There are many designers within the intelligent living universe. And I gave you evidence yet you ignore it. As always when I have your answer, you ignore it.

The evidence of a 'designer' are the designs.

Societies are designs, termite mounds are designs, designed by a termite. A bower bird is a designer, designing his bower with blue things, arranging them in a pleasing order to attract a mate. Humans are designers. Animals are designers. A butterflies wings develop and evolve with a picture of an eyeball on them to discourage predators. Natures designs are no accident.

Yet you ignore my evidence. You refuse to acknowledge it or accept it because you are attached to your belief in nothing and you simply won't turn loose of that. You don't seek knowledge you seek to guard your position and opinions and fight to the death to defend your believe in nothing.

You just want to argue you don't want to learn or see anything.
Yet to me, the evidence is everywhere.

You don't want to see it. So I'm done with this subject. It's like showing a painting to a blind person.

A waste of time. You may never see. You don't see because you have chosen not to see.

very tired and overused argument bean. because you say that "animals are designers" does not make it so. perhaps they are but what you offer is not evidence of such. at least not evidence that meets the very strict scrutiny of scientific methodology. a butterfly's wing is no more designed by the butterfly to ward off predators than your teeth are designed by you so you can eat. i think the issue here is what you define as evidence. there may be a designer, but there's no evidence to suggest it is so. just your opinion that animals are designers.

I'm so sorry you are very tired of this 'overused' argument. I am very tired of people who can't see the forest because they are like an ant under a leaf. They just can't see it.


I did not say the butterfly's wing was designed "by the butterfly" did I?

The butterfly's wing is a design -- and it is designed by the intelligence of the conscious universal mind flowing through all lowly "more unconscious" creatures. And yes, it serves the purpose of warding off predators.

The issue here is not what I define as evidence, it is what you accept as evidence. But I have always said to people who think they are scientists and think they have 'proof' of something: PROOF IS A MATTER OF BELIEF AND AGREEMENT.

If you do not agree what the evidence is, then we are done. If you can't see or accept the evidence which is plainly right in front of your face everywhere you look then we are certainly done with this argument.

I laugh at the 'very strict scrutiny of of scientific methodology' who can't see the evidence in front of their face.

(To me, they look like an ant standing in front of the toe of an elephant screaming "WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF AN ELEPHANT? I SEE NO EVIDENCE!")

Besides, when someone asks for 'evidence of a designer' and they refuse to except the design as evidence then I don't know what they are asking for. He did not ask for proof of a God. He asked for "evidence of a designer.

Then you have to get into a debate about what is a design and what is an 'accident.' Well I am an artist and it is seldom if ever that I create a painting "by accident" that has what I consider to be a 'good design.'

The evidence of a designer is so massive and so obvious ... geee no wonder some people can't see it.

agreed. and you know now what i accept as evidence. which is what science accepts as evidence.



well i can't speak for those who "think that they are scientists" but having read much of sagan and hawkings i will say that those two well know physicists often said that nothing can ever be proven absolutely. theories can continue to be upheld if progressive evidence continues to demonstrate consistency and predictability. a theory can never be proven and certainly "belief and agreement" has not a thing to do with it.



fine. don't continue the debate then. i enjoy these exchanges so think i'll continue.



you can laugh at my view of course. but demeaning my position with your chuckle does not raise your position on high. attacking my opinion is a terribly ineffective debate tactic. better to substantiate your own position on it's merits me thinks. when you laugh at my, you simply show that you've nothing to add to support your own thoughts.



and of course you can point to something i've said that relates to your absurd annalogy huh?

to suggest that there is evidence of a designer, you must first show evidence of a "design" no? there is much evidence to support the theories of the big bang and evolution, both of which discount such a design. if you are to hypothesize a designer, you must first theorize a design. in science that envolves that scientific methodology that you have a problem with but which scientists adhere to strictly.



just because you design, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything designs. it would be an accident if i were to create a painting that you or anybody else considered to be a "good design".




i hear such from the god fearing, ufo enthusiasts, conspiracy theorists and even my grand daughter when she insists that santa did deliver presents last christmas. the evidence being that the cookies and milk she left him is all gone.

Well, that's a two-way street isn't it?

All you ever give are your opinions, so until you have something more to offer than hot air then it's rather silly of you to request anything more from anyone else.



So? Who says there was enough time?

Besides, you're last statement clearly shows your utter ignorance of the actual problem.

Evolution itself doesn't need to be random. It's the fact that evolution had to have gotten started by pure happenstance that is the problem. Once started the rest is irrelevent.

I also agree completely with Jeanniebean on the following point:



We give the evidence and you're so busy screaming "Fail Ad Hominem" that you don't have time to even think about the concept in any depth at all.

You asked for evidence of a designer and I'll give it to you right now. If you fail to comprehend why this is evidence that's your problem not mine.

The universe itself is currently about 14 billion years old. Our solar system and the Earth are about a third of that age.

Biological evolution could not have started via happenstance until the earth itself had been formed. So we can ask, "How much time did it have to get started. Because it was the start of the evolutionary process that was indeed the happenstance even (if we rule out design!). We're not saying that the process of evolution after that was happenstance. (although in some ways it too would need to be happenstance in a sense, but that's a whole other ballgame).

For now, the only important question is whether or not the very start of the evolutionary process could have been happenstance.

The first thing we need to recognize is the conclusions of the human genome project. They conclude that all life on earth came from a single cell. Everything on earth is ultimately related and can be traced back to a single cell.

I'll grant you that his is hard to accept. And clearly they weren't able to make that trace via actual physical evidence. However, the reason they have come to this conclusion is because every living entity on planet Earth shares about 25% of it's DNA!

In other words, as DNA was evolving the earliest cells were all pretty much identical as the DNA became more and more complex. It wasn't until the DNA became about 25% of it's current complexity that life began to "diverge" into different species and beings.

Now you could reject this idea as being 'unprovable' speculation. But it doesen't truly matter because for the sake of a happenstance argument this is actually in your favor. However, it doesn't remain in your favor when we consider the following information:

Looking back on life we know with a very high degree of certainty that life had to have started at least 3.5 billion years ago. In fact, by that time life had already advanced far enough to have already started splitting into various different forms. We have evidence of several different kinds of microbes that had existed 3.5 billion years ago. Since all of those microbes share common DNA their ansestors must have been evolving for quite some time even prior to that. Some other evidence places the first signs of life on Earth at 3.85 billion years ago. Keep in mind that the Earth itself is only 4.5 billion years old, and for the first half billion years it was pretty much a ball of molten lava where DNA could not have survived. DNA starts to fall apart at temperatures as low as 120 F. That's freezing cold as far as molten rocks are concerned.

So what do these numbers tell us? The time between when the Earth first cooled down and life first appeared was extremely short indeed.

In other words, geologically speaking evolution started damn near instantaneously as soon as conditions were ripe. That truly flies in the face of what would be required for a random happenstance event to have occurred.

Especially in the face of that fact that it hasn't restarted since! In other words, evolution only got started once on planet earth (if we are to accept the findings of the human genome project that claim that all life on earth began from a single cell).

The only other conclusion that we can assume is that the conclusions of the human genome project are wrong and that it just so happens that even DNA that starts to evolve independent of other DNA always unfolds in the same way for the first so many billion neuleotides. That would allow for DNA to start independently and still produce living organisms that share comman DNA sequences up to a certain point.

However, this latter idea screams of DESIGN!

Therefore anyone who wants to support a happenstance cause for life is far better off going with the conclusions of the Human Genome Project that life only started once.

But then they are face with the very tiny window of time for life to have gotten started by pure happenstance. In other words the evolution of DNA sequences that can automatically program themselves to become more complex in meaningful ways would have had to have happened instantly just as soon as conditions were ripe.

But that very idea flies in the face of what such a rare happenstance event supposely requires.

In other words if life on earth is happenstance, it's not merely luck, it's the luckiest luck ever!

So the bottom line is that to attribute life to a happenstance event is in no way unproblematic. To suggest that it should just be accepted as the obvious 'default' doesn't hold water.

You say:




I say hogwash.

If you're going to claim that life is happenstance then you have just as much "burden of proof" to back up that absurd notion.

The burden of proof is on everyone when it comes to any claims about the mystery of life.

It's not 'obvious' that life is a happenstance event. That's not an "automatic default" that should be assumed until we can prove otherwise.

This is where you are totally wrong. That's your fallacy of thinking.

If you want to claim that life is happenstance it up to you to carry the burden of proof to show the evidence for that!

Otherwise it's just a lot of Creative Hot Air.

This idea that your opinions hold true until someone else can prove otherwise is the fallacy of your own thinking.

This is the fallacy that has become popularly accepted but it's a totally false assumption.

Niether Evolution, nor the Big Bang, "discount" design.

That is an uttely unwarranted conclusion in both cases.

It's also not Evolution that should be the concern but rather the start of evolution and the fact that atoms exist in such a way as to allow them to rapidly becoming self-programming computers. Because that's what DNA basically is!

You can't be considering 'design' by looking at the finished product.

That's an outdated way of looking at things.

If you give a young child a box of Lego blocks and the child builds something out of the lego blocks do you discount the "Designer" of the Lego Blocks themselves?

When I say that there is a 'design' I'm talking about the universe itself. (i.e. the set of atomic Lego Blocks and the laws of physics that "builds" them into things)

The 'designer' did not need to babysit the evolutionary process, not were humans necessarily the 'pre-designed' outcome. What had been "designed" was a universe that is geared to EVOLVE.

The same thing goes for the Big Bang. Arguing that it was pure random happenstance and yet turned out to be so sophistocated as to be able to self-evolved into conscious beings is a stretch and in no way should be taken as the 'default' expectation.

Why should that be the default expectation?

Also, the current Inflation Model of the Big Bang does not assume happenstance. On the contrary it assumes a "pre-existing" quantum field that already comes complete with it's own LAWS of physics.

Laws of quantum physics are not 'happenstance'. They're laws! Rules! (i.e. Intelligent Design!)

And that Intelligent Design had to have pre-existed the formation of spacetime. It actually determines what the rules will be for that spacetime.

In other words, it determines what atoms can exist, and what molecules they can form (i.e. DNA) and it also determines how those molecule can interact and combine (i.e. how they can evolve into more complex structures)

So the entire BLUEPRINT for the universe is contained in the laws of Quantum Physics.

But like Lego Blocks and the Little Child, it's a FREESTYLE evolving universe. That IS the design!

The atoms are the Lego Blocks, and the Laws of Physics is the Little Child.

It was all pre-designed.

Like Sky said, it's self-evident.

The question isn't, "Is the universe pre-designed" Clearly it was.

Now the question is, "Who the hell designed it?"

That's the only question of genuine interest.

Did we design it?

Are we the "Child" playing with the lego blocks?

Jeanniebean seems to have come to that conclusion.

Sky seems to be thinking along those lines as well.

In fact this is the whole idea behind all of Eastern Mysticism.

To say that Evolution and the Big Bang "discount" design is a totally unwarranted claim in, IMHO.

From my point of view both Evolution and the Big Back actually "support" design, not discount it.

But clearly these are just different personal views.

Like Sky always maintains. Each person is going to accept as 'evidence' whatever they want.

I suppose it all depends on what you want. If you want the universe to be a happenstance accident you can convince yourself of that.

If you'd like to believe in a designer, there's plenty of evidence that points to that as well.

Can we prove one way or the other? Not yet.

But the idea that happenstance should be taken for granted until we can show evidence for something else is ludicous because there's no evidence for happenstance, either!

And that's truly the bottom line.

I'm agnostic. And I'm going out to dinner.

I disagree that evolution or the idea of a 'big bang' discounts any evidence of a designer. Evolution itself is visible evidence of a designer improving on itself.

*********************************************



just because you design, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything designs.

Why not? Because I design, and because a bower bird designs, and because a group of termites design, indicates that even the "lower" forms of life (termites) have the ability to design even if you do not consider them to be "intelligent life." They operate with hive consciousness, which is a group consciousness.




Yeh the old tried true "Santa Clause" argument. I use it a lot myself. Very funny.

But that does not change the facts. Evidence of a designer (An intelligent designing consciousness) is everywhere. I'm sorry you can't see it.

You win magick-man. Your right, I'm wrong. Everything you says can be proven with truth tables. All form of argument used by you is valid. All premises true. Therefore all conclusions must be.

I must just look at the pure amount of information you present. That proves it must be so. That proves that somewhere in the middle of all of that, there must be a connection...

Do you have a logical syllogism?

Now look at the designers amongst the human race.

Are we not beginning to design human life via gene therapy? Have we not cloned animals? Some claim that humans have even been cloned, but that of course has not been revealed to the public.

There is research going on now that speaks to the idea of genetic engineering of humans to eliminate disease. You will be able to choose the sex and the color of hair, the physical characteristics etc. In the future we will be able to completely clone and design a human being!

Then are we not Gods?

If we are already doing this kind of work NOW after only a short time "evolving" into our present state, what makes you even imagine that there are not other more advanced beings who had a hand in designing US? How do you explain the rapid advancement or 'evolution' of the human species?

It is simply illogical to assert that there are no designers. Just because you won't accept the evidence in front of you does not mean that it is not valid evidence.

Rationalization depends upon what one wants. Actuality does not care how you feel about it.

("Science" does not accept anything, it is not a conscious thinking entity. )

Individual scientists do the "accepting" and there are even many disagreements in that community.

(Here he goes with his claim that 'actuality' exists apart from an observer. )

Prove it.

Gee. Here is a sound argument. If the Human Genome Project is wrong, everything I say must be right.

Ok. I gotta take a break from this. I will exercise my emotional intelligence and bow out.

Peace!

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

And contrary to what you might think I am indeed interested in the truth of actuality.

I lean toward the mystical because this is where I see the evidence pointing.

Do have have a 'desire' for the world to be more than just a random happenstance event?

Sure. Who wouldn't? A person would need to truly be empty and devoid of any an all emotion and desire to not care.

So I confess to keeping an open mind to the possibilities.

Does that make me 'biased' toward wanting there to be more to life than just meaningless happenstance? perhaps so.

I realized a very long time ago something that MassageTrade brought up in another thread:

Logic cannot be used to prove anything. The only thing that logic is good for is ruling things out.

So that became my quest. What can I rule out? Can I rule out design? The answer is no.

Can I rule out happenstance. The answer is no.

However, I can try to refine these things.

Just how close can I come to ruling out either?

Well, the harder I try to rule out 'design' the more 'green lights' I get that allow for it, and that could even be considered evidence for it depending on what a person accepts as evidence (and that includes me).

However, when I try to rule out 'happenstance' I actually have far more success. Not that's I've ruled it out completely. But I've narrowed it down to the point where, if the universe is happenstance, it's an extremely rare and efficient happenstance which makes it all the more questionable.

A great modern cosmologist Alex Filippenko once addressed this question. He recoginized the odds against this universe being happenstance but gave the followin argument.

If there are infinitely many random universe, ours would only be one-of-infinitely many that evolved to life. Thus this would answer the probability conundrum of how something so rare could happen by pure random chance.

I have two problems with that hypothesis.

The first one is obvious. We don't have any evidence at all that suggests that infinitely other universes exist, so to assume that would but just as absurd as assuming a designer.

The second problem I have with his hypothesis is that even within this universe it doesn't work (for the very reasons I gave in a previous post), evolution started to quickly on planet earth to have been happenstance. Unless we were extremely lucky beyond our wildest imagination.

So from my point of view, the 'evidence' that we have about this universe points to it having been designed far more than it points to it being happenstance.

That's just the reality of where I'm at in my consideration of the problem.

If the evidence was tipped toward happenstance, I could accept that.

But the fact is, that it's not. It's actually tipped in the direction of design, IMHO.

And I feel that I'm being as honest with myself about this as I can possibly be.

Would I rather the universe is by design than by happenstance?

Sure? I think any human would have to be totally a heartless and careless person to not prefer meaning over no meaning.

And it's not even a personal thing. I'm concerned with my own mortality (or immortality) at all. I couldn't care less about that on an individual level.

I just look out into the universe and think to myself, "What a beautiful potential!"

If it's merely a fleeting happenstance accident what a waste of such wonderous potentiality.

Could life indeed be a total waste of potentiality?

Sure. That's possible.

But how disgustingly sad would that be if true?

I'm not desperately out to 'save' the universe from being a meaningless random happenstance spurt of garbage.

But if it truly does have an 'actuality' of something profoundly more than that, wouldn't it be nice to know it?

That's where I'm coming from.

So I'm not buying into these fruitless arguments that we need to assume the universe is meaningless garbage until we can prove otherwise.

If you want to hold that the universe is meaningless garbage you'll have to come up with some evidence for that lame claim. Don't give me this baloney that this should be the automatic default assumption that requires no burden of proof.

That's absurd.

Let's try to rule one or the other out.

It's my position that there are actually more reasons to rule out happenstance there there are to rule out design.

If you can offer otherwise, be my guest.

Trying to 'prove' one or the other is true is futile.

Let's see which one we can rule out. That's a far more productive way to try to move forward, IMHO.

Exactly.

This is a huge thing as well. The assumption that our brains should be assigned the property of 'consciousness' is highly in question. What is it that is 'conscious'?

The whole brain as a macro organ? The atoms that make up that brain? Some abstract concept of an "emergent property"? What sense does it even make to assign "consciousness" to an abstract notion of an "emergent Property"

One thing that seems to be overlooked in this whole thing is that the brain is not seperate from the underlying, "pre-existing", totally mysterious, and clearly orderly, quantum field.

And yes, this notion necessarily must be brought up because this is precisely what our brains ultimately are. They are extremely complex orchestrations of vibrations in a very mysterious non-physical "substance" that science has labeled "The quantum field".

That's ultiamtely what are brains are. Thus if we are said to be our brains, then we too must be this mysterious quantum field.

That's a non-physical concept that gives rise to all that's physical. This is what science has discovered.

So why do we ignore this information?

This gives us reason to consider the possiblity that our true nature (the actual observer), is indeed a non-physical being that actually resides in the non-physical medium that we call "the quantum field".

If we want to talk about actuality then what's wrong with recognizing that the description I just gave here may very well be actuality?

Sounds very plausible to me.

In fact, for me personally, it seems to be an almost inescapable conclusion.

And what is the conclusion?

The conclusion is that our true essence (our actuality if you like, is indeed non-physical (i.e. spiritual in nature)

However, instead of speaking in terms of 'proving it' which is asburd, let's think in terms of ruling it out.

If we can't rule it out should we assume it to be the truth of actuality?

No of course not!

But of far more importance is that we should indeed recognize that we can't rule it out, it's plausible within the boundaries of what we believe we know about this universe.

To me, that's all I'm seeking.

Is a spiritual explaination possible within the boundaries of what we currently know?

Yes.

To me that's quite profound.

It's not proof of anything. But it shows possibility and that's all I'm interested in for now.

If I can prove something I'd be thrilled. But just seeing that it's plausible is quite a bit of success, I think.

This is a fact. There is NO form of "evidence of a designer" for a person who chooses to believe that there is no designer and no designs in this universe. Not even in your wildest dreams.

I challenge any non-believer (of design and designer) to imagine what kind of 'evidence' they would actually accept. If not the designs themselves, and the countless examples of designers in existence then what would it be?

What kind of evidence are they asking for? What kind would they accept?

Another question:

If you take fat cells from you tummy and transplant them into your breast (a procedure done for victims of breast cancer) why do those fat cells still act as if they are "belly fat" and not "breast fat?"

How would they know? Why do they know?

It has been discovered that when a woman with belly fat in her breast over-eats, the breast with the belly fat begins to store more fat and gets larger.

Is it the DNA programing? If so, where did it get that programing?
Cellular memory? What is cellular memory? If a cell can have a memory, then it must have a brain. If it has a brain, then it must be able to think. If it thinks then why can't it function as a designer?

Perhaps it is just not conscious enough.

Therefore it becomes a programed building block of the body. It is programed by....???? to do a specific job.

Who is the programmer?

He starts it then he bows out when it gets too tough for him to handle. What a wuss.