Design and the universe.

KingMerv00

Penultimate Amazing
K
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
14,462
Location
Philadelphia
I was having a chat on Christian message board about evolution.

They said:

To note on intelligent design....question.

If any evolutionists in here stumbled upon a TV in the woods, what would be the first impression that comes to your mind? Would it be that the TV came about by millions of years of evolution and that science must have an answer for this complex TV? or would you think , "Gee how did this TV get out here in the woods?", and immediately assume it came from a factory somewhere? The ridiculousness of the idea that it was formed by time is the same as any other idea of evolution. No evolutionist in here would think it probable that the TV was formed by chance.


I said:

Bad analogy. Here's why:

1) TV's don't self-replicate.

2) TV's don't have DNA that changes with each generation.

3) There is no evidence of common decent in TV's.

4) TV's are not subject to natural selection.



Let's say I buy your "common sense" argument for the moment. Here are some more ideas that are contrary to common sense and therefore must be thrown out:

1) Light is both a wave and a particle.

2) All masses are attracted to each other.

3) The speed of light is constant regardless of the frame of reference.

4) The entire universe is hurtling away from itself at around 50-100 KILOmeters per SECOND and by inference, the entire universe was compact around 15 billion years ago.

5) The atoms you are made of are composed of mostly empty space.

6) The earth is a liquid-filled sphere that is spinning at 1000mph and hurtling around a giant ball of flaming hydrogen and helium at 67,000mph.

7) There is an invisible man in the sky who can read your mind and is personally responsible for numbers 1 through 6.

I agree that evolution is contrary to common sense, but so is most of established science. I don't take my belief in evolution lightly. I looked at the evidence and came to that conclusion over time. I don't used common sense to dictate objective reality to me. You shouldn't either.

I bring this up for a reason. According to Shermer, the primary reason people believe in God is because of the "obvious" design of the universe. I'm just sick of that argument and want to voice my displeasure. The JREF message boards are therapeutic.

If you wanna chime in on the message board:
http://forums.christianity.com/?do=...14;page=37;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
 
If any evolutionists in here stumbled upon a TV in the woods, what would be the first impression that comes to your mind?
Click to expand...

Why is it never: Where did all these trees come from?

I've thinking about ID latey, trying in vain to make it make any sense at all. It seems to me that it is really not a subsititute for evolution but for survival of the fittest. Now my question is do the gene pools survive because they have the most intelligent design or because there is a plan for them? Where does extinction fit into all this? Was extinction designed or planned or a mistake? Can the intelligent designer make mistakes? If mistakes are common are humans a mistake?

I guess I'll never understand ID as long as I keep thinking!! (Although an actual clear definition might help.)
 
Yes, and if the Universe wasn't structured down to every single last detail, then what? What does that have to do with chance? Unless of course you're willing to admit that something can come from nothing? :con2:
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, and if the Universe wasn't structured down to every single last detail, then what? What does that have to do with chance? Unless of course you're willing to admit that something can come from nothing? :con2:
Click to expand...

Well I was referring to the evo/creationist debate not the origin of the universe.

Where did everything come from? :con2:

Was there a beginning to time? :con2:

NOBODY KNOWS!! Deal with it. If you are suggesting there is a supreme power who designed everything, you won't find support for your assumption here.
 
I bring this up for a reason. According to Shermer, the primary reason people believe in God is because of the "obvious" design of the universe. I'm just sick of that argument and want to voice my displeasure. The JREF message boards are therapeutic.
Click to expand...

There does seem to be this assumption that because the universe is expansive, complex, and not entirely understood, it somehow implies a creator.
 
KingMerv00 said:

Well I was referring to the evo/creationist debate not the origin of the universe.
Click to expand...
And what does the evo/creationist debate entail if not the origin of the Universe? :con2:


Where did everything come from? :con2:

Was there a beginning to time? :con2:
Click to expand...
If you eliminate the possibility of chance, then what? Doesn't that suggest that the act of Creation was deliberate and, of a specific nature/design? Oh, and doesn't it sound plausible that the "temporal" springs forth from the Eternal? ... i.e., that time is but a "subset" of Eternity?


NOBODY KNOWS!! Deal with it. If you are suggesting there is a supreme power who designed everything, you won't find support for your assumption here.
Click to expand...
At the very least we know that we're here ... which, is quite an accomplishment for that which came about wholly by chance don't you think? I mean if existence can be assessed and acknowledged, then at what point does it not become assessible and hence knowable?
 
Iacchus said:
If you eliminate the possibility of chance, then what?
Click to expand...
No reason to eliminate the possibility of chance.
Doesn't that suggest that the act of Creation was deliberate and, of a specific nature/design?
Click to expand...
No. A random flux will certainly suffice, no reason to call gods into existence to explain it. I tire easily of "the gods dunnit" as an explanation that cannot be supported.
Oh, and doesn't it sound plausible that the "temporal" springs forth from the Eternal? ... i.e., that time is but a "subset" of Eternity?
Click to expand...
No. The Big Bang theory holds that time and space were created via the Big Bang, there was no time before it.
 
If any evolutionists in here stumbled upon a TV in the woods, what would be the first impression that comes to your mind? Would it be that the TV came about by millions of years of evolution and that science must have an answer for this complex TV?
Click to expand...


It came about by millions of years of evolution. Just as the factory did. And the factory owner.

Sheesh.

 
Iacchus said:
If you eliminate the possibility of chance, then what? Doesn't that suggest that the act of Creation was deliberate and, of a specific nature/design? Oh, and doesn't it sound plausible that the "temporal" springs forth from the Eternal? ... i.e., that time is but a "subset" of Eternity?
Click to expand...


It sounds like rubbish.

 
Vortex said:

No reason to eliminate the possibility of chance.
Click to expand...
And what is the basis of chance except that which is "caused" by nothing?


No. A random flux will certainly suffice, no reason to call gods into existence to explain it. I tire easily of "the gods dunnit" as an explanation that cannot be supported.
Click to expand...
A random flux of what? A random state of "nothingness" to an unrandom state of "somethingness" perhaps? Would you care to elaborate?


No. The Big Bang theory holds that time and space were created via the Big Bang, there was no time before it.
Click to expand...
Yes, time has a beginning, and so does the Universe, but that's only because it is "temporal."
 
KingMerv00 said:

4) TV's are not subject to natural selection.
Click to expand...
Actually, they are--very much so.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection does not specify genes (or anything else, for that matter) as the means of passing traits from one generation to the next. The free market can do that just as well, for some cases of natural selection. All we need is 1) parent-offspring similarity, 2) variability in the population, and 3) differential reproductive success. And we have it with televisions.

Look at the variability among television sets at any point in their history. My TV is vastly different from its ancestors....over the course of their evolution, some features worked better than others, and were preferred by consumers. TV manufacturers took note of this, and copied and expanded those features in later sets. Each was built on the ideas of the past, often copying whole sections of successful TVs (parent-offspring similarity) while tweaking something here or there, or introducing a new feature (variability), and what works in the market gets taken back to the lab to inspire new sets (differential success).

There is plenty to argue against in the television analogy, but TVs make a great example for natural selection. No need to either deny it (even though the mechanisms of reproduction are vastly different) or to obscure the issue with nonsense (like Iacchus).
 
Iacchus said:
And what does the evo/creationist debate entail if not the origin of the Universe? :con2:
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Evolution is true whether or not the universe had a creator.

If you eliminate the possibility of chance, then what? Doesn't that suggest that the act of Creation was deliberate and, of a specific nature/design? Oh, and doesn't it sound plausible that the "temporal" springs forth from the Eternal? ... i.e., that time is but a "subset" of Eternity?
Click to expand...


Well for all you know, the probability of the universe coming into existance could have been 100%.

Further I'd like to see your work that proves time had a beginning.


At the very least we know that we're here ... which, is quite an accomplishment for that which came about wholly by chance don't you think? I mean if existence can be assessed and acknowledged, then at what point does it not become assessible and hence knowable?
Click to expand...

Again the odds could have been 1:1. You have no meaningful way of describing how likely our existance is.
 
KingMerv00 said:

It doesn't. Evolution is true whether or not the universe had a creator.
Click to expand...
And in how many "days" was the earth/Universe created? And yet this is not the Intelligent Design argument now is it? ... or, it's but one version of it.

The only thing that you can possibly hope to suggest here is that evolution is true. You in fact do not know (by your admission) that the Universe had a Creator, and yet if this were true, the whole thing becomes contingent upon this. In which case it becomes a yes or no propostion, and there can be no other "possible" option. Evolution can only be "true" in relation to that which existed prior to it.


Well for all you know, the probability of the universe coming into existance could have been 100%.
Click to expand...
Coming into existence from what?


Further I'd like to see your work that proves time had a beginning.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not the one who keeps postulating the Big Bang here.


Again the odds could have been 1:1. You have no meaningful way of describing how likely our existance is.
Click to expand...
And yet isn't it marvelous how existence is capable of pondering itself? That's just too unfathomable to think of, without giving any consideration for whatever conditions might have existed prior to its happening ... in the deliberate sense. And, by virtue of the fact that we are capable of knowing, how much more should that entail being able to trace the nature of origin? Everything else in the Universe seems to be explainable, why shouldn't this?
 
Tricky said:

Not exactly. Just that it conforms to the law of averages.
Click to expand...
Yes, when we are unable to fully comprehend the laws of complexity (due to our lack of omniscience that is), we have to resort to such things as the law of averages.
 
Vortex said:
No reason to eliminate the possibility of chance.

No. A random flux will certainly suffice, no reason to call gods into existence to explain it. I tire easily of "the gods dunnit" as an explanation that cannot be supported.
Click to expand...
What do you find most appealing about "a random flux" vs. "goddidit"?


No. The Big Bang theory holds that time and space were created via the Big Bang, there was no time before it.
Click to expand...
What "fluxed" if nothing existed? :)
 
c4ts said:
There does seem to be this assumption that because the universe is expansive, complex, and not entirely understood, it somehow implies a creator.
Click to expand...

My currently favorite question:
Why is it necessary that there had to be only one designer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom