Intelligent Design

[AAA]

I put one from each, to try to be fair.

I know you're trying, but so far you're doing a poor job at presenting fair cases for each side; I mean where is the fair representation for the astrologers?

It's astronomy, not astrology, but astrophysics more than either of the other two.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I know you're trying, but so far you're doing a poor job at presenting fair cases for each side; I mean where is the fair representation for the astrologers?

It's astronomy, not astrology, but astrophysics more than either of the other two.

No, I meant astrology. I thought you were trying to be fair?

[Pat Mustard]

Given the opportunity to redesign things, I wouldn't include an appendix that exists solely to get appendicitis.

I wouldn't have included heterotrophism..particularly in that it's apparent that autotrophism was an option - judging by all the autotrophs in the world.  It's the single greatest source of misery and pain on earth for every animal capable of experiencing misery or pain.  

Some design, some god.

Me I'd start with the hips. Using hip bones shape for four legged creatures on a two legged one is the height of stupid design. And its even worse for females, because the vaginal passage is on the small side for chuldbirth, given the increased size of the developed foetus' compared to all other mammals.

[Pat Mustard]

What's your rational answer to the fine tuning of the universe, genetic info in cells, interacting parts in cells? They all have qualities with characteristics of design? you can say "I don't know", and that's fine but then aren't you incorporating faith that there will be an alternate answer to explain the qualities of design without a designer?

On fine tuning, if the universe and life can only possibly exist under these precise, perfect conditions, how much "designing" did God really do? Wasn't he constrained by those same rules of 'fine tuning'? Wasn't he essentially following assembly instructions, forced to do things only in a certain way because otherwise it wouldn't work?  And if that's the case, if he's limited by a bunch of rules, he's not really God. God should be able to make things work however he wants, surely.

Of course the fine tuning argument is defective because it only looks at chaning one of the constants without affecting anything else. What is not looked at is the idea that if you change one of the constants the others will also be changed accordingly, which if that happens could result in a similar universe with very different figures for the constants.

[robvalue]

Wow, he finally said he believes "god is the designer". I never thought he'd even admit that, even though it's been blatantly obvious since the start. Is he a creationist? He'll probably never admit that much.

The problem with that belief is that you either have to cram it into abiogenesis, or pretend that a "designed" evolution looks exactly like what you'd expect and can predict from an "undesigned" one. Even put into abiogenesis it makes God out to be insane, inefficient, cruel and a downright liar if you're taking the bible at all seriously.

Otherwise you're just making shit up.

[Cyberman]

All scientists have presuppositions, which they then test against reality. Why is this so hard?

Right, but they interpret the results through their worldview. 

What does the fact that photolyase exists mean to you? it had a necessary function, therefore it arose over many chance events.

 What does it mean to me? A designer built in a way for our bodies to protect their genome in spite of the energy rich UV waves from our environment.

Do you see how the same result is interpreted differently based on our presuppositions? Do you disagree with this phenomenon?

Okay, so how would you propose testing for this designer? Or are you more interested in confirming your presupposition as the conclusion than actually discovering truth?

[ApeNotKillApe]

Remember that time Isaac Newton was right about alchemy?

[Cyberman]

People seem to have this concept backwards.
There is no rare conditions that can permit life. This is false concept. Life evolves in such a manner so that it can survive in a given environment - this is what evolution states. Adjusting to the environment. The environment is not what adjusts itself to facilitate life.

Am I right? I hope I am.

Life doesn't have the kind of plasticity that you seem to think it does. If it could adapt to a given environment, then it would live on almost all planets

So we shouldn't expect to find life in environments that stray too far outside our own; like, say, nuclear reactors, or anaerobic areas with insane levels of temperature and pressure.

Perhaps someone ought to let them know they're impossible...

[robvalue]

Wait, you're assuming he has some biology knowledge there Stimbo. Why would you think that?

[ApeNotKillApe]

Given a sample size of one - our planet - to say anything about life in the universe beyond what we know about what's on our planet is idiotic.  We've had virtually no up close observation of other bodies.

Fair enough. I'll predict that we don't find life on other planets. You might predict that we will. We'll have to wait and see.

I have to ask, what are the practical applications for God's determined existence? How will knowing scientifically that God exists improve human lives and further the advancement of species in any practical terms?