Woodie, you're a dickhead but I don't think you are intentionally lying. Instead, I think you are merely easily bamboozled because you want to be bamboozled.

Learn, little one. Then go running off to mommy and complain about how the mean old atheists are picking on you and your fucking god.

(May 30, 2014 at 9:28 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 9:03 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I bolded the bit I'm addressing there.... make the case? What is this? Jury duty?

I made the case several times already. So far everyone has buried their head in the sand about it. We have a way of telling if something is intelligently designed or not. Experience. If it becomes our experience that new lineages of life come into existence via intelligent design and never experience lineages of life coming into existence via some natural process, then we can categorize lineages of life as things which are intelligently designed. Quit ignoring this argument. Accept it or criticize it....but don't pretend it wasn't made.

I know others have told you, but I haven't been around the PC all day and I'd like to reply, too!

I did criticize your argument when I mentioned that all you have is humans building living organisms, based on all the "rules" of living organisms that humans had discovered before. But it seems your comprehension is a bit slow... huh?.. others have told you exactly the same, and yet, you keep parroting that no one is addressing your argument.

(May 30, 2014 at 9:28 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 9:03 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Knowing that watches are made by man, then any watch I find is assumed to have been made by man.
Knowing that self-replicating molecules replicate themselves naturally, through chemical reactions and that, sometimes, these replications carry errors, I expect to find, after a lot of time, self-replicating molecules that have accumulated lots and lots of "errors"... first and foremost, the errors that managed to keep the molecules replicating, and those that made it replicate even better.
All this is natural and follows physics and its subset known as chemistry.

If you wish to make the case that self-replicating molecules exist because they were designed, then you must show the designer.
Like we see the man that designs watches and cars and planes and cogs and electronics chips, etc., so too, I'd expect this designer you claim must exist to come forth. Until then, all I see is Nature working as Nature does.

You are claiming that life came from self replicating molecules. You haven't substantiated this claim.

Life, as we know it, IS self-replicating organic molecules.
From the simplest bacteria to the largest animal.

(May 30, 2014 at 9:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Your claim implies another claim....that self replicating molecules of the kind required for the existence of life, come into existence outside of living systems....this is also a claim you need to substantiate. You basically claim life can come into existence via some natural process, but so far that is just a claim. If you can prove it as fact, they will give you the Nobel prize. Your hypothesis about how life could come into existence naturally....is just that.....a hypothesis....it is not a potent counter argument.

Since there's no evidence whatsoever of any paranormal intervention, the normal (natural), however unlikely, is all we can expect.

I can't give you a detailed account of how it happened for real, but I can provide you with the current thoughts on that... although.... I'm pretty sure it'll be completely dismissed by you, so I'm not even bothering.

Like I said, present your designer and show that the designer designed anything. Before that, design, the paranormal I mentioned above, cannot even be considered.

(May 31, 2014 at 3:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote: This is knowing the history of "these kinds" of objects. The real problem is that there is no way to, by inspection of the artifact alone, determine which are "these kinds" which are designed from "these kinds" that are naturally occurring. We identify design by having a plausible story for how the article might have been designed. If you want to do the same for the current lineage of life, you also need a plausible story for how a designer did it. You have no designer and no story; therefore your inference that the current lineage is also designed is unsupported.

There is an science fiction TV show called Farscape. In the show they had spaceships which were not made of metal or silicon but rather they were biological living creatures. Now suppose you came across such a thing. Would you know if it was something intelligently designed or did it come into being via some natural process? Objectively you have no clue. Natural processes exist....but so does intelligent design. Now suppose in your travels, you come across shipyards where these things are designed and built by intellects and you never come across an observation of one coming into existence naturally. That would give you good cause to believe all these kinds of space ships are intelligently designed. I think what you are doing is taking an inductive argument and saying it is fallacious because it is not a deductive argument.

It is certainly plausible and actually quite likely that 100 years from now, most lineages of life on planet earth with be the products of intelligent design. If this is the case for the planet earth, there is no reason it cannot be the case for the universe as a whole.

(May 31, 2014 at 3:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote: If the machine on Pluto resembled the metallic blob of a crashed asteroid, we'd have no way of knowing it was designed. You're trying to cheat by smuggling the assumption that it is a machine that has traits like a machine that we might have designed would have. If so, we would know that it was designed because it shows signs of having been worked by a designer, which, again, is something you don't have for life. Let's turn this around a bit. Let's assume that the first lineage of life on our planet is designed. Can you tell me what traits of this life show signs of having been designed? If you can't demonstrate that life on earth either was or wasn't designed by its traits, then you have no reason to suspect that it was designed rather than natural.

If you come across something completely alien, something which consists of traits of which you absolutely have no prior experience....you have no way of telling if such a thing is designed or if it occurs naturally. You wouldn't be in a position to call your blob machinery. Showing signs something has been worked by a designer is simply applying your experience to recognize that those type of things come into existence via being designed.

Now if I never observe a new lineage of life coming into existence via some natural process, but I do observe new lineages of life coming into existence via some engineer designing and manufacturing the initial DNA code for that lineage....I can conclude that the initial DNA code of a lineage is a designed thing.

(May 31, 2014 at 3:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Only if "those kinds of things" show signs of artifice similar to the ones we make, and there were a plausible scenario for how a designer might have been responsible. As already remarked, if the machine appeared to us as an amorphous blob of metal or a lump of crystals, we'd have no reason to suspect it was a machine at all. You've loaded the example by assuming "a machine" would look like a human artifact. It wouldn't necessarily. Without knowing the typical effects of the designer, we would have know way of knowing that a specific "machine" was designed. Do you know the typical effects of the designer of the first lineage of life? No? Then you don't know that life is designed.

If you need a plausible scenario for how a designer might have been responsible, simulation hypothesis is one such scenario.

(May 31, 2014 at 3:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote: First of all, it's not an assumption I make. a) I used the word 'seemingly' to imply that it has the appearance of being a naturally created lineage, I didn't assume it; and b) I've already stated that I don't know whether it was natural or designed.

This argument is disputing the notion that lineages of life appear to arise naturally. You cannot just say they do and think you won the argument. Your thinking here is circular....and a bit contradictory. If you do not know whether our lineage of life is designed or not, you cannot credibly argue that it is not designed because it seemingly appears to be naturally created. You have to show that lineages of life are naturally created and that our lineage of life is substantially equivalent to those you've shown were naturally created. We are not even close to doing this. You are basically saying you don't know that our lineage was naturally created but you know it looks naturally created because you know what naturally created lineages look like. How can you do this if you can't differentiate a naturally created lineage from a designed one?

(May 31, 2014 at 3:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote: However you're wrong in concluding that believing the original lineage to be natural is an assumption. It's not. We have plenty of evidence of natural processes and none of any hypothetical designer. We also have plausible scenarios which might explain the origin of life which don't depend on a designer. So you're simply wrong in calling it an assumption; it's a hypothesis with evidence supporting the belief that it is a true hypothesis. Your support for the notion of the lineage of original life being designed, on the other hand, rests on a weak philosophical argument. You have no designer, and no way to measure "like those kinds of things" so that you can look at something, life or a blob of ore on Pluto, and tell it was designed solely from "experience."

Natural processes exist....but so do intelligent designers. You claim the designer that created our lineage is hypothetical, well so is your natural process you claim created our lineage. If it is not hypothetical but reality....show it to me...show me this real process creating a new lineage of life. You cannot because such processes do not exist. If they did...we would observe them....and we wouldn't be having this argument. You simply do not have an observation of a natural process which creates lineages of life so therefore you cannot claim such processes exist in fact. You assume such processes exists and therefore conclude they exist.

Now if you claim that our lineage is evidence of the existence of such a process, why can't I claim our lineage is evidence of the existence of a designing intellect? This is not ignorance....this is inference.

(May 31, 2014 at 3:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 2:10 pm)Heywood Wrote: You said, "I do know is that the development of life in this lineage can be explained by natural processes, even if its origin has not been explained". What science has shown us, is that this lineage of life can also be explained by intelligent design. Where is this designer you ask? Well where is this natural process you speak of?

Really, you're going to an argument from ignorance now? I've already pointed out that abiogenesis is not an assumption but a working hypothesis with support. Where is the support for the activity of a designer. Where is the designer. We know natural processes exist.

If by working you mean people are working on it...then yes....abiogenesis is a working hypothesis....but so it intelligent design and irreducible complexity.....people are working on those too. If you mean by working that we have a hypothesis that allows us to replicate abiogenesis....you're way way way off.

But suppose one day abiogenesis is achieved in the lab. Well as others pointed out earlier in this thread, just because something is achieved in the lab doesn't mean it occurs naturally.

Of course I didn't design myself! I would have done a much better job!

(May 31, 2014 at 6:32 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: Of course I didn't design myself! I would have done a much better job!

in what way?

(May 31, 2014 at 5:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I know others have told you, but I haven't been around the PC all day and I'd like to reply, too!

I did criticize your argument when I mentioned that all you have is humans building living organisms, based on all the "rules" of living organisms that humans had discovered before. But it seems your comprehension is a bit slow... huh?.. others have told you exactly the same, and yet, you keep parroting that no one is addressing your argument.

Humans are pretty close to creating machine life too. Such an achievement will not be based on the rules of living organisms. Also it is quite likely we will invent new rules of living organisms(actually we already have....watermarks).

If human life can be created and designed without the need for God, then there is no reason why one must or should accept God's existence as an intelligent creator/designer of human life.

(May 31, 2014 at 6:59 pm)Irrational Wrote: If human life can be created and designed without the need for God, then there is no reason why one must or should accept God's existence as an intelligent creator/designer of human life.

you're making a big assumption there pal..

(May 28, 2014 at 6:36 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: Is intelligent design a scientific theory?Yes.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

Holly fucking crap.

ADENINE
GUANINE
THYMINE
CYTOSINE DNA DUMBASS!

Your fucking bible does not mention that because it was written in ancient times when scientifically ignorant dipshits wrote it. You know what that comic book does mention? Men magically popping out of dirt. Woman magically popping out if ribs. Talking snakes, talking donkeys. Treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light.

Sorry it takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby, which makes the magic baby story of Jesus bullshit. Also human flesh does not survive rigor mortis which makes the death story of Jesus also BULLSHIT.

Now if you are willing to sit on a jury and accept DNA in a murder trial then you DON'T get to cherry pick science. Science is not Allah based or Yahweh based or Vishnu based. Science does not prop up any religion or invisible sky hero. Do not blame us for the comic book myths of antiquity we were not around to write. Blame the idiots who wrote it and blame yourself for swallowing it.

(May 31, 2014 at 7:05 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote:

(May 31, 2014 at 6:59 pm)Irrational Wrote: If human life can be created and designed without the need for God, then there is no reason why one must or should accept God's existence as an intelligent creator/designer of human life.

you're making a big assumption there pal..

It would be good if you told me what assumption.