Is there a legitimate argument for design?

This is a bit of an exaggeration. The Big Bang is estimated to have produced about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium, a tiny bit of Lithium and perhaps a bit of Beryllium. How likely is it that the early stars were formed of pure hydrogen?

Not to mention that the motivations for some of the techniques used in cubism really are pretty well understood, so we actually do know why Picasso painted that face that way...

When we speak about hydrogen forming other elements in suns, we are talking about just protons. At the beginning of creation, electrons were moving too fast to really stick to the protons, so perhaps we might say that quarks and protons were the ultimate building blocks. Even after atomic hydrogen formed, we can find that hydrogen does not exist in that form in the sun.I think you are correct to say that the melted down legos are not right. Protons were not broken down into quarks to form heavier elements. That process does not happen to any significant degree even within suns. In any event, whatever the difference is, even if we take into account the primordial helium that may have been fused into larger elements, it would be a simple matter to cast your proposition correctly.As for whether or not fusion produces something more complex, not sure I'd make that argument. Surely the atoms have more protons, and their properties are more complex to analyze, but the atoms themselves and their properties are just combinations of three particles and their physics obeys laws that can be summarized on a single page of college ruled notebook paper.On the other hand chemistry is about combinations of 90 or so elements whose relationships and interactions are much more complex.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Sorry, you're not getting it.What is the causal force making Picasso choose blue at that moment? Can that be replicated so that another artist is forced to paint a face that specific blue?George Mallory - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Mallory is famously quoted as having replied to the question "Why do you want to climb Mount Everest?" with the retort "Because it's there", ...

---

Curiously I note that there are a lot of mountains that are "there" and this answer does not explain why Mallory didn't climb those other mountains.Thus this answer does not have any predictive value that can be explored via science. Without predictions you can't test hypothesis.Picasso could have answered "because I felt like it" ... and this too does not provide any predictive value for any of his other paintings, colors and shapes etc.You could also conceivably ask 10 artist why they do what they do and get 10 different answers.The answers to this question are subjective.Conversely you could study how they do what they do and gather a lot of objective evidence. Science works on objective evidence.Why is the sky blue?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : test

That's not correct IMHO, with all due respect because you could say the same about a differential. You have to commit the fallacy for both or neither, as they are both clearly constructed with a goal, the arrangement of the parts are so complex that they are designed to achieve something specific. With eyes every part is constructed to deliver sight, and every part in a differential is constructed to solve wheelspin. It is the same, in that both are specifically arranged aimed at one target.So it is special pleading to say that it doesn't follow for one but does follow for the other if it is established equally in both cases as specified construction.I think it might appear to be circular but really it's not so perhaps it's understandable that you say it. But it's really the law of identity at play, that if P has every element that makes a human, then P is a human. It can confuse us because it looks circular if I say:P makes Bill human, Mary has P so she is human.But the circularity-fallacy itself becomes redundant if the elements match 100%. In this case there is no need to equivocate by saying she doesn't have a cock because one doesn't need a cock to be human. Dr A's response: "mike, go away, you are a cock, that is for sure!!"

For me this is the Referee-fallacy, as I have termed it, (my own fallacy) You might hear fans when watching football shouting, "Referee, you are an idiot, there is no way I would have made that decision, you are pathetic!"Of course this is a fallacy to me because if they were actually put in the position of refereeing (the fans in question) they would soon find out how difficult the job is, and how good the referee is as a professional, to achieve what he achieved.In the same way Dawkins et al, sometimes tell us what a rotten job God has done by creating things the way He created them, and they are like those fans but we have to remember Dawkins et al would not know where to begin, in making an organism, nor will they ever achieve the creation of one.The matter used to create organisms, is dynamic to an almost infinite degree. Think of your own body, you have teeth, yet you have hair, you have hair yet you have skin, you have skin yet you have bone. Think of all of the armour of the various creatures, whether it is scales or feathers, feathers or horns, think of all of the creatures and all of the types of material, whether it be a lobster or a jellyfish.That's my opinion, thanks for the interesting post.Bye for now, guys.

Yeah, I do get it.Perhaps you meant to ask that question, but I don't see that you did.Some things are deterministic and some are not. That means that phenomena are amenable to different kinds of scientific examination. But even if we cannot make a deterministic evaluation, we can still do what we can. That is for example what we do when we analyze the properties of gases using statistical analysis, or when we study atoms using quantum mechanics.To say that we cannot investigate why Picasso did what we did because we cannot do so in the same way we predict Mercury's position in the sky is wrong.

Psychology is not subjective in any greater sense than any other field that employs the scientific method.

You are conflating psychology with psychotherapy.

Correct, it wasn't what I asked, what I asked was the why question.Why Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

why adverb
1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?:

---

Science tries to explain objective phenomena and make testable predictions about them. If you can't make testable predictions then you cannot do science. Which means you are guessing about the (average) causal forces, and the difference here is that you can test those guesses against gases and quantum mechanics ... and this goes to explain\understanding how the gases and quantum mechanics behave ... not why.How do you test a guess about a subjective feeling? Enjoy

Why do things fall downward instead of upward?Why does candy taste sweet?Why does my back hurt?Why do you say that science cannot answer why-questions?If you're simply pointing out that science is unable to identify any purpose behind the way things are, then you're just begging the question of having any need to identify a purpose in the first place.

What you are arguing for is a design argument where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution.I consider this to be a dishonest argument. You are essentially saying that the best evidence for intelligent design is the complete lack of evidence for intelligent design.Here are the facts. If evolution is true we would expect to see a nested hierarchy for independent phylogenies. That is exactly what we observe. All of the evidence is consistent with what we would expect from evolution. So how can this be evidence for design?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

All the words are English, but the language is not. Yes it is. If you said that certain anatomical features were designed because they are evidently well-suited to their modes of life, then that would at least be a step away from circular reasoning, or it would at least somewhat disguise the circularity. When you write that anatomical features are "specifically constructed with a goal" the circularity is naked. And waving its cock at us.

Nonetheless, his failings would be a good answer to anyone who claimed that the referee was omniscient. But this is one of those arguments that's too good for its own good, because you could use it to defend anything, no matter how obviously shitty. As I said to taij, we could point to anything, a fish that only swims backwards, a monkey with no sense of balance, an armadillo that explodes when it hears loud noises, or whatever --- anything, no matter how laughably inept and stupid --- and you could say "oh, look, the referee fallacy", and go on thinking that the world was well-designed no matter how much evidence of undesign you are shown.Your argument merely insulates your beliefs from the evidence. Such an argument may help you to cling to your idea of design once you are convinced of it, but it can never convince anyone to start believing it.And the utility of your sort of argument is not limited to questions about ID. Suppose, for example, that a Nazi comes to me saying that Hitler was perfectly wise and kind and good. I say, "What about the Holocaust?" He says "Oh, but if you were as kind and wise and good as Hitler, you'd realize what an excellent thing the Holocaust was".Again, this sort of argument can keep the Nazi believing in the justice and wisdom of Hitler, but can it persuade anyone not already so convinced? Of course not, you'd have to be a moron to swallow reasoning so perfectly circular.

But God could.I'm not arguing against the standard model.