Intelligent Design New Evidence

[grip]

No, it is we who consider it a code out of convenience to understand how it works. DNA molecules have no idea what a code is, they are just bumping together and interacting. Again, you and I can call anything a code, if you want to choose to call DNA a code you can, if you want to call two rocks on the ground a code you can, you haven't proven or shown anything.

Who are the proverbial 'we'? And whoever said that DNA was aware of anything? It's not me that's calling it code, trying Googling the definition, since you're not reading the provided links? You and Rea make no sense whatsoever. Goombye! :2wave:

 

[tosca1]

No that is not the point of design, that is describing the origin of the universe and we simply don't know that yet.

That's the point we're trying to make regarding the theory of Design.
I guess the questions asked in my previous post would be under what is called the philosophy of science - the logic through which scientific knowledge is built.

 

[RogueWarrior]

...just for asking one simple question?

Yep.
Because your arguments are massive logical fallacies, called arguments from ignorance.

 

[tosca1]

Yep.
Because your arguments are massive logical fallacies, called arguments from ignorance.

Simply your own opinion.

FYI, lumping all my arguments and blasting them all as one, is a humonguous logical fallacy.
In fact, it defies logic.

 

[tosca1]

...just for asking one simple question?

Yep.
Because your arguments are massive logical fallacies, called arguments from ignorance.

You're shooting down a legitimate question? Based on all my arguments???


Where would science be I wonder, without questions?

 

[RogueWarrior]

Simply your own opinion.

FYI, lumping all my arguments and blasting them all as one, is a humonguous logical fallacy.
In fact, it defies logic.

The 34 so-called 'scientific facts' from your BEST argument in post #14 are all arguments from ignorance. They are predictions about how the universe would be if...

There are no observations, experiments or data about these predictions. They are PURE speculation.

Predictions are not scientific fact. Treating pure speculation as fact is pseudo-science. It is self delusion.











PS

Feel free to post more cute emoticons demonstrating your lack of argument. They are cute. I like cute.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Simply your own opinion.

FYI, lumping all my arguments and blasting them all as one, is a humonguous logical fallacy.
In fact, it defies logic.

It is not opinion.
Since when exactly, are predictions (aka questions) scientific fact?

It is easy and appropriate to lump your 34 questions/arguments/fantasies together. They are all predictions. Everyone of them.
NO observations.
NO experiments.
NO data.

Without any of these things, anyone taking those predictions as fact is an scientific idiot.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions.
As you point out: where would science be without questions?
Your problem is that your 34 predictions/questions in post #14 have no answers.

And so I ask you : where would science be without answers?

In your case, right here arguing that predictions are fact.


So in conclusion:
When every one of your 34 examples is based on the same logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance, I find it expeditious to lump them together.
Maybe you like Gish Gallops but I find them tedious.

 

[Deuce]

Who are the proverbial 'we'? And whoever said that DNA was aware of anything? It's not me that's calling it code, trying Googling the definition, since you're not reading the provided links? You and Rea make no sense whatsoever. Goombye! :2wave:

Yes, people often call it a "code," but as others have said, that's just a layman's short version of how it works. In reality, DNA is just a complex chemical interaction.

 

[grip]

Yes, people often call it a "code," but as others have said, that's just a layman's short version of how it works. In reality, DNA is just a complex chemical interaction.

Uh huh, nature doesn't utilize information, it's all just natural man.. toke toke.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Not really, you posted something from a website with no additional argumentation nor explanation, it is up to you to explain what you actually posted not for me to Google it. There is nothing to refute as what you posted so far equates to this below, i.e meaningless set of words without additional explanation or additional info:

27.color of exotic matter spin to ordinary matter spin
if pink: earth would collapse before Jupiter-type stars could form
if blue: no bunnies would form

Now how about actually answering the specific questions I asked you about specific topic you posted about.

Can you explain to me:
What is that exotic matter you are talking about?

What are these ratios and how did you come to the conclusion that a larger one, (larger by how much) would cause specifically the solar-type stars to collapse before they could form?

Why wouldn't be galaxies able to form with a smaller ratio?

Fallen.

And based on his/her previous posts . . . these are legitimate questions. Unfortunately, he/she seems to run away from answering them.

 

[Tucker Case]

Ahhhh....that means, "out of context."

No, it means "in a different context". "Out of context" means something totally different.

See? We're not on the same page.

I know. I'm on the page labelled "logical and intellectual consistency" and you are on the page labeled "Don't give a flying **** about logical and intellectual consistency"

 

[tosca1]

The 34 so-called 'scientific facts' from your BEST argument in post #14 are all arguments from ignorance. They are predictions about how the universe would be if...

There are no observations, experiments or data about these predictions. They are PURE speculation.

Predictions are not scientific fact. Treating pure speculation as fact is pseudo-science. It is self delusion.

My article is talking about the constant of physics. Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering.

Degree of fine tuning
Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe.
First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.3
The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning


Predictions or not, it seems there is a consensus among scientists.

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."

The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different.

As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Deuce]

Uh huh, nature doesn't utilize information, it's all just natural man.. toke toke.

:roll:
Does hydrogen utilize information when it combines with oxygen to make water?

 

[Deuce]

My article is talking about the constant of physics. Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning


Predictions or not, it seems there is a consensus among scientists.



Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that a consensus or did some guy just tell you there was one?

Are you asserting that the laws of physics have been altered at some point in the history of the universe?

 

[RogueWarrior]

My article is talking about the constant of physics. Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning


Predictions or not, it seems there is a consensus among scientists.



Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different.

Your first link is all speculation about the supposed fine tuning. It is where you cut and pasted the majority of post #14 aka as your BEST evidence.

AGAIN
what experiments have been done to verify the 34 predictions from your link? Until they have been tested experimentally and verified, they are garbage.


"where would science be without questions?" You ask.
Nowhere if there are no answers..

Where are the experiments to test how variations of the various constants affect the universe?


ALSO
please read up on Dr Ross:
http://skepticalprobe.blogspot.ca/2012/12/dr-hugh-ross-lying-for-god.html

at a debate:

He held up a document, the document was a scientific paper by Roger Penrose and Steven Hawking entitled "The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology."

Dr Ross read out the conclusion of the paper from the final paragraph:

"If mass exists in the universe and if general relativity reliably predicts the movement of bodies in the universe then space and time must be created by a causal agent who transcends space and time."


This is either a deliberate Lie or he has been fooled into believing a document modified by Creationists containing that paragraph.

But, he was holding the document and apparently quoting verbatim from the final paragraph.

The paper he is referring to is archived at the Royal Society and is available free of charge to the public. It can be downloaded from here:

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/529.full.pdf+html

I have studied the paper in it's entirety. The document does not contain the paragraph quoted by Dr Ross or make any conclusion even vaguely resembling his quote.

Read the concluding paragraph yourself and see if you can crowbar in an interpretation that in any way resembles the quotation.

If Dr Ross really had that paper in his hand and had read the final paragraph, he would know what he was saying was not true.

There are only 2 possibilities.

Dr Ross deliberately and knowingly lied.
Dr Ross was deceived into believing a fake Creationist version.

If the former then he has some serious explaining to do. If the latter then he is incompetent and does not bother to fact-check anything that agrees with his preconceived beliefs.

This is epitome of intellectual dishonesty. Dr Ross knew Prof Wolpert (A Biologist) would not have read that paper nor anyone else at the Christian Union. He knew Prof Wolpert could not rebut that quote because the quote does not exist and could not be verified during the debate.

Dr Ross states that the Bible gives us a testable numeric entropy curve for the cooling of the universe. He displays a classic entropy curve supposedly predicted by the Bible overlaid with 13 data points representing temperatures measured by scientific observation. The [biblically] predicted entropy curve precisely matches the curve measured by modern science.

During the Q&A period Dr Ross was asked to state where in the Bible this precise, quantified entropy curve was defined. Dr Ross attempted to sidestep this question, he evaded the question, tried to answer a different question and pretended not to understand the question even though it was re-phrased clearly and succinctly by the moderator.

You want us to believe?
Stop providing bull**** and provide good evidence. It is that simple.

 

[tosca1]

Your first link is all speculation about the supposed fine tuning. It is where you cut and pasted the majority of post #14 aka as your BEST evidence.

AGAIN
what experiments have been done to verify the 34 predictions from your link? Until they have been tested experimentally and verified, they are garbage.

Can you give a source that negates the 34 items given? Furthermore, there is a consensus among scientists - one of whom is Stephen Hawking.

"where would science be without questions?" You ask.
Nowhere if there are no answers..

Wrong.

Science will still exist even if there are no answers - they'll keep looking for answers to questions.


What answers will you be looking for if there are no questions to answer? That's like the cart before the horse.


Almost everything - if not everything about science progress - starts with a question!

Where are the experiments to test how variations of the various constants affect the universe?
ALSO
please read up on Dr Ross:
The Skeptical Probe: Dr Hugh Ross - Lying for God

at a debate:

If you don't like the first source, then look to the second.

Like I said, predictions or not.....

..... there is a consensus among scientists that in several aspects, the universe is fine-tuned for life.

That's a given fact!

You want us to believe?
Stop providing bull**** and provide good evidence. It is that simple.

The evidence is there. It's up to you to believe what you want. I'm just giving you the other side - take it or leave it.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Can you give a source that negates the 34 items given? Furthermore, there is a consensus among scientists - one of whom is Stephen Hawking.






Wrong.

Science will still exist even if there are no answers - they'll keep looking for answers to questions.


What answers will you be looking for if there are no questions to answer? That's like the cart before the horse.


Almost everything - if not everything about science progress - starts with a question!





If you don't like the first source, then look to the second.

Like I said, predictions or not.....

..... there is a consensus among scientists that in several aspects, the universe is fine-tuned for life.

That's a given fact!






The evidence is there. It's up to you to believe what you want. I'm just giving you the other side - take it or leave it.

For the love of....
:doh

• I call bull**** about Hawking. Link please.
  
  
• There is NOTHING to negate ffs. Those 34 items are predictions and until there is some data, or observations to back them up they are garbage. You are attempting to shift the burden, shame on you. When you provide some evidence, or data or experiments regarding these 34 predictions I will then look at them and not one femtosecond before.
  It this how you really approach life? A car dealership tells you a car gets 100 mpg, and since you are looking for 100 mpg, you buy the car on the spot? or do you demand to see the EPA test results?
  
• I never said science would not exist. I never said science doesn't need questions.
  But questions without any answers, or as in this case without even any attempts at answers, it goes nowhere i.e. science can not advance without answers. I thought I said it quite clearly in my previous post. Your 34 2-part questions have no answers because there have been no experiments to verify them. Pseudo scientists has IMAGINED answers to fit their presuppositions. REAL SCIENTISTS will actually design experiments to test questions/predictions.
  
  Maybe there are experiments of which I am unaware, could you link me to some? i would love to know how someone varies the speed of light in a universe to see what effect it has on the formation of life or even just planets/galaxies.
  

Dr Hugh Ross not a good source, as demonstrated by the link I gave but I don't imagine you educated yourself which will keep my job easy.

Where are your experiments for the 34 predictions?
Who are conducting your experiments?

 

[tosca1]

For the love of....
:doh

• I call bull**** about Hawking. Link please.

• 
  
  
  
  
  Stephen Hawking
  
  A Brief History of Time
  
  "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."
  
  "In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense."
  
  "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life ... For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life."
  
  
  ----------------------------------
  
  In interviews with Gregory Benford, "Leaping the Abyss: Stephen Hawking on Black Holes, Unified Field Theory and Marilyn Monroe", Reason 4.02 (April 2002) p 29.
  
  "The overwhelming impression is one of order. The more we discover about the universe, the more we find that it is governed by rational laws." "You still have the question: why does the universe bother to exist? If you like, you can define God to be the answer to that question."
  
  
  
  
  
  Stephen Hawking

 

[RogueWarrior]

Quote mining Hawking

Really? REALLY?

:applaud:bravo:

Deut 5:20 “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” <----- Isn't this one of the big ones? Shame on you.


You have argued from ignorance.
You have appealed to authority.
You have ad hominem'ed
You are now quote mining to appeal to authority.
How many other variations of fallacies are you going to use?

WTF are you doing? Playing Fallacy Bingo?

Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying.

Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:

• As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
• As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.

In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.

To be fair maybe, maybe, maybe you didn't realize Collins (or it is Craig) (assuming either is your source for the mining) is an idiot like Hugh Ross. All these idiots must not have heard of Google and that people can now Google quotations to easily ascertain the context of quotes. It used to be hard for people to check sources but the internet has changed that. Sucks to be a charlatan or snake oil salesman.

I hope you just read something that confirmed your bias without checking the actual context because that only makes you gullible and gullibility can be cured through skepticism and education. The other possibility means you are not worth the effort.

1. Let us start with your first paragraph:
   
   

   "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

   
   Rebuttal:
   

   Hawking says this in the framework of having a universe with a specific initial configuration. He then – right in the next paragraph, no less!! – continues to discuss alternatives to specific initial universe configurations. The alternatives boil down to various models of inflationary growth of the universe. Hawking starts with describing Alan Guth’s inflationary model and discusses Linde, Steinhardt, and Albrecht’s “new inflationary model.” (aBHoT p.67-69).

   COLOR="#FF0000"]Notice the attribution to show people can read the proper context.[/COLOR]
   
2. 
   

   "In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense."

   
   Rebuttal:
   Doesn't need one. Truism. Considering the permutations of all the known constants, the chances of this particular universe are immense. No evidence either way whether this is the only possible universe or the only one possible to have life. You would need to investigate the possibility of other universes or actual universes for life. It is extreme hubris to believe, without evidence, that this is the only possible universe and that it was made for us.
   

   The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty. -Hawking

   
   

3. "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life ... For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life."

   
   Rebuttal:
   'Seem' not 'is'
   'Seems clear' not 'is clear'
   He is not stating it as fact, for he cannot. There is no evidence. There are no experiments. There is no data.
   

   The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem
   to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the
   electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else
   they would not have exploded. Of course, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by
   writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of a star like the sun or the heavier chemical elements that are
   made in stars and are flung back into space when the stars explode. Nevertheless, it seems clear that there are
   relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life.

Maybe you should read the book yourself.
http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

 

[tosca1]

[*]I never said science would not exist. I never said science doesn't need questions.
But questions without any answers, or as in this case without even any attempts at answers, it goes nowhere i.e. science can not advance without answers..

I was responding to your statement:

"where would science be without questions?" You ask. Nowhere if there are no answers.

I didn't say you said science wouldn't exist without questions. I DID!

No, you didn't say science doesn't need questions. Read what you stated. Your logic is askew.



What happens when you mix yellow and blue? Ring a bell?


There wouldn't be answers to find if there are no questions asked!

WHAT. HOW. WHY.

 

[tosca1]

Quote mining Hawking

Really? REALLY?

:applaud:bravo:

Deut 5:20 “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” <----- Isn't this one of the big ones? Shame on you.

Quote mining? I gave you a quoted statement of Hawking from Wiki....and you refused to accept it at face value (which is fair). You demanded:

•I call bull**** about Hawking. Link please.

I not only gave you a link for that said quote, but gave you more quotes from him! And because of that, you trun around and accuse me of quote-mining?


Translation: Darn.


And you quote me a Bible verse?


That is when I realize it'll be a waste of time going any farther with you.....

Bye-bye.

 

[tosca1]

Rebuttal:
'Seem' not 'is'
'Seems clear' not 'is clear'
He is not stating it as fact, for he cannot. There is no evidence. There are no experiments. There is no data.

I already said that "predictions or not, there is a consensus among scientists that several aspects of the universe is fine-tuned. Thus I quoted Hawking, too.


Your rebut is irrelevant.

:2wave:

 

[Manc Skipper]

Hawking was teasing the believers. It obviously went over your head.

 

[roughdraft274]

When a person has sex for the purpose of procreation that's called, 'sentient planning' or 'design'.

Firstly, your terms are irritatingly silly. But second, the only creature you can apply this too are current humans (and even then I'd hardly say that just cause they want a baby that makes it design). Dogs aren't humping each other thinking "awesome, I'm designing a baby". So if you are trying to say that this little segment of nature involves some ****ed up sense of "design", go for it. But evolution encompasses way more than just current humans. So your point is moot. We are talking evolution the process, not just humans.

Before anything is made by humans in this world, it preexist as thoughts and ideas in our imaginations. They then go down on paper as 'designs' and 'plans', mimicking what nature does with DNA and genes. Natural selection thru adaptation to an environment is natures way of building (evolving) biological life to fit into an ecosystem.

As far as we know, nature does no foreplanning or designing or planning. natural selection is just a result of nature, its not something that nature thought up and uses when needed. This is not planning, this is not design. Regardless of how many ways you can find to reword it.

Sentient thought is a result of the instinct to survive and a derivative of emotions. Intelligence is merely a more complex form of communicating emotional needs and desires, giving one the notion of self. The brain may tell the heart what to do but the heart gives the brain a reason to be.

Your real problem is trying to separate humans and our abilities from nature, which is not possible. Conscious awareness, sentient being and intelligence aren't something divided from the cosmos, we were created by the energy, elements and information of the universe and are a part of it, not something other. Thru our minds and bodies, we're able to interact with our environment and each other in a unique way, which it has evolved us too.

What are you even arguing now? That sounds like a bunch of religious woo-woo.

 

[grip]

:roll:
Does hydrogen utilize information when it combines with oxygen to make water?

No, DNA uses code to design whatever creature is in its genetic information.