The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

[The Voice of Reason]

It is a pity that the I.D. squad have abandoned us. I personally blame TVOR and his evil use of logic.

I doubt that they have abandoned us - it is my belief that they are simply putting the finishing touches on the thesis for that Masters in Logic course that they are enrolled in. Immediately following, I'm sure that they will be gathering even more rock solid evidence in support of ID.

TVOR

 

[Tawn]

Maybe you'd like to visit this and tear apart their teleological argument to pieces..
http://churchvoices.com/God.html

Personally I cant see how ID is defensible.

You must have heard of the old, dismantled watch in a jamjar analogy?
I.e. You cant shake the jar and ever put the watch together.

If someone uses this on you.. just remember, its not a fair situation that theyve setup. Ask them in return if they could 'intelligently' shake the jar and thus put the watch together.
If they say well no but I could take the watch out of the jar and intelligently put it together.. then say that thats not an equal test. Shaking a jar cannot produce the same torsion, twisting and pressure movements that handling something with your hands can.
An equal test would be this: Hypothesise that a retarded person (this is a bit amoral but its necessary for this to be fair) is given the pieces of the watch to play with. He can perform all of the motions that an intelligent person can - except he will perform them in random order.. taking apart and putting the watch back together.
He is given infinity to do this in. Will he build the watch? You betcha he will..

 

[Pah]

You must have heard of the old, dismantled watch in a jamjar analogy?
I.e. You cant shake the jar and ever put the watch together.

It also fails because the chalange is wrong. To be reflective of evolution and chance, it must be remembered that "pieces that go together stay stuck to each other" when they randomly collide. The stem would stay in the case when it finds it's place. A gear would stay on it's pivot point. The probability for random reconstruction goes up tremendously when the experiment mirrors evolution.

Selection for fitness doesn't start all over again.

 

[Tawn]

good point..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He is given infinity to do this in. Will he build the watch? You betcha he will..

I'd take that bet. As we wait, consider ...

Humans are not the end result of predictable evolutionary progress, but rather a fortuitous cosmic afterthought, a tiny little twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life, which if replanted from seed, would almost surely not grow this twig again. - Stephen Jay Gould​

I have often noted that evolution is a filter, not a ladder, But every filter imposes constraints, particularly when recursively applied.

One problem (though not the most serious one) with your wager can be easily demonstrated:

Imagine a watch, the construction of which includes the proper utilization of 4 nuts and screws. What happens to your wager when two or more nuts find themselves arbitrarily attached to a single screw?​

Nuts! You're screwed!

 

[Fatmop]

We're aiming all these cannons and rifles at empty air.

 

[Steve]

What is unscientific about concluding that somthing must have been designed? If i show you a building you wouldnt need to see the builder to know that there was one, isnt that logical?

Likewise if you studied the enormous complexity of the human body, skeleton, circulation, nervous system etc why wouldnt you conclude that it too is the result of inteligence? Scientists use design detection all the time to make conclusions, when they find tools etc in caves they conclude that they are the result of inteligence not random formations from rock etc.
If you had never seen a car befor and someone then showed you one including all the engine components and also explained to you how they all worked together to make the car run properly, could they then convince you their was no intelligence involved in the cars production?
No, why because logic tells us that for this thing to exist the way it does then the most likely explaination is for it too have been designed.

Creationists are so commonly called illogical etc but its the evolution theory that is so counter-intuitive and illogical, oh but thats right just add millions of years and anything is possible.

What would you actually class as evidence that something is the result of design?

 

[Tawn]

One problem (though not the most serious one) with your wager can be easily demonstrated:

Imagine a watch, the construction of which includes the proper utilization of 4 nuts and screws. What happens to your wager when two or more nuts find themselves arbitrarily attached to a single screw?​

Nuts! You're screwed!

No no, I said quite clearly that he could take pieces apart again.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No no, I said quite clearly that he could take pieces apart again.

Quite right: I stand corrected. Unfortunately, you're still still left upholding the gambler's fallacy. The qualitative difference between evolution and screwing around (sorry) is that natural selection is, nevertheless, selection, with the resultant having a preferential future.

 

[Pah]

What is unscientific about concluding that somthing must have been designed? If i show you a building you wouldnt need to see the builder to know that there was one, isnt that logical?

becuase it requires an unproveable agent.

Likewise if you studied the enormous complexity of the human body, skeleton, circulation, nervous system etc why wouldnt you conclude that it too is the result of inteligence? Scientists use design detection all the time to make conclusions, when they find tools etc in caves they conclude that they are the result of inteligence not random formations from rock etc.
If you had never seen a car befor and someone then showed you one including all the engine components and also explained to you how they all worked together to make the car run properly, could they then convince you their was no intelligence involved in the cars production?
No, why because logic tells us that for this thing to exist the way it does then the most likely explaination is for it too have been designed.

Production does not have to have intelligence - automobiles are made by robots.

Creationists are so commonly called illogical etc but its the evolution theory that is so counter-intuitive and illogical, oh but thats right just add millions of years and anything is possible.

I wouldn't say illogical but irrational. And yes, miillions and billions of years can do it.

What would you actually class as evidence that something is the result of design?

Something that can not have a natural explanation and therefore something that has all the problems of faith


But this thread is about evidence for design and you have not presented any - just questions implying that evolution is wrong. How about following the topic of the thread and present some evidence?

 

[michel]

I took a watch apart the other day, and then put it back together again - and it works!!!!!

Am I God?:biglaugh:

P.s it was a wind up (not my answer - the watch!)

 

[Tawn]

Quite right: I stand corrected. Unfortunately, you're still still left upholding the gambler's fallacy. The qualitative difference between evolution and screwing around (sorry) is that natural selection is, nevertheless, selection, with the resultant having a preferential future.

Absolutely. The intention wasnt to transform the analogy into a good representation of evolution - since there is no selective process involved - it is purely random.
Pah pointed this out.. and said how it might better represent evolution.
However, the intention was to bring the Theists example out of the realm of impossibility and into the realm of possibility.

Also, the watch-in-a-jam-jar analogy isnt necessarily discussing evolution but (the way I had originally seen this) is discussing creation of first life form or creation of universe..

 

[The Voice of Reason]

What is unscientific about concluding that somthing must have been designed?

Nothing - as long as it the claim is testable and falsifiable.

If i show you a building you wouldnt need to see the builder to know that there was one, isnt that logical?

Correct - we know that the building was designed by a human - human intelligence. We know this, because that is the way all buildings are made.

Likewise if you studied the enormous complexity of the human body, skeleton, circulation, nervous system etc why wouldnt you conclude that it too is the result of inteligence?

Because we have never seen any intelligent being design a human body. Why would you look at the human body and assume that it was intelligently designed? If it is the result of a designer's work, I'd question his ability to design. Every building that has ever been produced has been the result of intelligent design (human). Every human that has ever been produced has been the result of natural functions (also human). With the advent of cloning and the mapping of the human genome we are closing in on intelligently designed humans - but notice that they will be intelligently designed by humans. As it stands right now, the forces of nature are what designs humans - unless you have some type of evidence to support your claim.

Creationists are so commonly called illogical

then

etc but its the evolution theory that is so counter-intuitive and illogical, oh but thats right just add millions of years and anything is possible.

Answered you own question there, didn't you.

What would you actually class as evidence that something is the result of design?

What do you have to offer?
If I wanted to provide evidence that the Empire State Building were designed, I could provide you with the blueprints, the bill of materials, the people that built it, and pictures of it during various stages of completion.
You wish to claim that the human body (and all of life on Earth) was designed. Okay.
What evidence can you show me? Your desire that it should be so? I won't even call that "weak" - it is not evidence at all - and you know it. You have anything else? I'm listening.


TVOR

 

[Tawn]

The Teleological Argument http://www.carm.org/apologetics/teleological.htm

Extract:

Weaknesses of the argument
​

The idea that the universe is designed is subjective. Different observations in the the natural world can produce different theories to account for their existence. Also, this proof is built upon analogy. If we find things in the universe that are chaotic, then by analogy, that would imply there is no designer.

I believe we can see this chaos in the world around us.

Look at the stars, look at pictures from the hubble space telescope. Can you see a pattern? Looks like its all been shaken up to me...
Look at a tree, note the precise points at which twigs shoot off. Is there a pattern? Does any tree compare with other trees of its species?
Snowflakes, fingerprints, eye patterns, peoples faces.. all different. Would that not indicate chaos?

Creationists are so commonly called illogical etc but its the evolution theory that is so counter-intuitive and illogical, oh but thats right just add millions of years and anything is possible.

Why do some people find evolution so hard to believe?
Havent you noticed how people carry physical and mental traits from their parents? Is this not demonstratable evidence to support Evolution? Genes are passed from parent to child.. and yet there is always the random element added in.. people born with webbed feet, deficient hearts.. etc..
Is it not sensible and logic to say that those with weak genes will be less likely to pass on their genes.. and those with superior genes will survive?

Evolution counter-intuative? Hardly.

 

[Steve]

What is unscientific about concluding that somthing must have been designed? If i show you a building you wouldnt need to see the builder to know that there was one, isnt that logical?

becuase it requires an unproveable agent.

"Scientists use design detection all the time to make conclusions, when they find tools etc in caves they conclude that they are the result of inteligence not random formations from rock etc."
So you belive scientists in the example above are acting unscientifically? Much of science is observing somthing and then trying to make conclusions on the most likley cause of what you are observing.

Likewise if you studied the enormous complexity of the human body, skeleton, circulation, nervous system etc why wouldnt you conclude that it too is the result of inteligence? Scientists use design detection all the time to make conclusions, when they find tools etc in caves they conclude that they are the result of inteligence not random formations from rock etc.
If you had never seen a car befor and someone then showed you one including all the engine components and also explained to you how they all worked together to make the car run properly, could they then convince you their was no intelligence involved in the cars production?
No, why because logic tells us that for this thing to exist the way it does then the most likely explaination is for it too have been designed.

Production does not have to have intelligence - automobiles are made by robots.

Oh ok so there is no intelligence involved in the cars production because the robots designed it. Pretty intelligent robots, i wonder who programmed them. Are you trying to tell me that you could belive that a car could be produced and have no intelligence involved at all throughout its production?

Creationists are so commonly called illogical etc but its the evolution theory that is so counter-intuitive and illogical, oh but thats right just add millions of years and anything is possible.

I wouldn't say illogical but irrational. And yes, miillions and billions of years can do it.

Why irrantional? Like my example above "If i show you a building you wouldnt need to see the builder to know that there was one?" Is that irrational? Id say its irrational to say the building had no intelligence involved in its creation.

What would you actually class as evidence that something is the result of design?

Something that can not have a natural explanation and therefore something that has all the problems of faith

Well you see, id say all of creation is perfect example of this kind of evidence, there is no natural explanation something super-natural must have taken place at some point. At this people try to present the theory of evolution as that "natural explanation" but when evidence is produced against the theory it is rejected because to reject the "natural" explanation would leave only the supernatural explanation something many people are very unwilling to embrace and its not because science tells them otherwise, even in evolution theory you cant avoid something supernatural happening at the very beginning. Time as we know it must have had a beginning, or else all useable energy/heat would be uniform and it would have happened an infinatley long time ago.

But this thread is about evidence for design and you have not presented any - just questions implying that evolution is wrong. How about following the topic of the thread and present some evidence?

[/QUOTE]I fail to see how the human brain alone is not sufficient evidence there must have been a designer, what more could you need? If i told you that a spaceshuttle had no intelligence involved in its creation you would call me irational, yet if i said you are irational for beliveing the human brain had no inteligence involved in its coming to existance i am the one branded unscientific and irational. The majority of my post was what i consider evidence for ID eg the design we see implies designer. You must have strong faith in your theory though because the implications if you are wrong are tremendous.

If i show you a building you wouldnt need to see the builder to know that there was one, isnt that logical?

Correct - we know that the building was designed by a human - human intelligence. We know this, because that is the way all buildings are made.

o i c, so if somone who had never seen or been told about aeroplanes before for eg was then shown one they would need to be told that it was the result of intelligence and was made? dont you think they could figure it out all by them selfs just using their logic and being rational? They wouldnt need to see blueprints etc just use their God given brain.

If I wanted to provide evidence that the Empire State Building were designed, I could provide you with the blueprints, the bill of materials, the people that built it, and pictures of it during various stages of completion.

Id only have to look at it to know it was designed, you may need all those things to reach the conclusion that the Empire State Building was designed and, if you insisted that it wasnt designed until you saw them you would be the one acting illogically and irationally.

 

[Yerda]

Do you have evidence for this thread Steve?

Re: Buildings.

How does your analogy relate to the universe, nature, or life?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Id only have to look at it to know it was designed, you may need all those things to reach the conclusion that the Empire State Building was designed and, if you insisted that it wasnt designed until you saw them you would be the one acting illogically and irationally.

You're missing the point, Steve. You asked the question "What would you actually class as evidence that something is the result of design?"

I answered your question by first demonstrating evidence for the claim that buildings are the result of Intelligent Design - human intelligence. I then asked you if you had any similar evidence for the claim that human beings (and all life) is the result of Intelligent Design (God). As usual, you ignored my question, even after you yourself asked what type of evidence I would accept.

You've elevated the art of dodging the question to a new high. YOU asked the question, then evaded giving an answer. Nice work. Surely you have advanced the cause of Intelligent Design with this thread.

TVOR

 

[Tawn]

Well you see, id say all of creation is perfect example of this kind of evidence,

Id say it is the opposite. The universe is filled with chaos.. hardly the work of design.

even in evolution theory you cant avoid something supernatural happening at the very beginning.

Search for abiogenesis.

Time as we know it must have had a beginning, or else all useable energy/heat would be uniform and it would have happened an infinatley long time ago.

I believe time has no beginning or end. Heat is energy - did u not do science at school? Additionally all usable energy/matter is uniform. Matter/Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known process.

I fail to see how the human brain alone is not sufficient evidence there must have been a designer, what more could you need?

You see the human brain as an artifact. We see it as the result of a natural process.

You must have strong faith in your theory though because the implications if you are wrong are tremendous.

Ah yes terror tactics. You better believe in God or else... I let knowledge, logic, reason and evidence determine my beliefs - not things like fear, hate and hope.

o i c, so if somone who had never seen or been told about aeroplanes before for eg was then shown one they would need to be told that it was the result of intelligence and was made? dont you think they could figure it out all by them selfs just using their logic and being rational? They wouldnt need to see blueprints etc just use their God given brain.

Well they would need to make a closer examination and they would have to determine whether the parts could have been formed through natural processes or by 'intellligent' design. Without closer examination they could not be certain or they would be making silly irrational leaps of logic.

Id only have to look at it to know it was designed,

You already know that aeroplanes are designed. I dont think youre thinking from the perspective of someone with no knowledge of aeroplanes.

if you insisted that it wasnt designed until you saw them you would be the one acting illogically and irationally.

Well he was just answering your question, but anyway, we are all aware of the processes required to produce a building. They cannot be reproduced by nature. Therefore we assume it had to be designed.

 

[Steve]

Id only have to look at it to know it was designed, you may need all those things to reach the conclusion that the Empire State Building was designed and, if you insisted that it wasnt designed until you saw them you would be the one acting illogically and irationally.

You're missing the point, Steve. You asked the question "What would you actually class as evidence that something is the result of design?"

I answered your question by first demonstrating evidence for the claim that buildings are the result of Intelligent Design - human intelligence. I then asked you if you had any similar evidence for the claim that human beings (and all life) is the result of Intelligent Design (God). As usual, you ignored my question, even after you yourself asked what type of evidence I would accept.

You've elevated the art of dodging the question to a new high. YOU asked the question, then evaded giving an answer. Nice work. Surely you have advanced the cause of Intelligent Design with this thread.
TVOR

The point is that even if we didnt have any prior knowledge of buildings, just loooking at them we can see Intelligent Design is the best answer, the same is true for aeroplane etc, the building/aeroplane itself is the evidence. If someone without prior knowledge of an aeroplane was shown one and how it worked they wouldnt need to see the blueprints, builders etc It would be obvious to them logically that it is the result of intelligence.

Id say it is the opposite. The universe is filled with chaos.. hardly the work of design.

The problem with your answer here is that the universe is also filled with things that show incredible order, when somthing is created eg a painting, the painter can randomly splash paint around (chaotic) but also in the same painting paint somthing specific (order).
Just because some things appear random donst argue against a designer especially when there is also much to suggest one.
Like the painting analogy, if someone where to look at the background of a painting that appears random then conclude that there was no designer of the whole painting including the peoples faces which are part of the painting it would be illogical.

even in evolution theory you cant avoid something supernatural happening at the very beginning.

Search for abiogenesis.

Well i know quite well what abiogenesis is, have you any idea of the probablility of this happening? Oh and probability is used all the time in science to reach scientific conclusions. Also its not just the probability that is the problem but if its even possible, and observable science says no. What observeable testable science has verified abiogenesis?
Besides even befor that something supernatural must have happened to form the universe, or do you belive the big bang theory? we can talk about that if you would like.

Time as we know it must have had a beginning, or else all useable energy/heat would be uniform and it would have happened an infinatley long time ago.

I believe time has no beginning or end. Heat is energy - did u not do science at school? Additionally all usable energy/matter is uniform. Matter/Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known process.

Where did i imply that heat isnt energy?? i didnt say "energy, heat" but "energy/heat". Although im not sure what you mean by "Additionally all usable energy/matter is uniform."

I fail to see how the human brain alone is not sufficient evidence there must have been a designer, what more could you need?

You see the human brain as an artifact. We see it as the result of a natural process.

I know you do, but i dont see why, simple logic tells us when somthing must be designed, and then when people show flaws in you natural explanation they are told that it dosnt support their original logic that it is indeed designed even though there is no alternative left.

You must have strong faith in your theory though because the implications if you are wrong are tremendous.

Ah yes terror tactics. You better believe in God or else... I let knowledge, logic, reason and evidence determine my beliefs - not things like fear, hate and hope.

Just because somthing is fearful dosnt mean it isnt true, have you ever actually thought what if their is a God? How would you go if you did indeed die today and stood befor him? (oops more fear tactics, no but seriously)Have you actually used logic, reason and looked at the evidence objectivly to determine your beliefs? Or have you gone through the evidence, logic and reason with a belief and made it suit yourself? I understand that i will be accused of the same thing but at least be sure yourself that you have indeed been objective, because like i said the implications if you are wrong are tremendous. fear and hope can be good motivators, esspecially when they are backed by logic, reason and evidence - If you are walking towards a cliff and someone tells you the consequence if you keep walking and you become fearful of the consequences and turn around then your fear has benifited you, if they tell you but you just say no your just using fear tactics and keep walking who is to blame, afterall you are the one who chooses your path.

o i c, so if somone who had never seen or been told about aeroplanes before for eg was then shown one they would need to be told that it was the result of intelligence and was made? dont you think they could figure it out all by them selfs just using their logic and being rational? They wouldnt need to see blueprints etc just use their God given brain.

Well they would need to make a closer examination and they would have to determine whether the parts could have been formed through natural processes or by 'intellligent' design. Without closer examination they could not be certain or they would be making silly irrational leaps of logic.

So you agree that after they examined it, if the parts can be shown that they couldnt have formed by natural proccesses then its logical to say that it must have been designed? Glad to hear, at least you are logical in this area as stated by your last commment

They cannot be reproduced by nature. Therefore we assume it had to be designed.

 

[painted wolf]

yes, but all the parts of life can be formed naturally... Theres the rub.
Amino acids, protiens.... so on.

With the buiding blocks naturally forming where is the evidence that an inteligence put them together?
Oxygen and Hydrogen come together naturally to form water. Unless god sculpts each molicule by hand.
So where is the testable evidence for a Designer?

wa:do