How do you detect "design"?

[URAVIP2ME]

How could Adam be guilty of breaking any law when at the time, because of God's specific choice, Adam (like Eve)
was denied the ability to distinguish good from evil, hence was incapable of intending any offense?
No, put a baby in a room full of exposed electric wires and then blame it when it gets hurt.
The story of Job is one of the most morally offensive stories ever devised, a family murdered and a man ruined for a bet. If those are God's morals, God has disgusting morals.

Wicked sinner morally-offensive Satan is the one who challenges all of us Not just Job (Job 2:4-5)
Not God's morals, but Satan challenge is ' touch our flesh....' (loose physical health) and we would Not serve God under adverse conditions
Adam and Eve were husband and wife Not babies
Babies would Not be told the Law found at Genesis 2:17
I find Eve understood by her reply found at Genesis 3:2-3
Read that Eve was deceived but Adam was Not fooled - 1st Timothy 2:14

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

A topic that frequently comes up in these creation debates, be it in context of evolution or the origins of the universe or alike, is our supposed ability to be able to differentiate "design" from natural occurances.

Yet whenever creationist or "design proponents" bring this up, it seems to me that they are either very vague about it or their methodology of "detecting design" seems to be no more then fallacious argumentst from ignorance ("I don't know how it can be natural, so therefor it isn't"), arguments from incredulity ("I don't believe it's natural, therefor it isn't") or various species or combinations thereof.

I would say that in a nutshell, we detect design by demonstrating signs of manufacturing or use of artificial materials.
This implies that we have to understand manufacturing processes and what signs / traces they tend to leave.
It also implies that we have to understand the difference between naturally occuring materials and artificial materials.

This in turn means that we could not detect or conclude design when it concerns things of unknown manufactoring and natural processes or of unknown materials.

This also means that if a designer sets out to mimic natural processes and materials while doing a perfect job, we would not be able to tell the artificial object from the natural object.

For example, if someone would take a rough stone and smooth it out by perfectly mimicing water erosion as what would happen in say a river, we would not be able to tell that this was done by a person instead of by a river.


So, having said that, when somebody *Mod edit* then states that one can "detect design" in the universe based on for example of the values of the physical constants, I wonder what the methodology is that is being used.

So in this thread, I invite people who disagree with my methodology of detecting design to explain their methodology of doing so and demonstrate how it achieves better results.

If genetic engineers manage to create a unicorn, would that be considered to be designed?

And would that design be intelligent?

If so, then intelligent design is indeed possible.

Depending on how one views genetic engineers.

I bet the headlines would be pretty sensationalistic.

CRISPR-Cas9 ("Mr. Sandman" Parody) | A Capella Science​

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I can track the ownership of a house, the ghosts living in it, no.

Who seeing a house would think that ghosts built it ____________
The ownership of 'our house' (aka Earth) can be tracked back to Genesis 1:10
Who named our planet ______________

 

[F1fan]

What about the healing powers of brujeria?

That’s a matter of history.

I have no idea what that is.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I have no idea what that is.

Witchcraft.

It’s a part of culture.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, to have an idea of what I am on about you need to look at the context.
And yes "living organisms" are made of chemicals, but that does not mean that "life" the thing that animates the chemicals, is chemicals.

If you think something else is "animating" life, then you'll need to demonstrate it.

That's a claim.

Yes, science cannot find or analyse spirit, but that is no reason to say that there is no spirit. It can remain out of science but science does not claim that spirit does not exist, that is what atheists claim isn't it?

You claim spirit exists. It's up to you to demonstrate that. It's not up to anybody else to show that spirits don't exist. And it's not up to the rest of us to assume spirits exist until shown otherwise. You need to show that the thing you claim exists, actually exists, if you want other people to consider its existence as well.

Atheism claims nothing. It's the lack of belief in god(s).

I don't want to prove spirit or gods with a tool (science) that can only find and test material things.

How is it that you think you've detected spirits then?

Does that mean that spirit things do not exist?

It means your claim hasn't met it's burden of proof and can be rejected.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Interesting.

Can you give me empirical evidence that abiogenesis took place? Let's say along with statistical probabilities as well?

Thanks.

My question first.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The "composed" part being the 'design'.

Chemicals come together on their own just fine.

 

[PureX]

The whole "burden of proof" thing is just more 'kangaroo court' nonsense.

Design is everywhere we look. It's what science investigates and tries to understand. It's how we all figure out how to navigate through the world. And it is incredibly complex and sophisticated, to the point that we humans may never fully be able to comprehend it. Design is the word we use to refer to the parameters limiting the possibilities available to occur within a course of action. Those parameters, then, determining the specific outcome of that course of action.

Design does not have to be cognizant of itself. Nor does it have to be intended by some pre-ordained source. However, because it is so complex and sophisticated in the case of existence, determining such an amazingly complex and specific result, it clearly implies an intelligent self-awareness of some kind. Especially as intelligent self-awareness is a part of the result of the design (through us). But an implication is not proof, and we need to remain humbly aware of that.

Demanding proof of "intelligent design" is just idiotic nonsense, as the proof is self-evident to anyone that bothers to open their eyes and use their brain. And all demanding proof does is show us that the one demanding it has no intention of doing either, but just wants to play the 'kangaroo judge' in the courtroom of his own mind.

 

[McBell]

The whole "burden of proof" thing is just more 'kangaroo court' nonsense.

Of course it is.
To you anyway.
But then, you have used this nonsensical claim whenever you are unable to meet the burden of proof.

Design is everywhere we look. It's what science investigates and tries to understand. It's how we all figure out how to navigate through the world. And it is incredibly complex and sophisticated, to the point that we humans may never fully be able to comprehend it. Design is the word we use to refer to the parameters limiting the possibilities available to occur within a course of action. Those parameters, then, determining the specific outcome of that course of action.

Design does not have to be cognizant of itself. Nor does it have to be intended by some pre-ordained source. However, because it is so complex and sophisticated in the case of existence, determining such an amazingly complex and specific result, it clearly implies an intelligent self-awareness of some kind. Especially as intelligent self-awareness is a part of the result of the design (through us). But an implication is not proof, and we need to remain humbly aware of that.

Demanding proof of "intelligent design" is just idiotic nonsense, as the proof is self-evident to anyone that bothers to open their eyes and use their brain. And all asking demanding proof does is show us that the one asking has no intention of doing either, but want to play the 'kangaroo judge', anyway.

And there we have it, the gish gallop of claims .

 

[Pogo]

Who seeing a house would think that ghosts built it ____________
The ownership of 'our house' (aka Earth) can be tracked back to Genesis 1:10
Who named our planet ______________

you apparently who thinks that an invisible being created the earth.
As for the word earth, it is an Anglo-Saxon word from their pre-christian pagan days.
It has lots of other names in other cultures that believed in different gods.

 

[Pogo]

The whole "burden of proof" thing is just more 'kangaroo court' nonsense.

Design is everywhere we look. It's what science investigates and tries to understand. It's how we all figure out how to navigate through the world. And it is incredibly complex and sophisticated, to the point that we humans may never fully be able to comprehend it. Design is the word we use to refer to the parameters limiting the possibilities available to occur within a course of action. Those parameters, then, determining the specific outcome of that course of action.

Design does not have to be cognizant of itself. Nor does it have to be intended by some pre-ordained source. However, because it is so complex and sophisticated in the case of existence, determining such an amazingly complex and specific result, it clearly implies an intelligent self-awareness of some kind. Especially as intelligent self-awareness is a part of the result of the design (through us). But an implication is not proof, and we need to remain humbly aware of that.

Demanding proof of "intelligent design" is just idiotic nonsense, as the proof is self-evident to anyone that bothers to open their eyes and use their brain. And all asking demanding proof does is show us that the one asking has no intention of doing either, but want to play the 'kangaroo judge', anyway.

Your use of the word design makes it indistinguishable from the functions of natural forces and completely divorced from its common meaning,
A design is the concept of or proposal for an object, process, or system. The word, design, refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, although it is sometimes used to refer to the inherent nature of something – its design. The verb to design expresses the process of developing a design. In some cases, the direct construction of an object without an explicit prior plan may also be considered to be a design (such as in arts and crafts). A design is expected to have a purpose within a certain context, usually having to satisfy certain goals and constraints, and to take into account aesthetic, functional, economic, environmental or socio-political considerations. Traditional examples of designs include architectural and engineering drawings, circuit diagrams, sewing patterns, and less tangible artefacts such as business process models.[1][2]

You then use your personal definition to make an invalid argument that there must be a designer because you call something designed without evidence relying now on the common definition.

 

[blü 2]

Wicked sinner morally-offensive Satan is the one who challenges all of us Not just Job (Job 2:4-5)

Have you noticed how in the bible Satan is a courtier in God's court, simply someone whose role is to express doubt in order to test ideas and proposals? And that he's a buddy of God's, which is how the bet on Job arises ─ it's easy to imagine they were in the bar after work at the time.

And that the notion that Eden's (truthful and blameless) snake was Satan is a later Christian addition, not found in the actual story?

And that Satan as the embodiment of evil is substantially a Christian invention, like the Fall?

Not God's morals, but Satan challenge is ' touch our flesh....' (loose physical health) and we would Not serve God under adverse conditions

No. In the story of Job, it's God, not Satan, who torments Job and has his family murdered.

Adam and Eve were husband and wife Not babies

In the Garden story Adam and Eve were expressly denied knowledge of good and evil by God. They acquired that knowledge by eating the fruit.

Although it's only a folktale, aren't you glad that humans are able to distinguish good from evil?

I find Eve understood by her reply found at Genesis 3:2-3

No, all that 3:2-3 says is that she understood the idea of death. Not until she ate the fruit were her "eyes opened" to good and evil.

Read that Eve was deceived but Adam was Not fooled - 1st Timothy 2:14

I usually have a low opinion of Christian versions of the meaning of the Tanakh. Nothing about Jesus qualifies him as a Jewish messiah, for instance (being neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jewish nation nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood).

 

[firedragon]

My question first.

That answers your question. You could not answer because there is none. And that shows that the probability of randomness for genesis is next nothing. That shows design. Unless you believe life existed eternally which would make that life form a necessary being which would have existed prior to to earth and the universe, and so on and so on. What's the probability of that? This shows design.

I'll give you another one.

Generally speaking, stars wouldn't become hot enough for nuclei to fuse and generate carbon if the gravitational pull were less strong. Furthermore, the production of thermal layers within stars, which are critical for producing the different elements, such as carbon and oxygen, required for life, would be hampered by a somewhat reduced gravitational constant (G). Additionally, if there was less gravitational pull on stars, they wouldn't explode as supernovae and release elements necessary for life into the cosmos. These components would stay imprisoned in the star cores in the absence of supernovae.

On the other hand, if the gravitational pull was too great, star temperatures would increase to the point where nucleosynthesis could only produce elements heavier than carbon and oxygen. In addition to preventing the production of long-lived stars, this fast nucleosynthesis would cause them to burn up too soon, leaving no appropriate homes for life.

Scientists have shown that within a "natural" range of possible values in parallel universes, the value of G is precisely tuned to 1 part in 10^35. The theoretical range for G is zero to the strength of the strong nuclear force (SNF), assuming that the strongest of the four fundamental forces sets a sensible upper limit. Theoretically, G might be anywhere from 0 to 10^40 times its current value because gravity is roughly 10^40 times weaker than the SNF. Stellar stability might be maintained with a gravitational constant up to 100,000 times bigger than it is now, but any higher value would lead to instability. As a result, the range of G that supports stable stars is only a small portion of the entire range, roughly 1 part in 10^35. So randomness being a probability of 1 part in one hundred billion trillion trillion is statically showing impossibility without design.

Cheers.

 

[Pogo]

That answers your question. You could not answer because there is none. And that shows that the probability of randomness for genesis is next nothing. That shows design. Unless you believe life existed eternally which would make that life form a necessary being which would have existed prior to to earth and the universe, and so on and so on. What's the probability of that? This shows design.

I'll give you another one.

Generally speaking, stars wouldn't become hot enough for nuclei to fuse and generate carbon if the gravitational pull were less strong. Furthermore, the production of thermal layers within stars, which are critical for producing the different elements, such as carbon and oxygen, required for life, would be hampered by a somewhat reduced gravitational constant (G). Additionally, if there was less gravitational pull on stars, they wouldn't explode as supernovae and release elements necessary for life into the cosmos. These components would stay imprisoned in the star cores in the absence of supernovae.

On the other hand, if the gravitational pull was too great, star temperatures would increase to the point where nucleosynthesis could only produce elements heavier than carbon and oxygen. In addition to preventing the production of long-lived stars, this fast nucleosynthesis would cause them to burn up too soon, leaving no appropriate homes for life.

Scientists have shown that within a "natural" range of possible values in parallel universes, the value of G is precisely tuned to 1 part in 10^35. The theoretical range for G is zero to the strength of the strong nuclear force (SNF), assuming that the strongest of the four fundamental forces sets a sensible upper limit. Theoretically, G might be anywhere from 0 to 10^40 times its current value because gravity is roughly 10^40 times weaker than the SNF. Stellar stability might be maintained with a gravitational constant up to 100,000 times bigger than it is now, but any higher value would lead to instability. As a result, the range of G that supports stable stars is only a small portion of the entire range, roughly 1 part in 10^35. So randomness being a probability of 1 part in one hundred billion trillion trillion is statically showing impossibility without design.

Cheers.

Ah, yes a Fine Tuna we have here, if the constants were different we wouldn't be here. So.
how did you calculate potential universes? The idea that this implies design is just a possibility with no other information this is just the latest version of Paley's watchmaker.

 

[firedragon]

The idea that this implies design is just a possibility

Nah. That's just a handwave. It's probability, not possibility.

But in your paradigm, you believe in the absolutely impossible to come true like genesis. You believe in magic like a rabbit out of a hat. I believe in design which has more probability. When I say more, it's like trillion trillions more than your randomness probability.

So now, could you tell me if there are any observable evidences for any kind of abiogenesis? Why not directly answer the question?

Oh by the way. If you want to see "how they calculated" I can give you the material. No problem.

 

[Pogo]

Nah. That's just a handwave. It's probability, not possibility.

But in your paradigm, you believe in the absolutely impossible to come true like genesis. You believe in magic like a rabbit out of a hat. I believe in design which has more probability. When I say more, it's like trillion trillions more than your randomness probability.

So now, could you tell me if there are any observable evidences for any kind of abiogenesis? Why not directly answer the question?

Oh by the way. If you want to see "how they calculated" I can give you the material. No problem.

You can't determine a probability without information and then deciding on the nature of this already assumed designer is even less rational.

 

[F1fan]

I believe in design which has more probability.

How much probability? I'm still waiting for someone to show us a designer exists, and that it can design.

If not, we still have order and nature to explain what we observe.

So now, could you tell me if there are any observable evidences for any kind of abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis is natural, and plausible. The only thing that hasn't been confirmed is a conclusive set of tests. Othewise it is the only real and natural explanation to the emergence of organic chemicals.

What factual alternative can you offer?

 

[firedragon]

You can't determine a probability without information and then deciding on the nature of this already assumed designer is even less rational.

Another handwave. Rather than preaching brother like a street preacher, why not engage with the data?

At least, answer this simple question. At least. If not of course the engagement could end. No worries. For the third time;

So now, could you tell me if there are any observable evidences for any kind of abiogenesis? Why not directly answer the question?

 

[McBell]

If you want to see "how they calculated" I can give you the material. No problem.

I am interested in looking at the material.