[Valjean]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

The modern fly inherited its genetics just as you inherited yours. The modern model is little changed because the original was a good "design," and the environment it fits has not significantly changed.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

It is a product of natural selection. Beneficial changes proliferate in the population. Individuals with non-beneficial traits tend to be out-competed, and their traits gradually eliminated.
This process continues, for millions of years, gradually transforming simple microbes into myriad forms, of varying complexity.

 

[Valjean]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

The modern fly inherited its genetics just as you inherited yours. The modern model is little changed because the original was a good "design," and the environment it fits has not significantly changed.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

It is a product of natural selection. Beneficial changes proliferate in the population. Individuals with non-beneficial traits tend to be out-competed, and their traits gradually eliminated.
This process continues, for millions of years, gradually transforming simple microbes into myriad forms, of varying complexity.

 

[Valjean]

"Natural Laws and processes" are a result of a design. That's why information is trasmitted from ancestors to descendants since the beginning.

Who do you think was the first one on having the information that comes from the very beginning?

For example: if you compare a many millions years fly in amber and a modern fly, you'll see the same characteristics. That means modern fly received genetically the same information from its ancestor of millions of years ago.

The modern fly inherited its genetics just as you inherited yours. The modern model is little changed because the original was a good "design," and the environment it fits has not significantly changed.

From where did that antiche fly received this information in the first place? It was created like that: designed, and ready to trasmit the same information for its descendants to receive it and transmit it on their part.

It is a product of natural selection. Beneficial changes proliferate in the population. Individuals with non-beneficial traits tend to be out-competed, and their traits gradually eliminated.
This process continues, for millions of years, gradually transforming simple microbes into myriad forms, of varying complexity.