The Moon and Design

Originally posted by wildgrass
Yes, this is what I was going to post using the lottery analogy.

The odds of a single person winning the lottery are extremely long (say 20 million to 1). But there is also a very high probability that someone will win the lottery. Therefore, if there was going to be a winner anyway, the the statistical improbability of one participant winning i ...[text shortened]... argue that a statistical improbability infers design.

I like the dice analogy better though.

"LUCKY"!?

This thread has been useful, indeed.

I claim design, which has been scorned as unscientific.

Yet, the only explanation that science has, is.....luck?

Surprising. Comparing the complexity of the universe and human life to the lottery, and rolls of the dice? And luck?

So be it!!

Originally posted by chaney3
"LUCKY"!?

This thread has been useful, indeed.

I claim design, which has been scorned as unscientific.

Yet, the only explanation that science has, is.....luck?

Surprising. Comparing the complexity of the universe and human life to the lottery, and rolls of the dice? And luck?

So be it!!

Sir. Take your own existence. Think of all your distant ancestors, going back thousands of years, that had to meet and reproduce at exactly the right time in order for you to have been born.

Even you, Chaney are not a product of design, but chance and probability. (If just one of your distant ancestors had decided not to go out one evening as planned and stayed at home to watch a boxset instead, resulting in them not meeting another of your ancestors, you wouldn't even be here).

Probability and luck are indeed scary concepts. It's no surprise people with weaker constitutions jump on the design bandwagon.

Originally posted by chaney3
This thread has been useful, indeed.

Useful in what way? You don't appear to have learned a single thing, and are still largely attributing to us what you imagine and not what we actually say.

PS: I am still waiting for that reference. Are you working on it? Are you deliberately ignoring the request? What is taking so long?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sir. Take your own existence. Think of all your distant ancestors, going back thousands of years, that had to meet and reproduce at exactly the right time in order for you to have been born.

Even you, Chaney are not a product of design, but chance and probability. (If just one of your distant ancestors had decided not to go out one evening as plan ...[text shortened]... scary concepts. It's no surprise people with weaker constitutions jump on the design bandwagon.

See, this is exactly what I object to. You calling people who believe in design as "weak".

And your badge of courage to refute design is luck and probability. I don't need to be a PHD to say that I find your counter argument to design is more weak than design itself.

Sir.

Originally posted by chaney3
"LUCKY"!?

This thread has been useful, indeed.

I claim design, which has been scorned as unscientific.

Yet, the only explanation that science has, is.....luck?

Surprising. Comparing the complexity of the universe and human life to the lottery, and rolls of the dice? And luck?

So be it!!

The important distinction is that luck (or chance) can be measured and tested. I am not a statistics expert, but there's lots of good stuff out there on the google sphere. I'm going to butcher it, but the measurement of chance is the the lack of sufficient knowledge to predict the outcome. We perceive chance as a lack of knowledge. With all the necessary information, we could predict the outcome. At that point there would be a lot of scientists looking for new jobs.

Biologists often talk about stochasticity. It's really just a fancy word for "random". Sometimes, for example, a cell divides symmetrically, giving rise to two identical daughter cells . Other times it divides asymmetrically, giving rise to two distinct cell types. We know some of the mechanisms that govern this cellular "decision" but often times we cannot accurately predict it.

All this means is we don't have enough information. Take a moment to think about this problem from a scientific viewpoint. If you were looking through a microscope, and saw a cell divide into two cells that looked very different from each other, would you think "oh, someone designed this, so nothing left to see here" or "I would like to know about the mechanism that makes this work. If I figure it out, maybe it'll cure cancer."

Scientists take the latter view, in order to discover new things. Design is irrelevant in that pursuit.

Originally posted by chaney3
See, this is exactly what I object to. You calling people who believe in design as "weak".

And your badge of courage to refute design is luck and probability. I don't need to be a PHD to say that I find your counter argument to design is more weak than design itself.

Sir.

Therein lies the problem. You have zero interest in the proven results of science since your mind has already been made up and there is no use trying to convince you of anything since all we get is your objection to use calling creationism weak. It IS weak, it is pathetic, it is ancient bullshyte fairy tales written by men who knew jack about the real world but instead were intent on forming a new religion mainly for the political and power perks that go with being in the upper core of such fake religions. For a modern example you have to look no futher than Scientology, as bogus and fake a religion that ever came down the pike. I think everyone but Tom Cruise and his crowd would denounce that piece of garbage that calls itself a religion. The thing about it is, your religion, one of the Abrahamics, are just as bogus and fake as any other. Which is a shame, because so many billions are duped by it and too boot, go to war over it. Is that what you think a real god would want? Millions dying because the people who supposedly worship the same god can't stand the other third of the triad of the fake religion of Abraham?

Originally posted by wildgrass
The important distinction is that luck (or chance) can be measured and tested. I am not a statistics expert, but there's lots of good stuff out there on the google sphere. I'm going to butcher it, but the measurement of chance is the the lack of sufficient knowledge to predict the outcome. We perceive chance as a lack of knowledge. With all the necessary i ...[text shortened]... sts take the latter view, in order to discover new things. Design is irrelevant in that pursuit.

I think I made myself perfectly clear to you in earlier posts that I have made no claim that if a scientist believes in design, as a point of creation to fill the void of "how", that it does not equal the necessity to now abandon scientific pursuit and worldwide shutdown of all labs.

I suggested co-existence.

If you were to believe in design, why does that mean you must throw your microscope into the trash heap? I never suggested such a thing.

I will say again, design....to ME, seems much more reasonable than what the posters on this thread have offered, which is one rung up from nothing....luck and probability.

I will also bring up the Vatican priests again, in which some are scientists as well. Theism and science can co-exist.

Originally posted by chaney3
I think I made myself perfectly clear to you in earlier posts that I have made no claim that if a scientist believes in design, as a point of creation to fill the void of "how", that it does not equal the necessity to now abandon scientific pursuit and worldwide shutdown of all labs.

I suggested co-existence.

If you were to believe in design, why does ...[text shortened]... e Vatican priests again, in which some are scientists as well. Theism and science can co-exist.

I have read your earlier posts, but it seems you're not being a very good listener/reader. You scoffed at the word luck without regard for the context of the term.

What I made clear earlier, is that luck/chance/stochasticity as scientific terms are used as place-holders for a lack of knowledge. In order to fill those gaps, it makes no difference whatsoever whether it was designed or not.

Originally posted by chaney3
I will also bring up the Vatican priests again, in which some are scientists as well. Theism and science can co-exist.

My sister is a biologist and a Christian. There are many theists who study science.
But that doesn't change the facts that:
1. You are badly mistaken about eclipses.
2. You won't admit when you are wrong, even when it is blatantly obvious to all that you are wrong.
3. You are a terrible listener, frequently attributing to others viewpoints they do not hold and putting words in their mouths, blaming them for your poor reading comprehension and communication skills and more.
4. You are so desperate to make a 'point' that you run roughshod over all sensibility.
5. You make the fallacious argument that if science and theism can coexist then all scientists must become theists. You confuse the fact that I do not rule out the possibility of a creator with the demand that I must necessarily accept a creator, and conversely you wrongly assume that because I do not believe there was a creator that I have ruled out a creator. Everything is black and white to you and it is confusing you.

I for one have not once offered randomness and luck as an explanation for eclipses. I have instead offered geometry. It is a geometrical necessity that moons cause eclipses. All moons cause eclipses. That is a fact.

Originally posted by chaney3
"LUCKY"!?

This thread has been useful, indeed.

I claim design, which has been scorned as unscientific.

Yet, the only explanation that science has, is.....luck?

Surprising. Comparing the complexity of the universe and human life to the lottery, and rolls of the dice? And luck?

So be it!!

What's the evidence for design?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What's the evidence for design?

I see evidence of design in the human body, nature, the brain, emotions, the universe, which includes eclipse, the human spirit, magnetic shield, food, love, the mere existence of physical laws, etc etc.

These may seem silly to some, or easily explained away as luck or probability to others, but I see design. Can I prove it? No, it's just how I interpret my surroundings.

So let me ask you: what evidence of design would suffice? What is it that you and others need to see?

Originally posted by chaney3
I see evidence of design in the human body, nature, the brain, emotions, the universe, which includes eclipse, the human spirit, magnetic shield, food, love, the mere existence of physical laws, etc etc.

then it is an understatement to say you are totally illogical because not one of those things are evidence for design. You are way out of it.

By any reasonable definition of evidence, evidence is what makes one hypothesis more probable than another.
The problem here is there is no reason for any of those things you listed to be more probable as a result of there merely existing a supernatural designer than if there was no such supernatural designer. If there existed a supernatural designer, why would it bother to make flawed us? Why would that be probable? Why wouldn't there be supernatural designers that had nothing whatsoever to do with us and only designs paintings?
What exactly is the logical reasoning behind the arrogance that we are so special as to be the creation of an all powerful deity who is interested in our affairs?

In contrast, known natural laws such as evolution do make some of those things more probable, such as a brain which obviously aids survival and passing on genes. Evolution theory, that, unlike Goddidit, is actually based on logical deduction, predicts such things should happen. That is evidence for evolution and thus evidence against a Goddidit.

Why did you include "food" on your list? Does your food smell or taste 'supernatural'?

Originally posted by chaney3
These may seem silly to some, or easily explained away as luck or probability to others, but I see design. Can I prove it? No, it's just how I interpret my surroundings.

You make two mistakes:
1. You intuitively see design, not logically. You then came in this thread trying to claim you had a logical claim when you didn't. Not surprising it didn't go so well.
2. You expect everyone else to intuitively see the same as you do, then get upset when they don't. Worse, you blame them for it.

Originally posted by humy
then it is an understatement to say you are totally illogical because not one of those things are evidence for design. You are way out of it.

By any reasonable definition of evidence, evidence is what makes one hypothesis more probable than another.
The problem here is there is no reason for any of those things you listed to be more probable as a result of ...[text shortened]... didit.

Why did you include "food" on your list? Does your food smell or taste 'supernatural'?

I don't agree with evolution, by itself, without first...a creator.

At times, when there is an unknown, you seem to easily toss in a large assumption, as you just did with the brain, and attribute it to evolution.

Like: oh....wouldn't a brain be lovely to assist us with life.....poof, let's just start to develop a brain.

Like: oh....when we crawl out of the swamp, and happen to evolve on land, with stomachs and hunger, wouldn't it be lovely to have food.....poof, there's food there waiting when we arrive.

You mock my belief in design, while I mock your absurdity to 'make up' things as you go along, when the puzzle requires another piece.

Evolution by itself lacks credibility. A reasonable beginning is required.

Originally posted by chaney3
I don't agree with evolution, by itself, without first...a creator.

At times, when there is an unknown, you seem to easily toss in a large assumption, as you just did with the brain, and attribute it to evolution.

Like: oh....wouldn't a brain be lovely to assist us with life.....poof, let's just start to develop a brain.

Like: oh....when we crawl ou ...[text shortened]... es another piece.

Evolution by itself lacks credibility. A reasonable beginning is required.

I don't agree with evolution, by itself, without first...a creator.

What you don't agree with (especially when for religious reasons) is irrelevant to what the truth may be.
EVIDENCE and LOGIC is all that is irrelevant to what the truth may be.

Like: oh....wouldn't a brain be lovely to assist us with life.....poof,

You really need proof that a brain helps us to survive and passes on our genes?
Do you really believe you can survive and pass on your genes without your brain?

Evolution by itself lacks credibility. A reasonable beginning is required.

No, evolution is a proven scientific fact and is not a theory of how the first life arose thus doesn't require explaining a beginning.