(February 22, 2016 at 11:27 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(February 21, 2016 at 1:52 pm)AAA Wrote: The cell is more complex than the circuit board on the asteroid. It was an analogy. We don't know how it could have gotten there. There is only ONE cause that is so far sufficient to lead to the phenomena that are observed in the cell. That is intelligence. But this answer is unacceptable, and according to you anyone who reasons this way is a caveman.
For intelligence to be even viable as an alternative, you need evidence that an intelligence capable of filling that role existed in the first place. When people study stone tool making technology, they do so within the bounds of established hypotheses as to the existence of a suitable intelligence in the area in question at the right time. If we found stone tools in a 10,000 year old layer of antarctic soil, then design would not be a reasonable hypothesis as there was no designer around at the time. You need to provide some evidence of a suitable designer before the design hypothesis becomes realistic. You have not done so, aside from the fine tuning argument, which is inconclusive at best; we don't know why the parameters of the universe are what they are, and neither do you.
Second, evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for the development of intelligence. So claiming that it "looks like an intelligence was involved" gets you nothing as intelligence itself may be the result of natural processes. (Unless you're proposing that the designer evolved naturally, which you're not.) You're making an argument by analogy to human design without realizing that this very appeal to human intelligence may undermine your entire argument about the nature of the designer. Is it possible that your designer evolved to the point of having the capabilities of intelligence and technology necessary for designing life? If not, then you are proceeding from a false analogy because it is possible that human intelligence evolved. You are sneaking in the assumption that intelligence is not the result of natural processes into the basement of your argument. The fact that intelligence and its evolution may be a natural process unravels your entire argument.
What a good point, Jor. So, this leaves AAA with two directions he can take his hypothesis:
1. This creator's super-intelligence did in fact evolve:
And, like you said, his argument's foundation collapses into itself at this point. It also leaves him with the task of explaining the mechanism by which his creator evolved, and how he came into existence in the first place. Backwards through the infinite regress tunnel we go, weeee!
2. This creator's intelligence didn't evolve:
He popped into existence from nothing, fully-loaded with a super intelligence capable of creating and directing all life on earth. Well, if this isn't just the most delicious example of special pleading I've ever seen...
Hmmm...Looks like you got some 'splaining to do, triple A!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
