Otseng's statement: "This is the variation of the omnipotent God argument by imagining a hypothetical perfect design. There is no need for God to be a "perfect" designer.
In human designs as well, things are not perfect and have flaws, but they are still designed. Nobody claims since iPhones have flaws in them that Apple engineers are either crappy designers or they don't exist at all."
*****************************
There is just so much to flesh out in this cluster of statements, I do not know where to begin. I guess we can start here and see where this goes.
For Debate: Is it obvious humans were designed, or not? Please explain why or why not. If you believe so, does this design lead more-so towards...
a) an intelligent designer?
b) an unintelligent designer?
c) a deceptive designer?
Like all other topics, let's see where this one goes.... And for funsies, here is a 10-minute video -- optional, but begins to put forth a case for options b) or c), if "designed" at all:
Obvious Designer?
Moderator: Moderators
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3626
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1641 times
- Been thanked: 1096 times
Obvious Designer?
Post #1In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2357
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2018 times
- Been thanked: 796 times
Re: Obvious Designer?
Post #181Bacteria evolved to consume plastic:1213 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:53 amCan you give one example of evolution that is not losing something?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:29 pmNow you've lost me. What idea are you talking about? That some complexity and some functionality has changed during the evolution of living things?
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2 ... nal-story/
Which points to the published article:A common environmental bacterium, Comamonas testosteroni, could someday become nature’s plastic recycling center. While most bacteria prefer to eat sugars, C. testosteroni, instead, has a natural appetite for complex waste from plants and plastics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41589-022-01237-7
So instead of supporting your claim you ask me? I'm not doing your homework for you.1213 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:53 amDo you agree that all changes in DNA happen because of errors in the copy process?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:29 pmCool, please link to some of this (preferably peer reviewed) scientific evidence.
Now you are tap dancing. Please do as I asked and point to some science that says evolution will always result in more complexity and/or functionality. That was your claim. You have yet to support it.1213 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:53 amI think you also accepted that the according to the theory all things have evolved from single organism to this variety of organisms. If that is true, then the claim is that the theory gives the expectation that things must have gone also to more complex.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:29 pmAs already pointed out, the theory has no expectations that all things will always gain complexity and/or functionality.
How is this 'degeneration'? We've already established that some species have gained some functions or complexity along the way (you think the theory says they always gain something). So which is it? A copy error might create a new function (or it might not). If it does, how is that 'degeneration'?1213 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:53 amHere are few examples, that I think are commonly accepted, please tell if you don't accept them:benchwarmer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:29 pmFirst you have to show this 'degeneration' you speak of. After that, you might be able to use it to support something.
1. Errors in copying DNA is the reason for changes most, if not all changes.
Again. Link to science please!
And gained the ability to swim in the ocean for thousands of miles. So? Lost some things, gained some things. What has this got to do with anything?
And some things have gained the ability to fly. Again, so what? Clearly things don't always 'degenerate'. If you think so, support your claim with science please.
I didn't ask what you think they suggest, I asked for a link to the research. Which seems to be missing in your reply. I wonder why.1213 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:53 amEssentially that is what they suggest.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:29 pmOh my. You think scientists think that whales developed the way they are because the whales thought about things and got lazy? LOL!!!
No, I'm not doing your homework. You made some claims, and now ask me to prove you wrong. Please support your claims first. I think readers will notice that you didn't link a single scientific source, but basically just turned the tables and expected me to do your work for you.1213 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:53 amPlease explain why do you think it is not true?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:29 pmHuh? I suggest a basic biology course. This is getting too ridiculous.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14306
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 916 times
- Been thanked: 1648 times
- Contact:
Re: Obvious Designer?
Post #182"So we don't waste any time"?POI wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:09 pmI have already explained why I ask in post 176.William wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 9:59 pm [Replying to POI in post #176]
I don't refer to myself as anything in particular. Why do you ask?
Okay. Well I have given you my answer. What now? What is it that I share on this message board which has you asking?
The way I see things, if folk have a particular position they self-identify with then I run with that in relation to what they contribute to debate.
In relation to that, if someone contributes to debate but does not have/does not say what position they self identify with, I simply take what they have offered and am still able to contribute to debate. My focus is on critiquing what is offered, if/as I can.
The Vain Brain is meat headedness having no comprehension of the mind which uses it, refusing to hand over the helm to that mind and refusing to assume its placement as subordinate to the mind. Post #36
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3543
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1144 times
- Been thanked: 735 times
Re: Obvious Designer?
Post #183I think the process is natural just like I think the process of us designing an iphone is ultimately natural. Is grass designed? I don't know.POI wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 9:55 pmOkay. Do you think its sophistication is by way of "natural processes", or, "design"?Purple Knight wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 9:44 pm No. I'm suggesting that grass is at least as sophisticated a machine as an iphone.
Whether some extreme intelligence has its hand in the soup is not necessary, but is at least suggested, by extreme complexity. If we're really at the top, then some complex things are designed (the iphone) and some came about with no intelligence guiding them (grass) but nothing that is extremely basic and simple is designed by intelligence.
The argument is enough to suggest that complex things might have been designed. But it implodes when it suggests that everything, including rocks, are deliberately designed. If that's so, then the basic intuition we rely on to concede that complex things may well be designed, cannot be relied on at all because we are in error when we say simple things were obviously not designed.
The argument would be enough to suggest, but not prove, a lesser god.
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3626
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1641 times
- Been thanked: 1096 times
Re: Obvious Designer?
Post #184Sure, but you may miss their intent, nuance(s), or context, which is, quite frankly, what I think you and I have done many times in this exchange alone. If I already know your starting point, then many potential exchanges could be avoided. Everyone has a position. Anywhere between.... I've lived under a rock my entire life and I'm absolutely agnostic to any/all claims placed in this arena, to... I'm a Christian, to.... all in between. Where do you land? Once I have a better gauge, is when we can discuss 'design'.William wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:32 pm"So we don't waste any time"?POI wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:09 pmI have already explained why I ask in post 176.William wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 9:59 pm [Replying to POI in post #176]
I don't refer to myself as anything in particular. Why do you ask?
Okay. Well I have given you my answer. What now? What is it that I share on this message board which has you asking?
The way I see things, if folk have a particular position they self-identify with then I run with that in relation to what they contribute to debate.
In relation to that, if someone contributes to debate but does not have/does not say what position they self identify with, I simply take what they have offered and am still able to contribute to debate. My focus is on critiquing what is offered, if/as I can.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3626
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1641 times
- Been thanked: 1096 times
Re: Obvious Designer?
Post #185ID advocates will argue for irreducible complexity. But we've seen how this position falls on it's face. Are there any other argument(s) the ID position has on it's side?Purple Knight wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:02 pm Is grass designed? I don't know.
Whether some extreme intelligence has its hand in the soup is not necessary, but is at least suggested, by extreme complexity. If we're really at the top, then some complex things are designed (the iphone) and some came about with no intelligence guiding them (grass) but nothing that is extremely basic and simple is designed by intelligence.
The argument is enough to suggest that complex things might have been designed. But it implodes when it suggests that everything, including rocks, are deliberately designed. If that's so, then the basic intuition we rely on to concede that complex things may well be designed, cannot be relied on at all because we are in error when we say simple things were obviously not designed.
The argument would be enough to suggest, but not prove, a lesser god.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3543
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1144 times
- Been thanked: 735 times
Re: Obvious Designer?
Post #186I'm a cynic so it's much easier for me to select the worst argument for god, than the best. It's also easier for me to select the worst argument against god, rather than the best. To the latter I say the argument from suffering is a pretty big pile of stench and rot.
You've seen how, if we are buried in things which are designed, our intuition about designed/undesigned is worthless, because we have never seen an undesigned thing. Similarly, every one of us has suffered so we can't know what being free of suffering would look like. It might look like never having been conscious. We don't know. We can't make a comparative argument without a comparison. And though it's hidden in this case, the argument from suffering is similar. It tries to look at something no one can ever have seen - an undesigned thing, or in this case, a world without suffering - and draw conclusions, like that the world without suffering would be better. I say no it wouldn't; we can't know that.
As with the obvious designer argument, where I concede that it is enough to suggest but not prove a lesser designer who did not design everything, the argument from gratuitous suffering can suggest, but not prove, that god if he exists is not omnibenevolent. But the fact that we suffer at all, when used to try to prove there cannot be an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god, has this exact same flaw of not having anything whatsoever to compare to.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14306
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 916 times
- Been thanked: 1648 times
- Contact:
Re: Obvious Designer?
Post #187[Replying to POI in post #184]
There is a thread which allows us to ask questions of other forum members. If you use that forum and post your questions there, I will do my best to answer.
There is a thread which allows us to ask questions of other forum members. If you use that forum and post your questions there, I will do my best to answer.
The Vain Brain is meat headedness having no comprehension of the mind which uses it, refusing to hand over the helm to that mind and refusing to assume its placement as subordinate to the mind. Post #36
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11562
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 332 times
- Been thanked: 376 times
Re: Obvious Designer?
Post #188Thanks, interesting article. I don't think it shows the bacteria didn't have that ability also before.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pmBacteria evolved to consume plastic:
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2 ... nal-story/Which points to the published article:A common environmental bacterium, Comamonas testosteroni, could someday become nature’s plastic recycling center. While most bacteria prefer to eat sugars, C. testosteroni, instead, has a natural appetite for complex waste from plants and plastics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41589-022-01237-7
Where did I make that claim?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pm Please do as I asked and point to some science that says evolution will always result in more complexity and/or functionality. That was your claim. You have yet to support it.
I don't think we have any evidence for that.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pm We've already established that some species have gained some functions or complexity
They had that ability before losing the ability to walk, otherwise they obviously would still live on land.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pm And gained the ability to swim in the ocean for thousands of miles.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8403
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 3626 times
Re: Obvious Designer?
Post #1891213 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 5:05 ambenchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pmBacteria evolved to consume plastic:
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2 ... nal-story/Which points to the published article:A common environmental bacterium, Comamonas testosteroni, could someday become nature’s plastic recycling center. While most bacteria prefer to eat sugars, C. testosteroni, instead, has a natural appetite for complex waste from plants and plastics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41589-022-01237-7Burden of proof fallson the claimant. Where is your evidence that bacteria had the ability to consume plastic before there was plastic, or that plastic was organically recycled rather than staying untouched in the ground until plastic -eating bacteria appeared?Thanks, interesting article. I don't think it shows the bacteria didn't have that ability also before.
benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pm Please do as I asked and point to some science that says evolution will always result in more complexity and/or functionality. That was your claim. You have yet to support it.You often pull this of forgetting things you posted and demanding we go back and find them But I do recall you put it to me that evolution Ought to lead to more advancement but it can lead to devolution I suppose one might call it like the loss of legs in whales which actually aided them to access fish better.Where did I make that claim?
benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pm We've already established that some species have gained some functions or complexityThere is plenty Bats were obviously rodents before they evolved flight. Pengins (in the fossil record, too) were less adapted for swimming than they are now. Snakes (in the fossil record) once had legs but their method of locomotion made them redundant. And finally,the cetan sequence. Demonstrable Speciation from a land critter to a sea critter.I don't think we have any evidence for that.
benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pm And gained the ability to swim in the ocean for thousands of miles.Rubbish.The land animal could not cross an ocean nor (the morphology AND fossil evidence shows) did the amphibious form have that ability - only offshore paddling. It took the evolved for total sea -life form to get to other lands of the time.They had that ability before losing the ability to walk, otherwise they obviously would still live on land.
It has to be said, your excuse is utterly uninformed, denialist and wretched.
But 94 guests is not bad at all
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2357
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2018 times
- Been thanked: 796 times
Re: Obvious Designer?
Post #190Ok, I will concede you didn't directly say that, however, you sure are implying it:1213 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 5:05 amWhere did I make that claim?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pm Please do as I asked and point to some science that says evolution will always result in more complexity and/or functionality. That was your claim. You have yet to support it.
You keep talking about degeneration as if that somehow contradicts the scientific theory of evolution. That only makes sense if you think things always have to become more complex/functional.1213 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 6:35 am Essentially the theory claims all species have developed from simple organism to this variety of species. Meaning there was allegedly an organism that was basically a single cell, which in time has developed arms, eyes and other complex systems. This is not about getting better, but about getting more complex, or functional.
Perhaps you need to state exactly which part of the ToE you don't agree with. It would be helpful if you supplied a link to some science and bolded the bits you think are wrong.
I get you don't want to see it, but that's a far cry from no evidence. The entire field of biology disagrees with you. Apparently you and your Bible know better.1213 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 5:05 amI don't think we have any evidence for that.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pm We've already established that some species have gained some functions or complexity
I don't even know how to respond to that one.... In fact, often it's better to just let your interlocuter rest their case with something like that1213 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 5:05 amThey had that ability before losing the ability to walk, otherwise they obviously would still live on land.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:12 pm And gained the ability to swim in the ocean for thousands of miles.
I can't help but point out you've yet to supply one single link to actual science thus showing us you even know what that is. I realize we are not in the science subforum, but again, you argue against a strawman and can't seem to bring yourself to bring actual science into it. Oh well.