Intelligent Design

[Mr.wizard]

If everything is designed, how can you tell if something is not designed?

I didn't say everything is designed. I'm talking about the cell, and life in general. You can tell if something is not designed, if it doesn't either accomplish a purpose, have symmetry, have a known history of being designed, have a specific arrangement of characters that gives it functionality. I would say that we can intuitively tell the difference between something that was designed and something that wasn't, but I feel like you would have a problem with that.

Well, yes I have a problem with that because we don't recognize design intuitively, we recognize design by contrasting it with things that occur naturally. Your talking about cells and life being designed, what are you comparing to? If your whole argument is based on an individuals intuition than your argument is as easily refuted as it is confirmed by those standards, I could just intuitively not see the design in life.

[AAA]

Also order does not arise from chaos. We can go to the second law of thermodynamics argument if you like. Entropy increases. Unless you have a system to harvest energy and actively work against the law, then the amount of energy available for work decreases over time according to every observation ever outside of life.

Wrong - life does not violate that 2nd Law which your side loves to trot out, in fact it exists because of it:

Why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Implies That Life Must Evolve Somewhere

I didn't say that life violates the second law. Life is a temporary reduction in entropy due to a system capable of harnessing energy. The problem I see with the dude's theory is that life would have to have an end goal in mind. It would have to develop into this complex structure over long periods of time without seeing the increase in entropy until it finally reached the point that it could do so. Life does ultimately lead to the dissipation of energy as heat, but think about this. If the ultimate goal of an energy rich system is to dissipate the energy, then life should be forming more frequently in these energy rich areas. Based on his idea, we would expect entropy poor areas such as stars or planets bathed in UV light to be producing life all the time in order to dissipate that energy.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

If everything is designed, how can you tell if something is not designed?

I didn't say everything is designed. I'm talking about the cell, and life in general. You can tell if something is not designed, if it doesn't either accomplish a purpose, have symmetry, have a known history of being designed, have a specific arrangement of characters that gives it functionality. I would say that we can intuitively tell the difference between something that was designed and something that wasn't, but I feel like you would have a problem with that.

I think you simply need to believe there was a design, despite having no blueprints which you can show us as evidence

Seriously, for a human, the most habitat-manipulating and designing species on the planet to make such a jump is at best an arrogant attempt to re-establish nature in his own image. So why can't you just settle for "life happened well enough to do what it does?" To go beyond this with all the unknowns cannot be true science at all! "It happened" doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't designed, but to insist that it was or to say that it appears that way just because you don't understand evolutionary theory, this is just too much.

[AAA]

I didn't say everything is designed. I'm talking about the cell, and life in general. You can tell if something is not designed, if it doesn't either accomplish a purpose, have symmetry, have a known history of being designed, have a specific arrangement of characters that gives it functionality. I would say that we can intuitively tell the difference between something that was designed and something that wasn't, but I feel like you would have a problem with that.

I think you simply need to believe there was a design, despite having no blueprints which you can show us as evidence

Seriously, for a human, the most habitat-manipulating and designing species on the planet to make such a jump is at best an arrogant attempt to re-establish nature in his own image. So why can't you just settle for "life happened well enough to do what it does?" To go beyond this with all the unknowns cannot be true science at all! "It happened" doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't designed, but to insist that it was or to say that it appears that way just because you don't understand evolutionary theory, this is just too much.

I think that you simply need to deny the design at every turn, and the qualities in nature and life that look like a designed product. It looks designed. Why can't I settle for it happened well enough to do what it does? Because what it does is unbelievably complex and it couldn't just happen. It isn't a lack of understanding the theory of evolution. It is one of the most basic concepts. I simply don't think it explains the complexity we find on the microscopic level in life. I could easily say that you don't accept intelligent design because you don't understand the structures and the way life functions, but I doubt that would sit well with you. Take a genetics course with the question of design vs. evolution in mind, then tell me you think neo-Darwinian evolution explains it well enough to satisfy your questions.

[AAA]

I didn't say everything is designed. I'm talking about the cell, and life in general. You can tell if something is not designed, if it doesn't either accomplish a purpose, have symmetry, have a known history of being designed, have a specific arrangement of characters that gives it functionality. I would say that we can intuitively tell the difference between something that was designed and something that wasn't, but I feel like you would have a problem with that.

Well, yes I have a problem with that because we don't recognize design intuitively, we recognize design by contrasting it with things that occur naturally. Your talking about cells and life being designed, what are you comparing to? If your whole argument is based on an individuals intuition than your argument is as easily refuted as it is confirmed by those standards, I could just intuitively not see the design in life.

I am comparing it to everything we know about the abiotic world. We don't see nucleotides organizing themselves into a purposeful sequence. We barely see them at all. We don't see amino acids organizing themselves. We don't see mutations increasing the information content in genomes.

 Do you agree that life looks designed? Do you agree that the cell does things that require the specific action of proteins working together? Would you rather have the body you have now, or let all the best engineers who have ever lived collaborate to create you a new one without all the crappy design that you guys have been going on about? Do you think they could do a better job? Do you deny that the theory of evolution has a lot of holes? Do you honestly think these holes will be filled in? Why do you require hard evidence for design while not requiring it for the theory of evolution, yet not count the fine tuning of the universe or the intricate activity of the genetic code?

I don't know what would count as evidence for intelligent design in the cell if tRNA, attenuation, viral capsid structure, telomeres/telomerase, p53, cyclins, kinases, immune system functioning, and the hundreds of thousands of intricate activities that go on in the bodies of living organisms. You'll probably just say that they evolved and that the evidence for that will come later.

[AAA]

Yes, because as we all know..only designed objects can accomplish a purpose, possess symetry, have a known history of being designed (lol, the begging!)...or have specific arrangements of "characters" that give them functionality.  It's not as if sticks or rocks exist.  



As to your statement directly above....you decided to eradicate your own credibility when you made such an ignorant and demonstrably false claim.  There's no point in whining to me about that.

Rocks and sticks don't have those qualities. You lost all credibility on every scientific topic ever due to your ignorance and false claim. Plus what was false about me saying that you need a system to harness energy in order to work against entropy?

[JuliaL]

---

Well, yes I have a problem with that because we don't recognize design intuitively, we recognize design by contrasting it with things that occur naturally. Your talking about cells and life being designed, what are you comparing to? If your whole argument is based on an individuals intuition than your argument is as easily refuted as it is confirmed by those standards, I could just intuitively not see the design in life.

I am comparing it to everything we know about the abiotic world. We don't see nucleotides organizing themselves into a purposeful sequence. We barely see them at all. We don't see amino acids organizing themselves. We don't see mutations increasing the information content in genomes.

 Do you agree that life looks designed? Do you agree that the cell does things that require the specific action of proteins working together? Would you rather have the body you have now, or let all the best engineers who have ever lived collaborate to create you a new one without all the crappy design that you guys have been going on about? Do you think they could do a better job? Do you deny that the theory of evolution has a lot of holes? Do you honestly think these holes will be filled in? Why do you require hard evidence for design while not requiring it for the theory of evolution, yet not count the fine tuning of the universe or the intricate activity of the genetic code?

---

I don't know what would count as evidence for intelligent design in the cell if tRNA, attenuation, viral capsid structure, telomeres/telomerase, p53, cyclins, kinases, immune system functioning, and the hundreds of thousands of intricate activities that go on in the bodies of living organisms don't. You'll probably just say that they evolved and that the evidence for that will come later.

I added the "don't" to clarify what I think you meant.


I have a mother and a son.
I am not exactly like my mother because of chance recombinations of genes.
I am not exactly like my son because of chance recombinations.
We represent only three generations out of untold thousands and billions replicated across the globe.

Which of us represents the design of your hypothetical designer?
If you say all of us, you are playing Texas sharpshooter with your data.

Exactly what is the design and how do you know this.
Are you suggesting that the interactions between bio-molecules are the underlying design  with us the result? Between atomic and subatomic particles?  Molecules do what molecules do. At what point do you think we stop being physics and become designed?
I recommend you to study carefully the "Very Strong Anthropic Principle" which states that;

"[T]he entire Purpose of the Universe is to make possible a being that will live in England, an island off the coast of France, and spend his time writing Discworld novels."

Because you have no stronger claim to purpose in molecular activity than does Pratchett.

Rocks and sticks don't have those qualities. You lost all credibility on every scientific topic ever due to your ignorance and false claim. Plus what was false about me saying that you need a system to harness energy in order to work against entropy?

Plenty of dead natural systems fit your description.
As the intention of Gaia is to purify water at the surface of the ocean near the mouths of rivers, energy from the sun is harnessed to remove salt from this water via evaporation which then condenses and falls inland to flow out through the mentioned rivers.  The purified water is of lower specific entropy than the salty ocean.
When you get to pick your desired outcome after the event, it is easy to make observed data fit your preconceptions.  The trick is picking out what is going to happen beforehand.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I think you simply need to believe there was a design, despite having no blueprints which you can show us as evidence

Seriously, for a human, the most habitat-manipulating and designing species on the planet to make such a jump is at best an arrogant attempt to re-establish nature in his own image. So why can't you just settle for "life happened well enough to do what it does?" To go beyond this with all the unknowns cannot be true science at all! "It happened" doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't designed, but to insist that it was or to say that it appears that way just because you don't understand evolutionary theory, this is just too much.

I think that you simply need to deny the design at every turn, and the qualities in nature and life that look like a designed product. It looks designed. Why can't I settle for it happened well enough to do what it does? Because what it does is unbelievably complex and it couldn't just happen. It isn't a lack of understanding the theory of evolution.

That is exactly what you don't understand. Perhaps you never took a good look at the history of life history, as paleobiologists understand it, but from what they can see they believe our planet's 4.5 billion year history is quite more than enough time for life to evolve and become just as it is.

It is one of the most basic concepts. I simply don't think it explains the complexity we find on the microscopic level in life. I could easily say that you don't accept intelligent design because you don't understand the structures and the way life functions, but I doubt that would sit well with you. Take a genetics course with the question of design vs. evolution in mind, then tell me you think neo-Darwinian evolution explains it well enough to satisfy your questions.

You say you are a student in your field now, and most of your elders there disagree. You need to listen to them more, and opinionate less.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Yeah... no, actually.
Figures. If you did know what I was talking about then you'd know I am right.
Meh, I'm bored, there is no longer a challenge, bring back Aristo and Pyrrho, you guys go at it. *burp*

Typical ID proponent. 

"You guys don't understand.  If you did you would know ID is right.  I win."

Typical? Really?
I don't think so..
I don't think you understand, I constructed my argument in such a way as there is no way that I'm wrong. So if people think I'm wrong they haven't understood what I'm talking about. Get it?

AND Operation.

A=1
B=1
A*B=B*A
If you think that the above statement is wrong then you haven't understood what it's saying. This is the kind of situation I'm talking about

[The Grand Nudger]

Sit down Pool, lol.