Obvious Designer?

[POI]

Otseng's statement: "This is the variation of the omnipotent God argument by imagining a hypothetical perfect design. There is no need for God to be a "perfect" designer.

In human designs as well, things are not perfect and have flaws, but they are still designed. Nobody claims since iPhones have flaws in them that Apple engineers are either crappy designers or they don't exist at all."

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

There is just so much to flesh out in this cluster of statements, I do not know where to begin. I guess we can start here and see where this goes.

For Debate: Is it obvious humans were designed, or not? Please explain why or why not. If you believe so, does this design lead more-so towards...

a) an intelligent designer?
b) an unintelligent designer?
c) a deceptive designer?

Like all other topics, let's see where this one goes.... And for funsies, here is a 10-minute video -- optional, but begins to put forth a case for options b) or c), if "designed" at all:

[William]

(LINK)

Intelligent Design. Navigating Human Limitations and Universal Constraints

The interaction revolves around the nuanced exploration of the concept of intelligent design, considering perspectives from both theist and atheist viewpoints. Key themes include:

1. Acknowledgment of Human Limitations: Recognizing the inherent limitations of human perception, cognition, and understanding when approaching questions about the existence or nature of a creator.
2. Awareness of Universal Constraints: Understanding the constraints imposed by the laws of physics, the boundaries of scientific inquiry, and the complexities of existence itself, which shape our understanding of reality.
3. Avoidance of Cognitive Bias: Striving to mitigate cognitive biases that may influence perceptions or conclusions, by maintaining objectivity and critical thinking, irrespective of one's belief system.
4. Promotion of Open-Mindedness: Embracing an attitude of openness to new ideas, perspectives, and evidence, fostering constructive dialogue and collaboration among individuals with differing viewpoints.

In summary, the interaction underscores the importance of approaching questions about intelligent design with humility, intellectual honesty, and a willingness to engage with diverse perspectives, while being mindful of the limitations and constraints that shape our understanding of the universe.

Exploring the Question of Intelligent Design: Linguistic, Philosophical, and Mathematical Perspectives
Obvious/non obvious Designer?
BRIEF

When human personalities argue for or against the idea of being within an intelligently designed existence (this universe) I am not so sure that they know what it is they are talking about.

The way I view the question (are we or are we not within something intelligently designed) is to place aside religious mythology and atheistic views altogether and simply look at what knowledge we know about the Universe, the Earth (specifically) within the Universe, and our experience (as humans) within the Earth. (I say "within" the Earth as to also include the biosphere as the integral aspect of the Earth.)

In this way, I can be assured that those two positions have no influential bias on the outcome of any answer which might be forthcoming.

I then approach attempting to answer the question by examining the theory scientific investigation has created, starting with the Big Bang.

The first epochs of the event happened incredibly fast - something which reminds me of the idea of instant manifestation re the concept of ID.
I examine those theories and ask if they show any sign or non sign of intelligent design. The answer is inconclusive. I move on in this manner through the epochs, right up to present and still the answer is inconclusive.

What is conclusive is that the universe is still in a state of becoming. At this point (here/now) it becomes clear that yes indeed there is evidence for ID in the fact of the Earth having become a habitat for intelligent (mindful) life, an indication that there may well be something to the idea of ID.

I see no practical reason to critique something as "unintelligent" while it is still in the dawn of its becoming and thus no practical reason to adopt the belief in atheism/the beliefs of atheism.
Likewise with the mythology of religion. No requirement therein to take those literally.

So I focus on what IS in every appearance, intelligent and see what it is saying and doing about itself, in relation to where it is finding itself within.

Overall, this interaction provided a multifaceted exploration of the topic, combining linguistic analysis, philosophical inquiry, and mathematical observation to deepen our understanding of the complexities of existence and the universe.

[1213]

Burden of proof lies on the one that knows there was never talk of a bug that ate plastic and that it was known 'plastic does not degrade'...

If it is claimed that something got the ability to eat plastic, it would be nice to see the proof that the ability didn't exist before.

I think every material in this world degrades.

For the same reason we know whales evolved from land animals. Even though we cannot turn a moth into a mammoth. The same way we know birds evolved from land animals - wings were once arms. The bonse structure is evidence. Where is your evidence they did not? It doesn'tmatter whether you accept or deny it, anyone without a closed mind can make it up themselves.

It is amazing how you can believe those claims.

Why should anyone believe Genesis?

I don't say you should. I say only that I believe, because all that we can see in nature supports it.

We are talking about something like a crocodile,and even a seal.While it is possible one could make a sea journey by trying not to drown while 'resting' why would they so so? They prefer to stay near the land.

Why? Why didn't whale ancestors prefer to stay near the land? Why didn't whales become more like super crocodiles?

[1213]

Woops:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680118/

Sorry, I don't think that shows real evolution, because no meaningful change shown. For example, if you would decide to eat bread instead of meat, it does not men that you have evolved into a new species.

For example, the credibility of the theory would get lot stronger, if we could breed a rat to bat, or if we could breed a mouse into a mini whale.

That's not what the ToE states or expects. ..

So, whales didn't evolve from land animals?

[TRANSPONDER]

Burden of proof lies on the one that knows there was never talk of a bug that ate plastic and that it was known 'plastic does not degrade'...

If it is claimed that something got the ability to eat plastic, it would be nice to see the proof that the ability didn't exist before.

I think every material in this world degrades.

Pottery glass and plastic does not, at least not so we can detect or it's poor quality and so far as we know.What you Think doesn't matter. What you have evidence for doesn't.You stillseem to think that you just have to make a claimwithout evidence and others have to disprove it. How about you provide a scrap of proof for your claims?

For the same reason we know whales evolved from land animals. Even though we cannot turn a moth into a mammoth. The same way we know birds evolved from land animals - wings were once arms. The bonse structure is evidence. Where is your evidence they did not? It doesn'tmatter whether you accept or deny it, anyone without a closed mind can make it up themselves.

It is amazing how you can believe those claims.

There is evidence for them.In bats, birds and indeed pterodactyl fossils, the evolution of wings from armbones is clear. It is amazing how you can disregard and dismiss such evidence.

Why should anyone believe Genesis?

I don't say you should. I say only that I believe, because all that we can see in nature supports it.

But that is what some Christian apologists say we shouldn't believe - "Imperfect human perception'. We mistake what we see. It takes science to correct those mistakes and even you don't deny the earth isn't flat.

We are talking about something like a crocodile,and even a seal.While it is possible one could make a sea journey by trying not to drown while 'resting' why would they so so? They prefer to stay near the land.

Why? Why didn't whale ancestors prefer to stay near the land? Why didn't whales become more like super crocodiles?

The obvious, or at least scientific answer is, the environment dictated what made survival easier if the adapted to conditions. In any case it is a sideline when an why Pakicetus evolves into a semi aquatic critter and then a fully sea -going Basileosaurus, the evidence is that it did so and that proves speciation.

Apart form your denial, what evidence do you have that it did not (I already showed the evidence that these were not separate species but an evolving progression.

161 guests, this is great. I think that's a record.

[benchwarmer]

Woops:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680118/

Sorry, I don't think that shows real evolution, because no meaningful change shown. For example, if you would decide to eat bread instead of meat, it does not men that you have evolved into a new species.

Then I suggest you contact the paper author(s) and show them where they made an error. Your continued misunderstanding (on purpose I imagine?) of the actual scientific theory continues to show. Please point out where in the actual theory they use the word 'meaningful change'.

For example, the credibility of the theory would get lot stronger, if we could breed a rat to bat, or if we could breed a mouse into a mini whale.

That's not what the ToE states or expects. ..

So, whales didn't evolve from land animals?

I guess you didn't actually read or understand my reply (the part you conveniently snipped out).

Whales didn't evolve from mice, they evolved from a common ancestor that was on land. For those interested in the actual information:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are ... of-whales/

[Clownboat]

God is being measured by your ruler.

This is presumptious nonsense

To assume a god concept exists that is not in evidence, is presumptuous.
I love when we can find common ground!

[TRANSPONDER]

Woops:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680118/

Sorry, I don't think that shows real evolution, because no meaningful change shown. For example, if you would decide to eat bread instead of meat, it does not men that you have evolved into a new species.

Then I suggest you contact the paper author(s) and show them where they made an error. Your continued misunderstanding (on purpose I imagine?) of the actual scientific theory continues to show. Please point out where in the actual theory they use the word 'meaningful change'.

For example, the credibility of the theory would get lot stronger, if we could breed a rat to bat, or if we could breed a mouse into a mini whale.

That's not what the ToE states or expects. ..

So, whales didn't evolve from land animals?

I guess you didn't actually read or understand my reply (the part you conveniently snipped out).

Whales didn't evolve from mice, they evolved from a common ancestor that was on land. For those interested in the actual information:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are ... of-whales/

I often initially wonder whether the idea isn't just to irritate an atheist rather than make a valid point, and the persistent failure to understand the way evolution works, even when they are told seems to elude them.

Sure bugs evolved the ability to eat plastic just as as penguins learned to swim, dinosaurs to fly and the Pepper moth changed hue to match industrial smoke

Creationism doesn't deny this, or at east some Creationist groups accept evolution - within species (micro - evolution). But deny (illogically and without any evidence) that such change cannot become so great that the critter is a different species.

It seems the working of evolution is not understood (and they don't want to understand) because we get the initial denial that evolution (even Micro) happens. I guess if we said 'That's micro evolution' they'd say "That's acceptable Dogma". There is massive amounts of evidence for speciation ("Macro -evolution" and the evolution of whales is as near to "before yore werry eyes" as anyone would ask In fact better than being there as that would tell one nothing . The fossil cetan sequence sets out the entire progress and should be slam dunk.

I won't rehearse the denial about details as though that invalidated the overall evidence, but it out to be solid evidence for speciation, and that validates all the other half evidence.

Evolution both within and without species is proven enough to convince anyone but fingers in ears denialists. Which is what we got, and you may bet the farm on that.

As to nonsense like Butterflies to mammoths in a lab stuff, dogs from cats is simply not understanding evolution theory (1) palaeontology does not claim that canines ever evolved to a cat -form nor felines to a dog -form. One could argue that a bat was still mouse -kind. It had just grown wings...which is true the wings evolved from arms, but it has macro -evolved', so I suppose it must be denied that the evolution happened at all. (sometime I'll tell the Apocryphal Bibletruth of Eve in the shower, the voyeur mouse who was shown by the servant how to make wings and "Be thou cursed ever to flitter by dark and hang upside down.." But you who can keep up have probably guessed it by now).
Anyway, dinosaurs to birds, fish to reptiles (Via Tiktaalik) and a tree shrew to primates is speciation that 'kinds' would be stretched to mean nothing, so it must be denied. But the cetan sequence is the proof, in any court of law.

(1) I must relate a funny story. A poster on the other forum argued 'dogs from cats'. I explained that interbreeding (a common misunderstanding by creationists) was not how evolution worked and rather than a valid response (evolution should be able to turn dogs into cats, given time) he insisted that is what evolution claimed. I of course posted descriptions of what evolution was and he said that was just lies that evolutionist scientists put out butt they really believed dogs from cats.

[1213]

Pottery glass and plastic does not, at least not so we can detect or it's poor quality and so far as we know.What you Think doesn't matter. What you have evidence for doesn't. You stillseem to think that you just have to make a claimwithout evidence and others have to disprove it. How about you provide a scrap of proof for your claims?

How could I show evidence for what 1000 years do for plastic? I think it is interesting that you expect me to give evidence for my claims, but you have no real evidence for your claims.

There is evidence for them.In bats, birds and indeed pterodactyl fossils, the evolution of wings from armbones is clear. It is amazing how you can disregard and dismiss such evidence.

If for example the idea of how bats evolved would be true, there should be no problem to breed a rat so that it becomes a bat. People who believe in evolution theory seems to think it is impossible, therefore I don't believe an idea that is supported by few bones that doesn't really tell that they are parts of evolution.

Why? Why didn't whale ancestors prefer to stay near the land? Why didn't whales become more like super crocodiles?

The obvious, or at least scientific answer is, the environment dictated what made survival easier if the adapted to conditions. In any case it is a sideline when an why Pakicetus evolves into a semi aquatic critter and then a fully sea -going Basileosaurus, the evidence is that it did so and that proves speciation.

Basileosaurus, Pakicetus and whale are more likely just own different species.

[TRANSPONDER]

Pottery glass and plastic does not, at least not so we can detect or it's poor quality and so far as we know.What you Think doesn't matter. What you have evidence for doesn't. You stillseem to think that you just have to make a claimwithout evidence and others have to disprove it. How about you provide a scrap of proof for your claims?

How could I show evidence for what 1000 years do for plastic? I think it is interesting that you expect me to give evidence for my claims, but you have no real evidence for your claims.

There is evidence for them.In bats, birds and indeed pterodactyl fossils, the evolution of wings from armbones is clear. It is amazing how you can disregard and dismiss such evidence.

If for example the idea of how bats evolved would be true, there should be no problem to breed a rat so that it becomes a bat. People who believe in evolution theory seems to think it is impossible, therefore I don't believe an idea that is supported by few bones that doesn't really tell that they are parts of evolution.

Why? Why didn't whale ancestors prefer to stay near the land? Why didn't whales become more like super crocodiles?

The obvious, or at least scientific answer is, the environment dictated what made survival easier if the adapted to conditions. In any case it is a sideline when an why Pakicetus evolves into a semi aquatic critter and then a fully sea -going Basileosaurus, the evidence is that it did so and that proves speciation.

Basileosaurus, Pakicetus and whale are more likely just own different species.

Never mind 1000 years ago, fifty years ago,it was known that plastic did not biodegrade. It still does not, but a strain of bugs has evolved that does it. And you complain that I ask for evidence of 1000 years when you demand that rats be turned into bats in your lifetime.

Forget about rats into bats and in fact plastic eating bugs and go with the remaining evidence. The wings of bats (like those of birds) are plainly developed from arm bones. Just like the flippers of whales, and the demonstrable fossil sequence is 'Real'evidence (I suspect you mean 'Evidence I can bet the evolutionists can't do') establishes speciation, so morphology as well as fossil evidence (penquin ancestors that hadn't adapted so well for swimming, remember?) has to be the best evidence we are going to get. And it is 'Real'even if you do the usual dismissal of 'a few bones' (1)

We already saw that the cetan fossils can be seen as related by the characteristic ear bones found in that critter, and the fossils show the evolutionary movement of the nostril from snout to top of the head as the animal adapted to water more and more. 'More likely' is that what looks like a continual evolution of a particular critter that separate species, which not more likely, but a need to deny persuasive and real evidence that you don't like because it debunks Genesis.

And what do you have? An old book that says the earth (and day and night) existed before the sun, which you apparently accept as true, but still can't accept that it describes a flat circular earth (like a seal - stamp as in Jo)b.

But it doesn't matter that you have no real evidence and no case but silly demands for mammoths from butterflies (or the like - and if years were spent breeding bats from rats I know what the response would be - "Just because you did it in a lab, doesn't mean it happened that way" because I've seen it). You will never accept anything, as we saw with the resurrection story where the contradictions were obvious and (I am sure) you left them out - my willingness to do it again and see the contradictions still stands.

In the end, the browsers here and the greater public must decide what the 'real' evidence is, and your denial doesn't decide anything. It sure doesn't help that when I show something you seem to immediately forget it. We already did the ear bones and nostril evolution.

(1) Creationist pundits when they were not lying about the spine of Australopithecus entering the back of the skull like an ape when it enters from below like a human - lying folks, not just mistaken - they tried to debunk the half skeleton of the juvenile 'Lucy' which was a small species anyway on the grounds it could fit in a shoe box. Just dishonest propaganda. Like an creationist propaganda vid of the 'Christian student stuns atheist professor' by saying she could fit all the fossils into her car. Which isn't true anyway. The usual irrelevant and untrue dismissal like 'Just a few bones'.

[benchwarmer]

If for example the idea of how bats evolved would be true, there should be no problem to breed a rat so that it becomes a bat.

Incorrect. You might be able to breed a rat that looks and functions like a bat, but it won't be a bat. It will be a rat with wings, etc. You just continue to not understand basic biology. Dogs don't birth cats, rats don't birth bats, etc. -- That was starting to sound like a poem

People who believe in evolution theory seems to think it is impossible,

Correct. Rats will always produce rats. Eventually these rats may have new functions (like wings), but they are still rats. At some point a scientist may add another name to these new rats (taxonomy) and they will then be known as that new name. HOWEVER, they are still ancestors of rats and therefore technically still rats. Why creationists can't grasp this (or refuse to acknowledge the actual science) is baffling.

therefore I don't believe an idea that is supported by few bones that doesn't really tell that they are parts of evolution.

Thankfully the ToE isn't resting on 'a few bones'.