The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane · 27-12-2010 8:11pm

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, every miracle in the Bible and in individual's lives is beyond testing for authenticity. One can check if others witnessed it and add their weight to its credibility. But as you point out, multiple witnesses can be mistaken. One can also try to recreate the effect, seeing if it possible, and if so, how difficult it is to achieve. Then one can record its natural occurrence in similar circumstances.

I think it fair to say the Exodus events not only can be suspected to be unlikely, but one would expect to have heard if they had occurred at any time since. Only a sceptic fanatic would think such events may be not uncommon.
That, like so many religious arguments, is an argument from ignorance. I would have expected to hear about this, I haven't, therefore I'm right.

Or you just haven't heard about them, which has multiple causes only one of which is because they don't happen.

It's not proof, admittedly, but absence of any reports does suggest the Ten Plagues and Red Sea opening do not seem to be occurring since the the Exodus date.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If it had been the Egyptian priests who prayed/commanded, then Ra would be the natural candidate to whom one would attribute the miracles.
How do you know there weren't?

You assume the only one you heard about was the only one praying for anything. Again this is an example the cognitive bias I'm talking about, accepting only the limited set of circumstances presented to you in the claims of people.

How do I know it wasn't you in a time-machine that caused the plagues? I think the onus is on you to prove it was not Moses, since he is the one who made the first claim, and the one that has been accepted by millions down the ages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The observer can continue to deny God as the cause, but only against the strange co-incidence of Moses' prayers/commands in the name of God.
That works on the assumption that God did something, again displaying cognitive bias. It another god did it, in response to a different prayer that had nothing to do with Moses, then Moses' prayer had nothing to do with anything.

Show the evidence for such prayer for the plagues and Red Sea opening, and for the other god who caused them. We have the original claims before us.

Ah you say, but that is unlikely to occur at the same time Moses was praying. Why exactly? People pray all the time, as you admit. Moses would have been praying the whole way.

Again this is your cognitive bias on display, considering retroactive only the one conclusion after the fact.

We are told Moses prayed and the miracles happened. So we go, ah ok must have been because Moses prayed.

Yes, unless one has any evidence to suggest otherwise, the claim of Moses has priority over all the absent claims you think might have been made. It is in fact you who are appealing to ignorance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Seems to me the agnostic could allow the possibility it was not God, but would admit that was the unlikely case.
Only if the agnostic doesn't understand the cognitive biases I keep referring to.

I appreciate that to you all this makes common sense (which is exactly what cognitive bias is) and that you also think I'm being overly dismissive because I'm an atheist and thus don't believe this happened. But I assure you I'm not and if you like we can apply this to any other neutral argument that neither of us have a vested interest in, such as a religion neither of believes in.

Sounds good!

For example John Travolta started Scientology and then his career picked up. He naturally assumed therefore that Scientology causes his carrier to pick up. That is because it fits the narrative he had already been told, and thus he didn't consider all the other things that could have caused his career to pick up.

To you and me this probably seems ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure if you ask Travolta he would give us back the same sort of arguments you are using now.

The coincidence is (rationally) attributable to Scientology, as it is to several other possibilities. New acting techniques, scripts that matched well his abilities, etc.

But if he prayed to his UFO overlords for a series of mass hits at the box-office, and immediately they began - then he would be irrational to deny the link as the main contender for the cause of the effect.

So it is not that i have anything against Christianity per say, nor that I think only Christians do this. Heck atheists do it all the time, I was convinced my brothers car broke down because I broke a bit of floor lining as I got in. We naturally pattern match what we consider significant events if they happen close to each other, and ignore the misses.

Yes, such irrationality can overtake us all, atheist as well as theist. But you position wrt Exodus is more like denying his car broke down because he forgot to refill it with oil when he drained the old stuff out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I see it as a fact, one that God has chosen to establish. He could have made His existence testable by scientific enquiry, but He has no need to - the human heart recognises His existence.
Reality suggests otherwise, one theory of electricity thousands of religions.

Even bad people accept electricity, so the argument that God's existence is clear except to those who are evil is rather illogical. You don't have to be good, or worship God, to know he exists. I accept Hitler existed but that doesn't require that I follow him or agree with him.

Electricity makes no moral demands. And believing Hitler existed does not weaken your defences toward his demands. Acknowledging that the God of the Bible exists puts one in a very uncomfortable position. One has to face the certainty of hell for eternity, or repent and be reconciled to Him. Neither of which is acceptable to any sane sinner.

It is some what off topic but there is a discussion on the A&A of the illogical idea that God would make personal assessment so utterly unreliable and flawed (as opposed to empirical testing) and then choose to only reveal himself in this manner utterly ignoring empirical testing.

Thanks. If I get the time, I would like to contribute. But I'm very restricted at the minute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The One proclaimed by the man who commanded the miracles.
Why would you think the Egyptian magicians even believed in Moses' god? Moses' didn't believe in their gods.

They seem to have been convinced of His existence by the miracles. Moses prayed to His God, His God answered.

Again you are retroactively taking the story and applying it backwards as if true and then saying the story supports God being true.

You are confused. I don't recall saying the Exodus account supports God being true (to modern hearers). It would only do so to those who witnessed it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The trick is getting the prayer to match up with the event at the needed junction.
That isn't a trick at all when you consider Moses as just one of thousands of people praying.

It not just praying that counts, its praying for each of the plagues, for the sea parting, etc. You think thousands of people where praying for those?

You aren't doing that because of the cognative bias to consider only the pattern matched outcome.

What are the odds that Travolta's career would pick up at the same time of him starting Scientology? Must be because Scientology is true, right

No, as discussed above, only if it followed specific prayers could it be given an elevated status of likelihood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No use the survivor of a sinking boat praying for a life-raft and getting a rain-shower.
No, but if a survivor of a sinking boat prayed for a life-raft and got a helicopter he would no doubt say his prayers were answered.

Yes, that would be a reasonable alternative. His praying was just too restrictive on God, but God answers according to His mercy, not our foolishness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But if one was dying in the Sahara and prayed for a rain-shower, that junction would be both very unlikely and in line with the prayer.
And? How many people in year pray for rain and none comes? And how many are in the Sahara praying for rain when a rain-shower eventually comes?

See the point? Again cognitive bias, the assumption that two events are related to each other because we pattern match them, and ignore all the times they miss.

I said very unlikely - not impossible. So the recipient could not be sure it was not just an unlikely event. He would however have grounds to suspect it might also be the answer to his prayer. Some events are not only unlikely but outrageously unlikely to ever happen - those events coinciding with a prayer for them, that would give the prayer every cause to link the two.

How many Hebrews during the enslavement in Egypt prayed to God for something to happen and nothing did? Hundreds of thousands I would say.

Again, we are not speaking of 'something' to happen, but specifics: Boils, hail, blood, death of the first-born, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Bible tells us it was the wind that separated the waters - but the miracle is in the junction of this with the command of Moses for it to occur.
Which is an assessment you don't have enough information to make. You make it anyway, which is my point. I imagine you are doing the same with your own experiences.

If it is a common occurrence, or even a rare one, we would have heard of it by now. That occurring at the same time as a prayer for that effect - that is outrageously unlikely in any rational assessment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We seem to live in different worlds!
Well as you Christians like to say, my eyes have been opened.

Once you realize humans do all this stuff, all this cognitive bias and assessment, it becomes a lot clearer to identify when you are doing it yourself. It is like finding out that something is an optical illusion, something you hadn't noticed before.

Your examples did not fit the Biblical case. You proved humans are liable to woolly or wishful thinking - something the Bible itself warns us to beware.

Of course I appreciate that before this happens you are sitting there going "How can he not agree, this is all common sense, he must be afraid of God, or afraid to face his maker or [insert generic Christian excuse for non-believers]

I appreciate that you think this is all common sense and perfectly justified. So do most people, which is why most people carry on this way with regards to most things. Taking a bad example remember the story that all asylum seekers got free hair cuts and cars from the government? Consider that is utterly untrue how did such a story get going and seem to have so much support?

Frustration at them getting priority on housing lists, etc. generating a resentment that is quick to believe any negative report about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I know what evolution says.
Your posts, such as the one you are about to make, suggest otherwise.

I'll be glad of the correction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My difficulty is understanding how you think the simplest organism is not a vastly complex information system.
That is probably because what you and what the theory of evolution state are the simplest form of replicating units are different.

You seem to think a modern single cell organism such as bacteria is as simple as it can get. It isn't, not according to evolution. The simplest self-replicating unit known to man is a chemical molecule made up of a few dozen atoms.

I wasn't thinking of the simplest modern organism. I was thinking of whatever has been or is the simplest living thing. Something that cannot be living and simpler.

You can argue that this could not evolve into modern cells, but to say that evolution says that the simplest start of life was a fully functioning cell is to mis-represent evolution.

OK, lest I continue to misunderstand, please tell me how complex is/was the simplest living thing? Are self-replicating molecules living, for example? And if so, how complex are they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I must have read that into it then, for I gathered he referred to both as mathematically impossible.
You didn't read anything into what JC was saying, he was wholesale misrepresenting evolution, and you accepted it because it was inline with your religious beliefs, not the actual theory of evolution. JC knows he does this, he continues to do it.

Good. My logic was fine. Now it is between JC and yourself as to who understands evolution better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I know - so that is not my implication. All the mutations happen, only the viable give advantage for survival; no design, just chance and time.
Yes but your mistake is thinking that "information sequences" have to exist before evolution starts. They don't. RNA or DNA are not required for evolution, and they certainly were not there at the start of the evolution of life. They just happen to be how evolution on Earth went based on the chemicals available to it.

The idea that you have to a cell, or genes, or DNA or even proteins before evolution can start is false, it is a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution, irrespective of whether or not you consider the theory true or false.

Evolution, I have been repeatedly assured by evolutionists, begins with living things, not non-life. So please tell me the nature of the first living thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I rarely look at the sign posts, for I know the way. I remember.
You do now, I imagine after running the route many many times with the help of maps and sign posts.

Certainly. But I've managed even after one go. My memory has been usually reliable when I concentrate. Hence my wife's accusations are often justified.:o

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Memory lapse is an occasional occurrence, not the norm.
It is the norm for events based on personal assessment, which isn't what you are describing with the route you went. You probably don't even realize it but your first trips were full of empirical testing, everything from reading a map to noticing that this building is on the same street as this building.

You would be utterly lost without this, and your memory of the route would be utterly confused without this. And I imagine you still occasionally get lost.

Ask yourself why maps and sat nav and sign posts exist in the first place if they are not needed

My memory of miraculous events in my own life are just the same as for any event. The assessment occurs only where we seek to gauge the likelihood of the event and our prayer together.

_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:11 By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised.

wolfsbane · 27-12-2010 8:20pm

Morbert wrote: »

... So God told Noah to build a boat that isn't even designed to float... :pac:?

Yeah, your myth makes loads of sense now :eek::D!!

I read JC to say the theme park replica was not designed to float. So I assume no effort was made to make it sea-worthy, the point being only just to show the scale of the thing, how much it could contain.
___________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” 19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.

Morbert · 27-12-2010 8:35pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

I read JC to say the theme park replica was not designed to float. So I assume no effort was made to make it sea-worthy, the point being only just to show the scale of the thing, how much it could contain.

It seems the only people putting No effort into their stories are the creationist priests!! :eek::D:pac:

wolfsbane · 27-12-2010 8:40pm

Morbert wrote: »

It seems the only people putting No effort into their stories are the creationist priests!! :eek::D:pac:

Who are they? Most creationists are not priests. Many are scientists, many are theologians, most are ordinary Christians like myself.
___________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.

Soul Winner · 30-12-2010 7:57pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well this is the designer who gave us the ridiculously sub-optimal design patterns such as the female human reproduction system, the panda's thumb, the inside out eye, the defetive enzyme for Vit C in humans etc etc etc

The argument that you link to is a easily refuted.

The Argument from poor design that you linked to goes as follows:

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Premise number 1 makes a huge assumption. It presumes to know what an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator God would do.

Premise 2 is probably correct but even poorly designed organisms (poorly designed from our perspective at least) are still designed.

And conclusion 3 ignores the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God can create organisms in whatever manner He so chooses, including building limitations into them that would limit that organism in certain ways. For instance human beings cannot fly and flying would be regarded as given humans a greater survival advantage over humans that couldn't fly but even if that was the case you wouldn't turn around and say that designing humans who can't fly is evidence of bad design simply because they cannot fly. Bees cannot swim underwater, does that mean that they're badly designed?

Zombrex · 30-12-2010 9:53pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Premise number 1 makes a huge assumption. It presumes to know what an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator God would do.

And? You presume to know what an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator God would do all the time, including assuming he would create life on Earth.

Given that all options are equally easy (for want of a better term) for an all powerful God why would he not produce an optimal design? Why go out of your way to produce bad design? That is a question IDers can't explain.

On the other hand evolution explains this perfectly, since evolution is concerned with "good enough", and all design are not equally easy for evolution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Premise 2 is probably correct but even poorly designed organisms (poorly designed from our perspective at least) are still designed.

By poor designers. Interestingly enough despite the long list of sub-optimal design found in life on Earth very few IDers think life was designed by a poor designers who didn't really know what he was doing.

This betrays the religious motivation behind ID, and the illogical grasping at straws. Most IDers, including yourself, and utterly uninterested in a non-God designer. So you make the conclusion that we are designed but ignore the conclusion based on the same evidence that the designer messed up and didn't know what he was doing, because that does not give you the answer you are looking for.

This makes any claim that IDers are "just following the evidence" ring very hollow. Following the evidence to the conclusion you want.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And conclusion 3 ignores the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God can create organisms in whatever manner He so chooses, including building limitations into them that would limit that organism in certain ways. For instance human beings cannot fly and flying would be regarded as given humans a greater survival advantage over humans that couldn't fly but even if that was the case you wouldn't turn around and say that designing humans who can't fly is evidence of bad design simply because they cannot fly. Bees cannot swim underwater, does that mean that they're badly designed?

Sub-optimal design is when a feature the organism can do is implemented badly. This isn't about bees flying underwater.

If I designed a car that every few miles the doors opened and everyone had to hang on for dear life I'm pretty sure most people would say that is a sub-optimal design since the car is trying to keep the people inside it safe.

If you argue for design it is hypocritical to then ignore all the mess ups in nature simply because they lead to an undesirable conclusion.

Soul Winner · 31-12-2010 4:35am

Wicknight wrote: »

And? You presume to know what an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator God would do all the time, including assuming he would create life on Earth.

Not at all. Life was either deliberately created by a creator or it came about by a chance happening. There is no middle ground. If you can find that middle ground then I'm all ears. But life as we know it today exhibits traits at its micro/nano level that screams deliberately designed. And all naturalistic theories fail miserably to explain it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that all options are equally easy (for want of a better term) for an all powerful God why would he not produce an optimal design? Why go out of your way to produce bad design? That is a question IDers can't explain.

Bad design is in the eye of the beholder. You use what you describe as bad design to rule out a designer, but even a badly designed car is still designed. God (if He exists) is not necessarily painted into the corner of having to create the optimal design for anything.

Wicknight wrote: »

On the other hand evolution explains this perfectly, since evolution is concerned with "good enough", and all design are not equally easy for evolution.

A God who is happy with good enough is also a good explanation. Natural selection is never concerned with what is good enough. It is an uncaring, mindless and blind process that cannot foresee the outcome for what it selects for or rejects. The phrase survival of the fittest is a given. Of course the fittest will survive. What's new? That is not a phrase that exclusively supports evolution, it is a principle that is all encompassing. You could easily argue that God set it up that way.

Wicknight wrote: »

By poor designers. Interestingly enough despite the long list of sub-optimal design found in life on Earth very few IDers think life was designed by a poor designers who didn't really know what he was doing.

Look, the simple fact that life exhibits any kind of intelligent agency is valid enough reason to conclude intelligent design. Where bad design eventually works its way into the equation is a matter of debate in relation to the nature of the designer but you don't throw out the conclusion that it was designed. You can't just stomp in and say that it was the result of natural processes when you can't even show that natural processes had an influence on the origin of life in the first place. Design is still on the table even if you concede that there is evidence of bad design. Apparent evidence of bad design is not evidence that no designer was involved.

Wicknight wrote: »

This betrays the religious motivation behind ID, and the illogical grasping at straws. Most IDers, including yourself, and utterly uninterested in a non-God designer.

I'm fascinated by the idea of a non God designer. If only that idea was allowed to be postulated and allowed to have its day in court. The bad design arguments are just that, bad design. But bad design is still design and it also needs to be explained. Non design in living systems is nowhere to be seen. Everything about life appears to be designed. Our basic intuitive faculties tell us that it was all designed and for a purpose. The reason Darwinism is so popular is because it is the only theory that can go some way to explaining the evolution of life without invoking the need for a designer. Which is why people like Professor Dawkins can call himself an intellectually fulfilled atheist. But that is just trying to explain things in a way that suits a particular world view and that world view is not scientific. It is naturalistic. And naturalism by definition cannot be proven by the scientific method.

Wicknight wrote: »

So you make the conclusion that we are designed but ignore the conclusion based on the same evidence that the designer messed up and didn't know what he was doing, because that does not give you the answer you are looking for.

Not at all. Even if the designer did mess up, that is not a good argument that it wasn't designed. It doesn't just default to the idea that it wasn't designed at all. The apparent flaws in the design need explanation but you don't automatically throw out the idea that it was designed just because there are apparent flaws in the design. Maybe the designer designed it perfectly and something at some point was allowed to screw it up somehow. Ever think of that possibility with your so called open mindness?

Wicknight wrote: »

This makes any claim that IDers are "just following the evidence" ring very hollow. Following the evidence to the conclusion you want.

IDers (like me as you say) are open to plausible explanations for how life came about and how it evolved from that state. But Natural Selection acting on random mutations is just not cutting it as an all encompassing valid scientific explanation, I'm sorry. What naturalist like you get angry about is the refusal of IDers like me for just not accepting (believing) your theory. But this is a common trait in any religion. Intolerance for the infidels.

Wicknight wrote: »

Sub-optimal design is when a feature the organism can do is implemented badly. This isn't about bees flying underwater.

To define suboptimal design you would need to know what the optimal design was in the designer's mind first. Do you know this?

Wicknight wrote: »

If I designed a car that every few miles the doors opened and everyone had to hang on for dear life I'm pretty sure most people would say that is a sub-optimal design since the car is trying to keep the people inside it safe.

But what corollaries do you have of this in nature? And if Natural Selection acting on random mutations is a true theory then why was this apparent unbeneficial trait selected for in the first place?

Wicknight wrote: »

If you argue for design it is hypocritical to then ignore all the mess ups in nature simply because they lead to an undesirable conclusion.

That is not what I am doing. If there are mess ups in nature and there is no designer, then you have to attribute these mess ups to Natural Selection acting on random mutations. And if thats the case, then how were mess ups like these able to survive this long?

J C · 31-12-2010 9:05pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well this is the designer who gave us the ridiculously sub-optimal design patterns such as the female human reproduction system, the panda's thumb, the inside out eye, the defetive enzyme for Vit C in humans.

I find the Female Human reproductive system to be both fascinating and amazing ... but then I am married to one of the sexiest and most beautiful women that God ever created!!!

The Panda's Thumb is not a thumb at all and is 'much ado about evolutionary nothing'!!!:)

The eye is perfectly designed ... and any other design would result in visual inteference or oxygen starvation and/or excess heat production that could not be dissipated.

The defective Vit C enzyme is due to mutation of the original perfect design of this enzyme ... yet another example of mutations degrading genetic information ...
It also proves that is easy to lose genetic information ... but impossible to recover it once it is lost!!!!:)

Wicknight wrote: »

So given his track record a giant boat that can't float isn't beyond the realms of possibility for this "intelligent" designer. :pac:

The original Ark was a ship that was designed to float ... and it did ... and you should be grateful that it did ... otherwise you wouldn't be here to scoff at Noah and his Ark!!!

The Hong Kong Ark is a building that was designed to not float as it is a Theme Park. However, it is a full scale replica of the Biblical Ark ... and it therefore gives us some idea of the enormous scale of the original Ark.

*** A Happy and Successful New Year to you all ... and may God Bless you and protect you from all evil in the year ahead ***

Marcus.Aurelius · 31-12-2010 9:29pm

J C wrote: »

I find the Female Human reproductive system to be both fascinating and amazing ... but then I am married to one of the sexiest and most beautiful women that God ever created!!!

Pleased to hear that, but all red herrings aside, the female (and indeed male) reproductive system(s) is (are) clearly the product(s) of evolution. That succinctly obvious fact is quite wonderful.

The eye is perfectly designed ... and any other design would result in visual inteference or oxygen starvation and/or excess heat production that could not be dissipated.

Neither perfect nor irreducibly complex. Sorry about that.

Have a happy new year.

J C · 31-12-2010 9:40pm

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Pleased to hear that, but all red herrings aside, the female (and indeed male) reproductive system(s) is (are) clearly the product(s) of evolution.

How so?

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Neither perfect nor irreducibly complex. Sorry about that.

The Human eye is both perfectly designed and irreducibly complex ... and I'm happy about that!!!

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Have a happy new year.

Thank you.

Marcus.Aurelius · 31-12-2010 9:45pm

J C wrote: »

How so?

It was alluded to earlier, but am happy to regurgitate the typical response, you can look it up if you like at wikipedia's rather succinct topic on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

The Human eye is both perfectly designed and irreducibly complex ... and I'm happy about that!!!

Blind spot and poor economy aside, it is still a pretty crap effort at perfection. You might have very low standards for describing perfection.

J C · 31-12-2010 9:56pm

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

It was alluded to earlier, but am happy to regurgitate the typical response, you can look it up if you like at wikipedia's rather succinct topic on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

These examples illustrate how there are millions of ways of getting something wrong ... and few ways of getting it right.
This is actually the basis for the scientific proof of ID.

Marcus.Aurelius · 31-12-2010 10:11pm

J C wrote: »

These examples illustrate how there are millions of ways of getting something wrong ... and few ways of getting it right.
This is actually the basis for the scientific proof of ID.

EDITED TO COMPLY WITH MOD DIRECTIVE

Can we say one way or the other as to which way it should be?

Did God design animals perfectly?
If not, why not?
If yes, then why are animals full of obvious flaws that are clearly products of natural selection rather than simple degradation over a tiny period of time?

equivariant · 31-12-2010 10:32pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

... Apparent evidence of bad design is not evidence that no designer was involved.

On the contrary, it is very strong evidence that no single intelligent agent was the designer (I am assuming that you take the position that a SINGLE intelligent agent was the designer). Why would a creature who was intelligent and powerful enough to design enormously complex things like living creatures suddenly screw up and make mistakes that even we (humans) can see?

Bad design is very strong evidence that no single agent was responsible for designing a living organism.

On the other hand, occasional 'design flaws' are exactly what one would expect from an evolved (and indeed evolving) system.

Another possible explanation for design flaws is that more than one agent was involved in the design process and that one of these agents was a poor designer (this fits in more with a naturalistic explanation)

Please don't respond with a challenge to list these design flaws. I am not expert enough in biology to do that (others here are, no doubt) and I have no interest in engaging in that dispute. I am merely pointing out an error in YOUR reasoning that has nothing to do with the empirical evidence (or lack thereof).

J C · 01-01-2011 6:07pm

equivariant wrote: »

On the contrary, it is very strong evidence that no single intelligent agent was the designer (I am assuming that you take the position that a SINGLE intelligent agent was the designer). Why would a creature who was intelligent and powerful enough to design enormously complex things like living creatures suddenly screw up and make mistakes that even we (humans) can see?

Bad design is very strong evidence that no single agent was responsible for designing a living organism.

On the other hand, occasional 'design flaws' are exactly what one would expect from an evolved (and indeed evolving) system.

Another possible explanation for design flaws is that more than one agent was involved in the design process and that one of these agents was a poor designer (this fits in more with a naturalistic explanation)

Please don't respond with a challenge to list these design flaws. I am not expert enough in biology to do that (others here are, no doubt) and I have no interest in engaging in that dispute. I am merely pointing out an error in YOUR reasoning that has nothing to do with the empirical evidence (or lack thereof).

The point is that the so-called 'design flaws' that are pointed to by Evolutionists either aren't design flaws at all ... or are examples of the death and disease caused by the entry of sin and death into the World at The Fall.
Romans 5:12 (New International Version, ©2010)
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

J C · 01-01-2011 7:40pm

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

EDITED TO COMPLY WITH MOD DIRECTIVE

Can we say one way or the other as to which way it should be?

Did God design animals perfectly?
If not, why not?
If yes, then why are animals full of obvious flaws that are clearly products of natural selection rather than simple degradation over a tiny period of time?

God designed all living creatures perfectly.

Animals today are suffering from the build-up of mutational 'load' ... and this actually proves mutations to be degrading of genetic CFSI ... rather that the cause of it's production ... as Evolutionists would have us believe!!!

Examples of mutations, disease and death illustrate how there are millions of ways of getting something wrong ... and as there are few ways (often only one way) of getting it right ... and therefore only Intelligent Design is capable of producing the CFSI found in living organisms.

Your cited list actually provides proof of ID ... rather than disproving it!!!:)

Zombrex · 01-01-2011 10:42pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not at all. Life was either deliberately created by a creator or it came about by a chance happening. There is no middle ground. If you can find that middle ground then I'm all ears. But life as we know it today exhibits traits at its micro/nano level that screams deliberately designed. And all naturalistic theories fail miserably to explain it.

But if there is no intelligence to have designed it then no matter how designed you think it looks it couldn't have been designed.

You actually need an intelligence for the Intelligent Design bit.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Bad design is in the eye of the beholder.

Er, design full stop is in the eye of the beholder. You say life "screams" design. I say it "screams" anything it is bad design, something evolution can explain but intelligent design can't with introducing a bad designer which, unsurprisingly none of you seem prepared to do.

There is no point going down the rabbit hole of design and then complaining at the conclusion.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You use what you describe as bad design to rule out a designer

No I don't, I use what I describe as bad design to rule out God as the designer, since God is perfect and the idea of him producing a bad inefficent design is illogical.

Interestingly enough this annoys a lot of ID proponents, which again highlights the religious motivation behind ID.

The argument that you are just looking at the evidence rings hollow when the evidence points to a designer that falls short of God.

Then the argument becomes eye of the beholder this, only your opinion that. Which is all true, but then that is also valid for the idea it was designed at all.

It is inconsistent to rely on the idea that it looks designed but then attack the follow on position that it looks designed by someone who really didn't know what they were doing.

Soul Winner wrote: »

A God who is happy with good enough is also a good explanation.

"Happy with" is an illogical position for God since nothing is hard for God to do, and as such there is no reason to choose good enough over perfect. Perfection is as easy for God as non-perfection.

The same isn't true with evolution. Evolution can't produce perfect systems since it is a natural process with no intelligence or ability to learn or imagine. It gets by with good enough.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Look, the simple fact that life exhibits any kind of intelligent agency is valid enough reason to conclude intelligent design

But you don't care about that. You only care about that if it ends up concluding that God was the designer.

You wholesale reject the very same logic if the conclusion is that life was designed by an intelligence that falls far short of your god.

So again this claim that well it looks designed rings hollow. You aren't really interested in what it looks like because it looks badly designed, something evolution and/or a bad designer explains but something a perfect designer doesn't explain. And you are only interested in the latter.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You can't just stomp in and say that it was the result of natural processes when you can't even show that natural processes had an influence on the origin of life in the first place.

I'm sorry, can you show that your intelligence had an influence on the origin of life? Or even that your intelligence exists in the first place?

Again all I'm doing is using your own logic of what life looks like to show that it looks badly designed.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Design is still on the table even if you concede that there is evidence of bad design.

But God isn't. And you don't want anything but God on the table because you aren't interested in any conclusion other than the one that supports your religious beliefs.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm fascinated by the idea of a non God designer.

You really don't seem to be Soul Winner, you have attacked the very notion that we can conclude that life is badly designed, screaming blue murder that "bad design" is in the eye of the beholder (what? good design isn't?) and that we cannot conclude it wasn't God.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If only that idea was allowed to be postulated and allowed to have its day in court. The bad design arguments are just that, bad design. But bad design is still design and it also needs to be explained.

Darwinian evolution explains bad design, it explains good enough design, it explains inefficient design, it explains imperfect design.

A bad designer also, a much lesser degree explains this as well but since Darwinian evolution already does it seems unnecessary to introduce this as there is nothing that a bad designer explains more given that this designer is completely unknown so we have no idea what he can or cannot do or even if he exists.

God on the other hand doesn't explain any of this without introducing illogical and unsupportable claims that God choose to make a bad design out of life on Earth for some unknown reason.

There, day in court

Soul Winner wrote: »

Non design in living systems is nowhere to be seen. Everything about life appears to be designed. Our basic intuitive faculties tell us that it was all designed and for a purpose.

Our basic intuitive facultieis tell us the sun goes around the Earth (look, its moving!) or a more modern example, that quantum mechanics can't work yet it does.

It would be rather foolish to rely purely on our basic intuitive faculties.

But if you insist we do we must rule out God as the designer of life on Earth because there are simply far too many problems with how life was designed, countless examples of functions in life that even our limited intelligence could spot the error or inefficiency in the design.

Given this I would be very interested in how many IDers, including yourself, are happy then to stick to your guns and drop God as a possible designer of life on Earth.

Not many I would imagine.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The reason Darwinism is so popular is because it is the only theory that can go some way to explaining the evolution of life without invoking the need for a designer.

Darwinism is the only theory that can explain life within a scientific framework.

You can explain anything in life, any question or query about the natural world, by invoking a designer who just magically did it that way. But you will notice that isn't an actual explanation.

Firstly you have no way to telling if it is actually accurate or not. The most obvious example of this is that if God or any intelligence capable of creating life on Earth doesn't actually exist then intelligent design cannot be the explanation for life on Earth. So can we test if God or any intelligence capable of creating life on Earth exists? Of course not. IDers would hate that because you might accidently wind up with a test that does actually demonstrate that life wasn't intelligently designed, and they have religious motivations for believing this.

Secondly it doesn't explain what actually happened. IDers have never actually got beyond saying that something must have designed life on Earth. They can't tell you when, or how, or what it did. They can't tell you which parts were designed and which parts evolved. And they can't provide any tests to confirm any of this even if they were interested in having a guess.

It becomes as pointless as seeing a smashed in window and saying "God did it" and moving on.

Most people (ie those not solely motivated by religious dogma) are actually interested in the what and how, not just the why.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But that is just trying to explain things in a way that suits a particular world view and that world view is not scientific. It is naturalistic. And naturalism by definition cannot be proven by the scientific method.

Nothing can be proven by the scientific method. That is the point.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The apparent flaws in the design need explanation but you don't automatically throw out the idea that it was designed just because there are apparent flaws in the design. Maybe the designer designed it perfectly and something at some point was allowed to screw it up somehow. Ever think of that possibility with your so called open mindness?

Once again you betray your true motivations here. Umm, perhaps it was designed perfectly and then was "allowed" screw up. Umm, so God is still in the running isn't he. Umm, I wonder if there is some theological event that would explain perfect design falling into an imperfect state.

Or it was just a bad designer. But again, we don't really want it to be a bad designer do we Soul Winner?

Soul Winner wrote: »

IDers (like me as you say) are open to plausible explanations for how life came about and how it evolved from that state. But Natural Selection acting on random mutations is just not cutting it as an all encompassing valid scientific explanation, I'm sorry.

I'm sure the millions of biologists who use such a theory every day in their work will be disappointed that for you it just ain't cutting it.

And let me guess, any conclusion that doesn't lead to God just doesn't cut it for you either.

Be honest Soul Winner, can you ever accept an explain that doesn't include God given that you are already utterly convinced, for other external reasons, that God exists and made life?

Soul Winner wrote: »

What naturalist like you get angry about is the refusal of IDers like me for just not accepting (believing) your theory. But this is a common trait in any religion. Intolerance for the infidels.

I only get angry when IDers like you try to manipulate scientific processes because you are unhappy they don't give you the answers you want.

If you are happy to leave science alone I'm happy to leave you alone. And remember I'm not the one who had a rant about smug atheists a few days ago.

Soul Winner wrote: »

To define suboptimal design you would need to know what the optimal design was in the designer's mind first. Do you know this?

No you don't. To define suboptimal design you simply need to define a more optimal way of achieving the exact same function. Which you can easily do with the examples given (odd that a limited species such as ourselves can already do this, yet we fall far short of the ability to seed planets with designed life, but we are expected to believe that an intelligence that could seed planets with life would fail to see these design flaws)

Soul Winner wrote: »

But what corollaries do you have of this in nature?

I already gave you the list. There are literally thousands of examples in nature of this.

You know this, you are already floating the concept of the Fall to explain this (you wouldn't be the first Creationist/IDer to do that either, though again it isn't called the Fall it is called some unknown event that disrupted the perfect designed state).

Soul Winner wrote: »

And if Natural Selection acting on random mutations is a true theory then why was this apparent unbeneficial trait selected for in the first place?

Because it isn't unbeneficial. It is "good enough." The family hang on for dear life but they don't fall out. But it is far from optimal.

Again evolution explains all that we see in nature. That is why we use it. There is no great mystery here Soul Winner. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains better than any other scientific theory life on Earth. It explains the good bits and the bad bits.

Saying "God did it" doesn't explain that.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is not what I am doing.

It is exactly what you are doing. You have either attacked the idea that we can assess it is "bad" design in the first place (yet seem oblivious that these are the arguments that also attack the idea that it was designed in the first place), or suggested that maybe it was initially designed perfectly and then changed for some unknown reason.

You are unhappy with any conclusion that isn't "God did it" because this is religious in motivation.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If there are mess ups in nature and there is no designer, then you have to attribute these mess ups to Natural Selection acting on random mutations. And if thats the case, then how were mess ups like these able to survive this long?

Because mess ups can be good enough.

To paraphrase Michael Bay's movie Armageddon the only question evolution cares about is "Can they physically survive the journey or not"

If you make it to reproduce that is all evolution care about.

Zombrex · 01-01-2011 10:48pm

J C wrote: »

I find the Female Human reproductive system to be both fascinating and amazing ... but then I am married to one of the sexiest and most beautiful women that God ever created!!!

No matter how beautiful she is that ain't going to stop her having a ectopic pregnancy, which if she was living 100 years ago would probably result in both her and her babies death.

You might want to ask God why he decided to design her reproductive system that way. Or perhaps have a discussion with someone who has had to abort their baby because of an ectopic pregnancy that this is the sign of intelligent design by a perfect designer.

Or let me guess, it was the fault of her sins. :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

The eye is perfectly designed ... and any other design would result in visual inteference or oxygen starvation and/or excess heat production that could not be dissipated.

Given that there are other designs in nature that don't reulst in visual interference or oxygen starvation I'm going to chalk that down to you simply not knowing what you are talking about.

J C · 02-01-2011 2:13am

Wicknight wrote: »

No matter how beautiful she is that ain't going to stop her having a ectopic pregnancy, which if she was living 100 years ago would probably result in both her and her babies death.

You might want to ask God why he decided to design her reproductive system that way. Or perhaps have a discussion with someone who has had to abort their baby because of an ectopic pregnancy that this is the sign of intelligent design by a perfect designer.

Or let me guess, it was the fault of her sins. :rolleyes:

Yes, unfortunately disease and death are an ever present reality, since the Fall ... and modern medicine has made huge strides in the short-term control of the effects of disease ... but it hasn't conquered death ... which shall only be defeated upon the Second Coming of Jesus Christ:
1 Cor 15:21-26
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that there are other designs in nature that don't reulst in visual interference or oxygen starvation I'm going to chalk that down to you simply not knowing what you are talking about.

There aren't any such designs that I am aware of.

Scofflaw · 02-01-2011 3:24am

Happy New Year to all on the thread!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Morbert · 02-01-2011 4:21am

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not at all. Life was either deliberately created by a creator or it came about by a chance happening. There is no middle ground. If you can find that middle ground then I'm all ears. But life as we know it today exhibits traits at its micro/nano level that screams deliberately designed. And all naturalistic theories fail miserably to explain it.

You're cheating a little here. We have established earlier that the first self-replicating system must have been a chance happening. This is "life" and the chances of it happening are as high as 1 in 10^40. Life "as we know it today", however, was not a chance happening, but rather the result of a gradual accumulation of beneficial mutations.

Bad design is in the eye of the beholder. You use what you describe as bad design to rule out a designer, but even a badly designed car is still designed. God (if He exists) is not necessarily painted into the corner of having to create the optimal design for anything.

A God who is happy with good enough is also a good explanation. Natural selection is never concerned with what is good enough. It is an uncaring, mindless and blind process that cannot foresee the outcome for what it selects for or rejects. The phrase survival of the fittest is a given. Of course the fittest will survive. What's new? That is not a phrase that exclusively supports evolution, it is a principle that is all encompassing. You could easily argue that God set it up that way.

Look, the simple fact that life exhibits any kind of intelligent agency is valid enough reason to conclude intelligent design. Where bad design eventually works its way into the equation is a matter of debate in relation to the nature of the designer but you don't throw out the conclusion that it was designed. You can't just stomp in and say that it was the result of natural processes when you can't even show that natural processes had an influence on the origin of life in the first place. Design is still on the table even if you concede that there is evidence of bad design. Apparent evidence of bad design is not evidence that no designer was involved.

I'm fascinated by the idea of a non God designer. If only that idea was allowed to be postulated and allowed to have its day in court. The bad design arguments are just that, bad design. But bad design is still design and it also needs to be explained. Non design in living systems is nowhere to be seen. Everything about life appears to be designed. Our basic intuitive faculties tell us that it was all designed and for a purpose. The reason Darwinism is so popular is because it is the only theory that can go some way to explaining the evolution of life without invoking the need for a designer. Which is why people like Professor Dawkins can call himself an intellectually fulfilled atheist. But that is just trying to explain things in a way that suits a particular world view and that world view is not scientific. It is naturalistic. And naturalism by definition cannot be proven by the scientific method.

Not at all. Even if the designer did mess up, that is not a good argument that it wasn't designed. It doesn't just default to the idea that it wasn't designed at all. The apparent flaws in the design need explanation but you don't automatically throw out the idea that it was designed just because there are apparent flaws in the design. Maybe the designer designed it perfectly and something at some point was allowed to screw it up somehow. Ever think of that possibility with your so called open mindness?

IDers (like me as you say) are open to plausible explanations for how life came about and how it evolved from that state. But Natural Selection acting on random mutations is just not cutting it as an all encompassing valid scientific explanation, I'm sorry. What naturalist like you get angry about is the refusal of IDers like me for just not accepting (believing) your theory. But this is a common trait in any religion. Intolerance for the infidels.

To define suboptimal design you would need to know what the optimal design was in the designer's mind first. Do you know this?

But what corollaries do you have of this in nature? And if Natural Selection acting on random mutations is a true theory then why was this apparent unbeneficial trait selected for in the first place?

That is not what I am doing. If there are mess ups in nature and there is no designer, then you have to attribute these mess ups to Natural Selection acting on random mutations. And if thats the case, then how were mess ups like these able to survive this long?

You are right about "bad design" being too vague. So let's be more specific. Instead of "bad", let's rephrase the point and say the designer seems to have chosen designs that explicitly reflect evolutionary histories. Since natural selection can only favour mutations that provide an immediate benefit, the resultant "designs" cannot strive for long term goals. The result is a plethora of designs in life that represent the accumulation gradual modifications, as opposed to unconstrained redesign (which an intelligent designer would be free to do). The laryngeal nerve, for example, connects the brain to the larynx. But it does so via a convoluted path around blood vessels below the larynx. This is because, as the mammalian neck evolved, "locally" beneficial mutations of the nerve were chosen, and with each iteration, it was simpler and immediately beneficial to accommodate a neck by gradually lengthening the nerve rather than rewiring it to bypass unnecessary organs. The extreme case of this is in the giraffe, where the nerve travels all the way down the neck and back up again when a designer could have simply directly connected the nerve to the larynx. This is just one of many examples.

So the salient point is not that the designs are "bad", but that they are bad in precisely the way we would expect if they had evolved. A designer, of course, is free to pick any design they want, but it seems, if life was designed, then the designer has chosen designs that specifically reflect an evolutionary origin.

To use an analogy, imagine the difference between a jumbo jet built from scratch, and one that is build by gradually modifying a bi-plane, where each modification must be an improvement over the last. The design would be riddled with constraints from the bi-plane, and would have a very different design. The former, "from scratch" design, is the type of design we see in man-made things. The latter "design" is what we see in life: modifications, always constrained by the selection of short-term advantages over long-term goals.

Marcus.Aurelius · 02-01-2011 6:50pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that there are other designs in nature that don't reulst in visual interference or oxygen starvation I'm going to chalk that down to you simply not knowing what you are talking about.

I think I've decided to give up arguing with that kind of Creationist, the circular reasoning gets too much after a while.

:pac:

Zombrex · 03-01-2011 12:04pm

J C wrote: »

Yes, unfortunately disease and death are an ever present reality, since the Fall

And who designed the female reproductive system? "The Fall"?

J C wrote: »

There aren't any such designs that I am aware of.

I'm well aware of that fact.

J C · 03-01-2011 10:21pm

Wicknight wrote: »

And who designed the female reproductive system? "The Fall"?

God did so.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm well aware of that fact.

Good!!!:D

J C · 03-01-2011 10:34pm

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

I think I've decided to give up arguing with that kind of Creationist, the circular reasoning gets too much after a while.

:pac:

... yes, the reasoning may have got too much for you!!!:)

Zombrex · 03-01-2011 11:51pm

J C wrote: »

God did so.

So God designed this imperfect system? And you can tell it was God by virtue of the fact that it is very flawed and prone to error?

Soul Winner · 04-01-2011 6:06am

Wicknight wrote: »

But if there is no intelligence to have designed it then no matter how designed you think it looks it couldn't have been designed.

You actually need an intelligence for the Intelligent Design bit.

Well obviously. ???

???

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, design full stop is in the eye of the beholder. You say life "screams" design. I say it "screams" anything it is bad design, something evolution can explain but intelligent design can't with introducing a bad designer which, unsurprisingly none of you seem prepared to do.

Bad design is still design. Whatever the reason for the apparent bad design you can't (based on that) conclude that it was by chance and the laws of chemistry.

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no point going down the rabbit hole of design and then complaining at the conclusion.

Who's complaining? If you conclude bad design then fine. Its still design.

Wicknight wrote: »

No I don't, I use what I describe as bad design to rule out God as the designer, since God is perfect and the idea of him producing a bad inefficent design is illogical.

So a perfect God cannot produce bad design if He so chose? Why not?

Wicknight wrote: »

Interestingly enough this annoys a lot of ID proponents, which again highlights the religious motivation behind ID.

It doesn't annoy me. Even if it could be shown (by our meagerly efforts) that God exists but that He appears somewhat imperfect from our limited perspective, it would still mean that He exists. So we would then have to analyze how we would draw the distinction between what is perfect and what isn't. Is something only perfect because it appears that way to us?

Wicknight wrote: »

The argument that you are just looking at the evidence rings hollow when the evidence points to a designer that falls short of God.

No it doesn't.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is inconsistent to rely on the idea that it looks designed but then attack the follow on position that it looks designed by someone who really didn't know what they were doing.

But who says that they didn't know what they were doing? How can you judge that? How do you know? Oh I know, from all your centuries of designing organisms. That's like me walking into a BMW factory and criticizing the designers because their cars have what I would regard as flaws in their design. I don't know beans about designing BMWs, so how could I adjudge what is optimal or not?

Wicknight wrote: »

"Happy with" is an illogical position for God since nothing is hard for God to do, and as such there is no reason to choose good enough over perfect. Perfection is as easy for God as non-perfection.

But as a free agent He could choose "good enough" if He wanted to.

Wicknight wrote: »

The same isn't true with evolution. Evolution can't produce perfect systems since it is a natural process with no intelligence or ability to learn or imagine. It gets by with good enough.

And yet evolution is quite able to freeze the good mutations and propagate them and discard the bad ones. How does Natural Selection (NS) know these things? How can such a blind and mindless process plan ahead in this way? It seems like it knows what its doing but under Darwinian principles it shouldn't.

Wicknight wrote: »

But you don't care about that. You only care about that if it ends up concluding that God was the designer.

No I don't. That's all in your head. Evidence of design does not necessarily mean that the designer is God even if I believe it is. It doesn't matter what I believe.

Wicknight wrote: »

You wholesale reject the very same logic if the conclusion is that life was designed by an intelligence that falls far short of your god.

No I don't.

Wicknight wrote: »

So again this claim that well it looks designed rings hollow. You aren't really interested in what it looks like because it looks badly designed, something evolution and/or a bad designer explains but something a perfect designer doesn't explain. And you are only interested in the latter.

Evolution does not explain apparent bad design. Evolution explains diddley squat when it comes to the complexity at a molecular level. If Darwin were alive today he'd be the first to admit this.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sorry, can you show that your intelligence had an influence on the origin of life? Or even that your intelligence exists in the first place?

Yes but you wouldn't believe me.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again all I'm doing is using your own logic of what life looks like to show that it looks badly designed.

In order to do that you would have to produce or at least theoretically produce what you would regard as good design. What is good design? Can you give an example of it?

Wicknight wrote: »

But God isn't. And you don't want anything but God on the table because you aren't interested in any conclusion other than the one that supports your religious beliefs.

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with what we are arguing about here and it doesn't matter how much you try to beat them into this discussion in order to make it look like I'm being the dogmatic one it will not stick with anyone who is attentively reading through the discussion, your just making yourself feel better and avoiding the real issues. Random Mutations are as much of a cop out as the God did it explanations.

Wicknight wrote: »

You really don't seem to be Soul Winner, you have attacked the very notion that we can conclude that life is badly designed, screaming blue murder that "bad design" is in the eye of the beholder (what? good design isn't?) and that we cannot conclude it wasn't God.

OK give us an example of good design. You must have this if you can define something as being badly designed. Even something that exhibits traits of bad design is still designed. A sand dune is not designed at all so you can't call one sand dune well designed and another badly designed. But you claim to know what a badly designed organism looks like. If that's the case then how do you know? Do you have a well designed organism to show us the contrast? If not, then how do you know what can and cannot be construed as badly designed?

Wicknight wrote: »

Darwinian evolution explains bad design, it explains good enough design, it explains inefficient design, it explains imperfect design.

Darwinian evolution proceeds through a series of steps that are gradual and indeterministic. It doesn't' know what's around the corner. It has no plans on what should or should not be produced. Its just a natural process that selects for the most beneficial traits and simply discards the beneficial ones (or so the theory goes). It has no concept of design at all, and yet through this simple mindless and goalless process we are asked to accept it as a sufficient explanation for all the complexity of life on our planet. Give me a break. Even if I was an atheist I wouldn't accept that as a valid explanation. It requires as much of not more faith than any religious belief.

Wicknight wrote: »

A bad designer also, a much lesser degree explains this as well but since Darwinian evolution already does it seems unnecessary to introduce this as there is nothing that a bad designer explains more given that this designer is completely unknown so we have no idea what he can or cannot do or even if he exists.

Random Mutations don't do it either. Why should your faith in that process have any more validity than my faith that it was designed?

Wicknight wrote: »

God on the other hand doesn't explain any of this without introducing illogical and unsupportable claims that God choose to make a bad design out of life on Earth for some unknown reason.

That maybe so but it is still as plausible a hypothesis as Random Mutations.

Wicknight wrote: »

Our basic intuitive facultieis tell us the sun goes around the Earth (look, its moving!) or a more modern example, that quantum mechanics can't work yet it does.

A closer look at the inner workings of our solar system will tell us different. But a closer look at the goings on at the molecular level of biochemistry tell us that life could not have come about by natural means alone. It is vastly too complex to be possible.

Wicknight wrote: »

It would be rather foolish to rely purely on our basic intuitive faculties.

Agreed.

Wicknight wrote: »

But if you insist we do we must rule out God as the designer of life on Earth because there are simply far too many problems with how life was designed, countless examples of functions in life that even our limited intelligence could spot the error or inefficiency in the design.

Limited intelligence? I thought you said that it would be rather foolish to rely purely on our basic intuitive faculties?

Wicknight wrote: »

Given this I would be very interested in how many IDers, including yourself, are happy then to stick to your guns and drop God as a possible designer of life on Earth.

But as the designer might well turn to be God why should we have to do that?

Wicknight wrote: »

Darwinism is the only theory that can explain life within a scientific framework.

But when you take the blinkers off you will not see things this way. There has been many things that have refuted Darwinism over the last 150 years and by now under the scientific method it should have been replaced by a different theory, but unlike other theories in science after they have been debunked by the evidence Darwinism has been allowed to stay on. Why is that? That's not the scientific method.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can explain anything in life, any question or query about the natural world, by invoking a designer who just magically did it that way. But you will notice that isn't an actual explanation.

Neither is Natural Selection acting on (unobserved and unproven) Random Mutations.

Wicknight wrote: »

Firstly you have no way to telling if it is actually accurate or not. The most obvious example of this is that if God or any intelligence capable of creating life on Earth doesn't actually exist then intelligent design cannot be the explanation for life on Earth. So can we test if God or any intelligence capable of creating life on Earth exists? Of course not. IDers would hate that because you might accidently wind up with a test that does actually demonstrate that life wasn't intelligently designed, and they have religious motivations for believing this.

Circular reasoning. If God or any intelligence capable of creating life on earth doesn't actually exist then of course it is not a good explanation for how life came about. That I would have thought was a given. But given that we don't actually know whether this is the case or not why is that option vehemently apposed by the materialists? Because they have already concluded that such a being doesn't exists and therefore couldn't have played any part in how life came about and therefore anyone who believes that it did is either ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Wicknight wrote: »

Nothing can be proven by the scientific method. That is the point.

But the best explanation should rise to the surface more so than others.

Wicknight wrote: »

Once again you betray your true motivations here. Umm, perhaps it was designed perfectly and then was "allowed" screw up. Umm, so God is still in the running isn't he. Umm, I wonder if there is some theological event that would explain perfect design falling into an imperfect state.

You can only exclude God as an explanation when you have shown conclusively that He does not exist. You don't have to prove that He doesn't exist, just show to such a degree that it convinces the intellect. As long as science cannot do this then the God hypothesis is still an option. And real scientist would not discard it unless they had done the necessary before hand.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or it was just a bad designer. But again, we don't really want it to be a bad designer do we Soul Winner?

Bad designer, good designer its all the one to me Wicknight. Its still a designer. If God chooses to be a bad designer then so be it. If aliens did it then so be it too. But can natural selection acting on random mutations explain it any better? Think about it. Random mutations????? If you want to accept that hypothesis then all I'm saying is that that requires as much if not more faith than the God hypothesis. But the God hypothesis is a much simpler explanation, only those who are predisposed to disbelieve in it will not accept it. But the law of Occam's razor ( principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions) dictates that the God hypothesis should take precedence of the more complex hypothesis of natural selection acting on random mutations.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure the millions of biologists who use such a theory every day in their work will be disappointed that for you it just ain't cutting it.

Do you really believe that they sit down everyday and make sure that they adhere to Darwinian principles in order to carry out their day to day work? I don't think so. They don't need to.

Wicknight wrote: »

And let me guess, any conclusion that doesn't lead to God just doesn't cut it for you either.

Just a plausible one will do thanks. Even so, it mightn't destroy my faith but it will shut me up for while.

Wicknight wrote: »

Be honest Soul Winner, can you ever accept an explain that doesn't include God given that you are already utterly convinced, for other external reasons, that God exists and made life?

Maybe not. But heck try me.

Wicknight wrote: »

I only get angry when IDers like you try to manipulate scientific processes because you are unhappy they don't give you the answers you want.

First off, what answers do you think I want scientific processes to give me? And secondly, what makes you think that current science is not supporting the God hypothesis?

Wicknight wrote: »

If you are happy to leave science alone I'm happy to leave you alone. And remember I'm not the one who had a rant about smug atheists a few days ago.

I don't care if you leave me alone. My so called rant was to show that according to the book of Romans God's wrath is already being poured out on people who simply cannot see His hand in the creation and such do not glorify Him as God or give thanks to Him for it. And because of this He has chosen to take any God sense they had from them and as a result of this taking away of any God sense they had, they become fools even though they profess themselves to be wise. That's all God's rant not mine.

Wicknight wrote: »

No you don't. To define suboptimal design you simply need to define a more optimal way of achieving the exact same function. Which you can easily do with the examples given (odd that a limited species such as ourselves can already do this, yet we fall far short of the ability to seed planets with designed life, but we are expected to believe that an intelligence that could seed planets with life would fail to see these design flaws)

First off please define what a flaw is and then show an example of an organism without such flaws, then explain that organism's existence. Or if you are simply going to theoretically shows us a better way of designing an organism please explain how you could have done this without knowing the inner workings of existing organisms in the first place, and then actually produce your organism of optimal design in nature.

We can't even produce a tiny functional single celled organism, heck we even need existing RNA in order to reproduce synthetic RNA under very controlled LAB conditions. How come we with our amazing brains and minds cannot do this even using pre-existing materials and yet it was supposed to have been done in nature using a mechanism that is both mindless and blind? And then to go from that microscopic complexity to macro complexity where we have organisms that have trillions of different types of cells (which are astonishing in their own complexity, their encoding and decoding of the biochemical information and so on) all working together to become different types of tissue to become different types of organs to perform different kinds of functions all working together to keep the organism alive and healthy and capable of reproducing. It really boggles my mind to see otherwise intelligent people holding to a theory that simply breaks off any attachment to reason by virtue of its implausibility and impossibility who then have the brass neck to scoff at people for believing in a supernatural Creator who (if He did exist) could do it all.

Marcus.Aurelius · 04-01-2011 6:34pm

J C wrote: »

... yes, the reasoning may have got too much for you!!!:)

Not polite to flatter yourself. It's most unbecoming.

Round and round we go.

J C · 05-01-2011 2:20am

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Not polite to flatter yourself. It's most unbecoming.

I wasn't engaging in flattery ... I was making an observation of fact!!:)

Zombrex · 05-01-2011 2:29am

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well obviously. ??? ???

Well I was beginning to wonder.

The penny seems not to have dropped yet that you don't actually have a designer. As such you can't assess the plausibility of him designing anything.

Evolution has natural processes that could account for the rise of self replicating molecules that could evolve into more complex forms.

That is independent to the quesiton of whether that actually was what happened or not. It is at least plausible.

If your designer doesn't exist then ID is not only implausible, it is impossible.

So, can you demonstrate that your designer exists and could have created life on Earth. You don't have to show he did, just that he could have?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Bad design is still design. Whatever the reason for the apparent bad design you can't (based on that) conclude that it was by chance and the laws of chemistry.

Evolution produces bad design. We have countless examples of this, and thus evolution explains the presence of bad, or "good enough" design in life.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who's complaining? If you conclude bad design then fine. Its still design.

Consistent with evolution. Inconsistent with a perfect deity.

So we go back to the question of plausibility.

Think of it the other way around. Evolution should rarely if ever produce a perfect system. The presence of such a system would count against Evolution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So a perfect God cannot produce bad design if He so chose? Why not?

Of course he can. But it is implausible to argue he did just because you discover the expected design doesn't match your notion of who the designer must be.

You could do the same with evolution. Evolution shouldn't produce a string of perfect design. If it did it would be come less and less plausible to argue that evolution produced it. You wouldn't argue evolution produced a gold watch in the desert, so why would you argue that God produced the female reproductive system?

You can't have it both ways Soul Winner.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But who says that they didn't know what they were doing? How can you judge that? How do you know? Oh I know, from all your centuries of designing organisms.

That is a very good point. It is also a good point against saying it is designed at all.

Can you show me the species of animal you know are designed, the ones you compared life on Earth to in order to see they are designed.

Or did you just figure they were designed because you can't think of how else they arrived at.

So why can't I do the same? Why can't I say that by looking at it I conclude it is flawed design. If you understand that you understand why people don't take ID seriously.

Its funny how you can apply the logic of skepticism to everything but your own position

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's like me walking into a BMW factory and criticizing the designers because their cars have what I would regard as flaws in their design. I don't know beans about designing BMWs, so how could I adjudge what is optimal or not?

In fact how do you know you are in the BMW factory at all without being told. So who told you life on Earth was designed by intelligence?

Soul Winner wrote: »

But as a free agent He could choose "good enough" if He wanted to.

Of course. But why suppose he did as opposed to a flawed designer?

A perfect being making a flawed design is indistinguishable from a flawed being making a flawed design if the only thing you are judging is the flawed design. To assert that the designer is perfect from the flawed design by introducing some extra arbitrary explanation is bad logic.

It is only your religious motivation here that makes you conclude God did it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And yet evolution is quite able to freeze the good mutations and propagate them and discard the bad ones. How does Natural Selection (NS) know these things? How can such a blind and mindless process plan ahead in this way? It seems like it knows what its doing but under Darwinian principles it shouldn't.

No actually it doesn't seem like it knows what it is doing, that is the bad design. For example the nerves in the neck of the Giraffe that go all the way up and then all the way down again, rather than just across.

Why would God do that this way? You have no answer to that other than he can do what he wants.

On the other hand it is quite clear why evolution did that, it doesn't know what it is trying to end up with.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No I don't. That's all in your head. Evidence of design does not necessarily mean that the designer is God even if I believe it is. It doesn't matter what I believe.

So you are honestly happy with life not being designed by God? I doubt that, given this seems to be your main object to evolution in the first place, the absence of God.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Evolution does not explain apparent bad design. Evolution explains diddley squat when it comes to the complexity at a molecular level.

No, you don't understand what evolution explains about complexity at the molecular level. That is not the same as evolution not explaining it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes but you wouldn't believe me.

I shouldn't have to believe you if you can show it. I mean scientifically of course, that such a designer exists and might have started life on Earth.

Soul Winner wrote: »

In order to do that you would have to produce or at least theoretically produce what you would regard as good design. What is good design? Can you give an example of it?

No, I simple have to produce better design. And in fact I don't have to produce it, nature itself already does.

For example there are eyes in the natural world that operate much better than the human eye. Why? Because they evolved independently, and this time when evolution had a crack at it it produced a more efficient design.

Can you explain that in the context of a universal creator of life on Earth? Or perhaps you want to suppose there were more than one creator?

Soul Winner wrote: »

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with what we are arguing about here and it doesn't matter how much you try to beat them into this discussion in order to make it look like I'm being the dogmatic one it will not stick with anyone who is attentively reading through the discussion, your just making yourself feel better and avoiding the real issues. Random Mutations are as much of a cop out as the God did it explanations.

No, random mutations are scientifically testable. God, or any designer for that matter, isn't.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Darwinian evolution proceeds through a series of steps that are gradual and indeterministic. It doesn't' know what's around the corner. It has no plans on what should or should not be produced. Its just a natural process that selects for the most beneficial traits and simply discards the beneficial ones (or so the theory goes). It has no concept of design at all, and yet through this simple mindless and goalless process we are asked to accept it as a sufficient explanation for all the complexity of life on our planet. Give me a break. Even if I was an atheist I wouldn't accept that as a valid explanation. It requires as much of not more faith than any religious belief.

No, it merely requires scientific understand of what the theory actually says, something you seem to still sorely lack.

It is funny though that it is mostly only religious people who have trouble with evolution. Your claim that you still wouldn't get it if you were an atheist rings a little hollow.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Random Mutations don't do it either. Why should your faith in that process have any more validity than my faith that it was designed?

Because we know "my" process actually exists. People study mutation and natural selection all time, with countless examples of it.

Can you show your designer exists, and as such is at least a plausible explanation?

Even one example of where your designer had created something?

Soul Winner wrote: »

A closer look at the inner workings of our solar system will tell us different.

As does studying biology. Have you actually bothered to study biology? Or do you just read all this stuff from Creationist websites?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Limited intelligence? I thought you said that it would be rather foolish to rely purely on our basic intuitive faculties?

And I thought you agreed

You are slightly missing the point here. All the flaws you come up with for why we can't assess if something is or isn't badly designed are also why we can't assess it is intelligently designed at all.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But when you take the blinkers off you will not see things this way. There has been many things that have refuted Darwinism over the last 150 years and by now under the scientific method it should have been replaced by a different theory, but unlike other theories in science after they have been debunked by the evidence Darwinism has been allowed to stay on. Why is that? That's not the scientific method.

Can you list the things that have refuted Neo-Darwinian evolution from a source that isn't a Creationist website?

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason millions of biologists around the world accept evolutionary biology is because it does actually pass scientific standards, even if you yourself can't see how it could?

I mean it is rather arrogant to think that you have found the major flaw that everyone else missed.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Circular reasoning. If God or any intelligence capable of creating life on earth doesn't actually exist then of course it is not a good explanation for how life came about. That I would have thought was a given.

I would have thought so, but since you haven't demonstrated he exists you apparently are missing the point.

Evolution is, at the very least, plausible. It works now, it is reasonable to assume that it also could have worked in the past.

If that wasn't the case then evolution would be impossible, and thus not a plausible explanation.

It has been necessary for biologists to show in the present how evolution works in order to say it is a plausible explanation for the past.

You will notice IDers haven't done that with their designer. You haven't showed he even exists. So how can you say it is a plausible explanation?

Soul Winner wrote: »

But given that we don't actually know whether this is the case or not why is that option vehemently apposed by the materialists?

LOL!

Because we don't know if it is the case or not and you can't show it might be. Man oh man Soul Winner, what part of this are you not getting.

You can't show a designer even exists, so what part of this design should we be looking at??

We know what evolution is like, we study it all the time in the present. We then have a framework to look at what it might have done in the past.

What do you have? Vague judgement that it sort of looks designed because we can't figure out how it could arise naturally? How is that something workable?

Because they have already concluded that such a being doesn't exists and therefore couldn't have played any part in how life came about and therefore anyone who believes that it did is either ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the best explanation should rise to the surface more so than others.

The best explanation is one that can be rigorously tested.

How do you rigorously test intelligent design? Answer me that and I'll buy you a lollipop, and some other people will probably give you a Nobel Prize.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You can only exclude God as an explanation when you have shown conclusively that He does not exist.

No one excludes God as an explanation. No one excludes Zeus or the Easter Bunny as an explanation either. Anything is, as they say, possible.

But since you haven't come up with a way to test the accuracy of said explanation it is irrelevant to science.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Bad designer, good designer its all the one to me Wicknight. Its still a designer. If God chooses to be a bad designer then so be it. If aliens did it then so be it too. But can natural selection acting on random mutations explain it any better? Think about it. Random mutations?????

Every time you say something like that I makes me think you really just don't have a clue about evolution.

You do know that even Creationists like JC accept that "Random mutations?????" produce new phenotypes in life forms?

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you want to accept that hypothesis then all I'm saying is that that requires as much if not more faith than the God hypothesis.

No, it requires a testable scientific theory.

Whether you can understand it or not Random mutations?????? do regularly produce new phenotypes in life forms which sometimes are selected by natural selection.

You can say you don't understand how that can be, but it still happens.

So now what are people asking others to believe? That the process we know works now also worked in the past. Not much of a stretch, is it.

On the other hand what are you asking people to believe? That some unknown entity that you can't even show exists may or may not have done something at some unknown point to some unknown group of life forms that may or may not have altered some unknown part of said life forms to do some unknown thing. All of which results in something that you think, based on nothing to compare it with, is designed.

Yeah, I'm the one with the faith position :rolleyes:

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments