LordReed:
I'd say we recognise design by 2 ways. First way we recognise design is by comparing it to something we already know is designed. Eg we know of no naturally occurring tables all tables we know are designed so when we see a table we have the experience of table to fall back on.

The other way we recognise design is by acknowledging a significant difference between a source material and a resultant product. Eg there are beautiful looking stone formations but we recognise a significant difference between them and sculptures made from stone because we acknowledge the change from mere stone to sculpture.

By 1960, there is nothing called smartphone, but centuries passed by the term smartphone becomes a household term. Would you say the 1st smartphone wasn't design?

Your second definition is an assumption with no substance. By natural formation stone wasn't stone in the first place. For example Zuma rock just stand out among other rocky place of that region.

0truthseeker:


By 1960, there is nothing called smartphone, but centuries passed by the term smartphone becomes a household term. Would you say the 1st smartphone wasn't design?

Your second definition is an assumption with no substance. By natural formation stone wasn't stone in the first place. For example Zuma rock just stand out among other rocky place of that region.

I don't understand the point of what you wrote. Can you be clearer?

Emusan:


What other precursor do you think?

Presence of specific functions for specific parts is another precursor that increases the likelihood of design.

Goldilock zone only shows those planets are in habitable region if other factors that support life are met.

Well, this reply address your "Right orbit" point. Not other life supporting factors.

It will be disastrous

I said, what would be the right miles/per and what are the implications? Elaborate?

Whether it's alien or not, what we know is that today we have right quantity amount of oxygen and nitrogen in air mixture and any change from either of this can proof whether oxygen is truly alien to earth.

This point disputes your idea of oxygen being a design inherent to earth, it implies a default state of earth with the right amount of oxygen.

This refutation shows Oxygen quantity isn't default to earth hence is consonant to your idea.

It shows these elements are following a lay down rules that didn't change from beginning because had it been they were not designed to be so, the probability that these things will continue to repeat their operations for million years (as some scientists believe) is Capital ZERO!

Work me through this maths that led you to reach 0 as an answer

shadeyinka:

Of course; humans are designed but not in isolation to every other thing.

I know you want to follow it up with your killer punch question: so, I'm waiting!

Hahaha killer punch.

I'd rather ask you explain yout first sentence "Humans are designed but not in isolation to every other thing"

Make me understand this better.

ThothHermes:
Patterns in the manner of the Divine proportion?
Yes. I'm sure about it.

Work me through this golden ratio, elaborate more on it

LordReed:


I don't understand the point of what you wrote. Can you be clearer?

Summary of his question is; Based on your definition of design marked by previous experience, it would imply that the first of everything ever made by man isn't design since there wasn't any prior experience of it.

Do you agree with this?

Example, the first phone ever built, you wouldn't know it was designed since there isn't a previous experience of it?

johnydon22:
Hahaha killer punch.

I'd rather ask you explain yout first sentence "Humans are designed but not in isolation to every other thing"

Make me understand this better.

Humans are a subset of primates, who are subsets of mammals, who are subsets of vertibrates, who are subsets of living beings who live on the earth that is a subset of our solar system, which is a subset of the milky ways...

NOT in Isolation!

johnydon22:


Summary of his question is; Based on your definition of design marked by previous experience, it would imply that the first of everything ever made by man isn't design since there wasn't any prior experience of it.

Do you agree with this?

Example, the first phone ever built, you wouldn't know it was designed since there isn't a previous experience of it?

Because the materials used to make it were transformed by agency which is the 2nd way we recognise design.

jesusjnr:
There can be no designer without a designed, and no designed without a material.

Therefore the material is very fundamental to recognizing a design, for a design can be recognized by comparing a designed material to an undesigned material.

For instance take clay, to be an undesigned material, and man, a designed material, and by comparing both the designed and undesigned material, the design can be recognized.

For one key factor that distinguishes between a designed material and an undesigned material is organization or arrangement.

Hence is the undesigned material of clay disorganized and disarranged, but the designed material of man very organized and well arranged.

It's similar to building and destroying, for while it takes a plan to build, to destroy doesn't require a plan, that's why it's easier to destroy than to build, because while building organizes, destroying disorganizes.

Moreover even among designed materials, there are more complex designs than others, and the more complex a design is, the more it makes a case that there must be a designer.

Hence the renowned scientist Isaac Newton opining that it was impossible for there not to be a designer, because of the extent of the organization and arrangement of the material he had seen, for it seemed a logical basis for him to opine so.

I mean even from practical perspective of our day to day lives, it's easy to tell a designed from an undesigned material, when we walk across the beach and we see sand disorganized and formless everywhere, we would not think it was designed because of how disorganized and formless the sand was.

But then we come across sand that has been formed in the image of man, with eyes, nose, ears, mouth, hands, legs etc., the extent of the organization of the material, compared to the disorganized form of the same material, would make it logical for us assume that it was actually designed and hence that there was a designer(man etc.) behind it.

So tell me, to what did you compare the universe to conclude thr universe is designed?

I.e: You think design can be inferred by comparing the design from the undesigned.

But for this comparison to happen, you must have already assumed one is designed and one isn't.

LordReed:


Because the materials used to make it were transformed by agency which is the 2nd way we recognise design.

I don't understand, explain.

shadeyinka:

Humans are a subset of primates, who are subsets of mammals, who are subsets of vertibrates, who are subsets of living beings who live on the earth that is a subset of our solar system, which is a subset of the milky ways...

NOT in Isolation!

So, evolution to you is a tool of design then huh? Not like God literally designed man from the scratch?

johnydon22:
I don't understand, explain.

From my first post

LordReed:

The other way we recognise design is by acknowledging a significant difference between a source material and a resultant product. Eg there are beautiful looking stone formations but we recognise a significant difference between them and sculptures made from stone because we acknowledge the change from mere stone to sculpture.

The materials used to make a phone under went a transformative process, without agency that would not have occurred.

johnydon22:


So, evolution to you is a tool of design then huh? Not like God literally designed man from the scratch?

No, it has nothing to do with evolution but with classification!

LordReed:


From my first post


The materials used to make a phone under went a transformative process, without agency that would not have occurred.

Ok: I do not agree with you though.

E.g: Human body is primarily made of Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen. Do you think the obvious transformation observed in these materials to get the end product of human body proof of agency in creation of humans?

johnydon22:


Ok: E.g: Human body is primarily made of Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen. Do you think the obvious transformation observed in this materials to get the end product of human body proof of agency in creation of humans?

Nope. Because the process involved in this transformation is natural ie following natural laws.

shadeyinka:

No, it has nothing to do with evolution but with classification!

In order words, you think humans were created from the scratch then?

johnydon22:
In order words, you think humans were created from the scratch then?

Humans were created from templates

LordReed:


Nope. Because the process involved in this transformation is natural ie following natural laws.

But both are Transformation processes of which you suggested implied agency?

I think we can agree now that transformation doesn't necessarily connote agency then.

I don't think there is any process of transformation you can think of now that don't follow natural laws though.

Ok, so now you saying that you can distinguish between transformation that involves agency and one that doesn't?

How do you make these distinctions, what are the things you observe from an object that tells you it is designed through intent or not?

shadeyinka:

Humans were created from templates

How, please explain.

johnydon22:
But both are Transformation processes of which you suggested implied agency?

I think we can agree now that transformation doesn't necessarily connote agency then.

I don't think there is any process of transformation you can think of now that don't follow natural laws though.

Ok, so now you saying that you can distinguish between transformation that involves agency and one that doesn't?

How do you make these distinctions, what are the things you observe from an object that tells you it is designed through intent or not?

I never said transformation indicates agency. Read what I wrote again.

Yes you can distinguish between transformations that require agency and those that don't as long as you allow that the natural physical laws are not agents or representatives of agency or else everything is designed and there is no useful distinction.

I already mentioned the 2 ways we recognise design and as you pointed out, design implies agency.

johnydon22:
How, please explain.

In programming, there is what is called code reuse: where a working code snippet is grafted into a new code rather than rewriting everything from the scratch.

Hence we humans have similarities with other living organisms in being made up of cells, red blood cells, sight, hearings, etc all these are not exclusive to humans.

LordReed:


I never said transformation indicates agency. Read what I wrote again.

"The materials used to make a phone under went a transformative process, without agency that would not have occurred."

Here you go.

Yes you can distinguish between transformations that require agency and those that don't as long as you allow that the natural physical laws are not agents or representatives of agency or else everything is designed and there is no useful distinction.

The question is, how do you recognize these distinctions?

I already mentioned the 2 ways we recognise design and as you pointed out, design implies agency.

Oh design implies agency alright, I'm still trying to understand how you recognize this agency hence design.

You haven't been able to show me this well enough.

When you say things like 1 transformation example follows natural laws, 1 doesn't, how did you conclude this? What does it mean?

Because when you look at a phone and say that the transformations in its materials did not happen through natural process (which we would assume for now precludes intent) you are by implication suggesting there are things you observe on this object that suggests these materials didn't follow the same natural transformation process - Design.

That's basically what i want to know.

shadeyinka:

In programming, there is what is called code reuse: where a working code snippet is grafted into a new code rather than rewriting everything from the scratch.

Hence we humans have similarities with other living organisms in being made up of cells, red blood cells, sight, hearings, etc all these are not exclusive to humans.

A car and a phone can be made of the same material, this isn't really saying much.


My question is; Are you saying humans were artistically created or designed from from the scratch?

I believe you are not been clear enough with your points

johnydon22:
A car and a phone can be made of the same material, this isn't really saying much.


My question is; Are you saying humans were artistically created or designed from from the scratch?

I believe you are not been clear enough with your points

At the Spiritual level I can tell you that man was uniquely designed.

At the Physical level however, I don't know!

Other than the fact that man has lots of unique features like bifocal sight, opposing thumb, slow reproductive maturity, big brain, bipedal....I can't say man was designed from an artistic point of view or designed from the scratch!

All the argument - to what end?

DeSepiero:
All the argument - to what end?

Enlightenment. Thats all that is worthy of bequeathal.

johnydon22:
Presence of specific functions for specific parts is another precursor that increases the likelihood of design.

Is still the same with orderliness. Don't forget those specific functions what set of rules each specific part must rely on.

Well, this reply address your "Right orbit" point. Not other life supporting factors.

If earth wasn't placed at the right orbit, it can't support life, true or false?

Besides, for planets not to switch their orbit is another design mind. Imagine, if Jupiter suddenly switch to earth orbit.

I said, what would be the right miles/per and what are the implications? Elaborate?

Earth is at the right mile/per hour now that's it could support life.

This point disputes your idea of oxygen being a design inherent to earth, it implies a default state of earth with the right amount of oxygen.

This refutation shows Oxygen quantity isn't default to earth hence is consonant to your idea.

It didn't!

Now let me ask you, if oxygen quantity isn't default, when last did it change?

Work me through this maths that led you to reach 0 as an answer

No math here, for something to be repeating itself million times shows it was designed that way.

No math to know that Manual transmission will continue in gear 1 till eternity if driver fails to switch while automatic transmission shows gear can be switched without driver's knowledge.

DeSepiero:
All the argument - to what end?

1. Enjoyment
2. Enlightenment
3. Joy of convincing others
4. Need to share your thought.

Everyone has their own reason for engaging and the process of engaging.

Emusan:


Is still the same with orderliness. Don't forget those specific functions what set of rules each specific part must rely on.

Something can be ordered and still not have specific parts with specific functions. A circle is an ordered pattern.

A circle can come as a result of conscious intent - design

And it also can come from a random process even chaotic ones if you will.

If earth wasn't placed at the right orbit, it can't support life, true or false?

I actually do not know. We are carbon based life, so we can't really conclusively assert what and how life could exist based on our experiences on earth.

Life could happen anywhere even on Jupiter.

Heck, Titan is one of the biggest candidates based on our own standards to possess life in this solar system and it's not even close to where the earth is.

Now imagine a universe with so many planets we don't even have the number to quantify it. You can't possibly account for the right conditiond necessary for life except for the type of life that you are used except you are saying that life can only possibly happen one way.

Besides, for planets not to switch their orbit is another design mind. Imagine, if Jupiter suddenly switch to earth orbit.

Lol. The bigger pointet to conscious intent would be if the planets switched suddenly without apparent physical cause.

Earth is at the right mile/per hour now that's it could support life.

What mile/per would be wrong?

It didn't!

Now let me ask you, if oxygen quantity isn't default, when last did it change?

The time bacteria first evolved

No math here, for something to be repeating itself million times shows it was designed that way.

No math to know that Manual transmission will continue in gear 1 till eternity if driver fails to switch while automatic transmission shows gear can be switched without driver's knowledge.

So, you reached a quantifiable variable of 0 for a probability problem but couldn't show the logical deductions (maths) that led to that conclusion?

That's not a good way to make a case of your argument being valid bro.

shadeyinka:

At the Spiritual level I can tell you that man was uniquely designed.

At the Physical level however, I don't know!

Other than the fact that man has lots of unique features like bifocal sight, opposing thumb, slow reproductive maturity, big brain, bipedal....I can't say man was designed from an artistic point of view or designed from the scratch!

So, it is possible that man wasn't designed at a physical level then?

johnydon22:
"The materials used to make a phone under went a transformative process, without agency that would not have occurred."

Here you go.

The question is, how do you recognize these distinctions?

Oh design implies agency alright, I'm still trying to understand how you recognize this agency hence design.

You haven't been able to show me this well enough.

When you say things like 1 transformation example follows natural laws, 1 doesn't, how did you conclude this? What does it mean?

Because when you look at a phone and say that the transformations in its materials did not happen through natural process (which we would assume for now precludes intent) you are by implication suggesting there are things you observe on this object that suggests these materials didn't follow the same natural transformation process - Design.

That's basically what i want to know.

It boils down to experience. You have in one way or another experienced what raw materials are like and they do not look like anything a conscious agent has done work on. You will be able to distinguish between a pile of twigs and a birds nest because a bird's nest doesn't not appear as disordered as a pile of twigs.

Again I refer you to the example of the alien stone technology. With no experience of stone technology you will have no way of knowing the difference between a natural occurring stone or one that is an alien designed object.

Unfortunately, there is no way to divorce ourselves from the sum total of our experiences in other to test if we would still be able to recognise design without it. The fact remains that we are pattern seeking beings and we match patterns with other patterns so that we can understand what we are perceiving.

For the distinction between natural transformations and the ones which are designed, let me approach it like this. We have over time observed the natural world and we understand that the physical laws work to produce the material universe that we observe. These laws have worked without any intervention we are aware of so we call these things natural. Now when we observe agents interacting with the world, we see that what they do has impact on the natural world that would not be there if those agents were not there. This is the baseline for the way we recognise that transformations different from the natural world have occurred. As no doubt you've probably been asked or seen, if you put all the constituent parts of a car in a yard and allow a tornado rage inside that yard for a million years will a car emerge? No it won't because the effects of natural process are different from the effects of an agent.

So again it boils down to experience, either of something similar or of the raw materials making up the object.

johnydon22:
Something can be ordered and still not have specific parts with specific functions. A circle is an ordered pattern.

A circle can come as a result of conscious intent - design

And it also can come from a random process even chaotic ones if you will.

See the way you're just contradicting yourself.
Doesn't circle have a specific function?

A random event can produce circle, that's true! But how many times if repeated with the same event produces a circle? That's the point.

I actually do not know. We are carbon based life, so we can't really conclusively assert what and how life could exist based on our experiences on earth.

Life could happen anywhere even on Jupiter.

Heck, Titan is one of the biggest candidates based on our own standards to possess life in this solar system and it's not even close to where the earth is.

Now imagine a universe with so many planets we don't even have the number to quantify it. You can't possibly account for the right conditiond necessary for life except for the type of life that you are used except you are saying that life can only possibly happen one way.

After you've established that you're a carbon based life, you went further to contradict yourself. You said life could happen even in Jupiter yet no scientists will ever made that statement.

So what stop other planets to have life?

Lol. The bigger pointet to conscious intent would be if the planets switched suddenly without apparent physical cause.

Physical cause is dead to a random event.

What mile/per would be wrong?

Anything less/high than what earth is now.

The time bacteria first evolved

What was the quantity of oxygen then and since when does the one we have now stabilized?

Why is the quantity does change again?

So, you reached a quantifiable variable of 0 for a probability problem but couldn't show the logical deductions (maths) that led to that conclusion?

That's not a good way to make a case of your argument being valid bro.

On what basis did I draw my first probability?

It's evident you didn't grab my point then...

This is my statement again!

"It shows these elements are following a lay down rules that didn't change from beginning because had it been they were not designed to be so, the probability that these things will continue to repeat their operations for million years (as some scientists believe) is Capital ZERO!"