I have now met a real life creationist.

[blastula]

The forces in nature's arrangements are not unguided. They work as intended.
Yes - men have been dismantling the earth's ecological system and bad things are happening.

Physical forces (intended or not) cause bad things to happen. Ever heard of earthquakes? If humans are designed, that design also cause bad things to happen, like thinning hair.

Define "design" in a testable way.

Look at the list.

Your list could apply to unguided design. You want to prove there was design by your god person designer. You need to show what about the universe requires a god person to design any part of it. Since you are claiming forces are designed, you need to show how there could not be physical forces if there were no god.

 

[wilson]

You ask these questions but would you suggest moving any one of those planets out of place to see what would happen or to "straighten it out?"
There is a way to test as to whether intention is involved in their design.
Dismantle it! Take it apart!
If something bad happens, then you would know for sure that it was intended to work to way you found it.

Well ... no. Not at all. If the blind, uncaused and non-designed forces which govern the solar system placed Jupiter where it is, then moving Jupiter would mess up other things in the solar system. That just tells you that there is a process by which planets form and that process has an end result and changing the end result of one part of it can mess up the rest. You would still have a solar system, though, but it would be a solar system that looks different. That's perfectly fine from a non-designed point of view, since there are a near infinite possible layouts for a solar system and all of them are perfectly fine

.
That's pure unadulterated conjecture. There are no such forces. If you can show where you got that information it would be good.

Processes and end results can come through design or non-design.

How do you know that? What is a non-designed object?

 

[bilby]

Well ... no. Not at all. If the blind, uncaused and non-designed forces which govern the solar system placed Jupiter where it is, then moving Jupiter would mess up other things in the solar system. That just tells you that there is a process by which planets form and that process has an end result and changing the end result of one part of it can mess up the rest. You would still have a solar system, though, but it would be a solar system that looks different. That's perfectly fine from a non-designed point of view, since there are a near infinite possible layouts for a solar system and all of them are perfectly fine

.
That's pure unadulterated conjecture. There are no such forces. If you can show where you got that information it would be good.

Processes and end results can come through design or non-design.

How do you know that? What is a non-designed object?

The Sun is not a designed object. If you start with a bunch of protons and electrons scattered around in space, then they will tend to form hydrogen atoms due to their electromagnetic properties; then those neutral atoms will clump together under their own gravity. Once a clump is large enough, the pressure and temperature in the middle leads to nuclear fusion, and you have a star. The Sun is a fairly boring example of such an object.

The first generation of stars are mostly hydrogen, and as they burn, they make helium. When they reach the end of their lives, they generate a trace of heavier elements by various mechanisms, and this slag of trace 'metals' ends up as part of the material that forms second generation stars like the Sun. Tiny traces of this slag (about 1 part in a thousand or so) end up in orbit around the new star, rather than falling in to the centre; we call that orbital debris a 'solar system'. The energy from the massive fusion reaction in the core of the star drives away the lighter material from the inner solar system, and it forms into gassy planets at some distance from the primary, under the influence of its own gravity. Some of the heavier stuff stays in closer orbits, and in some cases a bit of this slag can be large enough and at the right distance from the star to support liquid water; and liquid water is an excellent solvent, so you end up with lots of interesting chemical reactions happening in such cases. Complex cyclic chemical reactions can form, and when these occur inside a protective bubble of hydrophobic hydrocarbon chains, we call it 'life'.

There are approximately 10²⁴ stars in the visible universe.

To a good first approximation, the solar system contains the Sun, and nothing else. If we take a really close look, (down to the one-tenth of one percent level), we could conclude that in fact the solar system contains the Sun and one planet - Jupiter.

Only if we care about parts per million can we even detect the Earth, which is about 3 millionths of the total matter in the solar system.

29% of the Earth's surface is land (the rest is water); only about a third of that (around 10% of the total surface of the planet) is habitable by humans.

About three parts in a thousand of the Earth's surface is Judea and Samaria.

And we are supposed to believe that a book of tales that almost entirely take place in that 3/1000_ths of 3/1000,000_ths of a million, million, million millionth of the universe has all the answers, and was the reason it was all put here?

This isn't design. It's an insignificant glitch whereby one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of the universe happens to contain some moderately complicated chemical reactions.

Religious people are just too self centred to see the sheer scale, awe and wonder of the universe, and to recognize that it has absolutely fuck all to do with them.

 

[wilson]

Physical forces (intended or not) cause bad things to happen. Ever heard of earthquakes?

The bad results from earthquakes is the fault of humans. People build cities where they shouldn't. No bad results when earthquakes happen in uninhabited areas.

If humans are designed, that design also cause bad things to happen, like thinning hair.

Nothing wrong with the design. Bad diet and imperfection cause such things.

Define "design" in a testable way.

Look at the list.

Your list could apply to unguided design.

There is no such thing as unguided design.

You want to prove there was design by your god person designer.

I have not tried to prove it and I don't need to. The excellence of the design speaks for itself.

You need to show what about the universe requires a god person to design any part of it.

Complexity.
For it to be necessary, planned, useful, modeled, functional, economical, intentional, practical, superior, arranged, draftable, orderly, having a designated objective, having a designated purpose, having functions capable of imitation, and worthy of imitation, it must be highly complex.

Since you are claiming forces are designed, you need to show how there could not be physical forces if there were no god.

If I said that, I would prove it; but I didn't, so I don't.

 

[bilby]

Nothing wrong with the design. Bad diet and imperfection cause such things.

How is 'imperfection' not something 'wrong with the design'? That's contradictory. If there's nothing wrong with the design, then there are no imperfections.

(Oh, and if you have solid evidence that bad diet is responsible for male pattern baldness, you can make yourself a billionaire; But I bet you don't really have any such evidence, do you?)

 

[Learner]

Bald men can have healthy teeth

 

[wilson]

Nothing wrong with the design. Bad diet and imperfection cause such things.

How is 'imperfection' not something 'wrong with the design'? That's contradictory. If there's nothing wrong with the design, then there are no imperfections.

Illustration:
You obtain a brand new Bentley and you let your son drive it and he wraps it around a tree. Nothing wrong with the design. It was the imperfect driver that's at fault. No contradiction.

(Oh, and if you have solid evidence that bad diet is responsible for male pattern baldness, you can make yourself a billionaire; But I bet you don't really have any such evidence, do you?)

You heard the saying "Nobody's perfect?" Well, its true. Bad diet and imperfection will do that.

 

[bilby]

How is 'imperfection' not something 'wrong with the design'? That's contradictory. If there's nothing wrong with the design, then there are no imperfections.

Illustration:
You obtain a brand new Bentley and you let your son drive it and he wraps it around a tree. Nothing wrong with the design. It was the imperfect driver that's at fault. No contradiction.

So you are saying that humans are not designed? I can agree with that.

(Oh, and if you have solid evidence that bad diet is responsible for male pattern baldness, you can make yourself a billionaire; But I bet you don't really have any such evidence, do you?)

You heard the saying "Nobody's perfect?" Well, its true. Bad diet and imperfection will do that.

I know it's true, but it has bugger all to do with diet, and not being perfect because of imperfection is a non-explanation - You may as well explain that the blue colour of the sky is caused by its blueness.

 

[wilson]

That's pure unadulterated conjecture. There are no such forces. If you can show where you got that information it would be good.......Processes and end results can come through design or non-design.

How do you know that? What is a non-designed object?

The Sun is not a designed object.

It most certainly is! The sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

It has a surface temperature of about 6,000° C. (11,000° F.). But because of its great distance from the earth, less than one billionth of its radiant energy reaches the earth, an amount that is sufficient to provide ideal climatic conditions that make vegetable and animal life on earth possible. The sun is necessary for humans to tell time and direction. In its assigned orbit, the sun marks out days and months and seasons and years. It is necessary and it is all in the arrangement.

 

[Learner]

But it's not unknown. It's not lucky shots. We figured out why these patterns form in the 70'ies. It's simply because the sun keeps adding energy to the system. If you keep adding sun to the system and you will have patterns in response to this. It's the same in mineral chrystals forming pretty patterns around hot vents under the sea. It's because the hot vents keep adding energy.

So if it walks like a duck (ToE) and quack like a duck (ToE) then it's probably ToE. No God to be found.

But Atheists keep explaining the obvious "what goes up must come down" - We all know that. Yes you're right these are NOT lucky shots. These are FIXED laws. By the supposed bigbang theory ; these laws then must have been 'set' from the very beginning not by any lucky shot. How logically likely is it that the laws of nature, laws of physics etc just sort of developed through time till eventually we have now the current universal laws that suddenly got FIXED somewhere along the time line?

Also, we're right at the cusp of creating artificial life. Come back in 20 years and science will do this easy.

I wouldn't doubt it , but man can only 'manipulate' what is already there ..he needs pre-naturally made organic templates. There is also artificial in robotic terms but thats something else.

 

[Ford]

How do you know that? What is a non-designed object?

The Sun is not a designed object.

It most certainly is! The sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

Complexity does not equal design.

It has a surface temperature of about 6,000° C. (11,000° F.). But because of its great distance from the earth, less than one billionth of its radiant energy reaches the earth, an amount that is sufficient to provide ideal climatic conditions that make vegetable and animal life on earth possible. The sun is necessary for humans to tell time and direction. In its assigned orbit, the sun marks out days and months and seasons and years. It is necessary and it is all in the arrangement.

This is a terrible argument. Our sun has that surface temperature and distance, but as you may have heard, it is not the only game in town when it comes to suns. There are hundreds of billions of them in our galaxy alone, and to date we've not discovered a star or system which matches our own. These hundreds of billions of other suns (and the hundreds of billions of them in other hundreds of billions of galaxies) are all examples of a natural process in action.

As for your claim that the sun is designed because it appears to be at a perfect distance to allow for life on this planet, has it escaped your notice that we're not the only planet?

There is a distinct possibility that life arose on others which do not share our orbit or distance from the sun. Conditions may have existed in the past on Venus or Mars that led the existence of life on those planets, and there's a few moons much further out which may have or have had life upon them.

And that's not taking into account what may be going on in all the planetary systems we've discovered over the past couple decades.

Your "reasoning" about why the sun appears to be "designed" literally ignores the rest of the universe.

 

[bilby]

How do you know that? What is a non-designed object?

The Sun is not a designed object.

It most certainly is! The sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

It has a surface temperature of about 6,000° C. (11,000° F.).

Heat is not sophistication

But because of its great distance from the earth, less than one billionth of its radiant energy reaches the earth, an amount that is sufficient to provide ideal climatic conditions that make vegetable and animal life on earth possible.

And if it were less radiant, Venus would be the planet with life. Or another solar system would, and we would be over there, wondering why our world (that we evolved to fit in to) was so perfect.

The sun is necessary for humans to tell time and direction.

Your cart is pulling your horse here.

In its assigned orbit, the sun marks out days and months and seasons and years. It is necessary and it is all in the arrangement.

It's not 'necessary', it just IS.

Nothing here is an indication of sophistication nor design. The sun is a ball of hydrogen that's heavy enough to fuse under its own gravity; You are taking a massively and unjustifiably self-centred view of things.

You might as well say that it was designed and necessary that I move to Queensland, because that's where my house is. Causes don't follow from effects. Humans find Earth comfortable because this is where we evolved. And we only find bits that are like the places we evolved comfortable - put a human into the part to the Earth that sharks or polar bears find comfortable and he will very quickly die.

The sun is incredibly simple. The Earth is totally insignificant on a cosmic scale (as, for that matter, is the sun). There are another 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars out there just in the visible universe, and so far we are aware of life only on one trivial planet of one boring star. If the universe is designed for humans, then I would hate to see something not designed for them - almost all of the universe is instantly fatal to human life, and a sizable fraction of the rest is rapidly fatal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The universe is a big place with a lot of complexity. All the various parts of it need to work and interact somehow. That means that pointing to the fact that there is a way which they work and interact doesn't tell us anything about a conscious design or lack thereof behind things. Finding a design behind the solar system would involve the answer to questions such as "We need Mercury where it is because of X and the solar system wouldn't be working as well without it there" and "The asteroid belt needs to be where it is because of Y and the solar system wouldn't be working as well without it there". Design means that there is a purpose behind the various processes which make them superior to any other potential processes, not simply that there are things and processes which exist.

You ask these questions but would you suggest moving any one of those planets out of place to see what would happen or to "straighten it out?"
There is a way to test as to whether intention is involved in their design.
Dismantle it! Take it apart!
If something bad happens, then you would know for sure that it was intended to work to way you found it.

Ehe.... it would be absolute calamity. But that's still not argument for design. Even if all planets would spiral out of control and crash into the sun, how is that something bad happening? How is one configuration of planets any different from any other? You're basically throwing sand into the air over and over and claiming that each time is unique and special... ehe no. Each configuration is just random.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But Atheists keep explaining the obvious "what goes up must come down" - We all know that. Yes you're right these are NOT lucky shots. These are FIXED laws. By the supposed bigbang theory ; these laws then must have been 'set' from the very beginning not by any lucky shot. How logically likely is it that the laws of nature, laws of physics etc just sort of developed through time till eventually we have now the current universal laws that suddenly got FIXED somewhere along the time line?

What do you mean by lucky? Yes, they got fixed instantly after the big bang, which makes perfect sense. They could have fixed in a number of different ways. No one superior to any other. Each configuration is literally random.

I still don't see where your designer comes in? It looks like a chaotic mess of randomness which is exactly what it is.

Also, we're right at the cusp of creating artificial life. Come back in 20 years and science will do this easy.

I wouldn't doubt it , but man can only 'manipulate' what is already there ..he needs pre-naturally made organic templates. There is also artificial in robotic terms but thats something else.

Nope. Six years ago was the first time we created it from scratch. We copied the mechanics of a bacteria. They basically reverse engineered life. But they've done that now. God is no longer needed for life. We're already there.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form

It still astounds me that there's still so many who think life is a special chemical reaction. It's just a chemical reaction. There are many chemical reactions that propagate and form stable compounds.

 

[Lion IRC]

Your posts are 'just' chemicals reacting.
#Yawn
#Undesigned

 

[DrZoidberg]

Your posts are 'just' chemicals reacting.
#Yawn
#Undesigned

exactly. No design needed. You're catching on

 

[wilson]

Illustration:
You obtain a brand new Bentley and you let your son drive it and he wraps it around a tree. Nothing wrong with the design. It was the imperfect driver that's at fault. No contradiction.

So you are saying that humans are not designed? I can agree with that.

No. I'm saying that your son is a lousy driver.

(Oh, and if you have solid evidence that bad diet is responsible for male pattern baldness, you can make yourself a billionaire; But I bet you don't really have any such evidence, do you?)

You heard the saying "Nobody's perfect?" Well, its true. Bad diet and imperfection will do that.

I know it's true, but it has bugger all to do with diet, and not being perfect because of imperfection is a non-explanation - You may as well explain that the blue colour of the sky is caused by its blueness.

Imperfection makes people have accidents, stutter and limp.
The rest is against the rules here, so I'll stop there.

 

[funinspace]

But Atheists keep explaining the obvious "what goes up must come down" - We all know that. Yes you're right these are NOT lucky shots. These are FIXED laws. By the supposed bigbang theory ; these laws then must have been 'set' from the very beginning not by any lucky shot. How logically likely is it that the laws of nature, laws of physics etc just sort of developed through time till eventually we have now the current universal laws that suddenly got FIXED somewhere along the time line?

The Big Bang Theory is accepted model by probably at least 98% of the PHD physicists, so 'supposed' is more applicable to Don the Con, than this theory . It also does not describe anything prior to Planck epoch, where our understanding hits a singularity that we don't understand. With my BS in Electrical Engineering, I can follow some of the write ups, but it still a grade or 3 above my skills. We don't know if this singularity is "the very beginning" or if there was something before it (such as notions of cyclical big bangs among other notions). The point is that humanity at this point simply doesn't know enough. And it is possible that we will never know enough to describe it accurately.

Three hundred years ago many people thought lightening was from daemons. When Ben Franklin experiments began our understand of what lightening really was, there actually were preachers angry at him, as he took away their daemons. Ignorance of something is not an argument for magic or god(s). At the same time, I certainly couldn't prove that there isn't a Blind Watchmaker.

 

[Learner]

Perhaps your Electrical Engineering is more useful here than you realise. Electric Universe Theory and Plasma has/had some better models apparently (Need to update myself here) . Dark spots on a very hot sun for example. Regarding the BigBang there was or perhaps still is - a problem with some 'interpretation' (filling in the gaps) of the redshift and doppler effect giving the conclusion..a little premature on my part mentioning this in which I would need to look into it from experts in those fields but indeed we don't know.

 

[funinspace]

Crank on...

Perhaps your Electrical Engineering is more useful here than you realise. Electric Universe Theory and Plasma has/had some better models apparently (Need to update myself here)

They don't like math or physics, so I'm not sure how they have better models. It might be safer to bet on Douglas Adam's theories. At least the books are a good read, even if it is wrong about 42.

I did read where one of the EU Thunderbolts, had wanted to reverse engineer an UFO, but has since given up the idea...and joined this impressive group of cranks.