Could the universe have been an act of an intelligent designer /chance

  • 171 Replies
  • 43048 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
HERE ARE A FEW MORE FACTORS THAT SUGGEST THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS DESIGNED


The mass and size of this planet are just right. If it was 10% larger or smaller, life would not be possible upon this planet. It is just the right distance from the sun for heat and cold. Farther and we would freeze, closer and we would be baked.

Consider the tilt of the axis of the earth. No other planet has our 23 degree tilt.

This enables all parts of the surface to have sun light. Without this, the poles would build up enormous ice and the equator would become intensely hot.


Consider the moon. Without the tides created by the moon, all our harbors and shores would become one stench pool of garbage.

The tides and waves based upon the moon's movement and gravitational pull aerate the oceans and provide oxygen for the plankton, which is the very foundation of the food chain of our world.

Without plankton, there would not be oxygen and man would not be able to live on the earth. The moon is the right size and the right distance from the earth.

Reduced

Again, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective - it's not "these things happened/exist so that we can exist", but these things happened/exist and so we exist - the final outcome is not the reason for the history, it's the consequence thereof.  It's good that these conditions exist, as that has led to our evolution and our ability to discuss it here and now, but there is no reason to think that it happened in order for us to exist.  Basically, you're saying that humans exist and so the universe must have been designed - this doesn't make sense.

*

Offline latebind

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 248
  • Hello World
    • View Profile
I agree with BenV

One thing to consider is that there are trillions of stars in the universe. The odd's of a planet being in the so called "goldilocks" zone is very low, but when compared with the amount of stars it is probably not such a coincedence.
Late

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
BenV

Quote
Again, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective - it's not "these things happened/exist so that we can exist", but these things happened/exist and so we exist - the final outcome is not the reason for the history, it's the consequence thereof.  It's good that these conditions exist, as that has led to our evolution and our ability to discuss it here and now, but there is no reason to think that it happened in order for us to exist.  Basically, you're saying that humans exist and so the universe must have been designed - this doesn't make sense.

But Ben why must we dismiss the alternative possibility? - why could the universe our world etc etc not have have the forthought of a great intellect ID if you like, who created the correct conditions so that life could evolve.

Maybe the small changes we see in the tiny progressive evololusionary advantageous mutations, might be just nudges by this ID. Maybe it is experimenting with us, looking down on its equivalent of a petre dish.  
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
I don't know if the universe was created by an intelligent designer, but there are lots of things that we do not know, and I do not feel that postulating a designer to explain things we can't explain is useful.  I do not assume the existence of any such being, and so this explanation would, in fact, create more questions for me than it answers.  So I choose to accept that the universe was almost certainly not created by an intelligent designer, and resign myself to the fact that I may never know the details of the origin of the universe.

We can consider any and every alternative, but where does that get us?  The idea of an intelligent designer is as logical as the idea that the universe was the result of a giant sneeze from the Great Green Arkleseizure, but I don't see you arguing that this could also be true.

The reason to dismiss an intelligent designer is that there is no evidence, no falsifiable way of testing it, it's based on illogical assumptions and creates more questions than it answers.

Maybe the small changes we see in the tiny progressive evololusionary advantageous mutations, might be just nudges by this ID. Maybe it is experimenting with us, looking down on its equivalent of a petre dish.   

Maybe they're the result of the great spaghetti monster, or maybe we're in a matrix-like simulation - maybe we're being experimented upon by pan-dimensional beings that appear in the form of mice, maybe we're all just part of your imagination, maybe we're the dreams of trees...

There are so very many unprovable, untestable maybes - do you think they should all have equal standing?

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
If I were the ID who created this planet (and the rest of the universe) I think I would have put right all bits that I got wrong by now.

For example, I created this piece of beauty


Yet I also created this piece of beauty


One will eat the other. What point is there in that, from a creators point of view? Would it not be better to have a stable population of all animals and plants etc. and let them all feed on minerals?

What is the point of creating volcanos, they just mess up my creation. Our planet could be described as more of an experiment than a creation, so why doesn't the Intelligent Scientist pop in to view the results of the experiment once in while. Or are we a petri dish he forgot about?
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
Quote
If a stem cell knows what to do it's because of it's genetic programming - it doesn't know anything - it's just a machine.

so you are extending that stem cells are not only intelligent and engineered but also programed and they do all this themselves? clever little cells, sorry machine.
Do you think it correct to call stem cells a machine?
How many of these machines do we each have in our bodies.
If you are correct in calling them machines it might be easier for others to accept that the universe was made by a mechine and therfore your comment ads to my "Intelligent design Theory".
As I mentioned science likes to humanise a 'creator/designer' in the theory of "intelligent deign" so I suppose whether it is god and alien or a machine it does just that.

Has the big bang theory been tested?
Has the theory of bacteria developing into another species that then turns into yet another species been tested?

I'm not a scientist but I would love to read about such tests.

« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 18:43:47 by echochartruse »
A view with an open mind

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
If I were the ID who created this planet (and the rest of the universe) I think I would have put right all bits that I got wrong by now.

For example, I created this piece of beauty


Yet I also created this piece of beauty


One will eat the other. What point is there in that, from a creators point of view? Would it not be better to have a stable population of all animals and plants etc. and let them all feed on minerals?

What is the point of creating volcanos, they just mess up my creation. Our planet could be described as more of an experiment than a creation, so why doesn't the Intelligent Scientist pop in to view the results of the experiment once in while. Or are we a petri dish he forgot about?

Some people cant see the beauty and process of renewable sustainability of our  planet. They wish it to be static
A view with an open mind

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
Again it is difficult for some to take out the "human GOD factor" of intelligent design.

Open your mind and think of intelligent design as maybe one of those little machines that programes itself and has intelligently engineered itself to develop into whatever it wants to be, I'm talking about a stem cell of course.

Maye there is somethig more to the stem cell something we have not discovered yet?

Take out the human factor, the god favtor or what ever blocks your mind to make it think that this wonderful place, just happened.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 19:12:50 by echochartruse »
A view with an open mind

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
Quote
If a stem cell knows what to do it's because of it's genetic programming - it doesn't know anything - it's just a machine.

Ben V - Please tell me the person, god or other who programmed the stem cell. Is your statement above fact or theory? I dont mean to be rude I am just interested in learning.
A view with an open mind

*

Offline latebind

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 248
  • Hello World
    • View Profile
Humans create everything they need, that doesn't already exist. This makes us very bad candidates to ponder the idea of creation. We naturally will wonder who 'created' us and the world we live in, but perhaps it was not an act of creation, it might be something so complex and so out of our range that it is simply incomprehensible to us.

In my opinion we simply dont have the capacity to enquire about creation of the universe.
Late

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
I agree, our existence is more than we can comprehend.

So therefore I think that we should not block the thoughts and suggestions that may lead to a better understanding.
I believe that beside "the big bang theory" we should include "intelligent design" keeping human/god/alien and machine out of it. We all need to look much deeper.

But what i am sure of is this wonderful universe being so well coordinated and self sustainable, didn't 'just happen' and until science can say without any doubt how it did happen then our own inability to test the point where our universe came into existence and establish yet another theory, should not be hindered by some trying to bring religion or other mind blocking, prejudice thoughts into the argument.
A view with an open mind

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Quote
If a stem cell knows what to do it's because of it's genetic programming - it doesn't know anything - it's just a machine.

so you are extending that stem cells are not only intelligent and engineered but also programed and they do all this themselves? clever little cells, sorry machine.
Do you think it correct to call stem cells a machine?
How many of these machines do we each have in our bodies.
If you are correct in calling them machines it might be easier for others to accept that the universe was made by a mechine and therfore your comment ads to my "Intelligent design Theory".
Nope - I'm not saying they are intelligent.
Nope - I'm not saying they are engineered - they have arrived through evolution.
Yes, I think it's reasonable to call them a machine.
Nope, it adds nothing to your 'intelligent design hypothesis'.

Quote
As I mentioned science likes to humanise a 'creator/designer' in the theory of "intelligent deign" so I suppose whether it is god and alien or a machine it does just that.

Has the big bang theory been tested?

Not directly, in as much as that is impossible - however, the theory of the big bang makes predictions based on existing observations that have since been shown to be true.  It may yet be wrong, but right now it's our best model.

Quote
Has the theory of bacteria developing into another species that then turns into yet another species been tested?

I'm not a scientist but I would love to read about such tests.
Well, we have seen bacteria evolving new characteristics (characteristics that take the strain away from the defining characteristics of the existing species of bacteria), all in a lab under little selection pressure.  The theory of evolution also, again, makes predictions that have since been shown to be true.  It's our best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.


Again it is difficult for some to take out the "human GOD factor" of intelligent design.

Open your mind and think of intelligent design as maybe one of those little machines that programes itself and has intelligently engineered itself to develop into whatever it wants to be, I'm talking about a stem cell of course.

Maye there is somethig more to the stem cell something we have not discovered yet?
I haven't mentioned god, and as a scientist my mind is very open to possibilities, thanks.  Stem cells become different types of cell under different conditions - the external environment contributes to experssion of different genes, which have evolved over time.  There may be more to learn about stem cells, in fact I strongly suspect there is.  I don't need there to be any intelligence behind them, but if evidence comes to light that there is, then fair enough.

Quote
Take out the human factor, the god favtor or what ever blocks your mind to make it think that this wonderful place, just happened.
Thinking as objectively as any person is capable of, I would have to assume that this wonderful place is the result of a series of rather wonderful coincidences.

Ben V - Please tell me the person, god or other who programmed the stem cell. Is your statement above fact or theory? I dont mean to be rude I am just interested in learning.
Stem cells are under genetic control, as are all the other cells in the body.  These genes have been shaped by a process of natural selection.  No person, no god, no 'programming'.  Just natural selection of natural gene variation.

I agree, our existence is more than we can comprehend.

So therefore I think that we should not block the thoughts and suggestions that may lead to a better understanding.
I believe that beside "the big bang theory" we should include "intelligent design" keeping human/god/alien and machine out of it. We all need to look much deeper.

But what i am sure of is this wonderful universe being so well coordinated and self sustainable, didn't 'just happen' and until science can say without any doubt how it did happen then our own inability to test the point where our universe came into existence and establish yet another theory, should not be hindered by some trying to bring religion or other mind blocking, prejudice thoughts into the argument.

In essence, I agree.  I agree that religion has no place in science, and I agree that the origin of the universe is a very difficult question to answer, and we may never arrive at a solution.  But why have you closed your mind to the idea that it did 'just happen'?  Instead of opening your mind to the full possibility that we may never know, you have decided that there is something more behind it.

*

lyner

  • Guest
But if a DESIGNER designed us, then who designed the DESIGNER?
And, if you say the DESIGNER was always there, why couldn't the 'system' have always been there? (I am assuming the System is 'outside' and contains the Universe.

I realise that Logic may not actually apply here (either in the minds of IDists or in the actual system, which may not be logical) but there is no Logic which forces the choice of having an ID.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
Quote
Nope - I'm not saying they are intelligent.
no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did
Quote
Nope - I'm not saying they are engineered -
no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did
Quote
Yes, I think it's reasonable to call them a machine.
on what authority
A machine that is genetically engineered to change itself! Wow.


Quote
has the big bang been tested?
I asked
Quote
Not directly, in as much as that is impossible - however, the theory of the big bang makes predictions based on existing observations that have since been shown to be true.  It may yet be wrong, but right now it's our best model.
theories based on predictions, hmm.
You told me here that a theory had to be able to be tested!!!! now you are changing your mind.
Is the 'Big Bang a theory or not?


Quote
Well, we have seen bacteria evolving new characteristics (characteristics that take the strain away from the defining characteristics of the existing species of bacteria), all in a lab under little selection pressure.  The theory of evolution also, again, makes predictions that have since been shown to be true.  It's our best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.
Are you saying that one species can evolve into another?

When I go to New Zealand I begin to talk like them too. When I go to the beach I come home with a tan..........when I have the flu I develop antibodies....... forever changing, adapting or as you put it evolving, not back to an ape I hope.

I read in a science journal that humans have 89% same genetic make up as plants

Quote
In essence, I agree.  I agree that religion has no place in science, and I agree that the origin of the universe is a very difficult question to answer, and we may never arrive at a solution.
so if the big bang cant be tested and it is a theory and stem cells are intelligent, engineered and a machine and can alter their appearance to create a new. Maybe intelligent, engineered design should be a valid option as it is already proven with stem cell research
A view with an open mind

*

lyner

  • Guest
Quote

Quote
Nope - I'm not saying they are intelligent.
no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did
Quote
Nope - I'm not saying they are engineered -
no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did

Wow. An actual SCIENTIST said it! That's the ultimate authority.

The Big Bang can be called a theory because there is testable evidence for it. Evolution can be seen to happen - it happens when conditions are changed artificially - which speeds it up. There is fossil and other evidence of similar changes. These are also 'tests' which means that Evolution also has the status of a theory.

In what way can the ID idea be tested? Yes- it's an attractive idea. What else?

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Quote
Nope - I'm not saying they are intelligent.
no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did
Quote
Nope - I'm not saying they are engineered -
no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did
Quote
Yes, I think it's reasonable to call them a machine.
on what authority
A machine that is genetically engineered to change itself! Wow.
Oh dear - firstly - I was responding to your comment of "so you are extending that stem cells are not only intelligent and engineered but also programed and they do all this themselves?".  Secondly, please tell us who this scientist is, as I think you may have entirely misinterpreted what he meant.

How would you define a machine?  I wasn't stating with any authority that stem cells are machines, but I think it's reasonable - all cells are biological machines.  Maybe it would be easier to comprehend if I were to say that the components within a cell are machines - they consume energy and perform tasks, such as copying DNA, building proteins etc.

Quote
Quote
has the big bang been tested?
I asked
Quote
Not directly, in as much as that is impossible - however, the theory of the big bang makes predictions based on existing observations that have since been shown to be true.  It may yet be wrong, but right now it's our best model.
theories based on predictions, hmm.
You told me here that a theory had to be able to be tested!!!! now you are changing your mind.
Is the 'Big Bang a theory or not?
"Theories based on predictions"? - No.  No one said that but you.  A theory from which one can make predictions.  So yes, the theory has been tested.

Quote
Quote
Well, we have seen bacteria evolving new characteristics (characteristics that take the strain away from the defining characteristics of the existing species of bacteria), all in a lab under little selection pressure.  The theory of evolution also, again, makes predictions that have since been shown to be true.  It's our best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.
Are you saying that one species can evolve into another?

When I go to New Zealand I begin to talk like them too. When I go to the beach I come home with a tan..........when I have the flu I develop antibodies....... forever changing, adapting or as you put it evolving, not back to an ape I hope.
Yes, one species can evolve into another, new species.  Should the genetic or morphological differences become so great that the new stock can no longer interbreed with the original stock, it will be defined as a new species.  Do you understand the process of evolution?

Quote
I read in a science journal that humans have 89% same genetic make up as plants
That figure sounds too high to me.  Besides, there's a world of difference between sharing genes and having identical genes.  We do share around half our genes with plants, but there can be large differences within those genes.  What point were you trying to make with this?  We share genes with every living species, as far as I know.
Quote
Quote
In essence, I agree.  I agree that religion has no place in science, and I agree that the origin of the universe is a very difficult question to answer, and we may never arrive at a solution.
so if the big bang cant be tested and it is a theory and stem cells are intelligent, engineered and a machine and can alter their appearance to create a new.
Nope, I don't think you've been reading my posts at all.

The big bang theory has been tested.

Stem cells are not intelligent.

Stem cells are not engineered, but arrived by evolution.

Stem cells cannot alter their appearance.  As I stated before, external factors affect gene expression, which leads to the cells producing other types of cell.

Quote
Maybe intelligent, engineered design should be a valid option as it is already proven with stem cell research
No it hasn't, and it wouldn't be a valid hypothesis as it's based on unfalsifiable, poor assumptions about intelligence and design.

Please actually read the comments you reply to - you clearly didn't take in anything that I had said.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2009 00:07:43 by BenV »

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
What BenV said.

And stem cells don't design themselves, which is what you seem to be thinking echochartruse. They just express different genes based on their environment. Dynamic, not intelligent.

It seems to me that 99% of the opponents of the theory of evolution don't actually properly grasp how it works, or anything about the biology behind it.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
"differnet genes based on the environment" but that is what eveolution is,,,,,
but stem cell scientist said they are intelligent and engineered to develop.........so could evolution be based on intelligent engineering?
A view with an open mind

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
You must have misunderstood him. Please show us the name of the scientist and/or the article you read that in.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
"differnet genes based on the environment" but that is what eveolution is,,,,,
Not quite in this context.  With stem cells, all the genes are there, and there are external factors which control which ones will be switched on/off.

Quote
but stem cell scientist said they are intelligent and engineered to develop.........so could evolution be based on intelligent engineering?
We really need to know who it was and what he said, as you may have misunderstood him, he may have been taken out of context, or he may have just poorly communicated what he meant.  Stem cells are not thought of as intelligent, and they are not engineered, but arrived at by evolution.  So no, evolution is not based on intelligent engineering.

Please find us a link to this person so we can see what he was saying/really meant.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
Quote

Quote
Nope - I'm not saying they are intelligent.
no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did
Quote
Nope - I'm not saying they are engineered -
no you didn't a scientist working with stem cells did

Quote
Wow. An actual SCIENTIST said it! That's the ultimate authority.
Stephen Badylak was the person

Can someone tell me about him?

A view with an open mind

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
Quote
and they are not engineered, but arrived at by evolution. 

you do mean the 'theory' of Evolution dont you? I wouldn't want to think that people dont say what they mean.

A view with an open mind

*

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
I read a very good book today (long haul flight from canada) called "13 things that dont make sense".  One topic was life and the other was death.  Very very deep and clever stuff.  Another topic raised was the constants of the universe.

I can't begin to explain the ideas and counter ideas put forward but needless to say it kept me occupied and now my brain hurts.  Chances are as more infomation comes to light about the formation of these constants (or possibly just the one) we will understand why this all neatly fits in.

I like the idea that if things weren't so perfect there would be nothing to observe it and therefore it wouldn't technically exist.  It reminds me of quantum mechanics.  Perhaps the universe, our quantum branch anyway, settled on these friendly constants because it's the only possible way it could exist and be observed.  Any extreme combinations wouldn't result in anythin able to contemplate its crappyness and it would simply be a froth of possibilities.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2009 10:59:21 by Flyberius »

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
Quote
We really need to know who it was and what he said, as you may have misunderstood him, he may have been taken out of context, or he may have just poorly communicated what he meant.  Stem cells are not thought of as intelligent, and they are not engineered, but arrived at by evolution.  So no, evolution is not based on intelligent engineering.
"intelligent cells," Dr. Frauscher said. "Not only do they stay where they are injected, but also they quickly form new muscle tissue and when the muscle mass reaches the appropriate size, the cell growth ceases automatically."

Please find us a link to this person so we can see what he was saying/really meant.
[/quote]
A view with an open mind

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Flybys


Quote
I like the idea that if things weren't so perfect there would be nothing to observe it and therefore it wouldn't technically exist.  It reminds me of quantum mechanics.  Perhaps the universe, our quantum branch anyway, settled on these friendly constants because it's the only possible way it could exist and be observed.  Any extreme combinations wouldn't result in anythin able to contemplate its creepiness and it would simply be a froth of possibilities.

Would the universe exist if there were no one observing it?

Quantum physics make no sense and appears to be illogical. But we use it nevertheless by relying on probability

Down there the ID seems to have gone a little crasy

Alan


The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
I read a very good book today (long haul flight from canada) called "13 things that dont make sense".  One topic was life and the other was death.  Very very deep and clever stuff.  Another topic raised was the constants of the universe.
and here is an interesting website: http://floridapoliticsarticles.blogspot.com/2005/11/stem-cells-are-intelligent-design.html.
To open your mind you have to listen to all sides of the story. But why does everyone think there is a human person called God invloved???? [?] [???] [:o]
A view with an open mind

*

lyner

  • Guest
echochartruse:
Where is the significance of the word "intelligent"? Why are you nitpicking about the use of that word?
Humans are intelligent - so are Chimps. Many other organisms display intelligence. If someone described stem cells as behaving intelligently - so what?
Humans 'design' things - so do some apes (at a simple level).
What have either of those terms got to do with proving that there is 'someone intelligent' out there who designed us?

If we are, indeed, a part of some experiment then, as I said before, whoever is responsible for the experiment must have come from somewhere. So it's just another 'turtles all the way down' argument. It's a total waste of time discussing it. If you believe that then you believe it and good luck to you. But don't try to get all logical and try to convince us. You are on to a loser.

If you could, perhaps, tell us (with some evidence) about this designer chap and how he came to be in existence????

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Hey All

Point 1

Asymmetrical universe why??

I started a thread a while back with the question, why is the universe asymmetrical instead symmetrical? There was an equal amount of matter and antimatter at the moment of the big bang, these two opposing energy forms should have annihilated each other leaving the universe just a vast soup of gamma rays.

But luckily for us, this did not happen , the antimatter went elsewhere maybe someone monkeyed with creation back then allowing us to exist?

Point 2


The Big Bang , everything has a cause and effect except the Big Bang why?

One of the most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another. The universe could not have created itself using natural processes because nature did not exist before the universe came into existence. Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observable today.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often stated as the law of increasing entropy: "A natural process always takes place in such a direction as to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe." (John Williams, "Modern Physics," Page 210). The effect of this law is that unless there is a purposeful source of energy operating in a system, the various parts, molecules, etc., become less and less organized and more and more random. Thus the only means to maintain the theory of evolution in light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is to conclude that, while chance combinations of simple molecules into very complex ones would be extremely rare, given enough time, it could happen.
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
When he says "intelligent design", he is simply referring to the development of the technology that he's using. He is absolutely not saying anything relevant to "Intelligent Design" Creationism, or real intelligence built into the cells. Also, often when scientists talk that way about things, they are using a mental shorthand. It's easier to say something that sounds like "the cells are smart" than it is to explain what is actually happening.

Quote
and they are not engineered, but arrived at by evolution. 

you do mean the 'theory' of Evolution dont you? I wouldn't want to think that people dont say what they mean.



Evolution is a fact. Scientific theory is the highest level of understanding about a group of phenomena. Evolution is not "just a theory", anymore than the theory of gravity is "just a theory".
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Thanks Stefan, I was just coming to that.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often stated as the law of increasing entropy: "A natural process always takes place in such a direction as to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe." (John Williams, "Modern Physics," Page 210). The effect of this law is that unless there is a purposeful source of energy operating in a system, the various parts, molecules, etc., become less and less organized and more and more random. Thus the only means to maintain the theory of evolution in light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is to conclude that, while chance combinations of simple molecules into very complex ones would be extremely rare, given enough time, it could happen.
You've answered your own concern there.  The Earth is subject to an enormous energy source - the sun.  The second law of thermodynamics requires a closed system, and that is not what we have here.  It in no way negates or reflects badly upon evolution.

Anyway - As I have said before, there are many other threads here to debate evolution/intelligent design, and they always go in the same ridiculous loops.  The origin of universe is a different issue, but I have already stated that it's pointless to postulate a designer, and daft to presume one.

I'll be locking this thread soon as it has gone very much off topic, and will soon descend into arguements, as these always do.

To those proponents of intelligent design, I will ask a question that I put to another forum member, feel free to reply or take it as rhetorical:

If an alternative mechanism, one that totally excluded any possibility of even considering an intelligent designer, but different to present day science, was proposed and backed up with a great deal of evidence, would you accept it?

I put this to a certain creationist that we have not seen online for a little while.  By admitting that he couldn't accept it, he admitted that his problem was not with the current theories, but the perceived threat to his deeply held beliefs.

Might I suggest you ask yourselves the same question?

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
BenV

Before you lock this topic maybe I should answer the question I posted when I started the thread.

Could the universe be the result of an Intelligent Designer? "YES IT COULD EVEN EINSTEIN SAID EXACTLY THIS"


I just can not see why you want to lock this thread, no one is arguing, we are just debating in a robust way

Alan[/color]
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Alan, that's not an answer, it's just an assertion with argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.
In fact, the whole "Argument from Design" has been shown to be completely vacuous time after time even through simple logic. It's mind-numbing to see it repeated so many times.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Stop flogging the dead horse, please!
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
I would be locking the thread because it has gone off topic.  Also, everyone has had their say on the original topic, and nobody could possibly get anything more from continuing to discuss this.  There are two camps, those who see no point in entertaining the idea of an intelligent designer, and those who are certain it's a possibility.  Neither party will shift unless new evidence comes to light (and one party will not shift regardless of the evidence) - so what's the point?

*

lyner

  • Guest
AMcD
So where did this intelligent designer come from?
You have just offset the problem.

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
I have to agree with BenV, this and similar issues have been flogged here many times and none do or can reach a satisfactory conclusion.

We will never discover the true origin of our own tiny little planet, let alone the whole universe, so I think all this postulating gets us absolutely nowhere at all.
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Stefan

 

Quote
Alan, that's not an answer, it's just an assertion with argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.
In fact, the whole "Argument from Design" has been shown to be completely vacuous time after time even through simple logic. It's mind-numbing to see it repeated so many times

Stefan the question or title of the tread was "could there be as case for an intelligent designer?" and my answer is "yes there could be an intelligent designer" "not there is an intelligent designer" there is a great difference to these two answers!!

There "could be an ID" "not there is an ID"

sophiecentaur

Quote
AMcD
So where did this intelligent designer come from?
You have just offset the problem.

If I knew that I would have to be the intelligent designer

Where does the universe come from?. how could it just have popped out of nowhere? did it have an original cause?

I simply cannot accept that there is any difference in trying to convince someone that the universe had no cause but it has an effect, makes no sense. This is just another take on the turtles all the way down dear fellow.

Where did the universe come from ==========================================="??????????????????????????"

Where did an Intelligent Designer come from================================="??????????????????????????"

Exactly the same questions about the exact same enigma

Alan

BenV

Ben,now you can have some fun and exercise your authority "Lock in those lyrics"  [;D]
« Last Edit: 12/03/2009 20:38:00 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
Yes, but the universe seems to run by simple rules. An 'intelligent designer' would have to be much more complex than that.

That's where Ockham's razor kicks in, right there.

Because science is based on Ockham's razor, an intelligent designer is never realistically going to be the default position; unless there's some serious, reproducible God activity going down; and personally I'll believe that when I see it (I'm not holding by breath).

In fact even if there was evidence of something that looked exactly like a God, Ockham's razor would force you to consider every other possible simpler explanation first.

*

lyner

  • Guest
"Turtles all the way down" is about the most complicated solution so you have to ditch it. One turtle would be just as bad, so we have to go for no turtles.

Why is that so unsatisfactory for some people? Is it insecurity? Would you like to talk about it? Oh, you have been.

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Quote
Stefan the question or title of the tread was "could there be as case for an intelligent designer?" and my answer is "yes there could be an intelligent designer" "not there is an intelligent designer" there is a great difference to these two answers!!

There "could be an ID" "not there is an ID"

The two really mean the same thing. Neither is any more true than the statement, "There are faeries at the bottom of my garden", or "I regularly ride my Invisible Pink Talking Flying Unicorn".
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
echochartruse:
Where is the significance of the word "intelligent"? Why are you nitpicking about the use of that word?
Humans are intelligent - so are Chimps. Many other organisms display intelligence. If someone described stem cells as behaving intelligently - so what?
sorry I must be in the wrong forum I thought this was " Could the universe have been an act of an intelligent designer "
A view with an open mind

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
"But Dr. McFadden is pulling a bait-and-switch: he is using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of "evolution." Thus if by "evolution" one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such "evolution" most certainly is not a fact."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_2.html

I think that evolution being a fact is still being disputed in the scientific world, see above link.

Now random mutations may refer to stem cells growing the same as their host- changing from one type to another.

Anyway I just want to open your minds. I believe scientists should be creative thinking and not stop thinking just becasue someone thinks it is now 'FACT'
A view with an open mind

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Stefan

Quote
The two really mean the same thing. Neither is any more true than the statement, "There are faeries at the bottom of my garden", or "I regularly ride my Invisible Pink Talking Flying Unicorn



The thread title again is could there be a Could the universe be an act of an Intelligent designer?, this is a question and my answer is yes there can be a case for an ID


Your fairies and pink unicorns are statements of fact and if taken seriously would put you in a nut house


Wolfkeeper


Quote
Yes, but the universe seems to run by simple rules. An 'intelligent designer' would have to be much more complex than that.

That's where Occam's razor kicks in, right there.

Because science is based on Occam's razor, an intelligent designer is never realistically going to be the default position; unless there's some serious, reproducible God activity going down; and personally I'll believe that when I see it (I'm not holding by breath).

In fact even if there was evidence of something that looked exactly like a God, Occam's razor would force you to consider every other possible simpler explanation first.

Highly intelligent people always try to get the simperlest answer to a question, so why do you suppose an ID would not do the same?

I disagree with your statement that the universe is sustained by simple rules, in fact the universe is unimaginably complex

Can you fathom supestring theory where there is a micro world of string particles that only Ed Witten can comprehend

: echochartruse


Quote
Now random mutations may refer to stem cells growing the same as their host- changing from one type to another

The view that evolution is driven by tiny random mutation begs the question, can anyone tell me about a positive mutation they have seen or heard about or written about.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2009 21:21:39 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
"But Dr. McFadden is pulling a bait-and-switch: he is using relatively trivial examples of evolution #1 to bolster more controversial definitions of "evolution." Thus if by "evolution" one means universal common descent (evolution #2), or neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution #3), where the primary adaptive force building the complexity of life is unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations, then many scientists would argue that such "evolution" most certainly is not a fact."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_2.html

I think that evolution being a fact is still being disputed in the scientific world, see above link.

Now random mutations may refer to stem cells growing the same as their host- changing from one type to another.

Anyway I just want to open your minds. I believe scientists should be creative thinking and not stop thinking just becasue someone thinks it is now 'FACT'

I'm afraid you can't believe a word that comes from the discovery institute - it's just creationist propaganda. 

Evolution is a fact, explained by the theory of evolution.  Just as gravity is a fact, and it's explained by the theory of gravitational attraction.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Highly intelligent people always try to get the simperlest answer to a question, so why do you suppose an ID would not do the same?

I disagree with your statement that the universe is sustained by simple rules, in fact the universe is unimaginably complex

Can you fathom supestring theory where there is a micro world of string particles that only Ed Witten can comprehend
But do you not see that by adding a designer, you immediately add a layer of complexity, and further questions? 

If the universe was incredibly simple, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.

If the universe is incredibly complex, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.

There is no reason to assume a designer, other than the fact that you want to.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Quote from: echochartruse
I think that evolution being a fact is still being disputed in the scientific world, see above link.
The link you referenced was not from the scientific world that I know about. That evolution is happening is an obvious fact that you only need look around you to discover. Darwin was simply one of the first to notice it.
Quote from: wolfekeeper
Yes, but the universe seems to run by simple rules. An 'intelligent designer' would have to be much more complex than that.

That's where Ockham's razor kicks in, right there.


Occam's razor is a very useful tool. That is what started me on a quest to understand how we went astray in the early 1900's by abandoning the perfectly natural Lorentz treatment of relativity phenomena based upon the premise: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. And instead adopted Einstein's theory which clearly violated Occam's razor.

Wiki article about Occam's razor

Quote from: from the link
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity." [2]

When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories. Here the same caveat applies to confounding topicality with mere simplicity. (A superficially simple phenomenon may have a complex mechanism behind it. A simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture all the essential and relevant parts.)
« Last Edit: 12/03/2009 21:33:53 by Vern »

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
BenV

Quote
There is no reason to assume a designer, other than the fact that you want to.

And like wise there is no reason to assume that "the universe is not the act of a great intellect". Even Einstein(I repeat) said that although in reality he was an atheist

There is no reason to disbelieve the possibilty of an ID other than the fact that you want to

Alan
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
There's also no reason to think that the universe wasn't created by a wave of his noodly appendage (pasta be upon you), last wednesday at 3:31pm GMT, unless you want to.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
BenV

Quote
There is no reason to assume a designer, other than the fact that you want to.

And like wise there is no reason to assume that "the universe is not the act of a great intellect". Even Einstein(I repeat) said that although in reality he was an atheist

There is no reason to disbelieve the possibilty of an ID other than the fact that you want to

Alan
I think you've missed the point - by introducing an element of design you have added further complication - therefore it is not worth doing.  Also, it is unfalsifiable and based on unfalsifiable  assumptions, so it is again not worth doing.

It's illogical to postulate an intelligent designer, and this is one prefectly good reason to disbelieve it.

If you're happy to accept it, then you must be happy to accept wolfekeeper's noodly appendages or any other explanation that anyone cares to put forward - you have to accept all of science fiction, all of fantasy, all deranged delusions (pink fairies and unicorns), as equally valid.  Are you happy to do so?  If not, why should your story have any more validity than those?