The design argument

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I said:
[quote]Another concept is that how the result of such a complex is perceived is dependent not only on the result, but also on the observer...The difference is that by attaching a special significance to the result, the individual has in effect transformed the result into a desired "goal". [b]The reality is that the result is still only one o ...[text shortened]... oth the "Cosmo Kramer" and the "Virgin Mary" were "designed"? How about the "pattern-less blob"?

Good point. A blob may appear to be patternless because the observer has not observed a similar pattern that he/she has associated with an image of a specific named person or object.

Originally posted by JS357
Maybe I didn't make it clear what part of his post I was reacting to.

It was "It is no different than a new reporter wanting to write a certain story, they
just ignore what is in front of them to focus on those things that agree with
their point of view."

I asked, isn't that true of both sides of an issue. The anser seems to be to something else.

I think it can and is true for a lot of discussions. The answer isn't always
going to be what we think it is, there could be a hundred different views
about a topic and they all can be wrong. That said it we do from time to
time get it right, but I'd wager not as often as we would like to think we do.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I get the feeling they are all connected and you if you mix something
and end up with X and X stops all the things you need to produce life, then
you have lost out on life. If a gazillion things have to happen in the right
order, under the right conditions, and so on if that chain is broken at any
point it all falls apart. A fine tuned universe shoul ...[text shortened]... t ignore what is in front of them to focus on those things that agree with
their point of view.

But the universe isn't all that fine-tuned was the point of my post. According to Stenger, the parameters used to demonstrate a fine-tuned universe aren't as sensitive to change as apologists would have us believe (apparently), and Ross' argument is negated by the sheer number of tries. If you throw the cosmic dice as many times as there are stars, you're bound to eventually get it right. It would be much harder to explain if there was life everywhere in our universe, than if life evolved on a single planet among an uncountable number. This is more true if you accept that once one unlikely event has taken place (such as the formation of our star), then the likelyhood of the next event happening has increased substantially, and that things don't really have to happen in a very specific order, but that many variations are just as likely to produce "good" results. Once you realise all this, it's not that impressive that we live in a universe where there is life. In fact, it wouldn't be surprising if we found life around a few more stars.

Had we looked out into the universe and discovered that there's only one sun, that stars are completely different from the sun, that the moon is a light in its own right, and that earth is at the center of creation, as depicted in genesis, then that would be grounds for accepting a fine-tuning argument. Where there is only one of every object, you'd have to ask what the likelihood of such objects coming into existence are. Alas, every star is a sun of its own, in an uncountable number, with our planet in the outskirts of one insignificant galaxy, holding billions of stars, rushing aimlessly along with an uncountable number of galaxies, all spinning as aimlessly as our own through an incomprehensibly vast stretch of space-time. Hardly brings the thought of ordered design to mind, does it?

Originally posted by C Hess
But the universe isn't all that fine-tuned was the point of my post. According to Stenger, the parameters used to demonstrate a fine-tuned universe aren't as sensitive to change as apologists would have us believe (apparently), and Ross' argument is negated by the sheer number of tries. If you throw the cosmic dice as many times as there are stars, you're bou ...[text shortened]... nsibly vast stretch of space-time. Hardly brings the thought of ordered design to mind, does it?

The very fact that it is possible should tell you something! The number of
dice throws again is meaningless alone! I have been pointing out that the
only dice throws that matter can only be made in a fine tuned environment!
If you don’t have all that is required in the same place who cares how many
throws of the dice you have if all that is required are not next to one another?
If you don’t have it all the right amounts, who cares how many throws you
have, and so on!

Say you get all you need, under all the right conditions, if those conditions
are very favorable (fine-tuned) and then the environment changes and moves
into one bent on elimination does it matter? The environment has to be
continually fine-tuned to support life or life is not supported.

The window of getting everything from the grand things like gravity correct
down to the all the necessary ingredients under all the proper conditions,
even at a microscopic level is not something I believe you can show you
have limitless opportunities to achieve.

It is like the argument using a deck of cards (52), that odds of having 52
card show up in a specific order after being shuffled is tremendously large!
(I don’t recall how large and I’m not going to figure it out again) and yet
each time someone shuffled and dealt them they would show up in some
order proving it can be done. The trouble is that knowing the cards are
being shuffled and then dealt show that some order is going to happen and
those odds are 1, if you want to predict an order before hand, or require an
order beforehand then you run into the huge odds against it occurring
properly which is the real question we are asking! Knowing what little we
know can we say this is beyond an accident, or someone did it because to
much was just right and stayed that way!

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is like the argument using a deck of cards (52), that odds of having 52
card show up in a specific order after being shuffled is tremendously large!
(I don’t recall how large and I’m not going to figure it out again) and yet
each time someone shuffled and dealt them they would show up in some
order proving it can be done. The trouble is that knowing ...[text shortened]... is is beyond an accident, or someone did it because to
much was just right and stayed that way!

Taking your analogy further, we are looking at the universe after it was "shuffled" and realise that the "cards" can be in a whole lot of different orders, and still give "winning hands". We've been dealt a good hand. So?

Originally posted by C Hess
Taking your analogy further, we are looking at the universe after it was "shuffled" and realise that the "cards" can be in a whole lot of different orders, and still give "winning hands". We've been dealt a good hand. So?

That assumes a great deal!
It assumes that a hand can be dealt to give us the proper order!

Just looking at the odds and granting that it can be done looks to be beyond
numbers I can think of in my opinion when the whole universe from the
planets and stars all the way down the microscopic levels have to be
just right.


This does not take into account some things may require being placed in
specific orders that would never happen except through design. Which came
first protein or DNA? How did all right handed and left handed requirements
get met and never get broken? A lot of assumptions that all have to favor
your point of view. How fine tuned does all the universe have to be to setup
this little corner?

Originally posted by KellyJay
That assumes a great deal!
It assumes that a hand can be dealt to give us the proper order!

Just looking at the odds and granting that it can be done looks to be beyond
numbers I can think of in my opinion when the whole universe from the
planets and stars all the way down the microscopic levels have to be
just right.


This does not take into acc ...[text shortened]... our point of view. How fine tuned does all the universe have to be to setup
this little corner?

you believe that the universe is so complex it requires a designer........at the same time you hold the belief that your designer doesnt require a designer. how do you reconcile these contradictory beliefs?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you believe that the universe is so complex it requires a designer........at the same time you hold the belief that your designer doesnt require a designer. how do you reconcile these contradictory beliefs?

I believe the universe has a beginning and my God doesn't.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe the universe has a beginning and my God doesn't.

That doesn't address the question. Even if the universe always existed, if it looked like it does, the ID folks would say it had a designer. So why not God?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Why must God be simple if He is eternal? He requires an explanation for
me too, He has to be revealed and only He can do that. The universe as
far as I know has everyone claiming it has a beginning, so it isn't just me
suggesting that. Dealing with created things all day long every day as we
all do makes me think the universe practically screams it was/is a created
thing.

Originally posted by JS357
That doesn't address the question. Even if the universe always existed, if it looked like it does, the ID folks would say it had a designer. So why not God?

You are comparing apples to oranges in my opinion, as well as changing the
subject here. If the universe always existed why hasn't it wind down yet, it
would be a closed system on a grand scale, but closed nonetheless. I do not
call myself an ID folk, I label myself a creationist, there is a difference.

I think it is ID, but I believe it is a matter of faith not science that we all
have to go by. Having said that I believe those that are ID and those that
disagree with it are also people of faith, since they believe they know the
answers when in fact none of us really do we have just picked a side and
see what we want to.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are comparing apples to oranges in my opinion, as well as changing the
subject here. If the universe always existed why hasn't it wind down yet, it
would be a closed system on a grand scale, but closed nonetheless. I do not
call myself an ID folk, I label myself a creationist, there is a difference.

I think it is ID, but I believe it is a matter o ...[text shortened]...
answers when in fact none of us really do we have just picked a side and
see what we want to.

OK by me, I see that your faith is the basis of your belief about origins, not seeing order and design in the world. Thanks for straightening out my perceptions about you.

Originally posted by JS357
OK by me, I see that your faith is the basis of your belief about origins, not seeing order and design in the world. Thanks for straightening out my perceptions about you.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being... He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

(John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17 NASB)