(January 2, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: We use experience to detect design. When the New Horizon probe flies by Pluto if it images machinery on the surface of the dwarf planet we will conclude that machinery was designed because in our experience machinery is always the product of design. Now suppose the probe images something completely novel to us. We'd have no way of knowing if that thing is designed or not.

You're soooo close.

Quote:I see the hand of God in nature. Every evolutionary system I have observed, whose origins are known to me, requires the existence of intelligence.

lol......

Quote: Therefore I find it reasonable to conclude that the evolutionary system which produced me also required the existence of intelligence.

Might have something to do with going full retard above. Sorry, I can't trust your "therefore".
(it's unsurprising, btw, to see that you've concluded precisely what you've assumed)

(January 2, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 2, 2015 at 2:32 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: When people see design or the guiding hand of God in something, how would we define that?

We use experience to detect design. When the New Horizon probe flies by Pluto if it images machinery on the surface of the dwarf planet we will conclude that machinery was designed because in our experience machinery is always the product of design. Now suppose the probe images something completely novel to us. We'd have no way of knowing if that thing is designed or not.

I see the hand of God in nature. Every evolutionary system I have observed, whose origins are known to me, requires the existence of intelligence. Therefore I find it reasonable to conclude that the evolutionary system which produced me also required the existence of intelligence.

I follow what you are saying until the part I highlighted above.

---

(January 2, 2015 at 4:17 pm)JuliaL Wrote: I've never found the design argument evenly slightly convincing.
I think it hangs on a type 1 (fast) intuitive error.
In the Paley classic, the observer is supposed to contrast the watch to the surrounding rocks to deduce that the watch was designed. Some steps later this fact is supposed to prove that the rocks also were designed. The deduction from the initial comparison was therefore wrong as were the conclusions leading therefrom.
It also fails in that if humans were the product of eons of natural selection acting on wet chemistry, then their "designed" products; watches, cars and 747s are also the result of eons of natural selection acting on wet chemistry. You have to have a dualist presupposition of design already in place for the conclusion that actual design follows from apparent design.

That last sentence that I highlighted is very true IMO. The designer is assumed to be above the design somehow like God above the universe or the human above the spear point he is making. In some ways humans adapted to the spear point. Our shoulders changed to throw spears better. Probably our hands changed to make spear points better. We aren't really above the spear point necessarily?

(January 2, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: Every evolutionary system I have observed, whose origins are known to me, requires the existence of intelligence. Therefore I find it reasonable to conclude that the evolutionary system which produced me also required the existence of intelligence.

Ah yes, that's why we have appendices, wisdom teeth and The coccyx which is the remnant of what was once a human tail. Very intelligent designed indeed. And that's only the human, now redundant, features. Not even all of them, since that alone would fill books.

(January 2, 2015 at 5:46 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: In some ways humans adapted to the spear point. Our shoulders changed to throw spears better. Probably our hands changed to make spear points better. We aren't really above the spear point necessarily?

And please don't forget cats and sheep. I am constantly amazed at their clever schemes to manipulate humans into providing food, shelter and laser toys for them. Well, maybe not for the sheep.

(January 2, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(January 2, 2015 at 2:32 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: When people see design or the guiding hand of God in something, how would we define that?

We use experience to detect design. When the New Horizon probe flies by Pluto if it images machinery on the surface of the dwarf planet we will conclude that machinery was designed because in our experience machinery is always the product of design. Now suppose the probe images something completely novel to us. We'd have no way of knowing if that thing is designed or not.

I see the hand of God in nature. Every evolutionary system I have observed, whose origins are known to me, requires the existence of intelligence. Therefore I find it reasonable to conclude that the evolutionary system which produced me also required the existence of intelligence.

Funny, but I look at nature and see the reverse. I do see design, but not evidence of a designer. Machinery shows evidence of design and a designer. It tends to be for a purpose and while there might be decorative bits, there aren't any completely irrational twists in the functional part of the design. Designers are free to begin from scratch, and designed things show evidence of that freedom.

For example, early autos show some decorative details that suggest the designer was thinking in terms of carriages pulled by horses including a carriage like shape and lamps that reflect the time period. But early autos didn't have a harness hanging out in front for the horses, or a feed bag, or a left over whip. Nor did they contain a little legless horse still breathing and glued to the dash. Roads don't include residual train tracks. Planes don't have residual rear view mirrors.

But evolutionarily designed things do have left overs no designer would even have considered. Your body is covered in little tiny tiny hairs that serve little purpose today. Certainly, they don't keep you warm. And they probably aren't decorative. Your spine is a modification of a design meant for walking on all fours, and as a design it frankly sucks. It would have been better to start from scratch just as replacing a horse with an engine is better than trying to make a mechanized horse to do the job. Whales and dolphins swim by pumping up and down, because that's home mammal spines work. But fish move much more efficiently. Why? Evolution working on what is, not designing from scratch. The hallmarks of adaptation and design are quite different.

I think they just look at something like men or animals for example and think of it like a complex organic machine of sorts, to them that machine had to have a maker since they don´t consider the long process of evolution, where step by step something simple becomes more complex over time.

(January 2, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But evolutionarily designed things do have left overs no designer would even have considered. Your body is covered in little tiny tiny hairs that serve little purpose today. Certainly, they don't keep you warm. And they probably aren't decorative. Your spine is a modification of a design meant for walking on all fours, and as a design it frankly sucks. It would have been better to start from scratch just as replacing a horse with an engine is better than trying to make a mechanized horse to do the job. Whales and dolphins swim by pumping up and down, because that's home mammal spines work. But fish move much more efficiently. Why? Evolution working on what is, not designing from scratch. The hallmarks of adaptation and design are quite different.

You are conflating the products of an evolutionary system with the system itself. Do you remember the video I posted in another thread where virtual beings were evolved in a computer simulated world? The features of those beings were not directly designed...but the system which evolved them certainly was.

Can you point to an evolutionary system which you know for certain doesn't require an intellect to come into existence or to be a substantial part of it? I cannot. It seems every evolutionary system....including memetic ones, required either intellect to design them or intellect to be the selective mechanism in them. Why then should I make a special case for the evolutionary system which produced me and believe that somehow it is different and didn't need an intellect to design it or be substantially involved in the selection mechanism?

(January 2, 2015 at 11:10 pm)Heywood Wrote: Can you point to an evolutionary system which you know for certain doesn't require an intellect to come into existence or to be a substantial part of it?

Yup.

Quote:I cannot.

You could....it's more accurate to say that you don't. However, pursuant to that earlier convo I can state (with equal certainty as above) that you don't have the slightest clue what your'e talking about and are therefore not in a position where what you can or cant do, or do or don't do, is a reliable indicator of the reality of any situation or scenario. Express your god fetish some other way - you're cheapening it....

(January 2, 2015 at 11:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 2, 2015 at 11:10 pm)Heywood Wrote: Can you point to an evolutionary system which you know for certain doesn't require an intellect to come into existence or to be a substantial part of it?

Yup.

Quote:I cannot.

You could....it's more accurate to say that you don't. However, pursuant to that earlier convo I can state (with equal certainty as above) that you don't have the slightest clue what your'e talking about and are therefore not in a position where what you can or cant do, or do or don't do, is a reliable indicator of the reality of any situation or scenario. Express your god fetish some other way - you're cheapening it....

You wrote a lot of words but said nothing of substance. Perhaps I can tease some substance out of you by asking the following question:

What evolutionary system have you seen come into existence which did not require either an intellect to design it or to be a component of it?

-The- evolutionary system, or even the example of your "evolved" simulated beings. There is a distinction between what evolves and what is designed, and that distinction lies precisely at the point of -how- change or structure is accomplished. While you may point to a simulated being (as your ace in the hole...like a fucking moron) what you fail to understand is that -anything- which meets the requirements of the sim is sufficient cause....intelligent or not. If pebbles or rolls of toilet paper set the initial conditions those sims would still work. Get it? They're machines Heywood...they aren't picky about their inputs.......whatever happens to flip the switch is a-ok. Got it?

In the most generous reading possible...you've mistaken the presence of intelligence with the necessity of intelligence. I wouldn't be so generous...personally, but you're pretending to have given this even a moments thought, so there it is. Let me rephrase so that theres no room for confusion. Even if there were a god, god wouldn't be required for evolution to work, or for evolved systems to exist.