Did Dr. Ross Fudge The Facts?

[Gman]

This is a purely mundane phenomenon, no?

Phenomenal to whom? The interpreter?

[DD_8630]

I remember seeing a video on YouTube by an atheist. He got a packet of sugar, poured it into the pan, showed on camera how they landed and then sarcastically remarked something along the lines of: "Wow, the odds of all those grains of sugar landing in the exact way they did is astronomically improbable. We've witnessed a miracle. Well not really, but it happened nonetheless." There is no significance however to the result. If on the other hand, he poured the sugar into the pan and then the camera showed a smiley face as the result, surely it would only be an entirely gullible person who would believe the grains of sugar actually did land in that arrangement without any intelligent involvement designing it?

The Face of Mars begs to differ:



This is a purely mundane phenomenon, no?

Begs to differ to what? You just prove my point. You would not have used that example if we knew it was designed. Obviously closer investigations reveal it was not.

Exactly: something which appears to be 'obviously' designed is, under more careful analysis, not designed at all. Something which seems to improbable to have occurred by chance alone can be just that: an improbable chance occurrence.

On the other hand, if this means you would believe a smiley face formed from grains of sugar being poured into a pan, then I think this plays well to my point about gullibility.

I think many would love to play a game of cards or dice with you.

Though all combinations are equally likely, some are more favourable than others. Thus, they are selected for .

I daresay the point of the video was to show that we shouldn't always be surprised that a highly improbable event occurred. There are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. These dramatically increases the odds of there being at least one habitable planet, especially given the versatility of life.

The point of the video I believe was that every event is improbable, so we should not be surprised when the improbable happens. However, it failed to deal with significant improbable events.

Then the video is flawed: not all events have the same probability (or improbability). Can you link me to it, that I might watch it myself?

Furthermore, I'd direct you to a book called Rare Earth for your claim that the many stars and galaxies in our universe "dramatically increases the odds of there being at least one habitable planet, especially given the versatility of life." Wikipedia also provides a rundown.

I'm aware of the hypothesis, and Wikipedia gives a basic rundown of why I don't put much stock in it.

While counter-intuitive, the improbable becomes inevitable as the number of trials tends to infinity (and beyond). That's why it's no surprise that someone wins the lottery: though it's improbable for any one person to win, there are enough trials to overcome this.

And yet, we only know of one universe - ours.

Which may make it seem that the cosmological constant had only one trial in which to acquire a 'habitable' value. But this assumes that the cosmological constant is can take any value

[DD_8630]

This is a purely mundane phenomenon, no?

Phenomenal to whom? The interpreter?

Phenomenon, not phenomenal. It's an observable feature of reality, not the philosophical counterpart to noumenon.

[Gman]

It's an observable feature of reality, not the philosophical counterpart to noumenon.

Exactly the point.. It's an "observable" feature of reality based upon a set of preconceived conditions or beliefs of the observer. Upon further observation, however, the faces were actually just mounds of dirt. There was no biological order to it, much like picking faces out of the clouds...

[DD_8630]

It's an observable feature of reality, not the philosophical counterpart to noumenon.

Exactly the point.. It's an "observable" feature of reality based upon a set of preconceived conditions or beliefs of the observer. Upon further observation, however, the faces were actually just mounds of dirt. There was no biological order to it, much like picking faces out of the clouds...

The point was that phenomena that, at first glance, 'prove' the existence of an intelligence, often do nothing of the sort.

Kurieuo said that, if sugar poured idly into a pan resembled a smiley face, no sane person could deny the influence of an external intelligence ("If ... he poured the sugar into the pan and ... showed a smiley face as the result, surely it would only be an entirely gullible person who would believe the grains of sugar actually did land in that arrangement without any intelligent involvement designing it?").

I was pointing out that this can and does occur without any intelligence involved, be it the Face of Mars or, as you say, faces in clouds.

The brain is a pattern recognising machine, and it is exceptionally good at find them.

[Kurieuo]

I can not find the video which I believe was likely linked to from here on this board.

The fact we were able to distinguish the face was just mounds of dirt I reckon argues in my favour. However, Gman makes good points, the sum of which I understand to be that the appearance of design is a subjective matter to the observer. Some will miss it, others will see it.

You are also right - sometimes preconceived notions will be read into the object being observed (for example, clouds, Mars face, etc), however there are objective methods employed and each person's common sense intuition serves as a good baloney filter. Many did not believe the face on mars was actually the production of intelligence including myself. How did we know this? Well many things in the world display pseudo-design characteristics.

Despite this, sciences are able to still detect intelligence behind ancient artifacts and we definitely know Mount Rushmore was no accident. Right? If all you say was true, anyone unfamiliar with how such things appeared would have to hold off on their conclusions that it was intelligently designed. We could never know because we could never know the complete facts (which is in fact true of everything we know). However, to live this way is counter intuitive and by no means practical.

My intuition says the fine-tuning required for life, an Earth such of ours, and even in what would be rather mundane to you such as the beauty and complexity of animals, procreation where a male and female must exist to produce offspring, plant life and the diversity of all these things, all these things scream out to me of a powerful being such as God.

It has been said that evolution allowed the Atheist to be fully satisfied. It is the story for Atheists who do not see design, or who would be prefer to ignore it for some reason or another. For those that do see it, such design is evident in just about everything. The Atheist takes such for granted and appears to me to write off such design elements by willingly subsuming them into their story of origins. It allows the Atheist to feel rationally justified in their beliefs of no God. However, to those who do not follow the Atheist's story, perhaps here and there our own preconceived notions does read design into the things around us (just as the Athiest's own prejudices would be read into ignoring the design in things around us), however I think we are justified and more free when it comes to making judgments and accepting that which appears to be plainly designed. And if one thing is not designed, well there are plenty other parts that shout for God being behind it all.

So I guess we are at an impasse. I see design, and you don't. It is really that simple. Fine-tuning arguments for this reason are no good for those who do not believe the world is designed. They are however beneficial for those who are on the fence or see the design evident in the world around them. Those this board and website is intended for.

[DD_8630]

I can not find the video which I believe was likely linked to from here on this board.

The fact we were able to distinguish the face was just mounds of dirt I reckon argues in my favour.

I disagree. It shows that our intuition is not sufficient: what we intuitively guess can often be very wrong indeed. The child 'knows' that there is something scary in the dark, despite what their objective analysis concludes.

However, Gman makes good points, the sum of which I understand to be that the appearance of design is a subjective matter to the observer. Some will miss it, others will see it.

I disagree, again . We can point to things which look designed, and we can then go over and investigate whether that is the case. With the Face of Mars, the conclusion is: no. It turned out to be a curious geographical formation. Remarkable, but not the product of an intelligence.

On the other hand, when we look at a Stradivarius, the conclusion is: yes. The evidence is quite convincing indeed that Stradivariuses are the product of an intelligence.

The differences are quite objective.

You are also right - sometimes preconceived notions will be read into the object being observed (for example, clouds, Mars face, etc), however there are objective methods employed and each person's common sense intuition serves as a good baloney filter. Many did not believe the face on mars was actually the production of intelligence including myself. How did we know this? Well many things in the world display pseudo-design characteristics.

Precisely .

It has been said that evolution allowed the Atheist to be fully satisfied. It is the story for Atheists who do not see design, or who would be prefer to ignore it for some reason or another. For those that do see it, such design is evident in just about everything. The Atheist takes such for granted and appears to me to write off such design elements by willingly subsuming them into their story of origins. It allows the Atheist to feel rationally justified in their beliefs of no God. However, to those who do not follow the Atheist's story, perhaps here and there our own preconceived notions does read design into the things around us (just as the Athiest's own prejudices would be read into ignoring the design in things around us), however I think we are justified and more free when it comes to making judgments and accepting that which appears to be plainly designed. And if one thing is not designed, well there are plenty other parts that shout for God being behind it all.

Can you give an example of such a thing? It To call it a momentous discovery would be an understatement.

So I guess we are at an impasse. I see design, and you don't. It is really that simple.

True, but that doesn't mean you can't convince me, or vice versa. That's the whole point of discussion and debate: to find out why people believe what they believe, because it may turn out that their beliefs are well justified. I would be happy to embrace the belief of an intelligent designer, if evidence could be presented.

If we can objectively determine that something is designed, that is sufficient evidence of a designer, no?

Fine-tuning arguments for this reason are no good for those who do not believe the world is designed. They are however beneficial for those who are on the fence or see the design evident in the world around them. Those this board and website is intended for.

Judging by the title, this board is to provide scientific evidence of God. Such evidence should convince any rational person, regardless of their initial stance. Indeed, basing one's opinions on the evidence is why science is so good at what it does, and why scientists aren't afraid to say "Whoops, we got it wrong!". It's not for nothing I have the following quote in my signature:

"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."

[Byblos]

It's not for nothing I have the following quote in my signature:
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."

So what do you see when you look at DNA on one side and the Mona Lisa on the other?

[DD_8630]

It's not for nothing I have the following quote in my signature:
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."

So what do you see when you look at DNA on one side and the Mona Lisa on the other?

I see an exquisitely complex biological molecule to my left, and beautiful work of art to my right. There is good reason to believe that the Mona Lisa is the product of an intelligence (namely, Leonardo da Vinci), not least because we have no other explanation for its existence. The evidence pertaining to the molecule, on the other hand, points to a far more mundane (but nonetheless elegant) explanation: 3.5 billion years of evolution by natural selection.

[Byblos]

It's not for nothing I have the following quote in my signature:
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."

So what do you see when you look at DNA on one side and the Mona Lisa on the other?

I see an exquisitely complex biological molecule to my left, and beautiful work of art to my right. There is good reason to believe that the Mona Lisa is the product of an intelligence (namely, Leonardo da Vinci), not least because we have no other explanation for its existence. The evidence pertaining to the molecule, on the other hand, points to a far more mundane (but nonetheless elegant) explanation: 3.5 billion years of evolution by natural selection.

Surely you must admit that DNA is far more complex than a bunch of colors on a canvas. Why then do you not afford the same skepticism (at a minimum) as to origin when it comes to DNA? If you could just for a moment step out of everything you know except the power of deduction, and truly objectively (to the extent possible) look at the 2 side by side, would you not agree with me that you'd be much more impressed with DNA than you would be with the painting? Do you think your conclusion would be any different?

[DD_8630]

Surely you must admit that DNA is far more complex than a bunch of colors on a canvas.

I do.

Why then do you not afford the same skepticism (at a minimum) as to origin when it comes to DNA?

I do. What makes you think I don't?

If you could just for a moment step out of everything you know except the power of deduction, and truly objectively (to the extent possible) look at the 2 side by side, would you not agree with me that you'd be much more impressed with DNA than you would be with the painting? Do you think your conclusion would be any different?

I am more impressed by the intricacy and complexity of a DNA molecule than the Mona Lisa (though the latter is still magnificent). But this in itself is not grounds to invoke a designer.

[Byblos]

Surely you must admit that DNA is far more complex than a bunch of colors on a canvas.

I do.

Why then do you not afford the same skepticism (at a minimum) as to origin when it comes to DNA?

I do. What makes you think I don't?

If you could just for a moment step out of everything you know except the power of deduction, and truly objectively (to the extent possible) look at the 2 side by side, would you not agree with me that you'd be much more impressed with DNA than you would be with the painting? Do you think your conclusion would be any different?

I am more impressed by the intricacy and complexity of a DNA molecule than the Mona Lisa (though the latter is still magnificent). But this in itself is not grounds to invoke a designer.

Yet that is exactly the conclusion you arrive at when you look at the Mona Lisa (that it was the work of a designer) but for DNA you claim it's the work of natural selection. How do you objectively arrive at such divergent opinions, knowing DNA is far more complex? Is it possible your own prejudices are coming into play? (please don't take it offensively, it's not meant as such. Obviously we all have our own prejudices).

[Gman]

Judging by the title, this board is to provide scientific evidence of God. Such evidence should convince any rational person, regardless of their initial stance. Indeed, basing one's opinions on the evidence is why science is so good at what it does, and why scientists aren't afraid to say "Whoops, we got it wrong!". It's not for nothing I have the following quote in my signature:

"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."

Get what wrong? It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance... Our current public science cannot and will not accept any other view. They cannot get it wrong because there is no other view... It has been spot-welded and it cannot be changed.

Ok, so show us where your science has recently revealed new body designs, speciation or the appearance of a new biological phyla of animals? It seems that the evidence has revealed the subtraction of information but no "new" information given. This does not provide the necessary scientific evidence needed for the Darwinism to survive... That in itself should be enough evidence to refute your claim...

[DD_8630]

I am more impressed by the intricacy and complexity of a DNA molecule than the Mona Lisa (though the latter is still magnificent). But this in itself is not grounds to invoke a designer.

Yet that is exactly the conclusion you arrive at when you look at the Mona Lisa (that it was the work of a designer) but for DNA you claim it's the work of natural selection. How do you objectively arrive at such divergent opinions, knowing DNA is far more complex?

Because we have a well-evidenced theory for how DNA molecules formed without an overarching intelligence, and we have a well-evidenced theory for how the Mona Lisa was formed by an intelligence. We have no such theory for how DNA was formed by an intelligence, nor how the Mona Lisa was formed without an intelligence.

Is it possible your own prejudices are coming into play? (please don't take it offensively, it's not meant as such. Obviously we all have our own prejudices).

Which prejudices are you talking about, specifically?

[DD_8630]

Judging by the title, this board is to provide scientific evidence of God. Such evidence should convince any rational person, regardless of their initial stance. Indeed, basing one's opinions on the evidence is why science is so good at what it does, and why scientists aren't afraid to say "Whoops, we got it wrong!". It's not for nothing I have the following quote in my signature:

"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."

Get what wrong?

Classical mechanics, spontaneous generation, etc.

It is currently illegal to view any other theory accept naturalism based on chance...

I'm very sorry to hear that. Which country do you live in, and to which law are you referring? It appears to be a gross violation of your fundamental human rights.

Ok, so show us where your science has recently revealed new body designs, speciation or the appearance of a new biological phyla of animals?

I cannot. But since no one's claimed that such events have occurred, I don't see your point.

The obvious exception is speciation: we've documented the evolution of a great many new species, both in the wild and in the lab.

It seems that the evidence has revealed the subtraction of information but no "new" information given.

Information? There's no such thing as 'information' in evolution. But we have seen the evolution of complex, specific traits in the past 150 years since Darwin's original publication (a population of E. coli evolved to ingest and metabolise citrus, for instance, without any human interference).

This does not provide the necessary scientific evidence needed for the Darwinism to survive... That in itself should be enough evidence to refute your claim...

Darwinism? There is no such thing, any more than there is Einsteinism, Newtonism, Aristotleism, etc. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence for the common ancestry of life (which is what I assume you meant by 'Darwinism').