What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?

Hi All,
First, I ask for pardon if this topic has been discussed here. Show me the link and I'll suggest that this post be discontinued.What is design? Do you agree or disagree with this definition: "To design is to create or execute something--abstract or concrete--in a highly skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind".key words: higly skilled (meaning intelligence), purpose or goal.For example, the position of the earth vis a vis the sun. Our planet is so well placed vis a vis the sun. A few feet away from the sun (compared to where we are now) , and we all freeze to death. A few feet near the sun and we all burn.proof of high skill: exact placement--where we are now
purpose or goal:the purpose of the earth's exact location is for life to thrive.What do you think?

Whether or not anthtopic reasoning or the reverse is true do you agree that the distance of the earth to the sun is just right so that life could exist?

First, off I beg to stay with my initial definition of design. You want the readers to believe that they should differentiate "design" and "appearance of design". But, is it not also true that if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and do all the things a duck do...then it must be a duck!I mean if the earth was placed in just the right distance from the sun--give or take a few deviations from time to time--for life to flourish then that which caused it to be so must either
a)be a dumb,
b) appears to be brilliant, or
c) really brilliant--which implies high level of skill
Which is which?And then, what about the goal of that exact distance--life? Life must have come by either this 3:
1)chance or
2)"appearance of chance" or
3) designed
Which is which?Let me get a crack at my own question.
If you combine a)dumb, and 1) chance--I'll say tell it to the marines!
If you combine b) appears to be brilliant, and 2) appearance of chance, then that suggests what? Artificial intelligence--but intelligence just the same?If you combine c) really brilliant, and d) designed--then that's acceptable to the man on the street.

Could you clarify what you mean?

Not only should the planet be suitable for life. But that its distance from the energy source should be right as well.I agree with what parasomnium wrote:I am not assuming anything. Besides rocks and gasses, and huge empty space, the universe also has so many wanders--creation and death of stars, etc. At present, earth is the only planet we know that has life. If it continues to be, then the goal for the vastness and "lifelessness" of the universe is to provide a contrast between what is a planet full of life and that one which is empty. I am just guessing--but this designer has sense of beauty,contrast, a purpose to challenge man's capacity to learn, etc. Not to me and many others.Edited by Doubting Too, : correct name of paras...

I thought they were humuoring me about the distance. Don't you agree with what Parasomnium wrote: ? I believe this is a way of diverting the topic. What about that mountain in the US(?)--i don't remember--where the faces of US presidents were sculpted? Did not somebody design these? Pardon, but are you a 'determinist'? Why is it hard for you to believe that if one looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, does the thing of a duck... then it must be a duck? Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

What I meant was I am not assuming anything about the goal of the universe. That's beyond me. I am only guessing.

Thanks. So, what do you think were those faces on Mount Rushmore designed or not?

I don't exacly know where this line of questioning is leading. But, here's my try.What was the goal of the kid who made the pothole to fit the puddle? Was it for fun? At any rate if there was a goal for the pothole--for the fun of the kid--then obviously the kid designed the pothole.

I don't know. I haven't seen it. Have you? Or, was it formed by camera trick? If this is the case, the act of manipulating the camera to form a picture is by design, I guess. What's your evidence?

How do you know? Have you created life? the designer of that insect that looks like a stick is telling you the goal: to fool predators or preys of that insect. A loon doesn't look like a duck ( its bill is pointed) so it is not a duck. Of course there are differences in the quacking of certain ducks, but they are still ducks. But, you believe that the faces on Mt Rushmore are designed even though you probably don't know who designed them. As regards those rock formation that looks like geometric shapes to you, here are possibilities:
1) it happened by accident,
2) some ancient men may have actually aided nature so that those shapes come to be. Just like my wife who aided a plant to shape like an arc--even this was by design.Either way, we can't really be sure.

Sorry, I don't see a face of a man. It looks to me like black spots on spotted grayish background. Nothing else.Thanks, again for that Mt. Rushmore thingy.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

I think you probably got it wrong. Here, I'm putting it on argument form to simplify.Premise (p)1: To design is to create or execute something in a skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind.P2: If something is made or executed in a highly skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind, then it is evidence of design.P3: The right distance of the earth to the sun, and the right conditions on earth is towards a goal--life on earth.P4: There is life on earth (the goal)Conclusion: From P1 to P4, we can conclude that the right distance of the earth to the sun, AND the right conditions on earth is by design towards a goal--life on earth.Wrong analogies: The analogy of the puddle and the potholes, and the "face of man on mars" do not apply. They simply have no goals.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

Hi Onfire, By whom or by what? Does it even matter? The fact is there is this earth placed just on the right distance to the sun. This AND the right conditions on earth supports a goal--life. As explained in my post just above yours, this to me is evidence of design.And then you asked: 1) by naturally occuring events, or 2) by a postulated diety? There are other possibilities. A combination of both could be a possibility.

First of all I'm not bald. I have hair. They aren't showing though. You see I even have diapers yet. :=):=). I don't get your point. If 99.99999999% is inimical to life, then how is it that life--the GOAL--is here? By accident? By what probability? 1/ 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. I don't believe you. I'll bet my diaper to your shirt someone--or something to some--designed us. Change your mind and don't be slave to blind chance, please, Uncle?