Chromosome 2...

[Swa]

Concluding that something is designed is very different from concluding that something we know is designed may have a common origin.

Indeed but it does not mean the conclusion can't be made.

Indeed I'd venture it may be impossible to decern design without having some knowledge of the designer.

If you come across a house you won't conclude it wasn't designed because you have no knowledge about the designer. By examining the house you'll gain knowledge about who designed it.

 

[Techne]

Think I found our friend trolling on news24 columns too. Link: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Fossils-Are-in-Your-Head-20120618 scroll down the comments, I think you'll find "Sean's" comments very familiar, maybe brothers

You read mynews24 :wtf:...

 

[alloytoo]

Indeed but it does not mean the conclusion can't be made.

Nor does it mean a conclusion can be made

If you come across a house you won't conclude it wasn't designed because you have no knowledge about the designer. By examining the house you'll gain knowledge about who designed it.

House for whom?

Once again you fall into the trap of using human artifacts as examples. We naturally recognize human designed artifacts, or even mammalian, avian or insect artifacts because we are familiar with their creators.

I could however show you a house complete with running water which was not designed. Though I understand how it was made.

How do you identify design?

Function? Complexity?

 

[CoolBug]

Links to prove your claims would be in order of course

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx

Or you could find the Average Religiousness of each state:

http://www.pewforum.org/How-Religious-Is-Your-State-.aspx

Then look at the Average IQ of every state...

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2010/05/state-iq-estimates-2009.html

Notice a pattern?

Feel free to find other sources if you don't like mine, I used the US because there often research done there.

And I don't even have to mention countries...

The higher the average IQ of a country, the higher the chance of Atheism.

If you can find some good info on just Japan compared to US you will be amazed.

Japan which is like 80% Atheist compared to the US is way more intelligent, (using averages here), way less teen pregnancies, less crime, less drugs.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Japan/United-States/Crime
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/07/america_vs_japa.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity obesity rofl

here is one from national geographic, just stating the likely hood of whether or not each country accepts evolution, you could guess which ones do support it

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/intelligence-is-inversely-related-to.html

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

You read mynews24 :wtf:...

Sue me

 

[Swa]

House for whom?

Once again you fall into the trap of using human artifacts as examples. We naturally recognize human designed artifacts, or even mammalian, avian or insect artifacts because we are familiar with their creators.

I could however show you a house complete with running water which was not designed. Though I understand how it was made.

How do you identify design?

Function? Complexity?

No, I gave you an example of a situation where you have no knowledge of its designer. You'll then walk around in it and notice stuff. A bed would mean the person sleeps there, a couple of deer heads that they're a hunter, a few paintings that they're probably an art lover.

You did not come to the conclusion it was designed by knowing those things before hand. It's not a trap. We recognise designs as structures that nature can't make. Your questions are valid ones. Unfortunately it's going to take longer to find those answer because of enquiry stopping at evolutiondidit™.

 

[alloytoo]

No, I gave you an example of a situation where you have no knowledge of its designer.

But you defined what it is and therefore it's purpose. Any conclusions you have drawn will be in this context and will inevitably be in context of human experience.

You'll then walk around in it and notice stuff. A bed would mean the person sleeps there, a couple of deer heads that they're a hunter, a few paintings that they're probably an art lover.

Now you're confusing user with designer. Usefulness, or the lack is not a reliable hallmark of design.

You did not come to the conclusion it was designed by knowing those things before hand.

I didn't come to any conclusion. Function is not a hallmark of design.

We recognise designs as structures that nature can't make.

No, we recognise design as things we (or agents that we're familier with) could make.

Your questions are valid ones. Unfortunately it's going to take longer to find those answer because of enquiry stopping at evolutiondidit™.

The questions never stop at evolutiondidit™, because evolution is not an agent, evolution is a collection of processes which are an ongoing field of study.

Perhaps you should go about answering my questions before proposing a supposed designer.

 

[Elimentals]

No, I gave you an example of a situation where you have no knowledge of its designer. You'll then walk around in it and notice stuff. A bed would mean the person sleeps there, a couple of deer heads that they're a hunter, a few paintings that they're probably an art lover.

You did not come to the conclusion it was designed by knowing those things before hand. It's not a trap. We recognise designs as structures that nature can't make. Your questions are valid ones. Unfortunately it's going to take longer to find those answer because of enquiry stopping at evolutiondidit™.

One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.

The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane," not a "skyhook;" for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.

The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

 

[Elimentals]

Nor does it mean a conclusion can be made



House for whom?

Once again you fall into the trap of using human artifacts as examples. We naturally recognize human designed artifacts, or even mammalian, avian or insect artifacts because we are familiar with their creators.

I could however show you a house complete with running water which was not designed. Though I understand how it was made.

How do you identify design?

Function? Complexity?

If we wanna talk design and use a house as an example, we should bring in caves not homes where we know someone build them. Have you seen how complex some of them look, and yes they have runing water, but there was no designer that made them, only time and erosion.

If you wanna see more "designed" places click http://chrocodiles.blogspot.com/2011/02/20-worlds-most-fantastic-and-beautiful.html

 

[Swa]

But you defined what it is and therefore it's purpose. Any conclusions you have drawn will be in this context and will inevitably be in context of human experience.

I defined what it is as an example. If you come across it you'll define what it is and its purpose by recognising constructs that can't assemble themselves.

Now you're confusing user with designer. Usefulness, or the lack is not a reliable hallmark of design.

I didn't come to any conclusion. Function is not a hallmark of design.

Could be either or both. You're confusing usefulness and simple function here with complexity for a purpose.

No, we recognise design as things we (or agents that we're familier with) could make.

Also confusing simple designs without a purpose for complexity.

The questions never stop at evolutiondidit™, because evolution is not an agent, evolution is a collection of processes which are an ongoing field of study.

Indeed they do stop. We only need to look at the apparent disdain for ID.

Perhaps you should go about answering my questions before proposing a supposed designer.

Could you elaborate which ones?

The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane," not a "skyhook;" for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.

You're making the classic mistake here of applying current understanding to the broader context. In your mind only a natural earthly explanation would suffice. This is a bias. If we are willing to accept life not having a designer then we should accept the designer may not have a designer. It's also an irrational requirement to have the answer first as that is not subject.

The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

Assumption. It hasn't been shown. Dawkins is making the mistake here of applying Occam's razor to different circumstances. It is about the number of assumptions made. Here it actually favours design except that it can't because design is different from chance occurrence.

Specifically relating to his argument he also makes the mistake of applying material properties to something outside the material realm. He has no idea of the complexity this requires so he's taking a wild guess. Easy to refute as Dawkins' own material periodic table is a very simple structure of the number of protons and neutrons with a predictable exchange of electrons yet the properties of the combinations of these elements are very complex.

 

[Elimentals]

You're making the classic mistake here of applying current understanding to the broader context. In your mind only a natural earthly explanation would suffice. This is a bias. If we are willing to accept life not having a designer then we should accept the designer may not have a designer. It's also an irrational requirement to have the answer first as that is not subject.

Assumption. It hasn't been shown. Dawkins is making the mistake here of applying Occam's razor to different circumstances. It is about the number of assumptions made. Here it actually favours design except that it can't because design is different from chance occurrence.

Specifically relating to his argument he also makes the mistake of applying material properties to something outside the material realm. He has no idea of the complexity this requires so he's taking a wild guess. Easy to refute as Dawkins' own material periodic table is a very simple structure of the number of protons and neutrons with a predictable exchange of electrons yet the properties of the combinations of these elements are very complex.

Well seeing that this is NS, I'll leave you be on your pass the bug re design, you are welcome to come philosophy in the PD section where I will be more than willing to take on this discussion.

Simply put, in your argument you just passing the bug onto the next level, where ToE does not.

 

[alloytoo]

If we wanna talk design and use a house as an example, we should bring in caves not homes where we know someone build them. Have you seen how complex some of them look, and yes they have runing water, but there was no designer that made them, only time and erosion.

If you wanna see more "designed" places click http://chrocodiles.blogspot.com/2011/02/20-worlds-most-fantastic-and-beautiful.html

Precisely what I was thinking.

 

[alloytoo]

I defined what it is as an example. If you come across it you'll define what it is and its purpose by recognising constructs that can't assemble themselves.

How do you define it as a construct?

Could be either or both. You're confusing usefulness and simple function here with complexity for a purpose.

Stop moving the goal posts, is it function that defines design or complexity?

Also confusing simple designs without a purpose for complexity.

That is a nonsensical response

Indeed they do stop. We only need to look at the apparent disdain for ID.

ID proponents cannot even define what they mean by design, your definition is somewhat vague too.

Could you elaborate which ones?

The ones you said were valid.

 

[Swa]

ID proponents cannot even define what they mean by design, your definition is somewhat vague too.

And here's the problem, because once evolutiondidit™ everyone stopped asking the question and those that do are somewhat disorganised.

Those examples however are not it. Don't confuse simple "designs" from natural laws with complexity that denotes true design. Note I use quotes because they are NOT actually designs but simple patterns. It's not shifting the goalposts.

I'll raise you this

It's natural so was it designed or not?

 

[CoolBug]

And here's the problem, because once evolutiondidit™ everyone stopped asking the question and those that do are somewhat disorganised.

Those examples however are not it. Don't confuse simple "designs" from natural laws with complexity that denotes true design. Note I use quotes because they are NOT actually designs but simple patterns. It's not shifting the goalposts.

I'll raise you this

It's natural so was it designed or not?

Troll or retard, with all due respect

 

[alloytoo]

And here's the problem, because once evolutiondidit™ everyone stopped asking the question and those that do are somewhat disorganised.

Once you've determined that the hoof prints were made by horses, or even Zebra, searching for a Unicorn seems a bit pointless especially if the people advocating unicorns can't even agree amongst themselves as to what one is.

Those examples however are not it. Don't confuse simple "designs" from natural laws with complexity that denotes true design. Note I use quotes because they are NOT actually designs but simple patterns. It's not shifting the goalposts.

Be clear. Are you advocating complexity as a hallmark of design?

 

[CoolBug]

http://bios.weddingbee.com/pics/68853/dont_feed_the_trolls.jpg

The guy posts a picture of a building and then says it's natural?

Don't feed him.

 

[Swa]

Be clear. Are you advocating complexity as a hallmark of design?

Complexity for a purpose. More importantly specific complexity. For example a non specific irregular shape is not a design but an irregular shape that opens a door where only one or a few shapes will work is most likely a key.

 

[Swa]

http://bios.weddingbee.com/pics/68853/dont_feed_the_trolls.jpg

The guy posts a picture of a building and then says it's natural?

Don't feed him.

See here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jlascar/4558958916/
It's not a building. It's a carving. If we go neutral here it's natural, as in rock created by natural processes and unaided physics. So is it clear that after that it was carved by applying intelligence or can you mistake it for a structure carved by unintelligent processes of nature?

 

[alloytoo]

Complexity for a purpose.

Define purpose. Purpose is subjective.

More importantly specific complexity. For example a non specific irregular shape is not a design but an irregular shape that opens a door where only one or a few shapes will work is most likely a key.

Alternatively it acquired an attribute and was assigned (as it were) a function.