How do you detect "design"?

[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.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

​

If you think that birds intuitively and instinctively developed unique nests according to type of bird, that's what you believe.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Pogo -- I believe God is greater than anyone else. He does what He wants when He wants. It is obvious that men (including scientists) are ruining the atmosphere and life, including the plastics that we get into our system. Before the earth is entirely ruined the Bible says God will ruin those ruining the earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

​

I am not saying what you seem to say I am saying. Enjoy whatever time is left for "humanity" on this earth, and your thoughts or beliefs about where you might go when you die...have a good evening.

 

[Pogo]

@Pogo -- I believe God is greater than anyone else. He does what He wants when He wants. It is obvious that men (including scientists) are ruining the atmosphere and life, including the plastics that we get into our system. Before the earth is entirely ruined the Bible says God will ruin those ruining the earth.

And my question is, does that mean that your god will ruin you when we all have collectively succeeded in ruining the world? Do you believe that we as humans have anything to say with our actions about our ruining or is it all just sit back and wait for it to happen?

 

[Brian2]

There is evidence that life got to its present state on its own.

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.

No, that is inaccurate. The claims of IDiots such as Behe should be testable. You are implying something else now. You are implying that gods are very sneaky and try to hide their existence. How much sense does that make?

Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

 

[Brian2]

There is evidence that life got to its present state on its own.

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.

No, that is inaccurate. The claims of IDiots such as Behe should be testable. You are implying something else now. You are implying that gods are very sneaky and try to hide their existence. How much sense does that make?

Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not saying what you seem to say I am saying. Enjoy whatever time is left for "humanity" on this earth, and your thoughts or beliefs about where you might go when you die...have a good evening.

"I am saying: is interesting, but not the topic of the thread.

 

[Pogo]

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.

And when you talk to any chemists who actually work in the field they tell you that Tour doesn't know what he is talking about

Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

If gods exist and have a measurable effect on the universe then science should be able to determine this, thus far however no measurable effect of any god has been seen so science ignores them as whether they exist or not makes no difference.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.

One scientist out of thousands does not reflect the view of science,

Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

No, because science cannot falsify hypotheses that do not have physical objective verifiable evidence.

If God exists science can only reveal the nature of God's Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

If you believe this you would have not problem with the obvious objective verifiable science of "Natural Laws and processes" evidence science uses to falsify the sciences of evolution and ll other basic sciences,

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

No one was alive in 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.

Not the same.

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.

Created by "Natural Laws and processes" that are available to science to reveal the history of life, the earth and the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.

James Tour, LMAO, 'nuff said.

Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

That a rather odd question. But let's try. If that God wants to be found then definitely yes. If it does not want to be found, in other words if it were the mythical Hide and Seek champion of of the universe then maybe not.

 

[Audie]

If you assume life is chemical based then you might believe that, but when we hear what scientists such as James Tour say, then science is further from a chemical answer than it presumed it was many years ago.



Do you think that if God/s are there then science should be able to find them and examine them, even if they are not a part of the physical universe?

I'm curious if you are familiar with the
concepts of intellectualual / scientific
integrity ( honesty) ?

A bit of time with Google for a refresher might
be in order

There is a PhD paleontologist who notable said
"...even if all the universe turns against yec, I will,still
be yec, because that's what the bible seems to indicate"

Do yiu recognize the integrity issue there ?

Suppose ALL the detectives' evidence pointed to the, say, killer of your child but one juror said that none of the facts
matter because what he thinks the bible seems to say
negates all the data.

That's what Dr. K Wise, cited above, is doing.
Because he is a born- again. All the facts in the universe
make no difference.
Same with the hypothetical juror.

This Jsaes Tour is good at nano tech.
He is a born again.

It is impossible to be a born again and accept deep
Time / evolution as real. Impossible to have scientific
integrity. Cannot be done. J Tour has no choice.

So he forces himself into intellectual dishonesty and
worse seeks tospread it.

A good q to ask is why the one guy going off the
reservation to make claims he is not qualified to make
Is the Light, the beacon, the one scientist who is right,
and all the others are wrong.

Is this a reasonable position for you ( or that juror)
to take?

 

[YoursTrue]

"I am saying: is interesting, but not the topic of the thread.

Anyway, -- whatever. Yes, enjoy whatever time is left by evolution or by something else. Take care.

 

[leroy]

I, scientists have not found exactly how life started, whether by a "chaotic soup" making RNA strands that kept dissolving until at least something finally adhered and multiplied.

you are being too generous……….. The issue is not that they don’t know exactly………….the issue is that there is no a single viable hypothesis………….any hypothesis has ether devastating objections or insuperable obstacles.*


With insuperable obstacle, I mean an obstacle that can´t be overcome based on what we currently know about science, laws and chemistry.

Yes, because there were multiple ways that it could have formed naturally. Why is that so hard to understand? There is more than one way that RNA could have first formed. So we will probably never know exactly how it first formed. Heck, as I have pointed out before the first life could even have been formed by magic by a god. You know, like you believe in.

Scientists always use the terms "could have" "may have" "probably" when it involves anything that is not directly observed even if the evidence only strongly supports one. Scientists have to keep an open mind. That is an asset. It does not indicate "doubt" it indicates that if they are shown to be wrong they will not whine and complain.

You make it sound as if there are many known paths to create life from non-life naturally …. And that scientists are only arguing on which way was the one path that the ancient prebiotic earth followed ……which is false……..there is not a single viable path

I challenge you to provide (and develop with detail) a testable hypothesis that can’t be refuted with known scientific knowledge………………just kidding I know you will not answer to the challenge...........

But I will enjoy and laugh at the silly excuses that you will invent for not answering to the challenge

 

[leroy]

They have observed the chaotic soup of organic molecules the exist in nature, and they have discovered molecules that appear to represent precursors to RNA molecules.To fully understand the processes occurring in present-day living cells, we need to consider how they arose in evolution. The most fundamental of all such problems is the expression of hereditary information, which today requires extraordinarily complex machinery and proceeds from DNA to protein through an RNA intermediate. How did this machinery arise? One view is that an RNA world existed on Earth before modern cells arose (Figure 6-91). According to this hypothesis, RNA stored both genetic information and catalyzed the chemical reactions in primitive cells. Only later in evolutionary time did DNA take over as the genetic material and proteins become the major catalyst and structural component of cells. If this idea is correct, then the transition out of the RNA world was never complete; as we have seen in this chapter, RNA still catalyzes several fundamental reactions in modern-day cells, which can be viewed as molecular fossils of an earlier world

The RNA World and the Origins of Life​

There is no known natural mechanism that can create self-replicating proteins (ether RNA o something else) without preexisting life.

Please admit this simple and uncontroversial fact of science.........................If you want to believe by faith that an unknown natural mechanism did it………..feel free to do it but you would not be in a position to criticize creationists that believe by faith in talking snakes both are equally absurd based on what we currently know

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are being too generous……….. The issue is not that they don’t know exactly………….the issue is that there is no a single viable hypothesis………….any hypothesis has ether devastating objections or insuperable obstacles.*


With insuperable obstacle, I mean an obstacle that can´t be overcome based on what we currently know about science, laws and chemistry.

There do not appear to be any such obstacles to abiogenesis. If you can find one then you may be able to refute abiogenesis. All I know of are successes and old claimed barriers. But yes, abiogenesis still has unanswered questions. That is not evidence against it.

You make it sound as if there are many known paths to create life from non-life naturally …. And that scientists are only arguing on which way was the one path that the ancient prebiotic earth followed ……which is false……..there is not a single viable path

Then as usual you are not paying attention to the science that you do not understand. Some of the solved problems have more than one answer. That means that any of the possible proposed solutions may solve one step or even a combination of them. Do you understand?

I challenge you to provide (and develop with detail) a testable hypothesis that can’t be refuted with known scientific knowledge………………just kidding I know you will not answer to the challenge...........

Oh please, you do not know how to make a proper challenge. You do not understand how scientists are dealing with this topic. That is not my problem.

But I will enjoy and laugh at the silly excuses that you will invent for not answering to the challenge

You would be laughing at yourself if you could be honest. Quit accusing others of your flaws.

And remember, until you fix your ways you are in no position to "demand' anything.

 

[Valjean]

Theists tend to be Vitalists. They regard 'life' as a sort of mysterious, intangible essence; a divine 'stuff', beyond just an emergent property of chemistry.

No matter how well we can document the spontaneous formation and assembly of the several components of life by ordinary chemistry, they'll remain unconvinced, and continue to appeal to magic.

 

[leroy]

If you can find one then you may be able to refute abiogenesis.

Sure, share and develop your hypothesis and I ´ll tell you the obstacles or flaws in your hypothesis

Then as usual you are not paying attention to the science that you do not understand. Some of the solved problems have more than one answer. That means that any of the possible proposed solutions may solve one step or even a combination of them. Do you understand?

Grated, some problems have been solved, ……..that is not a big of a deal, even YEC have solved many problems,

That doesn’t change the fact that there is not a single viable hypothesis for abiogenesis, all hypothesis fail for some reason or an other...Except for those mysterious hypothesis that only you know about

Oh please, you do not know how to make a proper challenge. You do not understand how scientists are dealing with this topic. That is not my problem.

You would be laughing at yourself if you could be honest. Quit accusing others of your flaws.

And remember, until you fix your ways you are in no position to "demand' anything.

Nahhh for some unknown reason I was expecting a more creative and original excuse……

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, share and develop your hypothesis and I ´ll tell you the obstacles or flaws in your hypothesis


Grated, some problems have been solved, ……..that is not a big of a deal, even YEC have solved many problems,

That doesn’t change the fact that there is not a single viable hypothesis for abiogenesis, all hypothesis fail for some reason or an other...Except for those mysterious hypothesis that only you know about


Nahhh for some unknown reason I was expecting a more creative and original excuse……

Oh my, thanks for the laugh.