(December 6, 2015 at 1:13 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:We do have the ability to recognize features of design, because we have a history of seeing the causal relationship between intelligence and information/design. We then see information around us. The logical conclusion based on our historical observations of the cause of information should lead us to conclude that intelligence played a role in its origin. You can use your presuppositions of the irrationality of a designer to deny it, but you are disagreeing with a fundamental logical inference from historical science. I don't understand why you can't grasp that. All you have done is say that I am arguing from illogical arguments. But you answer me this question: Why is it illogical to assume intelligent cause to the origin of biological information when naturalistic explanations fall short? Why do I have to wait for a naturalistic explanation when there is no reason for me to think that one will arise? You are arguing from a fallible argument in the fact that you are assuming you have the correct answer right off the bat. Your idea seems to be: because we know that life arose from naturalistic processes, it is illogical to insert God in the places that we don't know the answer to yet.(December 6, 2015 at 12:55 pm)AAA Wrote: The guy from the long term evolution experiment? He found that his bacteria could metabolize citrate after a while. However, the only reason they couldn't metabolize it before is because they couldn't get through their membrane. They already had the metabolic enzymes necessary. They still don't know what mutation caused the ability for them to metabolize citrate. Odds are it will turn out to just be a degraded structure of a membrane protein that allows the sugar to enter. Also the cit+ bacteria were inferior when compared to the original bacteria in terms of growth rate. I highly doubt any new genetic information was added, but we will have to wait and see.No we don't, that is completely false. How the hell would not plugging a god into things we don't know be a "naturalism of the gaps", the honest response when you don't know something is to say, "I don't know" its not to plug in a magic god that you have given all the attributes to in order to answer the question. These arguments your making are completely played out and fallacious, I mean really buddy, God of the Gaps, Watchmaker, Argument from Ignorance, go an and get some new material.
Actually we as humans have very specific and universal ways to detect characteristics of design. Why is it god of the gaps and not naturalism of the gaps? when we see design, we should assume designer until proven otherwise. You are essentially saying we don't know the answer to how these complex intricate functioning systems developed, but we know it wasn't designed. Why is design not a good enough answer for you? You are assuming the answer and excluding the most reasonable possibility.
Since you are so great recognizing design, then answer me this, what would a non-designed universe look like?
Also a non-designed universe would likely be either an infinitesimally small region of matter that could not lead to the formation of planets. Or it would be expanding so rapidly that gravity would be insufficient force to lead to the formation of planets. There constants of the universe would not be set at the extremely precise values that they would need to be to lead to the formations of planets.
