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

Listen to yourself, please. There is a big difference, in case you did not notice. Life and all its manifestation--including the Salmon--is alive. That puddle is non-life.Anyway, thanks for your contributions. I'll post a closing argument--coz I hate it when people loose their cool like Catholic.

Why not the “laws of physics”?The laws of physics are surely no more than the codification of the observed properties of the universe, and the interactions that take place within it, commonly known as processes.Are you saying there’s a reason why the universe should not have the properties we observe? If you are, would you like to tell us what that reason is?Why not the “correct distance”?My understanding is that there are billions of galaxies in the universe, each with billions of stars, with the countless number of attendant orbiting planets that these vast quantities imply. From that it’s easy to see that the number of potential distances between stars and their orbiting planets is going to be astronomical, so the question then has to be, is there a reason why planets should not be the requisite distance from their stars to allow life to occur? Again, I invite you to supply that reason.And so on and so forth. It’s not a goal; it’s an undirected outcome. Behavioural traits that allow species to survive get passed on through their genes. Behavioural traits that don’t allow a species to survive do not get passed on through their genes. It was not a GOAL of the dinosaurs to become extinct.

That's the same question as asking why an apple tastes like an apple, it's because it's an apple! The natural processes of the universe act that way because that's the way they act. There is no why. It is inevitable that of the gazillion of planets at least one of them got just the right conditions for life to arise. There is no why needed for this. You could claim that god intended the universe to be like this and initiated the big bang, I'm not going to argue that point because there's frankly no evidence for anything at that point and so everything can be claimed about it. But other then that there is no reason for why planet earth has life. Avoiding the issue? I answered all your points, you just respond by saying Nuh-uh and think you have refuted my arguments, you did not. No I'm not, so, here we go again : There is no why. Yes, and as we have explained again and again, there is NO apparent goal to the universe, simply saying that there is does NOT make it so. You need evidence for those kinds of statements, and sadly, you haven't provided any. No no NO, I don't care if it's valid or not, but to make something valid you need to present EVIDENCE. You have not done so, you have asserted time and again that the universe has a goal without providing so much as a shred of evidence, other than your personal beliefs and assertions, that's not how it works. Ok. Yes Don't know much about salmon, but yes, that sounds about right. Salmon don't WANT anything, they're animals, they don't have "needs" the way we humans do. So, you're wrong here too, sorry.

---

I hunt for the truth

Thank you everyone for your contribution to this thread. I'd like to say goodbye for now (vacation) and I hate it when someone resorts to cursing rather than reasoning out. ( Admin, please warn Catholic Scientist)In this thread I tried to prove that we can find evidence of design on earth or in the universe. Designed being defined as "to create or execute something in a skilled manner with a purpose in mind." Message 1
Did you notice that I did not try to find proof in science, but in syllogism--a part of philosophy? The proof is found in Message 35The contentious premise is # 3--"The right distance of the earth to the sun, and the right conditions on earth is towards a goal--life on earth."Many of you tried to falsify that premise by giving the right answer to the wrong question! Did you notice that I tried to prove # 3 by a series of WHY questions--not HOw? Finally, I got an admission from Catholic that Science does not answer WHY questions. So there you are...Message 88Premise # 3 appears only to be a circular statement, but it is a valid premise when tested with a series of "Why" questions.One tried--and others joined-- to disprove it by making a wrong analogy--the pothole and puddle. There is really a big difference between that analogy--and that of the conditions stated above. Literally, and in complexity.I don't expect you really to accept--as of now--this kind of reasoning. But, someday you will--when you realize that science ends ( the how questions) where philosophy begins ( the why's). At that time, you'll say, "Aha! there are lots of evidence for design". I'm not going to argue anymore. This is just my wish: that someday, Huntard, you'll find out that there are answers to the "Why" questions of this universe.I'd like Huntard, please, to give the counter closing argument.Afterwards, may I request Admin to close this thread.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

Thank you, and may I first say I enjoyed the debate with you.Alright here we go: Ok, let's see if the argument itself is valid then. This statement is an assertion, nowhere in the statement do you show anything that would point to the earth having a goal, and that goal being life. You are asserting that the right distance from the earth to the sun and the right conditions on the earth point to a goal, without showing HOW they point to a goal. You're simply saying: "there is life on planet earth because the conditions are right and the conditions being right points to there being a goal, life". Of course there is life when the conditions are right, what you have to do is show HOW these conditions point to there being a goal. Simply saying they are does not make it so. You see ANY planet that is the right distance form its sun and has the right conditions will give rise to life, it doesn't matter if that planet happens to be planet earth or a totally different planet in a totally different galaxy, if life has a chance to arise it will. The fact that earth has life is not indicative for there being a goal to earth. While it is not my place to argue your religious beliefs, I do find it important to point out to you that this of course is not a premise, but a conclusion. You can't use conclusions as your premise. That botches up the argument. What your argument should have looked like is something like this:P1 there is life on earth
P2 This is due to the right conditions being present on the earth
P3 There are things about these conditions that point towards an intended goal (list these things)
Conclusion: The life on planet earth was a goal.Simply saying that the the fact that earth has life points to life being the goal here DOES NOT FOLLOW. I did not miss you point, it's just not a valid philosophical argument. No not really, you kind of missed the point.The point they were trying to make is that saying that the pothole fits the puddle so perfectly is the same as saying that earth fits life so perfectly, when in fact it is the other way around. The puddle fits the pothole perfectly, like life fits the earth perfectly. The puddle couldn't have formed any other shape then the shape of the pothole, nor could life have taken any other route on planet earth. That's the point they were trying to make. I don't accept your argument because it is flawed, not because I don't want to. I have found my answer : "there is no why". You may not like it, but I get by pretty darn well with it, and that, to me, is ALL that matters.Hope to see you around some more

---

I hunt for the truth

And humans are not salmon. So while salmon, and even all fish, may well be designed humans obviously are not designed because, like puddles, we cannot breathe underwater. Obviously.

{Note added 10/17/08 - Catholic Scientist was suspended for 24 hours on 10/11/08, because of this now hidden message (and other messages?). This suspension was not previously noted anywhere other than at the temporary "hovertext message" and at the above linked to message. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide original message and add comments.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add mention of the "hovertext message".

Hello again, Doubting Too.I'm not quite done here so I hope you won't mind if I say a few more things on this subject. In regards to my point that P3 begs the question, I really think you are missing the point. Strictly speaking in terms of Logic, assuming that life is a goal when your intended conclusion is that life is designed and towards a goal is committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. This point transcends subjective opinion, and is simply a fact about Logic. I hope that you'll review some information on begging the question (for some reason the page I linked earlier on this is down) and your own syllogism which contains the following: See how you used the conclusion in your premise? I put the phrase in bold to make it easy to see. In a logically sound syllogism you simply can't do that. Your conclusion may even be right, but if so, it's only by coincidence because the way you arrived at your conclusion (in terms of how you presented it in your syllogism) is faulty. I definitely don't accept this "reasoning" because it's faulty logic. I really don't think it represents any shortcoming on my (or others) part to reject an argument where the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.One of the arguments against your claims is that just because something appears designed, does not mean that it is. The puddle analogy is simply a vague one to refute anthropic reasoning, and I'd like to ask you to stop thinking about that for the time being. You see, I agree with you that there appears to be evidence for design. Some things seem too orderly and purposeful to be the result of an accident. But it does not necessarily follow that what we perceive as design is really what it first appears. I presented this point in Message 69 with a quote from wikipedia. Here it is again

quote:

---

For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".

---

It's essentially been proven that many things that appear designed with a purpose, are not. Examples are snowflake and crystal generation, the face on Mars, and the Giant's Causeway to name a few. This disproves the validity of your reasoning that observing order and what appears to be design necessarily implies consciousness-directed design on a fundamental level. Things can seem to be designed, yet that's not enough to conclude that they were. We must have direct evidence of design to be able to safely conclude design. Is it possible that Earth's conditions and distance from the sun is the result of design? Sure. But we don't have anything approaching logical proof that it is. Further, considering the fact that there are tens (or hundreds) of trillions planets in the universe, it's virtually inevitable that at least one (but probably many) has the appropriate distance from its star and other planetary conditions to support life. It may be good that you are going on vacation (I hope you enjoy your vaca BTW) and won't be able to argue this for a bit. It will give a chance for the arguments presented in this thread to simmer in your mind for awhile. There are indeed answers to the "Why" questions, DT, but the problem is that we don't have sufficient logical proof to be sure that the answers people give are the right ones. There's also the problem of infinite regression of the "Why" questions, which is why many people don't accept the attempts made at answers. "Why does Earth have the right conditions for life? Why are there many trillions of planets in the universe? Why are the laws of physics as they are?" We can say it's because God/an intelligent designer/ the flying Spaghetti monster did it, but the problem is that this doesn't stop the chain of "Why" questions. Why does God exist? Why does God make universes that can have life? Why did God make laws of physics? are then the next questions. The point of positing a god is to stop the regress of "Why" questions, but it really only does so if you turn your mind off once you answer "God", so that answer doesn't turn out to do what you initially think it does, and what you'd like it to.Ok, that's about it for now. I'm actually currently reading a book that I find fascinating that addresses a lot of this stuff. It's called The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational Universe, and it's by a physicist named Paul Davies. Much of what's in there can boggle the mind at times, but I really recommend you take a look at it. The author is agnostic, and he essentially tries to examine the big "Why" questions from an objective viewpoint.

Hi Doubtling Too, sorry for the delayed response, thats the effect of having a 60 to >80 hour work week. Lets deal with the relevant portion of my question first then go on to the other.

quote:

---

An analogous question will answer this one.

---

actually it is not analogous to your first comments but it is related to my question

quote:

---

Why would Gideon, a cook, take the effort of coming up with the right ingredient, the right temperature, even the right equipment to cook? In short, why these conditions or requirements? Because he wants to achieve his GOAL”the perfect muffin ( or whatever is that dish). So, as Gideon’s conditions / requirements are towards a goal ( the muffin), the Earth’s and Sun’s conditions/ requirements--- the rightness of distance and condition”also has a GOAL: Life !

---

This is correct as far as it goes, you have a defined entity, Gideon, who has stated a defined goal. The problem with your arguement, and the one which you still have not yet addressed, is your claim that the goal of the universe is life. You have made it as a statement or argurments without any real supporting premises mush less data or evidence to suport the premise. This is what you were asked for. Your universe arguement would be a better arguement for a goal of empty space or rocks than life based on supporting evidence. There is also an additional problem with your arguement and conclusion related to your other statements that I willa ddress in an minute.

quote:

---

I think this GOAL was also expressed by a scientist (?)”I forgot his name”” it is as if the universe knew we were coming ( or words to this effect).

---

This is from the Anthropic Principle, originally coined by BRandon Carter ans is actually anarguement against design although some people (i.e. Hugh Ross) have attempted to modify it to support design.

quote:

---

Is this begging the question? It appears only to be so. But, a more detailed analysis will show this is a valid premise.

---

actually this first part was begging the question but you did respond, attempting to use an analogy rather than supporting premises and data, int he part that I alreadya ddressed.

quote:

---

Here is analysis:
A. Facts first:

​

- if there is right distance of the earth to the sun, but WRONG conditions life won’t be possible.
- -if the conditions are right, but distance is wrong life will eventually die.

​

B. Interpretation of the facts:
-Were the above facts brought by random chance? Mathematical probability is not on its side.

​

- Then, why should the earth’s distance to the sun be right, and the conditions of the earth be right for life to flourish?

---

this is the part that is generally addressed by the anthropic principle.

quote:

---

Roger Pentose in Emerores New Mind wrote:
The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth's history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question-so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!

---

there is also another response to this though that I enjoy, take a deck of cards and lay it out card by card, the odds of getting that precise sequence is 1 to 8.06 E 67th, surely an improbable event, and yet it happened. Basically this is bacaule you are assuming only a single possible event or means of reaching life. A more accurate arguement is that we know of one, but since we only know of one occurance we can not really calculate the probability of the event unlesswe know of physical reasons of why this is the only way that the event could possibley occur.

Double post. Sorry.Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

Hi Huntard, I remember answering almost the same question from a kid, "why does banana taste like banana". I tried explaining it through "how's"--chemical composition, etc. But he kept asking why. Finally, I said a banana taste like a banana because if all fruits--apples, oranges, etc--would taste like banana, we would die or boredom. Finally, he accepted that answer because he would not like his apple or orange to taste like banana.And there is a lesson here--even the variety of taste that we have (as opposed to a monotonous one) is proof that the GOAL of the designer of fruits was to preserve life--so we won't die of boredom. Thanks for that. But, however you put it there is a goal. And, if there is a goal then it is designed--by definition Message 35 ( P1)Finally, I think the real question is not evidence of design. It is a question of the designer's identity. His problem is he did not put "Made by..." If he did, there would be no need of this debate or even this forum. Would you agree?I would like also to thank everyone who contributed. Frankly, I did not know of the anthtropic principle until someone mentioned it here. Thanks so much for that.I have no more desire to answer questions here. I think I have said enough. :=) :=) Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

WHATTTT????????You're not serious right?Since Doubting Too is out of the debate, are there any creationist/IDist who are willing to support his goal theory on bananas?To re-quote the gem,

quote:

---

the GOAL of the designer of fruits was to preserve life--so we won't die of boredom.

---

Anyone? Yeah I think you did...Wow!Edited by onifre, : Added call out to IDist/creationist

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I like "the designer of fruits" bit the most.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Will that require a designer of vegetables as well? What was his goal to make vegetables taste disgusting to fat people?Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Now that I've finished this book I just wanted to note that as interesting as interesting as it is (and as relevant to this topic as much of it is) I don't entirely agree with the author on all points. Which is fine of course, it's still a darn good book. He actually tends to believe that there is some purpose in the grand scheme of things, but he is honest in that he points out that this is just his own feeling, and that there is no known rigorous proof to lead to his conclusion, it's simply his personal feeling.