How does this suggest design? Design is not the default fall back hypothesis.
"Fair. It is NOT the default but is it that you simply dismiss the use of “transcendent creation event?” After all, transcendent does imply that the meaning or definition of the event lies beyond the ordinary range of perception, does it not? Further, do we know everything about the beginning? Scientifically speaking we most assuredly do not.
I don't really care about the word transcendent. What I object to is the IDist contention that if we can not currently explain something fully, then we must accept ID as the only possible explanation. That is why I mentioned it as the default. If IDists want us to accept that it is the result of ID, they have to develop an hypothesis, collect evidence for such and show their work. All that they do now is attempt to show Cosmology incorrect, based on a 'feeling' that it looks designed.
3. fine-tuning of Earth's, the Solar System's and the Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
That is irrelevant already. The only way this claim has any meaning is if this particular planet, in this particular solar system, in this particular galaxy was the 'target'. There are billions of galaxies which contain billions of stars, a high percentage of which, could possibly support life. If only one planet of the billions possible supported life, that is where we would be.
"How is this irrelevant already? The fine tuning is specific to our planet and we have heard many times the specificity involved in its precision related to its distance from the Sun, the rotation speed, and other like facts. Its too precise to be relegated to mere chance, a chance which to be achieved would be on an order we could not possibly calculate. That is fine tuning, is it not?
This presupposes that this particular planet is the only planet Humans could possibly exist on. Note that I said planet, not conditions. This is not easy to explain, at least for me, but I'll give it a try. To do so I'll have to use a bit of an analogy. We have several billion unremarkable silver balls out of which we will chose one for special treatment - it will have a blue spot on it. We randomly place the balls into a box that contains a wooden floor with indentations only large enough to keep the balls from rolling once captured by the indentation. A marksman a hundred metres away takes a shot at the box of balls with a paint ball gun loaded with blue paint.
Now in your scenario, we would have to go over to the box and pick a specific ball to be the 'chosen one' before the marksman takes his shot. For this particular ball to get hit by the paint ball in my made up little example would be remarkable. The odds for it would be microscopic.
In a more realistic scenario, considering we now know many stars have planets, we would not pick a single specific ball to be the 'chosen one' but make the ball that was actually hit the 'chosen one'.
In other words, the reason our planet has the right conditions for life is because the conditions occurred first, and the life (us) resulted from those conditions.
4. rapidity of life's origin
The beginning of life is only considered rapid when held to the contrived probability calculations that completely ignore initial conditions. This is again not an indication of intelligent design. Many of the necessary chemicals necessary for life are found in space.
"How do you know this? We have a thing called the Cambrian Explosion where much appeared in a small space of time relatively speaking…why is it that rapidity of life can not be considered in the same way? I am curious to this and I may be understanding it wrong.
I had assumed the author was referring specifically to abiogenesis. The probability calculations I have seen that purport to disprove abiogenesis make a lot of bad assumptions and ignore probable initial conditions. If more realistic initial conditions are used in the calculation the probability changes dramatically. This is another case where IDists use the default of ID.
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
What does this mean? Oil forms from organics.
"You’re willing to say that all oil has formed from this? Or am I missing your question here? I confess I don’t fully know what the lack of inorganic kerogen would mean completely.
No, I just do not understand what the manner of oil development has to do with proof of ID.
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
It has not been shown that complexity only derives from intelligence, in fact complexity has not been consistently defined in this area.
"It at least does suggest that chance evolution would be all that much harder or are you going to say that it does not?
Evolution is not really 'chance'. What 'variation' occurs in the genome at any given time may be pseudo-random, but the various types of selection are not random in any sense of the word. IDists use apparent complexity as an indication of design. They make an unwarranted assumption that only intelligences can produce what appears to be design. Before they can use complexity as a measure of a designer, they have to show, unequivocally, that complexity is exclusive to intelligence. As it stands, we've seen nature produce complexity that 'looks' designed.
7. Cambrian explosion (sudden appearance of most species during same time period) This one isn't even close. The Cambrian explosion was hardly an explosion, it was ~50 million years long. The explosion was not an explosion.
"It was formerly less that 14 million years long and only recently has come into contention of being 40 million years in length beginning at 570 mil yrs ago to 530 mil yrs ago. In the great scheme of things relative to the period of time evolution claims to have proceeded, from one form to another, this is still a very rapid developing period. Moreover, why did it not continue on the same pace? Is it not a fair question?
This is a fair question, but remember the author is trying to show these points are evidence of design. I am simply pointing out problems with his assumptions.
Those that promote the Cambrian explosion as an indication of ID make the divergence out to be much faster and more dramatic than it was. It has been known for a long time, as shown by the fossil evidence after an extinction event, and by extant organisms when ecological niches are emptied of native organisms that life differentiates rapidly to fill the empty niches. At the time of the Cambrian, the majority of the earth was empty. Life had the largest number of empty niches to fill in the Earth's history.
Evolution has never proceeded at a constant rate; even Darwin knew this.
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
Horizontal branches?
"The fossil record is vast, is it not? Does not the record have layer upon layer and in each layer we have many things? Yet some exist in places there is conflicting evidence asto what should and should not be there. In fairness we do not know it in total yet. In so much as we are still looking at what the record contains with a degree of certainty does it not have areas where some fossils should be but are not? Is this, perhaps, what he refers to?
Indeed, there are many holes in the fossil record and it would be nice to have more, but the sparseness of the fossil record is expected. As far as I know there are no areas where there is conflicting data. There are a number of fossil groups that there is disagreement as to where they should be placed in the phylogenic tree, but they do not conflict with other fossil groups.
I really have no idea what horizontal branches in the fossil record means.
9. placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
The frequency and placement of cetartiodactyl fossil transitionals is as close to perfect as we can expect. In some cases the fossils are of sister species rather than parent/daughter species, but the lineage is still indicative of a well defined transition between an atiodactyl and a cetacean. The claim that there are no transitional fossils is a typical creationist 'faint hope' defense.
"But…not perfect…right? So, Possible, could be a term used here? Take a look at the following and let me know what you thing Click here
The transition in fossils in a number of lines, including those of the cetartiodactyls, show much more than just 'possible' connections. If those fossils just showed one or two transitional features, there would be room for doubt. In the case of whales, we have a continuous line of fossils that show 1) an elongation of the head, 2) movement of the head/neck joint from the lower rear to rear position, 3) movement of the nostrils from the front of the snout to the top of the head, 4) change in the ear from above water use to below water use, 5) change in leg length from long to short in the front, and gone in the back, 6) change in back leg/pelvis connection from connected to unconnected, 7) change in spine from rigid to flexible. There are a few more shared features that I won't bother to list, I think this is enough for a start.
There are a number of errors in the link you provided but this post is not the venue to address them.
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
The designer caused massive volcanic eruptions and collisions with large chunks of extraterrestrial rocks and ice?
"A designed nature that runs its course can possibly have volcanoes…or can it not? Are you saying on this instance that you then believe in a creator and that He or she was wrong to have done this? Or maybe HAD to do this?
I just do not understand how extinctions which were caused by unforeseeable catastrophes are arguments for ID. A supernatural creator could indeed cause them, but ID claims to be a supernatural free zone, so it doesn't mesh.
13. duration of time windows for different species
What does this even mean?
"I took it to mean the period of time species existed and disappeared.
I don't follow how this relates to evidence for ID. I'm not even sure what a 'time window' is in this context.
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
What does this mean?
"1. Well, here is the definition of symbiosys: Biology. A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member. 2. A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.
Yes, but how does the frequency, extent and repetition provide evidence of ID over evolution? 15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
Explained very well in Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene'. Think 'kin selection'.
"I will see if I can find this and read it.
17. recent origin of humanity (as opposed to common descent)
Recent origin? 200,000 years for Homo sapiens sapiens is recent? A line of fossils showing a stepwise change in morphology going back 6 million years is recent?
"Of course I would have to accept that the evolutionist version of creation of the species is the measure here. This is your presumption.
For the arguments made by the author the ages are a given. A young earth is not part of his argument as far as I can tell.
18. huge biodeposits (needed to sustain humanity)
How is this evidence of a designer?
"Would they not have to be Present for a designer to use?
Biodeposits are an inevitable result of evolution. There is no need to assume a designer.
Garbage, you deny it fine you demand evidence it may well get presented to you but so far most folks I see vehemently against ID are themselves calling it juck science in a very dismissive fashion. Not really in a fair and objective sense. You would be less than honest to not agree that Evolution theory has a lot of questions unanswered, it raises a lot of questions in its own findings and some of it is hypothesis...is it not? Or are you willing to tell me evolution theory has every answer? If not then you are no different here. You demand that Evolution Theory (ET) is the ONLY answer and it has to fit a lot of what you already know yet you do not see any of it as possibly wrong when all the time the corporate knoweldge on the subject is being revised and in some cases dashing previous rock-solid theory and present whole new ones. Age of the earth was nearly doubled by a mistake in measurement...was it not? And I am sure you can tell me of others. Evolution does not have all the answers, and even with the limitations on our scientific capability ID does not have it all either...which is why it is a theory in work JUST like evolution theory.
This presupposes that this particular planet is the only planet Humans could possibly exist on. Note that I said planet, not conditions. This is not easy to explain, at least for me, but I'll give it a try. To do so I'll have to use a bit of an analogy.
Where does it limit the earth as the only one? In this system it is a fact...I do not see that ID says only earth in the whole universe though I do not doubt some say that. I very much agree that life could exist elsewhere but that the human existance right now can only be proven to exist here and the earth MUST be where it is for this to happen.
Evolution is not really 'chance'. What 'variation' occurs in the genome at any given time may be pseudo-random, but the various types of selection are not random in any sense of the word. IDists use apparent complexity as an indication of design. They make an unwarranted assumption that only intelligences can produce what appears to be design. Before they can use complexity as a measure of a designer, they have to show, unequivocally, that complexity is exclusive to intelligence. As it stands, we've seen nature produce complexity that 'looks' designed.
Where can evolution prove that chance or selection made the simple complex? It cannot...it relies on chances being good that the right things happened at the right time and place. How did organisms evolve to the point where they needed an eye if there was none before it required? While only one question it does beg an answer. We can not find a lot of such questions answered with certainty at all. Thsi alone amazes me and yet I think you have as much faith in chance as I do a designer on the subject.
The transition in fossils in a number of lines, including those of the cetartiodactyls, show much more than just 'possible' connections. If those fossils just showed one or two transitional features, there would be room for doubt. In the case of whales, we have a continuous line of fossils that show 1) an elongation of the head, 2) movement of the head/neck joint from the lower rear to rear position, 3) movement of the nostrils from the front of the snout to the top of the head, 4) change in the ear from above water use to below water use, 5) change in leg length from long to short in the front, and gone in the back, 6) change in back leg/pelvis connection from connected to unconnected, 7) change in spine from rigid to flexible. There are a few more shared features that I won't bother to list, I think this is enough for a start.
It is not evidence of evolution it is evidence of variation. Let me ask you this....are all dogs related? If yes, you will find variations like what you say, if no then you arguing that evolution exists in a fabulous form right in front of our eyes...but I dont hear ET folks saying that.
Indeed, there are many holes in the fossil record and it would be nice to have more, but the sparseness of the fossil record is expected. As far as I know there are no areas where there is conflicting data. There are a number of fossil groups that there is disagreement as to where they should be placed in the phylogenic tree, but they do not conflict with other fossil groups.
Are there not incidences of fossils found in the same layers that have been determined to not be of the same period? I have heard the dinosaur footprint / man footprint but thats not what I am refering to, I am talking about the existance of fosile record where a man and a dinosaur have been found in the same layer. Has this not happened? Does it not conflict at points?
I just do not understand how extinctions which were caused by unforeseeable catastrophes are arguments for ID. A supernatural creator could indeed cause them, but ID claims to be a supernatural free zone, so it doesn't mesh.
A Supernatural free zone?? How could this be? A designer by definition has to have powers greater than the created. I am sure on this point we will simply disagree on faith issues but I find it hard to see how a designer of what we know in our universe to be bound by the rules we are goverened by, Physics and such.
Forgive me if I missed anything, our post-repost is getting quite long, but I do appreciate your replies.