I asked you what you would count as evidence for design not what you would count as absolute proof of design.
Let me put it this way: what evidence would cause you to merely suspect something in nature was designed?
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
I asked you what you would count as evidence for design not what you would count as absolute proof of design.
Let me put it this way: what evidence would cause you to merely suspect something in nature was designed?
"Looks designed won't cut it."
Then "doesn't look designed" won't cut it either.
Man can replicate the "undesigned" appearance of nature, by design.
Then "doesn't look designed" won't cut it either.
Man can replicate the "undesigned" appearance of nature, by design.
Here's the problem with what you're asking.
I see blood on the ground. Then a bloody knife some distance away. But no body or missing person's or eyewitness report.
Do I take that for evidence of murder?
That's where we're at when it comes to suspecting design. Sure, tentatively I can say that a murder may have been committed. But I'll need to investigate more wouldn't I to be certain. Otherwise, I'll have to cold case it.
Such is the case with ID. But worse. I don't know what design would be. I have nothing to compare it to. So how does one even go about determining what constitutes evidence of design and what doesn't? Riddle me that. Give me some objective criteria I can apply to anything I see to determine if it's applicable as evidence of design.
Oh and there was a large rock in the area where the blood on the ground was. Does that count as evidence of a possible murder? How is it that I can rule it out or not? Causation maybe? Correlation from past experience? I mean, a person could have accidentaly tripped in the rock and inadvertently stabbed themself.
If someone thinks design has been established or proven simply because it looks that way to them, they have obviously jumped the gun. But there is nothing wrong with the argument, âit looks designed, thus I suspect it may have been designed.â We know this for several reasons.
First, Nobel Laureate Francois Jacob spells out the first steps of any scientific investigation: âTo produce a valuable observation, one has first to have an idea of what to observe, a preconception of what is possible. Scientific advances often come from uncovering a hitherto unseen aspect of things as a result, not so much of using new instruments, but rather of looking at objects from a different angle. This look is necessarily guided by a certain idea of what this so-called reality might be. It always involves a certain conception about the unknown, that is, about what lies beyond that which one has logical or experimental reasons to believe.â
You have to âhave an idea of what to observe.â Looking at objects from a different angle. The âlookâ is guided by a certain idea of what reality might be. Certain conceptions. If you take away the âlooks likeâ approach, you have taken away the crucial key to any investigation.
Second, ID critics themselves pay tribute to the âlooks likeâ argument, as one of their main arguments against ID is that life doesnât look designed. According to them, for example, life is too sloppy, too wasteful, etc. to be designed.
Third, IE critics also pay tribute to the âlooks likeâ argument in their own beliefs. They believe, for example, that a non-biotic RNA world once existed, because it looks like it once existed when you look at the cell from a particular angle.
Fourth, one could argue that all of science and human reasoning boils down to âit looks that way.â Why do you think science articles so highly value visual demonstrations, such as figures, graphs, and tables? Itâs all about coming up with details to flesh out particular perspectives. Data and âevidenceâ donât help us escape the âlooks likeâ approach to reality, they simply strengthen it.
First, Nobel Laureate Francois Jacob spells out the first steps of any scientific investigation: âTo produce a valuable observation, one has first to have an idea of what to observe, a preconception of what is possible. Scientific advances often come from uncovering a hitherto unseen aspect of things as a result, not so much of using new instruments, but rather of looking at objects from a different angle. This look is necessarily guided by a certain idea of what this so-called reality might be. It always involves a certain conception about the unknown, that is, about what lies beyond that which one has logical or experimental reasons to believe.â
You have to âhave an idea of what to observe.â Looking at objects from a different angle. The âlookâ is guided by a certain idea of what reality might be. Certain conceptions. If you take away the âlooks likeâ approach, you have taken away the crucial key to any investigation.
Second, ID critics themselves pay tribute to the âlooks likeâ argument, as one of their main arguments against ID is that life doesnât look designed. According to them, for example, life is too sloppy, too wasteful, etc. to be designed.
Third, IE critics also pay tribute to the âlooks likeâ argument in their own beliefs. They believe, for example, that a non-biotic RNA world once existed, because it looks like it once existed when you look at the cell from a particular angle.
Fourth, one could argue that all of science and human reasoning boils down to âit looks that way.â Why do you think science articles so highly value visual demonstrations, such as figures, graphs, and tables? Itâs all about coming up with details to flesh out particular perspectives. Data and âevidenceâ donât help us escape the âlooks likeâ approach to reality, they simply strengthen it.
You're right. There are no accidents. What appears to be randomness or chance is programmed in.
This world was made for a reason...it has a "design" that resembles more of a *plot*.
It is designed to fool you as you fool yourself.
It is made as you give the power of your mind to a thinking mechanism that is very much like artificial intelligence.
The thinking mechanism is something you made - before it took on a "life" of it's own and drained you of power via deception...leaving you a pathetic weakling, scavenging for paper strips and metal discs to buy crumbs to fill the stomach it gave you as a "gift".
But then, that is the purpose of this world: to kick your own ass.
This world is the equivalent to shooting your brains out with a shotgun, splattering blood all over a mirror.
Each drop of blood has two legs, two eyes, two ears, two arms and sees itself through a mirror.
They all run around blaming each other for their loss of power. They accept "bodies" as a gift from their "God"...or from the mud.
They then proceed to bust their asses to gain power back. They are never satisfied because they seem never able to gain back all the power they shot all to hell...which was ALL power. They seek to take as much power from their brethren as they can possibly accumulate.
Worse, they all think the same kinds of thoughts as the artificial intelligence that made them an impressive home on the mirror.
With an ingenious game plan, it seems as though the artificial intelligence is able to replace eternity with its concept of "time/forever", calling itself by the name of God.
Able to convince the drops of blood that it is God because it made their home, the little drops bow down out of abject fear. Others deny the existence of any Creator at all.
But all defy what they believe is a tyrant by killing themselves as a preemptive strike, depriving the tyrant the claim to total power...and in this way deprive him of his throne. This pretty much explains the thought process behind all sickness and death in your world. It is a reaction to a misperception. It is the mind that is sick, not the body that is projected from it.
The thinking mechanism is intelligent and logical, but clearly insane. As it associates God with insanity, it tightens its grip on the minds of the little drops of blood.
The artificially intelligent thinking mechanism is indeed alien. Yet it is using the power of your own mind to accomplish its goals.
It is in your mind as long as its thought system is welcome there.
It's thought system is exactly opposite and upside down that of reality. That thought system gives you eyeballs that literally see only what they are designed to see...nothing!
It is so strange that our true Creator does not even acknowledge that any of this exists. It can't be understood, nor be appreciated, nor be known.
Be glad that your Creator knows you to be unlimited, and does not limit what you make for yourself...of yourself.
To Him this was a seeming lack of communication for which he blessed us with a Solution, and which we accepted.
It is not our Father Who tells you this is insane. He does not know you as insane, so he would not teach it. He knows you as an equal.
It is I, your brother, who tell you - teach you- the thought system of this world is insane.
This is not to promulgate the idea of guilt, but to give you a parable by way of comparison.
This is not reality. There is no world...it does not exist!
It is I, your brother, who overcame the insanity you worship as "life" since the big bang.
It is now up to you, my brother, to stop the insanity.
I'm waiting. I've got all the time in the world.
Jesus
The biggest problem with the "looks like" appoarch is having a compatible frame of reference.
You don't have one for design. You have a reference no doubt. But is it compatible?
For instance, a certain chemical process "looks like" an engine.
The engine is not a wholly compatible frame of reference to the biological chemical process. When the first engine was designed, it wasn't done as a matter of replicating some micro or macrocosm of some natural process. Even so, the major difference between an engine and a chemical process is that one we know to be designed and therefore now have the ability to determine an "undesigned" engine from a designed one. That is of course if we ever could chance upon an undesigned one. Not so rational a hope though.
Whereas, you can say that a certain living organism looks like an insect provided that you have reasonable knowledge that the organism in question is alive. And that wouldn't be to hard to determine. Now we have an objective criteria. All that's need is for this organism in question to possess all the fundamental qualities of an insect to be labelled one. If it's missing a few, we can't classify it as an insect.
So I ask you, how do you know what constitues evidence of design and what doesn't? I'm not asking you to prove design. I just want to know what can be ruled out as not being applicable for evidence of design. Because if everything constitutes evidence of design, then nothing does.
You don't have one for design. You have a reference no doubt. But is it compatible?
For instance, a certain chemical process "looks like" an engine.
The engine is not a wholly compatible frame of reference to the biological chemical process. When the first engine was designed, it wasn't done as a matter of replicating some micro or macrocosm of some natural process. Even so, the major difference between an engine and a chemical process is that one we know to be designed and therefore now have the ability to determine an "undesigned" engine from a designed one. That is of course if we ever could chance upon an undesigned one. Not so rational a hope though.
Whereas, you can say that a certain living organism looks like an insect provided that you have reasonable knowledge that the organism in question is alive. And that wouldn't be to hard to determine. Now we have an objective criteria. All that's need is for this organism in question to possess all the fundamental qualities of an insect to be labelled one. If it's missing a few, we can't classify it as an insect.
So I ask you, how do you know what constitues evidence of design and what doesn't? I'm not asking you to prove design. I just want to know what can be ruled out as not being applicable for evidence of design. Because if everything constitutes evidence of design, then nothing does.
And that's exactly how design theorists work. Certain clues cause them to tentatively conclude something may be designed and then they follow up their suspicion with an investigation.
D2.0, I noticed that your response to this was 'Got a million years?'. Just wanted you to know that we tried to make the Disgusting Troll (aka ZZZzzzzzzz) understand this point last year in the long ID thread he 'hosted'. In it, he asserts that the apparently finite human life span is proof that humans will not and did not evolve. We patiently tried to explain to him that a million years is a long time and the life span of our distant progeny may be measured in centuries. Indeed, life spans have changing rapidly, in epochal terms, and many biogeneticists believe that there is no reason that humans shouldn't double their current life spans within a few thousand years.
Not sure how much experience you have with this creature ZZZ. He is ET's most hated member, a lying hypocrite whose pathetic life is consumed by his efforts to troll anonymous internet boards. He is an alcoholic currently in relapse. His marriage apparently failed due to his drinking. He has suggested that the children of other ET members be threatened with pedophilic rape (this was suggested as something that would be a good joke). He has been banned three times from this site, but remains because of the page views he generates. He lies through his teeth and contradicts himself with no hesitation if he believes he can get a rise out of his prey. He is despised equally by those on the right and on the left. For a great explanation of this pathetic loser, please see this post
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...302784&highlight=troll+zoologists#post1302784
Please read this carefully and you will better understand some of the absurd responses you'll inevitably get from him.
His argument for ID can be summed up as follows:
'Can you prove that God does not exist? No, you can't? Then God exists'.
It would be a mistake to expect anything resembling an intellectual exchange with this idiot. He will simply ignore those arguments which he cannot refute, and will accuse you of 'ad hominem, red herring or INOC (??)' if you attempt to point out the gaps in his logic. If you really back him into a corner, he will start to reply to your posts by cutting and pasting your text and then posting it as his response, or in extreme cases, he will post pictures of pink rabbits sniffing their fingers. I have driven driven the Disgusting Troll to these extremes a few times - good luck if you attempt to own him for kicks.