Darkblade

I do not know what you meant by "quadruple gait". It did not exist in any of the 902 dictionaries that I searched (via One Look), and I could not properly define the phrase by splitting it into its two words; quadruple means "four", and gait means "manner of walking". (myself asking) Graciously, please tell me exactly what you meant.

It does seem like we humans will extinct ourselves. I liked your post. :notworthy

Refractor

Now, Fiach how about listing all the systems in the human body that work very *efficiently*. You can start at biochemical/cellular systems level, and work your way all the way up to the major organs. Once you're done, we can compare the lists to see which one is longer.

Hawkingfan

Yeah, please tell us how cancer cells seem to activate for no apparent reason. Please tell us why some of my endocrine organs "mysteriously have been attacked by my immune system" (quote from my doctor) and has given me hypothyroidism and diabetes.

Wyz_sub10

"Which one is longer" is irrelevant.

Obviously there will be more "efficient" systems that "inefficent" systems. That's part of what Natural Selection is all about. Inefficent systems won't be "chosen", but they can remain for a number of reasons.

If you are implying that these numerous "efficiencies" support an Intelligent Designer, then I would say the designer (if one existed) could be defined as adequate, but definitely not omni-anything.

Hey...I just invented a new "theory" of human exisitence - A.D. - Adequate Design.

Refractor

But all you proved by citing your specific examples is that some things may have *joint-causes*. That is fine and dandy, but it didn't undercut the main claim of my first premise-point, which is that almost all physical events have causes. Merely pointing out plurality within causation does not undercut that point. So there is no "unraveling" of my argument, at least not from the first-premise-point.



Above you said that every event has many causes. Now, if you claim that many events are the same as their cause(s), then you're basically saying the events caused themselves......that the events are both their own cause, and effect. Remember, I am not speaking of events/causes in the ontological sense, but only in the context of a causal relationship. If an event/effect is not separate and distinct from it's cause, then it is the SAME as it's cause. (in a causal relationship) If the effect is the same as it's cause(s), then the effect is self-caused, which is a logical/physical impossibility. So my premise-point 2 is sound, and remains unscathed by your arguments.


You keep claiming this, but have not SHOWN this so far. The only viable rock you've thrown at my argument is pointing out the fact that some events are the result of an interconnection of joint-causes. That's fine, but plurality of cause does not change my argument that nearly all events have causes, and that those causes are separate and distinct from the events, on the basis of *causal relationship*.


Yes, the initial universe was different than what it is today....but exactly how it was different is decisively unknown; there is simply no empirical evidence that proves what the conditions in the early universe were actually like. So no matter what ideology you prefer, all anyone has is speculation. But as a general rule of epistemology, we should make speculations about the unknown based on what is known, and that is exactly what my argument does.


Yes I can justify this claim, as I am doing now. Whether or not you choose to accept my justifications is another issue.


Oddly, It seems to me that you are arguing against Newton's principle that for every action there is an equal reaction. It seems you think Newton was just making "arbitrary" descriptions. Perhaps all human descriptions of physical phenomena are "arbitrary", in which case the entire institution of science is nothing but one big hairball of arbitrary descriptions and conclusions!! That is exactly where your argument leads, so I suggest you reevaluate it.


My argument never denied joint-causes, or a the reality of causal chains. But we can isolate primary causes in most cases. For example, the event of an apple falling is caused by gravity. The apply falling does not cause gravity, but gravity causes the apple to fall. Thus, we can rightly say that gravity is the primary cause of the event of the apple falling. In cases where an event is caused by numerous joint-causes, the primary cause simply resides further back on the causal chain, but it is still there nonetheless.


LOL No, the reason I have never observed these things is because there is no evidence to observe. There is no evidence for the existence of any kind of "natural process" that causes complex universes to pop into existence, or that originate complex lifeforms out of non-living matter. The idea of lifeforms coming out of non-living matter reminds me of the Dark Age superstition that postulated maggots were produced by rotting meat. A lot of naturalists believe this concept of "life out of non-life" has somehow become more plausible today, simply because modern theorists have dressed it up in fancy, "scientific-sounding" terminology. But I am not fooled. I'll believe non-living chemicals can produce single-celled organisms no more than I'll believe rotting meat can produce maggots.

Not true at all. I am not forcing the evidence to fit my notions for the simple fact that there is no evidence proving how the universe and lifeforms originated. I can't force "evidence" that *doesn't exist*. You are correct that there is an absence of DIRECT evidence. So ANY conclusions made about the origins of the universe and the origin of lifeforms are "preconceived notions" based on an absence of direct evidence. We are all in that boat together, whether you choose to believe it or not makes no difference. However, we do have quite a bit of INDIRECT evidence to make some predictions. As I have shown in my arguments, we have much indirect evidence for intelligent designers directly creating complex systems, and no evidence of blind natural processes directly creating complex systems.

So for any case where the cause of a complex system is unknown, my assumption that the cause was an intelligent designer is supported whereas your assumption that it was caused by a mindless natural process, is NOT supported.


Yes, you dismiss it and accept a "natural-process-of-the-gaps" invention instead. Thats going from the frying pan to the fire considering we have much indirect evidence for intelligent designers creating complex systems, but no evidence of blind natural processes directly creating complex systems.



Refractor

Refractor

That is irrelevant. It is intuitively obvious that you wouldn't be able to go out in the sun, eat, shit, sweat, breathe, digest, bleed, think, feel, see, hear, touch, smell, copulate, reproduce, walk, move, speak, type, etc., if it weren't for millions of biological systems and subsystems working *effeciently* in your body.

Case closed.

Mageth

Case closed.

You're right. The evolutionary process has generated physiological systems and subsystems that are efficient enough for us to be successful survivors and reproducers, including many systems and subsystems that are not as efficient as they could be (including many you list) but work well enough to get by, and even a few "vestigal" things that serve no real purpose but hang around anyway because there's not enough selection pressure to get rid of them yet.

Designed by a "designer"? I think not. Result of a long process where typically simpler systems and structures are modified and adapted to form new, sometimes more complex systems and structures? That fits what we observe.

Mageth

we have much indirect evidence for intelligent designers creating complex systems, ...

"Zero" is "much"?

...but no evidence of blind natural processes directly creating complex systems.

You know not of what you speak. That body of evidence is what lies behind the theory of Evolution, and it is a massive body of evidence indeed.

Refractor

Calling it a "smaller" problem is just your ideological prejudice talking. The fact is, it is actually a GREATER problem because there is no evidence that ANY quantum event can cause complex systems to come into existence. But we do have much evidence of intelligent designers causing complex systems to come into existence. So really, it is your quantum fantasies that represent the "bigger" problem.



An intelligently designed product, in most cases, has the inherent attribute of multiple-subsystems or sub-features that have to be corroboratively integrated to make a *specific* function possible. The universe and all lifeforms are RIFE with all kinds of corroboratively integrated systems/subsystems that make *specific* functions possible.



All you've done is argue that the intelligent designer of the universe and all lifeforms, is not human. And to that, I agree. It seems that your argument goes like this:

1) Any possible intelligent designers much have the exact same ideals as human designers.

2) The universe and some lifeforms have ideals that are not exactly compatible with human ideals.

3) Therefore, an intelligent designer for the universe and lifeforms is not possible.


Obviously, the problem with that argument is that premise-point #1 is totally false. There is no reason to think that all possible intelligent designers can only exist if they design things according to human ideals.



That's quite a statement considering the array of things we have seen humans intelligently design. We have seen intelligent designers design everything from yo-yo's to chemical weapons, nuclear bombs, etc. Some could argue that a complex device that is designed simply for the purpose of exploding into a million pieces could not be the product of "intelligence", yet we have thousands of bomb factories proving otherwise.

There are millions of antique car hobbyists who take pleasure in designing and building antique cars. Perhaps it is not "intelligent" to design cars that have passe, antiquated mechanics and design, yet millions of designers do. Perhaps it's not "intelligent" to randomly splatter a canvas with paint, yet millions of modern artists do.

The point is, we have seen intelligent designers design all kinds of different things, and "maixmum energetic efficiency" is not the only goal of designers. We see that intelligent designers design things based on many different motivations, ideals, and goals, so your argument that "maximum energetic effeiciency" MUST be the only goal of intelligent designers, is FALSE.


Refractor

Philosoft

Actually, all the evidence indicates that intelligent designers merely rearrange existing matter. No designer has ever caused anything to "come into existence."
I don't know about that. You can postulate all the intelligent designers you want, but unless you can come up with some way to generate matter, your engineers aren't going to have many Legos to work with.