Intelligent Design

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

If you insist upon hitting the merry go round when someone calls you on your bullshit, fine.  I don't require that you prove your proposition to be correct, I simply want it to be an internally consistent proposition.  So, is everything designed again?  Then the word design means nothing....again.  It would be impossible to demonstrate that anything was, indeed, designed.  There's no point of reference for the term.  We're back again at a non cog claim....and we still haven't shown any imposition.

I actually, like honestly am not understanding what and why you are saying what you are saying..
Did you read the whole post that I quoted? I have said how everything is not designed in my quote..

[The Grand Nudger]

Give an example of something that isn't designed? Remember, it can't be made of atoms or basic particles.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Why does 2 hydrogen atom and 1 oxygen atom form water?

Are you looking for a description of covalent bonding? Or, are you searching for something more teleological?

Holy fucking shit motherfucking dildo licking poop pooping window cleaning balls licking ass farting carrot!

Edit:
Okay, it's official I believe in intelligent design.
Fuck.

Edit:
Holy fuck. HOLY fuck. Fuck. FUCK. Oh fuck. What the motherfucking FUCK.

Well that's so very fuck-mothering arse-wanking cunting-bastarding twat-licking shit-throwing motherfucking, cocksucking dick-splattering, piss-guzzling, cream-smothering, jizz-covering, fuck-cunting, bastard-twatting, wank-wankering, turtle-groping--silly of you isn't it?

Keep this up and a new life form may evolve before our eyes

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Give an example of something that isn't designed?  Remember, it can't be made of atoms or basic particles.

You asked something similar to this before and I responded:

Well, you can built a castle with building blocks, but you wouldn't call the castle a building block. You'd call a castle a castle. But the fact remains that the castle is the result of those building blocks.
Building blocks are like the physical laws and other rules of our world.
The castle is like what we see around us, like everything.

To clear your doubt better,
We know a fruit salad is not the same as fruits. We also know that the fruit salad is a result of the fruits in it, there is no fruit salad without the fruits.
Perhaps I should've worded , everything around us is a result of intelligent design?

What you basically asked me to do when you asked me

Give an example of something that isn't designed?  Remember, it can't be made of atoms or basic particles.

was to, analogically, make a fruit salad without any fruits because fruits = fruit salad. xD

There is a clear distinction between an atom and a rock. 
A rock as an entity is not designed. Whereas an atom is. The rock however consists of entities that are designed but this still doesn't make a rock designed.
Just like how a fruit salad may consists of fruits but it doesn't mean that a fruit salad is a fruit.

Perhaps I should've worded , everything around us is a result of intelligent design?

[Esquilax]

A rock as an entity is not designed. Whereas an atom is.

I'm sorry... how did you determine that an atom is designed, again?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

A rock as an entity is not designed. Whereas an atom is.

I'm sorry... how did you determine that an atom is designed, again?

Okay, I get it now.
The problem with my usage of design is that it can be interpreted as however I like. Right?
Because I can look at an apple and say that it is designed because of the obvious constraints imposed on it.
But I already said before that there is an obvious difference between a design and a design achieved from random events or natural causes.

How about this:
Fixed constraints intelligently imposed on a system implies a design.

So consider a rock.
What makes a rock you find on the ground that is the identical to a rock molded by a human in a lab any different?
After all the rock you find on the ground will have the exact same constraints as that of the rock you molded in the lab right?
The main difference is that the rock made in the lab had it's constraints imposed onto itself by an intelligent being whereas the rock in the road had it's constraints imposed onto it by natural causes or random events.
Another difference is that the rock made in the lab will have it's constraints fixed whereas the rock in the ground got it's constraints(like shape, size etc) the way it is through lots of natural causes and is ever changing.

Main points:

* Design implies intelligent action.
* Resemblance of a design due to natural causes is not a design because of its fluctuating constraints.

Like take hydrogen for example, it's atomic number, protons and other constraints are fixed.
Exactly like the constraints on the rock made in a lab are fixed. If the constraints on the rock are altered by another intelligent being then it becomes another design, but if the constraints are altered by natural causes or random events then it is no longer a design.

So ask yourself this,
Has the constraints of something like an element like Hydrogen changed in the history of earth or even our universe? No?
Well then we know it's constraints are fixed.
If it is fixed then it is imposed. (Like assigning an integer variable in a program the value 5. It is imposed.)
If it is imposed there was an intelligent being responsible.
If there was an intelligent being responsible, then it is a design.

Do I win something already? Or am I still not making sense? :Bounce Ball:

[God of Mr. Hanky]

IOW you don't actually believe in ID.  Why do you waste our time?

Well, I do believe we live in a world that is intelligently designed Does that count?
Natural causes and random events seems unlikely considering how constraints caused by them have a tendency to fluctuate(Example: Evolution). I don't think there has been a recorded event in our history where these rules were broken.
Btw, my trainer made me do leg today. Can you murder him for me?

P.S: I'm not 100% sure we are intelligently designed. More like 74% sure. But that's good enough for me :>

Please take a minute, and walk down to the nearest river bank. What do you see there? Do you see lots of smooth gravel, sand and dirt by the water? Looking out on the water, maybe you see a few shoals? You may even see rock outcroppings which were cut by the water, consisting of visible, banded layers. Now, tell me, do you think the process was fundamentally any different by which any of the above got there? Why would you think that process would require any intellectual design whatsoever?

From gravitational force arose stars, planets, volcanic activity, mountains rising, water falling, and rivers being cut by water. Before this happened there were chemical reactions going on in space from the force of collisions, generating heat, leading to new chemical elements and later compounds, all driven by that same force. Why then would you think it took more than this to eventually trigger, in the right chemical environment, and in the absence of competing life forms or predation, the first self-replicating chains of molecules? Once this gets started, if it can keep this up, just as the rivers do for millions of years, then why would you think it took a designer for these chains to alter their replication patterns as their supporting resources changed, giving eventual rise to simple genetic material? By the way, the environment in which this big tree of life first sprouted wasn't necessarily habitable for large animal life forms or modern plants. Now why would a designer want to futz around like that?

Why did the elephant step on the ant? Because it can!

[The Grand Nudger]

Pool, lol....

Perhaps I should've worded , everything around us is a result of intelligent design?

If you think so, then you have no examples for things which aren't the product of intelligent design.  You wouldn't know what a thing that wasn't a product of intelligent design would even look like. I don't know how you could make any determination between designed or not designed, if you don't know what one of those things is. If there is no example in your experience. In what way is an atom designed, whereas a rock is not? Don't you think it would be prudent to step it back farther than atoms, since atoms already have an explanation which is functionally and methodologically identical to an explanation of a rock? As in, "atoms are a product of natural forces...and it is these natural forces which are designed."

[Cyberman]

I think I see where he's coming from. As far as I can make out, he's saying that subatomic particles are like Lego bricks, in that they exist solely to be built up into everything in the Universe. Apparently the fact that they are known and can be shown to do it by themselves, in accordance with known physical laws, doesn't bother him.

[Esquilax]

How about this:
Fixed constraints intelligently imposed on a system implies a design.

There is a ton wrong with your argument here, but we'll start with this: no, constraints imposed intelligently upon a system does not imply design, it implies constraints. An intelligent being can, for example, apply constraints upon a natural system without any specific outcome in mind, and you would, according to the premises of this position, conclude design where there wasn't any originally, nor did any factor into the intelligent changes made.

That's the problem with attempting inductive conclusions based on incomplete data, especially when proposing non-parsimonious causes for the things you're observing.

So consider a rock.
What makes a rock you find on the ground that is the identical to a rock molded by a human in a lab any different?
After all the rock you find on the ground will have the exact same constraints as that of the rock you molded in the lab right?
The main difference is that the rock made in the lab had it's constraints imposed onto itself by an intelligent being whereas the rock in the road had it's constraints imposed onto it by natural causes or random events.

And yet, chuck that intelligently designed rock out into the weather for a few years and it'd erode to the point that you'd think it natural, and chuck that natural rock into the lab to be exposed to some unnatural (yet randomly imposed) new constraints and we could make it such that you'd consider it intelligently designed. That's why the appearance of design is not an adequate indicator of design, especially in the context of pattern seeking human minds with an evolved, inaccurate propensity to see intent where there isn't any.

Another difference is that the rock made in the lab will have it's constraints fixed whereas the rock in the ground got it's constraints(like shape, size etc) the way it is through lots of natural causes and is ever changing.

Umm... what?

No no no. No. The reason a natural rock changes has nothing to do with its natural causes and everything to do with the continued influences on the rock. Wind causes erosion, but wind is not a contributing cause to the rocks it erodes. It's just an ongoing effect that they may or may not be exposed to, and that isn't unique to them, either. You take an intelligently designed rock and put it in conditions conducive to erosion, and it'll erode; so much for fixed constraints, under your model. Likewise you can preserve a natural rock such that it doesn't change; wouldn't you then have to conclude that that rock is intelligently designed?

What you're talking about there has nothing to do with underlying causes and everything to do with things that happen to the rocks after the fact, which obviously isn't an indicator of what the causes actually were. It's also wrong within the context of your initial argument, because things that demonstrably are designed change all the time: it's why you've got to repair machines after a while, because the exact same natural pressures that cause rocks to be "ever changing" and hence natural, also act upon designed things... therefore designed things are natural too?

Main points:

* Design implies intelligent action.
* Resemblance of a design due to natural causes is not a design because of its fluctuating constraints.

Clearly you've never blown glass, if you hold to point two. Glass blowing is all fluctuating constraints leading to different products each time, which is why hand blown objects are often unique even if they're made in a set, yet blown glass is, itself, designed. Hence, fluctuating constraints are not an indicator of whether a thing is designed or natural.

Like take hydrogen for example, it's atomic number, protons and other constraints are fixed.

Only because the definition of hydrogen, affixed to it long after the fact by humans, contains within it the atomic number, quantity of protons, and specific constraints of a hydrogen atom. It's just definitional fiat.

Exactly like the constraints on the rock made in a lab are fixed. If the constraints on the rock are altered by another intelligent being then it becomes another design, but if the constraints are altered by natural causes or random events then it is no longer a design.

So if I chuck a pen outside and the tip rusts, it's no longer designed? Or can we just acknowledge that the designed nature of a thing is not influenced by what happens to it after its initial design?

So ask yourself this,
Has the constraints of something like an element like Hydrogen changed in the history of earth or even our universe? No?
Well then we know it's constraints are fixed.
If it is fixed then it is imposed. (Like assigning an integer variable in a program the value 5. It is imposed.)
If it is imposed there was an intelligent being responsible.
If there was an intelligent being responsible, then it is a design.

I hope, by now, we can see how this is wrong.