Intelligent design (evidence)

Discussion in 'Other Stuff' started by johnyudodis, Jul 21, 2014.

  1. johnyudodis

    johnyudodis New

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    272
    is there any evidence of intelligent design? (to be clear I'm not talking about biblical creation in particular)
     
  2. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,036
  3. The evidence for intelligent design comes from an objective analysis of the work of mainstream scientists. It is not a "god of the gaps" argument - see below - it is based on the same line of reasoning that Darwin and other Naturalists use - see below. When you examine the evidence you will realize a much better question is: Is there evidence of naturalism. The answer is No. Unfortunately, naturalism is so deeply entrenched in the modern world view that many people are not able to conceive of the possibility that it might be wrong.


    The evidence said to demonstrate naturalism, doesn't:

    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_id

    Intelligent Design is a much better explanation for the evidence:

    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/04/materialism-cannot-explain-origin-of.html

    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cosmological-argument-for.html
    Natural evolution is not a scientific theory, it cannot be falsified because any observation can be accommodated by the theory: common descent predicts similar structures in closely related organisms, but when similar structures are found in unrelated organisms it is called convergent evolution. Natural selection predicts slow gradual changes, but when evidence of intermediate species is not available and change seems to occur over short time spans, "punctuated equilibrium" is invoked even though there is no mechanism for such rapid genetic changes to occur. Natural evolution is simply a conglomeration of post hoc conjectures that are consistent with the materialist's faith in naturalism. However, all the evidence said to demonstrate common descent is also consistent with common design and in some cases is better explained by common design.

    Multiverse theories do not solve the problem of how our improbably fine-tuned universe could arise by chance because multiverse theories themselves require fine tuning . Multiverse theories are not a good way to support the materialist belief that even though the origin of life is improbable there are enough universes for one to exists where it could occur by chance. If there are enough universes for one to exist where something as improbable as the origin of life could occur by chance, there are enough universes for anything to happen. In that case, no experimental result or series of experimental results can be trusted because anything no matter how improbable can be explained by chance. This demolishes the foundation of naturalism which is that nature can be explained by the workings of impersonal natural laws.

    Nobel Prize winners Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes and scientists, Charles Darwin, Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, Wernher von Braun, believed the scientific evidence demonstrates the existence of God or that the universe was designed:
    http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/atheists-science-shows-there-is-no-good.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
  4. LoneShaman

    LoneShaman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,430
    Of course there is.

    The most compelling IMO, digital semantic code at the very foundation of life. Semiosis is not physics, it cannot be created by physics. It's existence requires consciousness! The core of the information processing system is irreducible connected in circular causality. Self referential, where symbolic arrangements of matter control the matter itself without breaking any physical laws. Cybernetics. The symbol matter problem. The very same problem as the hard problem of consciousness actually.

    Is there any evidence that blind physics can create digital code? No, there is not even a coherent line of reasoning to take! There is also no evidence that can account for the immense volumes of prescriptive and descriptive information within the most basic of cells either.
    Semantic code will never appear from blind physics, never has, never will. Because it is not physics.

    "Information is information not matter or energy" - Norbert Weiner, founder of cybernetics.
     
    Bucky likes this.
  5. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

    Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,486
    How many choices does it take to make a semantic/digital code? Is two enough?

    ~~ Paul
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
  6. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/07/birds-with-ornamental-eyespots-have.html
     
    LoneShaman likes this.
  7. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

    Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,486
    "If these other genera are so closely related, then why do they not also have ocelli? With evolution we must say that they had the eye-spot feathers but later lost them for some reason, over the course of evolution. Or that the eye-spot feathers evolved independently in the different genera that have them. Either way these are just-so stories, manufactured to fit the theory."

    This is typical ID crap. Scientists discover something by evolutionary analysis and then the IDers point out a new problem and call it a just-so story, as if scientists are now finished with their investigation. Surely the scientists plan to just leave it at that, with the just-so stories in place, having lost their interest in the question. :eek:

    "This is yet another evidence, in a long, long list, which demonstrates that evolution is not a simple, parsimonious explanation that, in a stroke, easily explains a set of disparate and otherwise unlikely or confusing observations."

    Who said evolution could explain everything in one stroke? What a ridiculous remark. It's as if nature has some obligation to allow a simple explanation.

    But I'd love to see the ID explanation for eye-spot feathers. The ID scientists are working diligently on this issue, right?

    ~~ Paul
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2014
  8. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    This type of conversion from the rational to the mythical as detailed in this post by Jim about himself always makes me wonder why it happened. http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/do-they-really-read-each-others-stuff.1081/#post-27996
     
  9. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    Just one of a multitude of examples.[​IMG]
     
  10. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/signature-in-cell.html
     
  11. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/wheres-god.html

    From the comments:
     
  12. I think my two previous posts help to clarify Feser's views. He believes one can reason from teleology that God of classical theism exists. He does not deny that conventional ID arguments can identify evidence of design in nature, only that they don't provide evidence of the God of classical theism.

    I'm not sure why Feser thinks ID researchers think ID can prove the God of classical theism. I don't think anyone except a few philosophers of religion even think about "the God of classical theism" or know what it means. In my view, the fine tuning of the universe is evidence of a transcendent creator, conveniently referred to as God. But I don't think that is what Feser calls "the God of classical theism".
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cosmological-argument-for.html
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/07/doug-ell-video-discusses-evidence-for.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2014
  13. Andrew Paquette

    Andrew Paquette Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    327
    Home Page:
    This post was flagged for moderation, but I think it is a fair comment, and one that unintentionally reminds us that the intelligent design of the watch in this image is amusingly primitive compared to biological entities such as plants and animals. I teach anatomy at my university and remained amazed by the ludicrous concept that the anatomy we study is not the product of ID. One example of this are the nerve-sized canals (foramen) that penetrate the skull in various places, particularly the foramen mentale, which has its origin on the upper posterior portion of the mandible (both sides), travels most of the length of the mandible, then opens out at the anterior portion of the mandible on the opposite side. This channel allows the innervation of muscles near the mouth by creating a link between those muscles and the brain. For this channel to develop in any kind of random process makes no sense to me because it clearly has purpose. This isn't the kind of "purpose" that is left over after after every other variation is stripped away, but a construct developed as part of the genetic body plan that allows several otherwise unrelated structures to act in concert. Without this ability, the nerves, muscles, and foramen would be pointless, and the brain irrelevant.

    I understand the argument that billions of years and gazillions of variations are enough variety to cause things more complicated than this watch to spontaneously appear, but I also know that if anything, the biological samples we have demonstrate peroration throughout history, not variation. One might want to bring up dinosaurs or other extinct species as examples of variation. One problem with that argument is that the shape of the bodies may be different, but the way the pieces fit together and operate is the same. We don't have anything that looks like a tyrannosaurus today, but skeletons of these creatures possess the some topological layout of any modern mammal. They have the same bone-penetrating foramen in their mandible that we have, and it accomplishes the same goal: the innervation of muscles on one side of the bone, activated by chemical impulses sent from the brain on the other side of the bone.

    AP
     
    Reece likes this.
  14. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

    Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,486
    You appear to be ignoring the possibility that it evolved over time from predecessors, as opposed to appearing all at once.

    http://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2006/04/22/the_foramen_magnum_how_do_we_k/

    http://www.utexas.edu/news/2013/09/26/ut-austin-anthropologists/

    ~~ Paul
     
  15. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    You missed the joke; it was a visual double entendre. Recall the op asked,
    well there is. I choose the watch because it relates directly to the question asked and to the Design Argument for the existence of God, which if as you must certainly recall fails to argue effectively for the existence of God. Anyway I'm glad for you you've found evidence of God.

    Which university do you teach at in the Netherlands?
     
  16. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

    Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,486
  17. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
  18. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

    Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,486
    I was being sarcastic. It's good to toss the arbitrary, stupid moral judgements into the science, don't you think?

    ~~ Paul
     
  19. Andrew Paquette

    Andrew Paquette Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    327
    Home Page:
    I'm not ignoring the possibility, I'm rejecting it as ill-founded. You have presented a page regarding the foramen magnum (not the foramen mentale) as, presumably, an argument against my post. However, this article isn't presenting evidence of hominid skulls that do not have a foramen magnum, but skulls where the relative position of this foramen shifts on a species by species basis. First find a skull that doesn't allow brain/muscle communication, then we will have something to discuss.

    AP
     

Share This Page