« The Gospels Aren’t Ancient Fiction | Main | Challenge: A Real God Wouldn’t Have Let His Chosen People Suffer Defeats »

November 30, 2015

Comments

"The charitable reading of your words is that you really don't have any idea what design is. When you say "An Intelligent Designer designs biological organisms" you actually don't know what you are talking about

FIFY

How does intelligent design detect design? Thats what really matters here. Thats the issue at hand i.e. thats the controversial part.

Please stop trying to get me to do the work of the ID Crowd.

""What is controversial about the claim "primates design things"?"

What does this question even mean?"

It means that if you are attempting to argue that your house/device you were tapping on/most of the things in your house werent designed, then Im intrigued.

It means that we can go and meet architects and those that make laptops/mobile devices and see design in action.

So "primates design things" isnt really up for debate is it?

So "primates design things" isnt really up for debate is it?
I see you try to continue the dogged effort to evade. I wasn't taking issue with your claim...As you have been well aware for days.

I just wanted to know what you meant by it.

But I'm afraid you let the mask slip:

It means that we can go and meet architects and those that make laptops/mobile devices and see design in action.Finally!

So "X is designed" means "I saw, or can see, X designed."

Of course, there's the initial question of identifying what it is that the architects are doing that makes it design...so you really still haven't provided a meaning to this word "design".

But we also see why you've been sitting on even this partial understanding, since there are plenty of designed things that do not meet this criterion. There are plenty of things where we can confidently say they are designed, but where it is impossible to meet the designer.

Did not close blockquotes right.

"How does intelligent design detect design? Thats what really matters here. Thats the issue at hand."

One more time just in case you missed it. Answer that WisdomeLover.

You destroyed ID with your posts some time ago and you are now hammering superfluous nails in its wretched coffin.

It's an unavoidable conclusion:


While I.D. and Christian metaphysical claims mean something categorically different than the following, the following is the only data which the Non-Theist has employed in this thread to define what *they* mean by design:


[1] There are un-designed things in motion
[2] Watch the motions of un-designed things
[3] Count those motions as design


There's just been nothing more substantive than that offered up so far by our Non-Theist friends.


Here's hoping.

Oh, good.

I'm glad you are felling better.

Does it mean that, from this point forward, when you begin a comment with...

RonH,

...you will actually respond to something I've said?


RonH,

I can't help it if you can't read or won't read about your un-touched X not salvaging anything for you.

"I can't help it if you can't read or won't read about your un-touched X not salvaging anything for you"

untouched X? What are you on about?

scbrownlhrm,

I posted my last comment without reading your last.

Sorry to find you are unwell again.

Seriously and sincerely: I really would appreciate it if you would make your comments 1) comprehensible and 2) relevant.

Especially if you address your comment to me.

Do you understand what I mean?

Oh, and while I'm making requests:

3) as short as possible and
4) with only standard capital letters.

If this is what you mean by "design":

"X is designed" means "I saw, or can see, X designed."
Then, of course ID cannot prove that things like the inside of the cell are designed.

Then again, no one can prove that the Stonehenge was designed by that same standard.

WL,

Cell....Stonehenge......

Interesting point. The pesky bench-top of mind atop matter always has been a problem for the Non-Theist.

RonH,

Since you don't own STR, or me, I'll say as much as I like.

Thank you very much.

Feel free to ignore this and me. I'm satisfied with the level of shortsightedness you're revealing.

Since you can’t read or won’t read, here are a few keys again – with a few words cut out and a few added:

NASA designed a program, and, then, simulated evolution (not the program) was observed building an antenna. Yes, and now, if we want an antenna to bubble up in the pond, we know we can make it happen. We have the technology now. Just take the program and the substrates and get-er-done. You know, click the replay button in the real world.

We *did* get our antenna you know. Heck, if this is too hard for you then we can settle for the language reverse engineering, sort of. We can even set it up so that should someone else jump into that pond, against our advice, well they'll get to that end too, so to speak.

We *did* get our antenna. On purpose. The program *did* calculate using *actual* real world variables that are *actually* reproducible and *did* find the "path" from A over to B such that we *can* say that given the necessary and sufficient variables of […..X…..] upstream, "this" becomes "that" downstream.

And this is just the beginning with programs like this. Think of what we can do should we extrapolate these fascinating programs to still greater distances! Or are you opposed to the idea of manipulating nature? Be careful how you answer that.

We know that given [....X…Etc....] upstream, we get Y downstream. Control the environment and you control the outcome because there’s only a finite number of possible cascades and the stochastic search and optimization technique through all the permutations and combinations possible is not infinite. It can be calculated. It *was* calculated. It was mapped. And we can do it again with some other X, so to speak. Given X upstream, we know we get Y downstream.

These are only a few of the reasons which reveal just why it is the case that appearances of Darwinism have, now, been proven to be able to fool us. If we didn’t know about the program’s fixed variable set (Nature) we would mistakenly think that there was an infinite number of cascades to map such that the appearance of random truly sums to random, and, even worse, we might think that the stochastic search and optimization technique actually didn’t interface with […..X….] (and thus indirectly by extension with the cascades after X, on the way to Y). Evolution’s substrates were defined from the get-go. Think about that. And Eden. And possible worlds. The NASA Model merely adds the weight of physical evidence (via said scientific “model”) to the list of reasons which already affirmed the fact that Darwinism cannot be shown to be logically incompatible with Theism.

So there’s that part of the NASA Model.

But then there is another issue which the NASA Model raises:

The primary issue in the NASA analog is in the capacity to comment on design as a reality *period*. The move to eliminate design carries through. To the whole show. But we know that design exists in the universe. Laptops and all that. And yet, as Rosenberg is honest enough to unpack, any design or any adaptation from stupid to intelligent ruins his paradigm. Because to be said to adapt is to claim more than cascades of chemical reactions void of goals – not in his vocabulary but in the standard use of that word. He’s being precise. If “adapt” means anything more than non-design, he rightly protests. Such poised honesty among Non-Theists is uncommon, as this thread is demonstrating.

That is why, then, that where design is concerned, debating on "Is it here or is it there" and on "Is it the way I would do it or some other way" and on “degrees” and so on all end up as second tier concerns because either there is design (which physics cannot grant) or the universe is void of design – and if the latter is the case then the Non-Theist has no *rational* referent by which to measure Ya/Na on this or that X being designed or not. He must forever appeal to the motions of undesigned things as his stopping point. Unless he appeals to the “magic” of the following:

We take motions of un-designed things inside of un-designed skulls of an un-designed product and we add them to motions of those un-designed products and we pile all of those motions of all of those un-designed things into a box, and we affix a label onto that box (which is full of motions of un-designed things) and we write on that label so that it reads thusly: “[ D-E-S-I-G-N ]”.

While the Non-Theist has to settle for that sort of nonsensical unintelligibility, the Christian finds no intellectual, rational, reason to accept that model of reality. It’s fallacious, circular, and yields nothing more than noise born of indolence.

If design is anywhere, to any degree at all, we run up against something that cannot carry us to any end that is less than the whole show (which we call the universe) and which must in fact be more than the particular show in question. Design must precede design – otherwise we are simply conflating paradigmatic (categorical) terms. Unfortunately for the Non-Theist who really, really, really wants his universe to account for ultimately non-eliminative / non-fictitious design, he is just stuck with his own paradigmatic hard stop – his ultimate explanatory terminus – which will, every single time, ruin all of his (irrational) hopes.

NASA and our evolutionary simulator data cannot salvage the Non-Theist's capacity to speak on design as the referent of non-design ultimately dissolves all such attempts. Why? Because the Non-Theist has no *rational* referent by which to measure Ya/Na on this or that X being designed or not – he must forever appeal to motions of undesigned things as his stopping point. Unless he appeals to “magic” inside of boxes, as described earlier.

But the NASA “format” *does* inform us on the need to be careful about appearances. Darwinism has been proven by the NASA Model to house the appearance of random all the while its substrates (and thus paths) are set, designed, from the get-go and such is so much the case that we can even begin mapping such pathways through time (retro to discover / forward to build). It proves that designers can engineer given a known set of variables such that we know that given [....X…Etc....] upstream, we get B downstream. Control the environment and you control the outcome because there’s only a finite number of possible cascades and the stochastic search and optimization technique through all the permutations and combinations possible is not infinite. It can be calculated. It *was* calculated. It was mapped. And we can do it *again* with some *other* X / Y. Think of what we can do should we extrapolate these fascinating programs to still greater distances! Or are you opposed to the idea of manipulating nature? Be careful how you answer that.

Given X upstream, we know we get Y downstream.

[1] X is Nature’s variables. Y is the antenna. X is designed, or programmed, such that the program is informed on said variables from the get-go. The fact that what follows X (cascades on the way to Y) is not directly touched, pushed, or nudged simply fails to reach a threshold which permits one to comment on design, and the reason is that, as always, there is no rational referent for the Non-Theist by which to measure design as he must always appeal to the motions of undesigned things as his stopping point. Unless he appeals to magic inside of boxes, as described earlier.

[2] Changing X upstream changes what follows X (changes the cascades on the way to Y) and thus changes Y downstream – and all *without touching* those cascades which follow after X. Think about that. Admit it.

[3] The data permits us to, eventually, engineer and reverse engineer using known variable sets. In the NASA items the variables are plugged in. The program is told what they are. Again, it can be calculated. It *was* calculated. It was mapped. And we can do it *again* with some *other* X / Y. Indeed, it is now the case, as we perfect these fascinating programs, that we can *know* that, say, given X upstream, we know we get Y downstream.

Design and Evolution. And this sequence remains seamless backward or forward to any distance. You know, infinite regresses and all that. Design and all that. All those pesky problems of the Non-Theist’s paradigm.

And, again, this all comes back to the fundamental problem about the universe: Design actually exists. That simple fact reduces all debates about *location* of design and about *degree* of design to the category of second tier concerns.

Why? Because it is either:

[A] No design at all in a universe such as ours, as the Non-Theist cannot show us *any* of his own semantic landscapes which are not annihilated by his own metaphysical landscape – and therefore his only options are the pains of circularity – or – ultimately unintelligible semantics.

Or,

[B] Should there be design in the slightest degree in the smallest location well then we have stumbled upon something which fills the whole show that we call the universe with a metaphysical actuality which that show itself cannot house.

The Non-Theist’s only hope is the rapidly fading fairytale of yesteryear called “emergent-ism”, where he points to a molecule and attempts the absurd, where he attempts to describe the irreducible metaphysical reality of irreducible purpose. BTW, it’s a great fairytale – laced with colorful pictures of the fictitious – and it’s been shown to be very popular among children.

It's interesting.

The Non-Theist's true ignorance on what the word "God" denotes in the Christian paradigm. Being Itself and all that. Pure Actuality and all that. C.S. Lewis observed that such ignorance leads the Non-Theist to take the word "miracle" and equate it to the word "violence" against Nature. How uninformed. God is the most natural entity there is, or ever can be, as the un-derived is necessarily more concrete than the derived. That the Non-Theist expects violence, expects to be able to measure a kind of material ripple atop the water should God dip His toe into the pond that is the natural (created) order reveals a gross lack of understanding where Christianity is concerned on the essence of Being Itself, or "God", even as it reveals his hopelessly irrational commitment to Scientism where truth-finder referents seeking an exhaustive picture of reality are concerned.

The NASA Model is interesting in that it adds to the proofs which affirm that World-Building just is the peculiar and coherent affair of God and no other as it affirms that should there be design *in* our particular universe then there is ipso facto design *outside* of said universe. It also affirms, in a few interesting ways, the coherence of the uniquely Christian metaphysical claim of Man, of The Adamic, standing between Possible Worlds there in Eden.

It is also interesting in that it helps reveal the Non-Theist's uninformed understanding where there word "God" is concerned (in the Christian sense, that is).

What's interesting about Stonehenge is that it is obviously designed, but no one has any idea what it is for.

So the idea that, for example, I cannot say "X is designed" unless I know what the plan or purpose of X is is utter drivel. By that standard, Stonehenge is not designed.

In fact, as far as I can tell, we know (and yes we do know that Stonehenge is designed) that it is designed simply because it seems designed to us.

Mike,
Even using genetics as a means of attempting to support the idea of evolution fails. For this is circumstantial, not factual. The kind of evolutionary paradigm set forth has never been observed. To try to rationalize evolution from drawing similarities between man, beast, plants, etc. commits an equivocal fallacy.

Pretty much so WisdomLover....unless the 6s method of inquiry is at play.

Daniel

"To try to rationalize evolution from drawing similarities between man, beast, plants, etc. commits an equivocal fallacy"

Why? Explain

"Even using genetics as a means of attempting to support the idea of evolution fails. For this is circumstantial, not factual"

Why do you think this?

Wisdom Lover

How does intelligent design detect design?

The Non-Theist's definition of design:


As physics cannot grant design, and in fact disposes of it, the Non-Theist has no *rational* referent by which to measure Ya/Na on this or that X being designed or not. He must forever appeal to the motions of undesigned things as his stopping point as he appeals to the “magic” of the following:

We take motions of un-designed things inside of un-designed skulls of an un-designed product and we add them to motions of those un-designed products and we pile all of those motions of all of those un-designed things into a box, and we affix a label onto that box (which is full of motions of un-designed things) and we write on that label so that it reads thusly: “[ D-E-S-I-G-N ]”.

And as usual schbrownlhrm offers nothing more than "nontheists have it all wrong" without producing any coherent arguments.

Ironic that you keep talking about motions. More dingly danglys!

"How does intelligent design detect design"

Do you mean "How do ID theorist's detect that they saw or could see a thing designed?"

That is, am I to answer that question using the partial and inadequate meaning of "design" that you've proposed?

If so, then I'd guess that they would detect that they saw a thing designed by whether they saw it designed. And they would detect that they could see a thing designed by whether there is anything preventing them from seeing it designed.

In fact, as far as I can tell, we know (and yes we do know that Stonehenge is designed) that it is designed simply because it seems designed to us.
Huh?

Wisdom Lover

ID claims biological organisms were designed, ID needs to stump up what it means.

Very simple.

Mike -- of course your wrong.


That is why you're being asked to unpack your reasoning via digging deeper than appearances.

We already know what you'll encounter when you do, hence it's not for our benefit that you're being challenged.

It's for your benefit.

It's called metaphysics, logical lucidity, necessary means and justified ends.

Try it sometime.

The Christian has the means to justify intelligibility in claiming this or that X either *is* designed or *looks* designed or *isn't* designed.

The Christian also knows you have no such (rational) means.

Hence we're satisfied to [1] sit still and not unpack our metaphysical necessities, which are easily available for centuries now should anyone be interested and [2] watch you evade and avoid, as your dance is actually serving to prove our point.

Unfortunately, despite our best effort to help you, you're happy to remain blissfully unaware of the trouble which awaits you (given your metaphysical wherewithal) should you actually embark on the tedious and difficult intellectual assignment of digging deeper than appearances.


scbrownlhrm

There's just one small problem with your post. The words.

"The Christian has the means to justify intelligibility in claiming this or that X either *is* designed or *looks* designed or *isn't* designed"

What a load of guff.

ID claims biological organism were designed.

That absolutely entails that ID can detect design vs non design things.

The question therefore is how.

And its certainly ID theorists job to answer. Noone elses. If you know anything about rational discourse you will agree with me - the burden of evidence lies on the the person making the claim.

No metaphysical dingly danglys required.

Mike,

Since you're unaware of the topic, it's the following:

The compatibility of Naturalism and Design.

You have no rational, intellectual right to claim that *anything* is designed.

You have to justify that such an actuality of "design" can exist in and by your paradigmatic means and ends.

Emergent-ism is your only hope of course. But just to let you know, few believe in that fairytale anymore. Because.... physics.

Eliminative metaphysics necessarily await you in your assignment to justify your claim.

But then you probably already know that -- hence your evasion and avoidance of said assignment.

scbrownlhrm,

Are you claiming a naturalistic world can't accommodate design?


ID claims biological organisms were designed, ID needs to stump up what it means.
Is it also necessary for them to 'stump up' (whatever that means) "biological", "organism", and "were"?

If so, I'm going to ask you to 'stump up' what "necessary", "for", "them", "to", "what", "it", "means" and of course "stump up" means.

Or maybe it's up to the one who is claiming that someone is misusing a term to show the misuse.

Ron-

What is it that confuses you? The claim that we know Stonehenge was designed? Or the claim about how we know Stonehenge was designed?

As far as I can tell, there is no causal relation between seeming to be the case and being the case.

Mike,

Of course nature accomodates design. Naturalism just can't rationally account for the fact that designed things exist in nature.

Emergentism tried and failed - hence the growing awareness of the stranglehold of eliminative metaphysics on Naturalism's means and ends.

RonH,

See my last comment to Mile as I mistakenly addressed it to him.

RonH,

Yes. Hence the need to dig past appearances.

"As far as I can tell, there is no causal relation between seeming to be the case and being the case."

The fact that my shirt is red is not, typically, a cause of it seeming red to me?

I think your own materialist views contradict you on this.

Ron-

Do you think Stonehenge is designed?

Did you see it designed?

Is it possible for you to see it designed?

Do you know what the purpose of it was?

Do you know what the plan of it was?

Apart from the appearance of design that it bears, do you know that it even had a plan or purpose?

It is fallacious to assume evolution by common descent given the similarities between organisms for different reasons, among them being the lack of evidence for transitional forms (as I've explained earlier) and that macroevolution has not been observed.

This leads to my next point of logic as to why it's too hasty to conclude evolution by common descent based on genetic similarities. Have you considered the improbability those kinds of mechanisms even taking place? Have you considered the complexity of the eye or nervous system (which I'm currently learning about in A&P)? Incredible!

Paradigm Shift: A fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.
---I'm beginning to see a paradigm shift in the underlying assumption of macroevolution. The more we discover, the more we realize how improbable the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm truly is and see it for what it is.

The fact that my shirt is red is not, typically, a cause of it seeming red to me?
It is. Typically. But when is its seeming red ever a cause of its being red?
In fact, as far as I can tell, we know (and yes we do know that Stonehenge is designed) that it is designed simply because it seems designed to us.

Doesn't it worry you that this kind of thing comes up in an argument against evolution.

Red shirts?

What difference does it make what Stonehenge was for or whether I know?

These would stike me as designed too - if I came upon them having never heard about them.

If there were really good arguments against evolution, then you would not find yourself talking about Stonehenge and red shirts .

Of all things!

Evolution is by far the better explanation for living things.

Yes, including designers.

And that is why y'all have to go off on these tangents.


RonH,

Aren't you worried that you have no rational means to identify design in *anything* -- *anywhere* -- ever?

The more exhaustive picture of reality is undeniably something categorically different than Non-Theim.

Yet you go off on these tangents of paying the price of the elimination of the mind.

Every single time.

Appearences can count for a lot, assuming the metaphysical landscape is coherent from the ground up -- literally. That is to say, given the metaphysical landscape of Christianity, we're going to be right sometimes (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z.") and we're going to be wrong sometimes (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z."). That aligns with the real world. Whereas, given Non-Theism / Naturalism, we will (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z.") be wrong every single time -- for the word "design" is unintelligible. Because.....physics.

Laptops are not, in fact cannot be, designed.

That fails to cohere with the real world.

The probability of design is either 0% or 100%.

There is no other %.

To deny that design (the intelligible, actual, categorical kind, not the fundamentally fictitious kind) exists saves Non-Theism at the high price of the elimination of the mind.

It's a price Non-Theists have demonstrated great eagerness to pay should the alternative be God. It's a price Non-Theists are repeatedly having to pay.

Your behavior is worrisome.

Especially given that the NASA format *proves* that designed programs *do*, by controlling and defining X, manipulate both the cascades leading to Y and Y itself and all *without* directly touching or nudging those cascades themselves nor Y itself.

"Appearences can count for a lot, assuming the metaphysical landscape is coherent from the ground up -- literally. That is to say, given the metaphysical landscape of Christianity, we're going to be right sometimes (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z.") and we're going to be wrong sometimes (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z."). That aligns with the real world. Whereas, given Non-Theism / Naturalism, we will (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z.") be wrong every single time -- for the word "design" is unintelligible."

You cant just say stuff like this and expect anyone to take it seriously without explaining why.

You guff on about metaphysical landscapes (which is ironic in itself) and have the temerity to do so without exposing argument.

Its assertions everywhere.

Daniel

"the lack of evidence for transitional forms (as I've explained earlier)"

You didnt explain anything.

"This leads to my next point of logic as to why it's too hasty to conclude evolution by common descent based on genetic similarities. ave you considered the improbability those kinds of mechanisms even taking place?"

1. Phylogenetics puts this to bed
2. Why have you resorted to an argument about probability? What probability?
3. This is actually nothing more than an argument from incredulity

"Have you considered the complexity of the eye or nervous system"

Indeed I have - what has complexity got to do with this? Again you harp back to incredulity - "I cant understand how the eye evolved, therefore evolution is wrong"? How exactly is that a good argument?

One more time - evolution has been remarkably good at being shown not to be wrong. Often creationists think that there is some sort of conspiracy going on to make evolution true - an assertion I find very odd. Because actually evolution is just a very robust model and we understand that model better than we understand gravity.

Evolution works over geological timescales. Despite that we have seen examples of macroevolution and I can refer you to the papers if you like.

"I'm beginning to see a paradigm shift in the underlying assumption of macroevolution. The more we discover, the more we realize how improbable the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm truly is and see it for what it is."

I Love This! Evolution, the theory under threat. If you could provide the evidence that leads you to this then great. I'll keep an open mind and hope you have some evidence rather than you are being a naive eejit fueled by dogmatically informed dingly danglys (a la schbrownlhrm)

Aren't you worried that you have no rational means to identify design in *anything* -- *anywhere* -- ever?

Of course I do.

Same as anybody.

Metaphysical landscapes?

Are you serious?


Laptops aren't designed?

Seriously?

Still evading the point?

Laptops aren't designed?

Of course they are.

I suspect your comment is to - though I can only guess at its purpose.

On Non-Theism, laptops can only ever appear to be designed, they cannot ever *be* (actually and non-eliminatively, not fictitiously) designed.

Because physics.... because physics annihilates, disposes of, purpose from the ground up. Literally. Not the Non-Theist's eliminative and fictitious kind of purpose, but the Theist's / Christian's actual, real, fact.

Appearances can count for a lot, assuming the metaphysical landscape is coherent from the ground up -- literally. That is to say, given the metaphysical landscape of Christianity, we're going to be right sometimes (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z.") and we're going to be wrong sometimes (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z."). That aligns with the real world. Artifacts and all that. Easy. Obvious. Predictable. Whereas, given Non-Theism / Naturalism, we will (in claiming "That X was designed for Y.Z.") be wrong every single time -- for the word "design" is unintelligible.

Because.....physics.

Now, obviously, as just demonstrated in this thread by a response by one of our Non-Theist friends on that point, some of our Non-Theist friends cannot understand why physics and metaphysics have to be cohesive in one's claims. They truly are unaware of the stranglehold which eliminative metaphysics has on their own Naturalistic means and ends (and on, therefore, the very small slice of Naturalism that is "biology"). Their myopic lens truly fails to comprehend that one little slice of reality (biology) cannot stand isolated from the rest of reality as one employs various truth-referents in seeking an exhaustive picture of reality. Because there’s no such thing as “magic”. Not according to reason, that is.


Ron-

You know "because" can mean "for the reason that".

We know Stonehenge was designed for the reason that it seems designed.

But even if it meant "as a causal effect of", you still haven't got it right.

You see, I said that we have our knowledge of Stonehenge being designed because it seems designed to us.

I did not say, nor would I, that Stonehenge is designed because it seems designed to us.

Appearances certainly can be causes of knowledge.

Not sure what the sailing stones are about...you think those have the same degree of appearance of design as Stonehenge? I guess I look at them and say "Look! Rocks that got pushed around by the wind"

You think the wind piled the Stonehenge rocks up?

If there were really good arguments against evolution, then you would not find yourself talking about Stonehenge and red shirts .
There is a really good argument against evolution: the prevalent appearance of design in all sorts of aspects of nature.

And you know very well that I don't mention red shirts and Stonehenge as distractions.

I mention them to test claims that you and others have made about design. And those claims fail the test. That's all.

I also note that you answered none of my questions.

So I'll repeat them.

Do you think Stonehenge is designed?

Did you see it designed?

Is it possible for you to see it designed?

Do you know what the purpose of it was?

Do you know what the plan of it was?

Apart from the appearance of design that it bears, do you know that it even had a plan or purpose?

It seems to me fairly obvious that the answer to the first question is "yes". And the answer to all the rest is "no".

That's because we know Stonehenge is designed for the sole reason that it appears so.

Mike,
-The law of entropy challenges the evolutionary paradigm, for both isolated and open systems. It is the tendency of matter and energy to move towards disorder.

-How does phylogenetics (a man-made attempt at trying to explain the origin of life from a common ancestor) put this debate to rest?

-I did explain myself on transitional forms. I said that such transitional forms we'd expect to see don't exist.

-I referred to abiogenesis earlier because the Darwinian evolutionary model presumes this philosophy, namely, that a living organism came to be from nonliving material.

-I referred to probability because this also challenges the Darwinian evolutionary model. The probability of a functioning enzyme coming to be in the first place is highly improbable. On genetics and ribosomes, one may ask the age-old question: which came first, the chicken or the egg?

It's interesting that, as discussed earlier, the NASA evolutionary simulator format *proves* that minds *do*, by controlling and defining X and re-defining X based on goals, manipulate both the cascades which follow from X themselves leading to Y and also then Y itself and all *without* directly touching or nudging those cascades themselves nor Y itself. The evidence from the evolutionary simulator therefore is cohesive with the affirmation that laptops are in fact designed. Therefore God.

Because..... physics.

The comments to this entry are closed.