If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 11:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 10:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Notice your steps are questions about the designer, rather than merely about design. It's the distinction between inferring a robbery, and who the robber is.

You seem to be suggesting that design cannot be inferred unless we know who designed the item? Yet we can infer a robbery without knowing who the robber is.

You seem to be suggesting that design cannot be inferred from the item itself?

You can't infer anything is the result of a mechanism you can't prove is real.

You're still not being clear. Are you claiming inferring intentionality is inferring a mechanism? If so is claiming that something was unintentional inferring a mechanism as well?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(10-06-2015 09:20 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 08:36 PM)tomilay Wrote:  Carl Woese's phylogenetic tree of life would seem to lend support the idea that all known life on earth evolves from a common ancestor.

That there are three main classifications or kingdoms which emerge from the common ancestor.

http://www.pnas.org/content/74/11/5088.full.

Interesting. I will have to read it again in depth since I'm not a biologist but I did note that there being single common ancestor seems to still be an open question.

Quote:The question that remains to be answered is whether the common ancestor of all three major lines of descent was itself a prokaryote. If not, each urkingdom represents an independent evolution of the prokaryotic level of organization. Obviously, much more needs to be known about the general properties of all the urkingdoms before this matter can be definitely settled. At present we can point to two arguments suggesting that each urkingdom does represent a separate evolution of the prokaryotic level of organization.

It makes sense to me that there could have been a first instance of a self-replicator that then overwhelmed any other early starts that may not have been as efficient. It also makes sense to me that there could have been multiple early beginnings that merged and/or competed with each other leaving only what looks like a single start.

The point is still that we know life started here so we know it is possible, at least under earth conditions. We don't have any way to judge how possible it is until we learn more about other worlds. Until then, any argument for a god based on life being unlikely is worthless.
Ok. Now I see it. So there is a possibility that the life branches or at least some of them have a different origin.

Indeed that further weakens the argument for a miraculous origin.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 11:48 AM
If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 11:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 11:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You can't infer anything is the result of a mechanism you can't prove is real.

You're still not being clear. Are you claiming inferring intentionality is inferring a mechanism? If so is claiming that something was unintentional inferring a mechanism as well?

If I were anymore straightforward, I'd be beating you in the head with a science textbook.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 12:00 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 11:19 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  There is a set of rocks in Northern Island called The Giants Causeway.

[Image: Giants-Causeway_AJP_7881.jpg]

[Image: Giants_Causeway_vue_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale.JPG]

These must have been made by man; right? Chiseled to make these octagon shapes? Because octagons don't happen in nature?

A legend surrounds these rocks.

According to legend, the columns are the remains of a causeway built by a giant. The story goes that the Irish giant Fionn mac Cumhaill (Finn MacCool), from the Fenian Cycle of Gaelic mythology, was challenged to a fight by the Scottish giant Benandonner. Fionn accepted the challenge and built the causeway across the North Channel so that the two giants could meet. In one version of the story, Fionn defeats Benandonner. In another, Fionn hides from Benandonner when he realises that his foe is much bigger than he. Fionn's wife, Oonagh, disguises Fionn as a baby and tucks him in a cradle. When Benandonner sees the size of the 'baby', he reckons that its father, Fionn, must be a giant among giants. He flees back to Scotland in fright, destroying the causeway behind him so that Fionn could not follow. Across the sea, there are identical basalt columns at Fingal's Cave on the Scottish isle of Staffa, and it is possible that the story was influenced by this.

Now, this is a natural occurrence. A result of an ancient volcanic activity, and mud. But ancient people couldn't fathom this idea. Instead they formed a story that seemed much more "plausible". (plausible?) And that story was that these pillars were created by sentient beings. But they were wrong.

This is also not the only place on the planet that has these occur. But if you where walking across the beach your first instinct my be who built this? What artist took the time to put this together.

(11-06-2015 09:04 AM)tomilay Wrote:  The bottle falls on the bushman from the sky in the movie and he does not mistake it for something that occurs in nature.

How did they know? Intuition.

If you remember from the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy." The bushmen couldn't tell what it was? They used if for everything except it's accule use. He also thought it was from the gods. He may have reacted the same conclusion if a Geode fell on him. He never would have seen one before but it is strange and unusual and not common. It's a matter of reasoning skills.

[Image: 123919427216807961EIhVqKHcc.jpg]

When I was a young boy my class took a tour of a Native American plantation. We learned about how they tanned deer. How they made colored paint from clay, and ancient cutting tools, from rocks.

[Image: 11571033_1.jpg?v=8CE824B72437440]

After I learned about these things. Every rock I found that fit in my hand I thought was an ancient cutting tool. I collected dozens of them. I couldn't tell the difference between a normal rock or a Native American artifact.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant's_Cau...structures
Commonsensei,

Those are good points. Yet, if I didn't know as you have told me. My gut reaction would be those are man made. Especially the second image which looks like an ancient ruin.

Yet that is rare enough that people can usually make correct assumptions reliably on the basis symmetry alone.

My point is to make the argument that the argument for intelligence is not entirely without foundation or completely wack. But not to say that it is correct.

I just prefer conversations centered around real ideas rather than caricatures of them.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 12:03 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 11:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 11:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're still not being clear. Are you claiming inferring intentionality is inferring a mechanism? If so is claiming that something was unintentional inferring a mechanism as well?

If I were anymore straightforward, I'd be beating you in the head with a science textbook.

You accuse me of refusing to understand people, while refusing to clarify your point. You deliberately refuse to answer fairly straightforward questions to avoid doing so. Is it because you don't understand the questions?

You're the one that introduced the term mechanism, without particularly clarify how it's being used here in relationship to intentionality.

When I look at electronic device I can infer than it was intentionally produced, a product of intelligence. I can draw these inferences without knowing the how (the mechanism) involved in the production of the device. Just like I can infer that I've been robbed without particularly knowing how the robber broke in, or was able to carry away my items, etc...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 12:00 PM)tomilay Wrote:  My point is to make the argument that the argument for intelligence is not entirely without foundation or completely wack. But not to say that it is correct.

I would agree that the argument for ID was reasonable in earlier ages. As we have looked into nature and found more and more explanations for how things work and how they developed the explanation became less reasonable. At some point it should have become apparent that, when faced with something that is unexplained, the quick leap to "must be a product of intelligence" is no longer the best option. The foundations that once seemed solid have crumbled so holding on to the beliefs now is unsupportable.

I'm curious what your goal is with these arguments is though. Many people here were theists and I would guess that most of us already understand how theists can accept these arguments. I don't think you're pointing out anything new.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
11-06-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 11:19 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Now, this is a natural occurrence. A result of an ancient volcanic activity, and mud. But ancient people couldn't fathom this idea. Instead they formed a story that seemed much more "plausible". (plausible?) And that story was that these pillars were created by sentient beings. But they were wrong.

I don't think these stories were written to explain how the pillars arose, rather than the pillars serving as a prop in the story, but that's beside the point here.

But you seem to acknowledge, that you draw these inferences as well, and that it's when you learned of how these things formed naturally, that you rejected that initial inference.

If I show'd you a picture I've taken, like this:

[Image: DSC_0592.jpg]

Without any further information, are you able to infer that this was designed, and not a purely natural occurrence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 12:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Without any further information, are you able to infer that this was designed, and not a purely natural occurrence?

I don't think so. The Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Ratio for example appear everywhere in nature but it doesn't follow that they are the result of specific intent.

[Image: fibo1.jpg]
[Image: fibo2.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 12:23 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 12:00 PM)tomilay Wrote:  My point is to make the argument that the argument for intelligence is not entirely without foundation or completely wack. But not to say that it is correct.

I would agree that the argument for ID was reasonable in earlier ages. As we have looked into nature and found more and more explanations for how things work and how they developed the explanation became less reasonable. At some point it should have become apparent that, when faced with something that is unexplained, the quick leap to "must be a product of intelligence" is no longer the best option. The foundations that once seemed solid have crumbled so holding on to the beliefs now is unsupportable.

I'm curious what your goal is with these arguments is though. Many people here were theists and I would guess that most of us already understand how theists can accept these arguments. I don't think you're pointing out anything new.
I am with you on the first paragraph.

Second one is a little confusing. You could say the same about the arguments I have so far seen here for or against. Nothing new.

Why am I supposed to explain why or how I am contributing?

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2015, 12:40 PM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2015 12:51 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: If there was actual evidence that we were the product of intelligent design
(11-06-2015 12:23 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I would agree that the argument for ID was reasonable in earlier ages. As we have looked into nature and found more and more explanations for how things work and how they developed the explanation became less reasonable. At some point it should have become apparent that, when faced with something that is unexplained, the quick leap to "must be a product of intelligence" is no longer the best option. The foundations that once seemed solid have crumbled so holding on to the beliefs now is unsupportable.

I'm curious what your goal is with these arguments is though. Many people here were theists and I would guess that most of us already understand how theists can accept these arguments. I don't think you're pointing out anything new.

So in an earlier age the inference of design of a created order was entirely reasonable, and at some point in human history, it become unreasonable?

You stated this became so, after we learned how things worked, and developed. But what did this reveal? Did it flip the script, making non-design/ontological naturalism, materialism reasonable, while making teleological beliefs unreasonable? If so, I don't think this is what occurred at all. What occurred with the rise of Darwin and other factors, was that a non-teleological perspective was able to become a viable option, but not necessarily the only option, or even the only reasonable one. It didn't make a teleological perspective untenable, it just created a viable contender to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: