The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

Incompetent intellect is exactly what i see in nature. And i dont argue for a God.

That is a first. What is this incompetent designer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am replying to myself because this point should be understood by all, "Why should non life organize itself (impossible of course) into a form that now posses life?" It stretches our credulity to believe that abiogenesis is probable, as I have stated before, this idea is preposterous...and it is not because I say so.

Ironically due to the laws of thermodynamics. I have seen arguments for abiogenesis based on thermodynamics, that the process increases the entropy of a system. Forget the incorrect creationist strawman of the Second Law, that law merely states that the energy available for work will decrease in any reaction. And life does extract energy available for work from a system.

I saw a rather good TED Talk on this once. But I don't know if I can find it again.

 

[osgart]

That is a first. What is this incompetent designer?

A natural preexisting force, an undetectable enigma.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I might well make an exception for mitochondria. They have their own DNA and, according to Margulis, are likely the result of a symbiosis of a type of bacteria with the early eucaryotes. Chloroplasts are another organelle that seem to be borderline in the same way.

Yes. Mitochondria, chloroplasts and possibly one other. I want to say microtubles, but I do not recall at this moment. These appear to have arisen from independent living microbes through symbiosis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am replying to myself because this point should be understood by all, "Why should non life organize itself (impossible of course) into a form that now posses life?" It stretches our credulity to believe that abiogenesis is probable under any condition or time frame other than supernatural means, as I have stated before, this idea is preposterous...and it is not because I say so...it is Darwinian wishful thinking.

It does not seem impossible based on what we know so far. Many natural means have been proposed, so it is not so much of a stretch of the imagination.

At this point we do not know, and it could be divine creation of some sort. What we can say, based on the evidence, is that there is no adherence to the claims of the story of Genesis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Very well stated. But the idea of something coming from nothing is not just a matter of semantics, because whether it is observed or demonstrated... we never see/experience such things happening naturally.

You are correct. There are no known observed examples of something from nothing. We can conceptualize it at this point is all, but science has not proven that something cannot come from nothing. That was a claim in the OP that I think has clearly been corrected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is considered statically possible is not meant to say that it is plausible. We understand that.

Of course. But that statement by itself does not qualify an event as either more or less plausible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Incompetent intellect is exactly what i see in nature. And i dont argue for a God.

How can you tell the difference between the actions of an incompetent intellect and the actions of a natural process with no intellect and only the laws of nature to guide it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A natural preexisting force, an undetectable enigma.

If it is undetectable why could it not be a natural process?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am replying to myself because this point should be understood by all, "Why should non life organize itself (impossible of course) into a form that now posses life?" It stretches our credulity to believe that abiogenesis is probable under any condition or time frame other than supernatural means, as I have stated before, this idea is preposterous...and it is not because I say so...it is Darwinian wishful thinking.

"Why should non life organize itself (impossible of course) into a form that now posses life?" This question seems to be operating under the notion that non-living matter chose to form with the express a priori goal of being alive. We do not see evidence of that either and it appears to me to be another form of creationism applying the creative process to the non-living matter itself. To the best of our ability to see these things using science, life appears to be a result of natural processes and not a goal.

Imagine that you are a person that is unfamiliar with any sort of theism entirely. The entire basis of your understanding of the universe is on knowledge acquired through observation, reason and logical inference. As that person, how could you begin to view a theistic answer as anything more than silly? A claim that a being that no one can see or see the existence of evidence of their actions made everything. No one can show that this being exists or does not exist. Many can believe it and passionately. They may be correct. I hope so, but I cannot demonstrate it to another in a way that shows that the being truly exists.

Many of the atheists come to theistic claims with a similar mindset even if their actual knowledge and experience with theism is more substantial than the imagined person in my suggested thought experiment. Arguing with them using belief is pointless, and since I agree with what I have come to view as their general take on what is known in science, the best I can do is discuss the details. That is often interesting. That and point out the flaws I see in claims made by others regarding the application of their belief to the real world.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A natural preexisting force, an undetectable enigma.

Being undetectable, you can never show that it exists or does not. It is outside the realm of science, and just as many have pointed out, so to is the intelligent design movement.

I am not sure that postulating an undetectable enigma answers anything. Not even theological questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or design from a very incompetent designer. In fact I would not have such a problem with ID if ID believers accurately described what we see. Incompetent Design could be used to argue for a God, yet strangely no theist seems to want to do so

I am not sure I could come up with such an argument, but I have observed there is a lot in nature that I would consider incompetent from the standpoint of design. Or more like haphazard and using what was around to make what was needed. I am not sure that bears a resemblance to incompetent though and may be an argument for genius in some sense. Still, a designer is not postulated to be doing things without thought to them, hence the intelligence part, so it would still fail as an argument. From me at least.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If it is undetectable why could it not be a natural process?

It took me a bit, but I see what you are saying. It is the same as my question. How can you tell an incompetent designer in action from the actions of a natural process?

 

[osgart]

How can you tell the difference between the actions of an incompetent intellect and the actions of a natural process with no intellect and only the laws of nature to guide it?

Its very simple reasoning. The hands, eyes, ears, the feet are all in a functional place. Natures food, fruits and veggies, they taste great and are good for the body. A provision of nature.

So many things do function conveniently enough. I do not have thumbs where the thumbs can serve no purpose.

Fluid motion, athletic ability.

I dont see how all that a creature is can form so functionally well without prethought to its makings. Thats a cosmic lottery if its unguided.

Rather some thinking and some logical intention happened haphazardly and without much care, and as time went on, the thinking became more efficient.

Theres enough convenience and efficiency and function not to rule out a really experimental type of creation. If all is unguided nothing would fall in the right places to work as well as they do.

I understand the converse reasoning that even something senseless can be turned into something useable. But i sense that the functionality is way too clever and organized for that to be the case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Its very simple reasoning. The hands, eyes, ears, the feet are all in a functional place. Natures food, fruits and veggies, they taste great and are good for the body. A provision of nature.

So many things do function conveniently enough. I do not have thumbs where the thumbs can serve no purpose.

Fluid motion, athletic ability.

I dont see how all that a creature is can form so functionally well without prethought to its makings. Thats a cosmic lottery if its unguided.

Rather some thinking and some logical intention happened haphazardly and without much care, and as time went on, the thinking became more efficient.

Theres enough convenience and efficiency and function not to rule out a really experimental type of creation. If all is unguided nothing would fall in the right places to work as well as they do.

I understand the converse reasoning that even something senseless can be turned into something useable. But i sense that the functionality is way too clever and organized for that to be the case.

You have a very generous notion of incompetence. We should all be so incompetent to successfully achieve so well.

The nature of the guidance does not appear to be an intelligence and the inability to conceive is not evidence against natural processes.

Convenience as I see it, is just another way to describe the selection that is natural component of nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its very simple reasoning. The hands, eyes, ears, the feet are all in a functional place. Natures food, fruits and veggies, they taste great and are good for the body. A provision of nature.

So many things do function conveniently enough. I do not have thumbs where the thumbs can serve no purpose.

Fluid motion, athletic ability.

I dont see how all that a creature is can form so functionally well without prethought to its makings. Thats a cosmic lottery if its unguided.

Rather some thinking and some logical intention happened haphazardly and without much care, and as time went on, the thinking became more efficient.

Theres enough convenience and efficiency and function not to rule out a really experimental type of creation. If all is unguided nothing would fall in the right places to work as well as they do.

I understand the converse reasoning that even something senseless can be turned into something useable. But i sense that the functionality is way too clever and organized for that to be the case.

This is merely an argument from ignorance. It amounts to "I don't understand, therefore god". It is a logical fallacy. Biologists are not confused by this, perhaps you should ask them. Luck is not a factor, that is your biggest error in your argument.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[osgart]

This is merely an argument from ignorance. It amounts to "I don't understand, therefore god". It is a logical fallacy. Biologists are not confused by this, perhaps you should ask them. Luck is not a factor, that is your biggest error in your argument.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

If its so common, life, then why dont we see other trees of life then our own on earth.

And why is intellect not even given a chance, nor a consideration? It is ignored.
Not tested for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If its so common, life, then why dont we see other trees of life then our own on earth.

And why is intellect not even given a chance, nor a consideration? It is ignored.
Not tested for.

I am far from an expert in this, but it appears that once life existed it thrived. Resources are always limited and before other life could get a foothold the original form of life became dominant.

And even that may not be the answer. Simple life will still undergo horizontal gene transfer today. There may have been more than one original life form, but horizontal transfer of genetic information may have resulted in a relatively uniform early form of life.

But "I don't know" is never evidence for a god. If you want to posit a god then the burden of proof to show that such a god exists is upon you. "I don't know" never qualifies as evidence.

EDIT: As far as testing goes it is up to the people putting a claim forward to do at least the original testing. I have yet to see a believer in ID form their beliefs in a testable hypothesis. If the believers in ID can't test their ideas it is extremely hypocritical of them to demand that those that do not think those beliefs are reasonable to test that idea for them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If its so common, life, then why dont we see other trees of life then our own on earth.

And why is intellect not even given a chance, nor a consideration? It is ignored.
Not tested for.

That is an excellent question. All that we can do at this point is hypothesize, based on what we know of existing living things, biology, ecology and so forth. It is potentially possible that there were more origin events than one, but all the results of those events were exceeded in competition with the branch of life that exists today.

The reason it is not given much consideration is that there is no evidence to suggest a role or the actions of an intelligence. So far, natural processes explain what we see.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am far from an expert in this, but it appears that once life existed it thrived. Resources are always limited and before other life could get a foothold the original form of life became dominant.

And even that may not be the answer. Simple life will still undergo horizontal gene transfer today. There may have been more than one original life form, but horizontal transfer of genetic information may have resulted in a relatively uniform early form of life.

But "I don't know" is never evidence for a god. If you want to posit a god then the burden of proof to show that such a god exists is upon you. "I don't know" never qualifies as evidence.

EDIT: As far as testing goes it is up to the people putting a claim forward to do at least the original testing. I have yet to see a believer in ID form their beliefs in a testable hypothesis. If the believers in ID can't test their ideas it is extremely hypocritical of them to demand that those that do not think those beliefs are reasonable to test that idea for them.

Excellent. And a much more complete answer than mine.