Evolution Vs. God

mrphilosophias

The real question is can you give me proof of a complex system known not to be designed that accomplishes some critical objective and possesses these attributes?

edit on 24-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

Here's one: Our solar system

Although you are assuming the "design" created by the universe requires "efficiency in efficacy," which shows you are automatically assuming an intent by a metaphysical god. Please learn to think logically. You are spouting off way too many fallacies.

paradox

mrphilosophias

The real question is can you give me proof of a complex system known not to be designed that accomplishes some critical objective and possesses these attributes?

edit on 24-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

Here's one: Our solar system

Although you are assuming the "design" created by the universe requires "efficiency in efficacy," which shows you are automatically assuming an intent by a metaphysical god. Please learn to think logically. You are spouting off way too many fallacies.

edit on 9-24-13 by paradox because: (no reason given)

You know our solar system to not be designed?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Even if designed, I would not call it intelligent - it is more like fault design.

Meteorites were unable to form into planet, we encounter many of them. Earth is rotating around sun, coming closer with time, and our moon is doing the same thing to earth. Just last week scientist estimate that would take about 1.75-2.5 billion of years for earth to get out of 'life supporting' area, meaning that it will become inhabitable for life.

You call that intelligent?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Can you prove that our solar system was designed? I'm not talking about evidence that can be interpreted to suggest intelligent design. I'm talking about exclusive and conclusive proof.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


We know solar systems are formed by natural processes, none of which involve a god speaking it into existence or whatever hocus pocus bull# you believe.

SuperFrog
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Even if designed, I would not call it intelligent - it is more like fault design.

Meteorites were unable to form into planet, we encounter many of them. Earth is rotating around sun, coming closer with time, and our moon is doing the same thing to earth. Just last week scientist estimate that would take about 1.75-2.5 billion of years for earth to get out of 'life supporting' area, meaning that it will become inhabitable for life.

You call that intelligent?

edit on 24-9-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

I find it funny when science talks about time before the earth or the sun existed in seconds, minutes, and years. Time is a measure of change. Our time is measured by changes in the orbits of the earth relative to the sun. Need I point out the paradox here?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


I find it funny that you completely dodged the point. Also, my question still waits to be answered. You can find it in my previous post.

paradox
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

We know solar systems are formed by natural processes, none of which involve a god speaking it into existence or whatever hocus pocus bull# you believe.

We have an idea about how solar systems and life might form by natural processes. Even this we do not understand. What science is not equipped to answer is the questions why solar systems and life form. The answer of why might possibly be derived from the answer of how. How does the Universe achieve these things? As a result of the physical systems being ordered in a manner consistent with the aforementioned characteristics. These characteristics constitute an appearance of design. Why does the universe give birth to solar systems and life? Because it was designed to do so.

AfterInfinity
I find it funny that you completely dodged the point. Also, my question still waits to be answered. You can find it in my previous post.

edit on 24-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I wasn't dodging your point. I was working out of order.

As to your question:

Can you prove that our solar system was designed? I'm not talking about evidence that can be interpreted to suggest intelligent design. I'm talking about exclusive and conclusive proof.

I can prove that it abounds with characteristics that constitute an appearance of design.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

I can prove that it abounds with characteristics that constitute an appearance of design.

That's not even close to the same thing and you know it. Hell, by that argument, I could accuse you of being a serial rapist simply because every other serial rapist in existence did the same things you do and looked something like you too.

"Oh, it looks like it was designed and everyone knows I am the resident expert on what intelligent design looks like!" Sorry for the brutal sarcasm, but no amount of poetic phrasing or scholarly verbosity can disguise the fallacious nature of your argument. That's why the essence of your case is buried so deeply, isn't it? You're hoping that if you can keep us from looking too closely, we won't be able to refute it.

You're talking possibility. Possibility is not the same as probability.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


You are speaking in circles. This brings me back to the post I made here which you either ignored, or did not see.

So, basically your method is to assume? It looks designed, therefor God? That is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

Complex systems known to be designed.complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy.

How vague can you get, the only known complex systems known to be designed are man made.

What rules allow you to predict, with accuracy and confidence, what is designed and what is natural?

You claim something is designed? How do you confirm that fact? What rules or criteria do you use? Without a formal process for confirming observations as facts you have nothing.
Until you can determine reliably what is designed and what is not designed you have nothing.

mrphilosophias
I can prove that it abounds with characteristics that constitute an appearance of design.

Then why are you keeping us in suspense? I'm eagerly awaiting your evidentiary hearing.

I just found this on my Facebook.

Lucy recently underwent a ‘makeover’ due to newly discovered fossils. Earlier reconstructions showed Lucy, who is an example of one of Homo sapiens’ ancestors Australopithecus afarensis, with a cone-shaped thorax and potbelly. In the last few years, researchers have found additional ribs and a new foot bone of A. afarensis. The ribs were curved, which translates to a barrel-shaped thorax like modern humans, while the foot bone showed a distinct arch.

news.sciencemag.org...

humanorigins.si.edu...

Wasn't UnifiedSerenity going on about Lucy being fake?

flyingfish
So, basically your method is to assume? It looks designed, therefor God? That is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

Complex systems known to be designed.complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy.

How vague can you get, the only known complex systems known to be designed are man made.

What rules allow you to predict, with accuracy and confidence, what is designed and what is natural?

You claim something is designed? How do you confirm that fact? What rules or criteria do you use? Without a formal process for confirming observations as facts you have nothing.
Until you can determine reliably what is designed and what is not designed you have nothing.

If you were walking along an alien planet and stumbled upon what appears to be some sort of strange organic device you might ask yourself if the object were designed by intelligent life. How would you determine if this object were intelligently designed? By taking it back to your ship and examining its properties, its structures, and its processes, if there are any. By examining this object you discover it produces light when you fill it with water and place it in the dark. You then ask how it accomplishes this ends, and find it is by a complex process that seperates hydrogen and oxygen causing oxidation of a complex organic molecule. It is like a kerosene lamp that runs on water! If this object exhibits characteristics of complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy, then it would be safe to say that this object has an appearance of design. It seems it was designed with the purpose of giving light. That this alien artifact has an appearance of design and accomplishes some purpose(function) would be sufficient cause to hypothesize that it was intelligently created, and perhaps that you are not alone on this alien planet.

Would you agree?

This thought experiment demonstrates the point: these characteristics are understood to be essential in order for a complex system to achieve some task, and that these characteristics are understood to accompany things that are intelligently engineered.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

Would you agree?

No.

So far ALL the so called evidence you have presented has been refuted and all you can come up with is some nonsense sci-fi story? A model needs to be constructed and verified. It is verified through testing it by examination of real-world evidence.
When it comes to the scientific method you seem to have no clue.

Please review the questions in my last post, if your answers are not testable and falsifiable, it's not science.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


You seem to be ignorant of the fact that organisms do develop by a similar system. The more successful the change, the more likely it is to be passed on. Things that aren't good at surviving will not live to spread their genes. Things that are good at surviving will live to spread their genes. Obviously, this means the genetic pool for any ecosystem is likely to be composed predominantly of tried-and-proven genetic information developed through gladiator-style life cycles that has demonstrated its practicality within that ecosystem.

That's how things evolve. Sometimes it's an accident, sometimes it's conditioning. But the characteristics you just described are not automatically proof of intelligent design. It's just proof of survival of the fittest at even a cellular level.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Also, your ideas of "complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision," are well known processes of order that are infinitely predictable by knowing a relativity small set of information about the properties of protons, neutrons, and electrons. (mass, charge, spin, etc.).
In fact, given natural laws, the properties of atoms are neither chance, nor design, but are inevitable.
Your conclusion is simply that order equals design, where does anything regarding some divine precision enter?

Let's do it comedian way - how do you explain intelligent design if...

just listen Jon Stewart's question.... (@ 1:37)