Evidence of NO design

[iNow]

57 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Are you familiar with King of the Hill?

Very. Matt Judge was an Austin native 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

I've never seen intelligent design argued for in a calm, logical way. I'm wondering if anything of the sort is out there? Is there anyone out there, pushing ID, who is worth reading or listening to, even if you disagree?

Or maybe I'm too biased. I try not to be, but the ones that I've seen proposing ID have always made me wince, within seconds of starting speaking, with the first totally illogical claim. 

I think that time has passed. As you know, ID was a tactic to shoehorn religion into the evolution teaching debate and Behe's arguments (though faulty) could pass the calm and logical test. Mostly the premise was outright wrong, leading to wrong conclusion. But pretty much after it was shown that ID is not really science (in court no less), the arguments became much more ideological, as nothing else was left.

[Intoscience]

On 9/25/2023 at 6:26 AM, Markus Hanke said:

I think it suffers from the same problem as the opposing claim - you cannot ever disprove the existence of a designer. The best we can do is show that the laws and processes of physics as we see them arise without need for outside intervention - but at the moment we can’t really do that yet. But even if we can do this, the mere absence of such a need still does not necessarily rule out a designer - it could have been designed even though there wasn’t a need for a designer.

So I think looking for evidence for either claim is ultimately a waste of time, unless the alleged designer chooses to reveal himself in indisputable and unambiguous ways.

 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's a double edged sword

Though I do side on the no designer argument I can't help but feel much like what Markus stated. I have yet to find a compelling argument for the need of a designer, but many for the non requirement of design or designer. However because our knowledge still lacks, and the evidence supporting theories on and around how the universe initially began, and how life (as we know it) initially began, then I do beg the question.

I'm happy to dismiss wild claims, especially those focused/built around religious beliefs. So at this juncture, I would remain on the - random evolutionary models bench. 

A little part of me wishes/hopes that a designer was indeed required, this may give some extra meaning to it all. Especially so if humans are intended to be just that little bit extra special.      

[mistermack]

46 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

A little part of me wishes/hopes that a designer was indeed required, this may give some extra meaning to it all. Especially so if humans are intended to be just that little bit extra special. 

I think most humans would wish the same, me included, although I wouldn't wish for hell to be real. The religious stories are built on that wish, for there to be something more than this brief existence we get. But as we get older, a lot of us come to realise more and more that wishing for something doesn't make it happen, or true. 

Those who mould and build religions play on that wish, and design their offering to appeal to it. There were and are some very clever people pushing religion, and they know what buttons to push.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 

Though I do side on the no designer argument I can't help but feel much like what Markus stated. I have yet to find a compelling argument for the need of a designer, but many for the non requirement of design or designer. However because our knowledge still lacks, and the evidence supporting theories on and around how the universe initially began, and how life (as we know it) initially began, then I do beg the question.

I'm happy to dismiss wild claims, especially those focused/built around religious beliefs. So at this juncture, I would remain on the - random evolutionary models bench. 

A little part of me wishes/hopes that a designer was indeed required, this may give some extra meaning to it all. Especially so if humans are intended to be just that little bit extra special.      

This probably falls under Occam's razor.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, mistermack said:

I think most humans would wish the same, me included, although I wouldn't wish for hell to be real.

Imagine if you were a victim of Jimmy Saville, hell is the only place he'd face justice; imagining that he was turned into a human centipede, his mouth sewn to his own arse, so he'd have to taste the shit from the cum of a garlic and vindaloo eating, well endowed child as the devil plugged up the other end.

Why would you deny him/her that smile of satisfaction?

17 hours ago, mistermack said:

Those who mould and build religions play on that wish, and design their offering to appeal to it. There were and are some very clever people pushing religion, and they know what buttons to push.

Or!!! Those who inspire religions design their offerings, so that people don't have to rely on hell to bring a smile to their face... 🙏

Edited September 27, 2023 by dimreepr

[dimreepr]

On 9/26/2023 at 3:11 PM, TheVat said:

  On 9/26/2023 at 1:04 PM, mistermack said:

I've never seen intelligent design argued for in a calm, logical way.

Intelligent design is seen in every anthill and bee hive, it takes a conscious being to make it illogical... 😉

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Imagine if you were a victim of Jimmy Saville, hell is the only place he'd face justice; imagining that he was turned into a human centipede, his mouth sewn to his own arse, so he'd have to taste the shit from the cum of a garlic and vindaloo eating, well endowed child as the devil plugged up the other end.

Why would you deny him/her that smile of satisfaction?

Because such a revenge debases our humanity.  Imagining such cruelties with glee puts you in his sick world.  

[dimreepr]

Just now, TheVat said:

Because such a revenge debases our humanity.

Does it though?

Revenge is a fantasy, much like my sex life; it's only real in my head... 😇

[mistermack]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Imagine if you were a victim of Jimmy Saville, hell is the only place he'd face justice; imagining that he was turned into a human centipede, his mouth sewn to his own arse, so he'd have to taste the shit from the cum of a garlic and vindaloo eating, well endowed child as the devil plugged up the other end.

Why would you deny him/her that smile of satisfaction?

Well, IF he was guilty, and I "intelligently" designed him, then it would be my fault, not his. 

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Intelligent design is seen in every anthill and bee hive, it takes a conscious being to make it illogical... 😉

Intelligent design in the religious sense is proposed as an answer to the mystery of the existence of the Universe, and the origin of life. The anthill isn't that much of a mystery. 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

Well, IF he was guilty, and I "intelligently" designed him, then it would be my fault, not his. 

 

Intelligent design in the religious sense is proposed as an answer to the mystery of the existence of the Universe, and the origin of life. The anthill isn't that much of a mystery. 

I'm sorry I had to cancel that +1 because you're not making any sense, let alone a serious critique of religions.

Your just poking fun at people who haven't had your advantaged view, from the shoulder's of people you trust but don't understand, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't take the piss out of people who choose to ignore the evidence.

This sort of argument ignores the rest of the book, because someone said "I don't know, maybe god did it." (due to a lack of evidence, to the contrary); that's like saying the American constitution is not valid because someone once said "I need my slaves".

 

 

Essentially you're making the same mistake as those who demand a God is real, you both focus on the wrong message.

[mistermack]

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

you're not making any sense

When did you ever? 

I have no idea whatsoever what you are saying in that post, and that's about par for the course. 

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, mistermack said:

I have no idea whatsoever what you are saying in that post, and that's about par for the course. 

Which bit is tripping you up? The word's???

 

On 9/28/2023 at 12:03 PM, dimreepr said:

from the shoulder's of people you trust but don't understand

This is another double edged sword; for instance, in your culture it's easier to scoff at people your teacher's don't understand, than to investigate their claims.

IOW, what Neitzche said...

On 9/28/2023 at 12:03 PM, dimreepr said:

This sort of argument ignores the rest of the book, because someone said "I don't know, maybe god did it." (due to a lack of evidence, to the contrary); that's like saying the American constitution is not valid because someone once said "I need my slaves".

What word is tripping you up? 

 

[Endy0816]

A good piece of evidence is how our DNA is all spaghetti code. It's what you'd expect to see from a semi-random process rather than an intelligent designer.

You'd expect to find everything handled by our nuclear DNA too, were we designed. There's also simpler ways to handle errors than what amounts to lots of backup copies of the code. A very 'two steps forward one step backwards' approach.

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

A good piece of evidence is how our DNA is all spaghetti code. It's what you'd expect to see from a semi-random process rather than an intelligent designer.

You'd expect to find everything handled by our nuclear DNA too, were we designed. There's also simpler ways to handle errors than what amounts to lots of backup copies of the code. A very 'two steps forward one step backwards' approach.

It's also a good analogy of how AlphaGo Zero was designed. 

[dimreepr]

My point is, evidence of no design would be a featureless baron universe... 😉 

[Genady]

To me, the presence of vestigial structures and genes is strong evidence of no design.

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

My point is, evidence of no design would be a featureless baron universe... 😉 

 

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

To me, the presence of vestigial structures and genes is strong evidence of no design.

Way to miss the point... 🙄

[Genady]

Just now, dimreepr said:

 

Way to miss the point... 🙄

I was not responding to you.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

I was not responding to you.

However my point remains.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

However my point remains.

Would this be your point ?

 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My point is, evidence of no design would be a featureless baron universe... 😉 

Because if so how do you account for the intricate patterns that arise quite naturally in Nature, without any intelligent design whatsoever?

I agree that at one time some of these were afforded mystical significance, but only cranks do that today.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Would this be your point ?

 

Because if so how do you account for the intricate patterns that arise quite naturally in Nature, without any intelligent design whatsoever?

I agree that at one time some of these were afforded mystical significance, but only cranks do that today.

I'm not advocating for intelligent design, just that you can't say that there is evidence of no (intelligent) design.

If there is no design, there are no patterns or natural features.

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not advocating for intelligent design, just that you can't say that there is evidence of no (intelligent) design.

If there is no design, there are no patterns or natural features.

That wasn't what you said, literally and does not follow either.

 

Why do most folks go for plain featurelees barren white walls and ceilings, by design ?

 

It is true that a barren featureless universe could be a characteristic of a no design universe, but it could also be a feature that a designer wanted.

 

Such dual purpose characterisitcs are of little use distinguishing.

 

What is needed is a characteristic that can only derive from either lack of or priduction by design activity.

 

The OP is looking for the former, but I agree that is no easier than the latter.

 

Thank you whoever liked my last post.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

That wasn't what you said, literally and does not follow either.

Please explain.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why do most folks go for plain featurelees barren white walls and ceilings, by design ?

 

It is true that a barren featureless universe could be a characteristic of a no design universe, but it could also be a feature that a designer wanted.

Exactly, you see a design and whatever rationale you choose to ascribe its source, you can't say it wasn't wanted; all the evidence can show is, the design works.

[mistermack]

On 10/1/2023 at 4:55 AM, Endy0816 said:

A good piece of evidence is how our DNA is all spaghetti code. It's what you'd expect to see from a semi-random process rather than an intelligent designer.

I remember reading that the majority of our dna is shrivelled remnants of viruses and parasitic bacteria that invaded long ago in the distant past, and eventually became part of the organism. The mdna especially is thought to have originated as bacteria that developed a symbiotic relationship with the original organism, and became an essential part of the whole thing. A bit like the  photosynthetic unicellular dinoflagellates in corals.