Was It Designed?

Phage
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Please show evidence of these new species

Please show evidence of an increase in biodiversity in the past oh....say... 2,000 years. Since you mentioned Christ.

edit on 10/19/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Why would i?

I was discussing the ,and sorry if i paraphrase,

'One extinction happens a day and always has'

I was just using Christ as date to start counting, 2000 years

at one extinction every other day and one new species every day

Netting us a 180 species a year since the first life appeared, approximately

Please direct your comments to my arguments u can make a passing swipe at Christ in plenty of other threads,

I have no stake in that game though

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Arbitrageur

Is extinction caused by genetic or environmental factors? It's not either-or, it's both.

Yes, you are correct. In my haste to make my point I mistakenly made the claim that mass extinctions account for the majority. They only did at the time of those particular events.

These "isolated" extinctions have been driven by other factors, not necessarily just by evolution. If a typical species lasts for 10 million years, that sounds pretty good to me. Its the changes in environment that tend to drive them to extinction.

Hell, dinosaurs lasted for over 150 million years, before they got wiped out by some mass extinction event. Seems nature did a pretty fair job with those guys...

reply to post by Astyanax


Yes, there have been 5 major events that have caused mass extinction.

I realize my mistake in my initial statement, but I still abide by the ultimate point I was attempting to make.

Evolution does not necessarily account for the majority of the extinctions that have ever occurred. (although I do realize Darwin believed this)

If Im wrong Im hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

Code, Code I can't stress enough...code!!

In the beginning was the code: Juergen Schmidhuber at TEDxUHasselt
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1Ogwa76yQo
www.youtube.com...

Not sure if it was posted or added into the thread, but a key organism that involves the theory of is the
"Bacterium Flagellum" and it motor like tail.


And the way the animation shows how it tail works, seems almost mechanical but in nature. I'm also a believer in how we get many mechanical ideas or inventions from natures own designs, like how a giant Caterpillar Digger hydraulic arm acts very much the same as a human arm would.

S&F.

Richard Feynman - The Character of Physical Law - Part4 Symmetry in Physical Law (full version)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ6o1cDxV7o
www.youtube.com...


Law...

Google Definition

Law
lô
noun
noun: law; noun: the law
1.
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
an individual rule as part of a system of law.
plural noun: laws
"an initiative to tighten up the laws on pornography"
synonyms: regulation, statute, enactment, act, bill, decree, edict, bylaw, rule, ruling, ordinance, dictum, command, order, directive, pronouncement, proclamation, dictate, fiat More
systems of law as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession.
"he was still practicing law"
synonyms: the legal profession, the bar More
a thing regarded as having the binding force or effect of a formal system of rules.
"what he said was law"
informal
the police.
"he'd never been in trouble with the law in his life"
statutory law and the common law.
a rule defining correct procedure or behavior in a sport.
"the laws of the game"
synonyms: rule, regulation, principle, convention, instruction, guideline More
2.
a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
"the second law of thermodynamics"
a generalization based on a fact or event perceived to be recurrent.
"the first law of American corporate life is that dead wood floats"
3.
the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
synonyms: principle, rule, precept, directive, injunction, commandment, belief, creed, credo, maxim, tenet, doctrine, canon More
the Pentateuch as distinct from the other parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets and the Writings).
noun: Law; noun: the Law
the precepts of the Pentateuch.
plural noun: the Law of Moses

NoRulesAllowed

alfa1

Broom
There is actually a way for it to be proven.

I'm thinking of an object.
How can I prove whether or not it was designed (or not)?
What procedures, tests or examinations should I make to prove the "design hypothesis" true or false?

"Procedures? Tests?" Hey, you forgot creationism is a BELIEF, you don't need no stinkin' tests

The author of the OP does not believe in creationism. And you are correct, creationism goes against science, but that is neither here nor there, nor does it answer the OP.

Nevertheless, the broom has been diligently trying to type up an answer to this question. It has been over three days since he started. And it has taken a lot of research into several books, and internet sites, and has quite gotten out of hand.

Soon a response will be made up and will be posted. It has grown so big though, that he decided to add some pics, etc. like the OP in this one, and will create its own thread on the subject.

Of course I highly doubt that the person asking the question that it will answer will be reasoned by it. That is fine, it is not my objective to do anything than share information. But those with inquisitive minds will perhaps find it interesting, at least something to reflect on.

alfa1

Broom
There is actually a way for it to be proven.

I'm thinking of an object.
How can I prove whether or not it was designed (or not)?
What procedures, tests or examinations should I make to prove the "design hypothesis" true or false?

Here is a simple explanation to your question. Of course you seem to not likely want a real answer, so it will probably not suffice for you. Nevertheless, for anyone really curious as to a good answer to the question:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Broom
I'm thinking of an object.
How can I prove whether or not it was designed (or not)?
What procedures, tests or examinations should I make to prove the "design hypothesis" true or false?

Here is a simple explanation to your question.

Its not really an answer since its really just a thread on amazingly amazing DNA is.
But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that
- if its got DNA, it is therefore "designed"
- otherwise, no.

reply to post by alfa1


Well, that was talking about design in life. Very complex design.

Let us assume a design of much more simple and crude design. Let's say perhaps. A pyramid. How many people would you think if they walked out into the desert and saw the Great Pyramid at Giza would assume it had no designer.

Or how about if you found a structure on mars that was a perfect pyramid. Would it be reasonable to conclude it just happened to be?

What if you found a house on mars with furnishings, air conditioning, a refrigerator full of food. Would you then conclude it had no designer? Would you then assume it just happened? Because all of these examples are far cruder than even the most simple of lifeforms.

alfa1

Broom
Was it Designed?

Long posts, and yes I did read them, but I think a shorter version would be:
God did it.
Looking at your previous posts, its clear that's the answer you want.
Edit - actually it would also have saved time if you'd just written: Watchmaker argument, William Paley, 1802.

What's with all the rude people here lately? Can't you at least TRY to act like an adult?! The OP did a good job posting some KILLER stuff that I THOROUGHLY enjoyed. Then you trolls have to come in and spoil the mood. Damn...

Broom
How many people would you think if they walked out into the desert and saw the Great Pyramid at Giza would assume it had no designer.

Or how about if you found a structure on mars that was a perfect pyramid. Would it be reasonable to conclude it just happened to be?

We're going around in circles. You've just returned to William Paley's 1802 "watchmaker argument" once more, which for the most part relies on the idea that:
- I cant possibily imagine how....
- therefore, God did it.

So I'll ask again. What tests, observations or procedures...so forth.

Its an important point, because there are many things that appear to be designed, such as many crystal formations, snowflakes etc... that one person might say "I can't imagine how", and yet another person could say "from my knowledge of chemistry I can certainly see how...".

Astyanax
reply to post by burntheships

 

More here on The Bumblebee

Not sure of your point. Is it Hitler's supposed point to Göring, that 'according to the scientists, the bumblebee cannot fly, but it does!' How does that suggest to you that a bumblebee was designed and not evolved? To me it suggests the opposite.

Lol

From wikipedia:

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

Maybe Godwin's Law is evidence of an intelligent designer with a sense of humor? On the other hand, there's cancer, so maybe not.

reply to post by Broom


It's true. The main argument against design is always- "there's no evidence of design, or a designer, so that makes YOU a creationist"...

Well, no, anyone with two eyes and a sense of what constitutes design- mainly form, function, purpose- would agree that nature bears those characteristics. Just because we haven't identified the design mechanism doesn't mean it wasn't designed. But don't tell that to the naysayers...

How did the laws of our symmetric universe come to be? Good question.

The interesting mistake by humans is that, by definition, we separate ourselves from nature. We fail to realize that we are a part of nature, just like everything else. When something is considered "natural", by definition that means anything that is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind." Interesting. So does that make us supernatural then?

Why should we think that we are outside the system, and not apart of it?

And on the other side of that coin, mostly anything created by humans is considered "artificial"... Funny

Humans are animals. Animals are nature.

Humans design. Therefore, nature designs.

Why is this line of thinking incorrect?

s+f

OP check out this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

t seems that in order to trace the unfolding of the physical Universe, in our minds abstract imagination, or in digital models, as the physical sciences describe it, it is inevitable to arrive at the observation that the Universe science describes reeks of efficacy and the appearance of design. Is there a standard of measure by which to define an appearance of design, in order to better approach the question of whether that physical system was designed, or not? By examining how complex systems we know to be designed work, systems like industrialist machinery or computers for example, it seems possible to derive a list of attributes that accompany a system that is intelligently designed. Even a brief reflection on this matter would show that complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, an appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy, are just some of the hallmarks that accompany systems we know to be designed, and can be understood as strongly indicative of a system created by intelligent life. If a black box were analyzed to determine whether it is a naturally occurring system, or if it is the product of purpose and design, the probability that the blackbox in question is designed increases rapidly in the evidence of each coinciding characteristics. It should be evident that the Universe described in the worldview of the physical sciences abounds with evidences of these very characteristics of complexity, intricacy, inter-connectedness, precision, appearance of ingenuity in problem solving, and efficiency in efficacy. Why then should it be some sort of scandalous idea to seriously press the issue that the Universe appears to be designed, and attempt to explore any implications which may follow?

thank you for this thread.

Psalm 19 NAB
1 For the leader. A psalm of David.
2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims its builder's craft.
3 One day to the next conveys that message; one night to the next imparts that knowledge.
4 There is no word or sound; no voice is heard;
5 Yet their report goes forth through all the earth, their message, to the ends of the world.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Evolution does not necessarily account for the majority of the extinctions that have ever occurred. (although I do realize Darwin believed this)

If Im wrong Im hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

I'll try. Evolution accounts for all extinctions, bar none. Let's say a meteorite drops out of the sky, or massive outgassing from a huge volcanic event poisons the atmosphere and the upper layers of the oceans. Many, even most species are extinguished. Yet a few survive, and their descendants repopulate Earth, speciating as they go.

Which species survived the extinction event? The ones that had evolved to occupy evolutionary niches unaffected by the extinction event. If evolution had not prepared the ground for them beforehand, they would have been wiped out along with the rest.

Of course, extinction events are also drivers of evolution. The genes removed by the extinction event are no longer available for future mutation and possible speciation. After the event, evolution and speciation must take paths different from those it might have followed if the event had not occurred.

reply to post by theantediluvian


Very funny. I was invoking no comparison, merely making a historical reference. Hitler's point was very different from mine or Burntheships's; old Adolf was, I believe, trying to convince his Minister of Aircraft Production that 'nothing is impossible'.

Which is, of course, rubbish. Plenty of things are.

Astyanax
reply to post by theantediluvian

 

Very funny. I was invoking no comparison, merely making a historical reference. Hitler's point was very different from mine or Burntheships's; old Adolf was, I believe, trying to convince his Minister of Aircraft Production that 'nothing is impossible'.

Which is, of course, rubbish. Plenty of things are.

edit on 19/10/13 by Astyanax because: it's rubbish.

with all the varieties of fish, birds, monkeys, etc, why is there no true diversity of living hominids? Please keep in mind I'm not talking about superficial diversity, but true diversity. Why is it that homo sapien sapien can only look at what little remains of its ancestors in museums? What separates us from them? What makes us so special? There is a point here. Let's hear what you have to say.

reply to post by Astyanax


I'm sorry. I read your post 3 times, even backwards, and I don't see where anything you said demonstrates how "evolution causes all extinctions, bar none."

My take away from your example was that a meteor is an evolutionary cause of extinction. I don't think that's what you meant.

But I agree with your last paragraph.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I'll bite.

Humans are animals. Animals are nature.

Humans design. Therefore, nature designs.

Nature and natural are not interchangeable, one is a noun and the other is an adjective. Animals are not "nature." Animals are a part of nature. But let's not get hung up on that, with some slight changes we can fix your undistributed terms and add some clarity:

Humans are animals.
Animals are natural.
Some humans design.
Therefore, some natural things design.

Congratulations, we've proved that some natural things design but that's not really what you were after is it? I think what you're really trying to convey is something along the lines of:

Humans are animals.
Animals are created by an intelligent designer.
Some humans design.
Therefore, an intelligent designer designed everything.

I think the crux of the problem is that you think you're using deductive reasoning--when in fact, you are not.