how do we detect intelligent design?

[none]

strangely I remember the expansion being greater than the speed of light before this current trend of expansion... meh maybe 14 billion years ago and the duration of that faster than light expansion is too fold a memory that I do not recall.

[maritime]

8lives

Ok, so those links above are about cooling particles to suspend movement supposedly.

But that has little to do with the hot, dense state that the universe was in pre-expansion.

^no, more about there is no motionless state
Oh, yes, it has everything to do with what set what into motion

[maritime]

strangely I remember the expansion being greater than the speed of light before this current trend of expansion... meh maybe 14 billion years ago and the duration of that faster than light expansion is too fold a memory that I do not recall.

We were there, for sure.

[none]

lol, I'm only 13 billion years old in my memory... prior to that was a lot of guesswork...
^note^ there is insufficient data to suggest that there ever was a motionless state..
if there was some point of crossover that would be "interesting"

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Well, even though I don't fully understand the answer, it seems to address your question about what characteristics are products of design. 

yes, it is an attempt, but cites dubious reasoning and debunked theories.

Why do you think specified complexity does not indicate design?

[Kiahanie]

The longer a critter is in a stable environment the more likely it will approach optimization.

so then what is optimaztion?

fecundity?

longevity?

largest size?

longest lasting stable form?

shortest lasting unstable form?

i dont know what to look for, really.

I would start with saying a critter optimized for its environment will possess no qualities that are detrimental to its survival in that environment. Fully optimized would have no dead-weight neutral qualities that did not contribute to survival. Like clockwork. Or Formula1 machines.

Sharks are a pretty good optimization. They may very well have been designed.

[8livesleft]

8lives

Ok, so those links above are about cooling particles to suspend movement supposedly.

But that has little to do with the hot, dense state that the universe was in pre-expansion.

^no, more about there is no motionless state
Oh, yes, it has everything to do with what set what into motion

It's a major leap to go from the possibility of particles reaching a motionless state to saying that all the particles in the entire universe were in that state pre-expansion.

Again, the early universe was far hotter than it is now and it's only getting colder and colder as it ages. So to say that the universe was in a very cold state prior to the big bang, then it would point to the universe being cyclical. And if it were cyclical, then what for god?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

The longer a critter is in a stable environment the more likely it will approach optimization.

so then what is optimaztion?

fecundity?

longevity?

largest size?

longest lasting stable form?

shortest lasting unstable form?

i dont know what to look for, really.

I would start with saying a critter optimized for its environment will possess no qualities that are detrimental to its survival in that environment. Fully optimized would have no dead-weight neutral qualities that did not contribute to survival. Like clockwork. Or Formula1 machines.

Sharks are a pretty good optimization. They may very well have been designed.

Those things are not evident in all human designs. 

[maritime]

B-Art Bell
G-Brian Greene

B: Fine. Let's go back to a second before the Big Bang, one second before the Big Bang. That would mean there was this tiny, infinitesimal nothing sitting in the middle of what?
G: Well, that's a somewhat common misconception, that the Big Bang was sort of some tiny nugget sitting inside of outer space and then it kind of exploded.
B: But there couldn't have been space though.
G: That's right. That's the point. There was no space. So in fact, that little tiny nugget was where you're sitting, it's where I'm sitting, and it's where every listener is currently sitting, 'cause all of those places which are now different were all the same at the beginning of time. So that little nugget that we were talking about was everywhere that we now call different because all those different places were the same.
B: God. So there was no space, hence there was no time as we understand it.
G: That's right.
B: But still, this little tiny, tiny mass, uhm, had to have been someplace. It had to have been--Excuse my mind for not embracing this quickly but it had to have been some place. And there's still-- How could there ever not be space? It's like saying, Out past the limit of the Big Bang, what's there?
G: Right, right. It's a hard idea to really encompass. But the notion that space extends all the way out to the farthest reaches of the cosmos is something that's true today but the universe gets smaller as you run the cosmic film backwards in time. And all of space itself actually shrinks together so that there is no notion of beyond where our universe ends, because our universe is everything, and it gets smaller and smaller as you run that film backwards and backwards in time.
B: You can actually do that? You could, take for example...
G: We can do that with our equations and our understanding of how the universe evolved.
B: In other words, you could look at suns and/or the marker quasars way out there and you could identify this one and that one and this one and that one and this one and that one, get a whole bunch of them, and then have a computer project backwards using the blue shift that we see...
G: Absolutely.
B: No, I'm sorry, red shift, I guess, right?
G: And it would become a blue shift in reverse...
B: It would become a blue shift as everything withdrew to one single point. You're telling me that works?
G: Absolutely. Now I should say that it works prior to our recent research. If you go back to a mere split second after the Bang, but at a tiny fraction of a second after the Bang, the previous way of seeing things does break down.  That computer would go haywire, smoke would start to pour out of it, if it was only using equations that Einstein set down and the founders of quantum theory set down in the 30s and 40s. But now we've been able to modify those equations so that the computer can go even further back in time without smoke pouring out of it. And our hope is that these new equations will allow us to go right back to the beginning, to time zero.
B: Time zero. The moment when time began.
G: That's right.

Time is motion. Motion is time.
The beginning: time zero.
What set what into motion.
We're way past the monkey orchid in what constitutes proof of intelligent design because application of intelligent design.

[maritime]

Everything is in motion.
Motion is motive.

[none]

maritime
in your best twilight reasoning
x,y,z is location
does it follow
x,y,z,t
and then
x,y,z,t,°
?

[Kiahanie]

••••
I would start with saying a critter optimized for its environment will possess no qualities that are detrimental to its survival in that environment. Fully optimized would have no dead-weight neutral qualities that did not contribute to survival. Like clockwork. Or Formula1 machines.

Sharks are a pretty good optimization. They may very well have been designed.

Those things are not evident in all human designs. 

That is true. Those qualities are not a sufficient filter, just a place to start. Of course a designer could design-in all sorts of inefficiencies either intentionally or ignorantly. I fully expect any entity that can design a universe can design it so it looks undesigned.

I also suspect that with 14 billion years a universe could evolve to a reasonably optimal steady state. Sharks did it in less time.

[none]

I like sharks because they have the sixth sense

[none]

Spoiler

B-Art Bell
G-Brian Greene

B: Fine. Let's go back to a second before the Big Bang, one second before the Big Bang. That would mean there was this tiny, infinitesimal nothing sitting in the middle of what?
G: Well, that's a somewhat common misconception, that the Big Bang was sort of some tiny nugget sitting inside of outer space and then it kind of exploded.
B: But there couldn't have been space though.
G: That's right. That's the point. There was no space. So in fact, that little tiny nugget was where you're sitting, it's where I'm sitting, and it's where every listener is currently sitting, 'cause all of those places which are now different were all the same at the beginning of time. So that little nugget that we were talking about was everywhere that we now call different because all those different places were the same.
B: God. So there was no space, hence there was no time as we understand it.
G: That's right.
B: But still, this little tiny, tiny mass, uhm, had to have been someplace. It had to have been--Excuse my mind for not embracing this quickly but it had to have been some place. And there's still-- How could there ever not be space? It's like saying, Out past the limit of the Big Bang, what's there?
G: Right, right. It's a hard idea to really encompass. But the notion that space extends all the way out to the farthest reaches of the cosmos is something that's true today but the universe gets smaller as you run the cosmic film backwards in time. And all of space itself actually shrinks together so that there is no notion of beyond where our universe ends, because our universe is everything, and it gets smaller and smaller as you run that film backwards and backwards in time.
B: You can actually do that? You could, take for example...
G: We can do that with our equations and our understanding of how the universe evolved.
B: In other words, you could look at suns and/or the marker quasars way out there and you could identify this one and that one and this one and that one and this one and that one, get a whole bunch of them, and then have a computer project backwards using the blue shift that we see...
G: Absolutely.
B: No, I'm sorry, red shift, I guess, right?
G: And it would become a blue shift in reverse...
B: It would become a blue shift as everything withdrew to one single point. You're telling me that works?
G: Absolutely. Now I should say that it works prior to our recent research. If you go back to a mere split second after the Bang, but at a tiny fraction of a second after the Bang, the previous way of seeing things does break down.  That computer would go haywire, smoke would start to pour out of it, if it was only using equations that Einstein set down and the founders of quantum theory set down in the 30s and 40s. But now we've been able to modify those equations so that the computer can go even further back in time without smoke pouring out of it. And our hope is that these new equations will allow us to go right back to the beginning, to time zero.
B: Time zero. The moment when time began.
G: That's right.

Time is motion. Motion is time.
The beginning: time zero.
What set what into motion.
We're way past the monkey orchid in what constitutes proof of intelligent design because application of intelligent design.

[close]

there is homogenous infinite expansion in closed physics, extrapolation doesn't omit infinite indiscriminate fluctuations of retarded or reverse localized expansion
stars distance increasing is measured localized expansion is minimal or unconsequential to observed expansion
further analysis of cosmos might provide insight into localized retarded or negative expansion continuity throughout observations and provide for a confirmation on closed expansion renewal in areas
meh..

[maritime]

maritime
in your best twilight reasoning
x,y,z is location
does it follow
x,y,z,t
and then
x,y,z,t,°
?

Your answer was heard before you answered, before you knew you were going to answer, before you knew the possibility to answer existed because premonition. Until you (reason) became conscious, no x,y,z,t. Instead, x,y,z,t,°. x billions of years later, you hear your answers as if no time has passed.

premonition: anticipation of an event without conscious reason

[none]

there must be differences in The LSD

[none]

we don't have lexical typographic fonts and I'm not exactly sure that is the correct terms..
A. Einstein may have some better explanation, i'm just unsure because i haven't reviewed much in that area.
my knowledge is limited and don't quite preconceive as much as others.
i am at a turning point in my life. having lost, the children of mine seem careless to my expressions
death would be welcome if it were not murder i just have been exposed to such degenerate that i choose not to see the void in front of me when i peer and see what little light is left for me.
i taught my daughter at 6 that stars die, and then at 15 the truth is they really don't die they just change spectrum. if i can seen that limited spectrum as well as others i would feel blessed.
as most other blessings have left me. not empty completely just separate and faded as in oblique and empty as a chasm.

[maritime]

W.ow

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polaris_time-lapse_illustrating_Cepheid_type_variability.gif#/media/File:Polaris_time-lapse_illustrating_Cepheid_type_variability.gif

[none]

i noticed polaris for the first time last year, basically a lifetime without
challenging is this 12th year, and i am trusting it is clockwork average

[maritime]

No one has it figured out despite appearances.
No answer suffices unless it surprises.
Answers that conform are a dead end.

[none]

No one has it figured out despite appearances.
No answer suffices unless it surprises.
Answers that conform are a dead end.

longevity is what guides my hope, despite quantum lopsidedness towards indeterminate futures unassailable by the mazes and labyrinths of the past

[kevin]

Well, even though I don't fully understand the answer, it seems to address your question about what characteristics are products of design. 

yes, it is an attempt, but cites dubious reasoning and debunked theories.

Why do you think specified complexity does not indicate design?

because specified complexity is exactly what results from evolution, which is not design.

here is an example of a flawed argument claiming that specified complexity contradicts evolution:

https://www.godcreated.info/specified-complexity

the arguments citing specified complexity in other areas generally seem to be re-worded arguments from fine-tuning.

[Kiahanie]

Never heard of "specified complexity" before this morning. Wikipedia's lead paragraph reads

Specified complexity is a creationist argument introduced by William Dembski, used by advocates to promote the pseudoscience of intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept can formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex, where in Dembski's terminology, a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance. Proponents of intelligent design use specified complexity as one of their two main arguments, alongside irreducible complexity.

Dembski is not defining "complexity" the same as complexity theorists. He seems to confuse "complex" with "complicated" in the same way the "irreducible" folks are confused.

He can prattle on, but it does seem he is not talking about the concept of complexity.

[kevin]

irreducible complexity is a really interesting idea. if all the assumptions were true then it would be strong evidence for intelligent design.

the idea that you can have a complex structure like a mammalian eye all present and dependent on a bunch of different parts all coming into existence at the same time argues against a gradual evolution. but thats not how evolution is thought to work, no matter how many creationists shout "aha!!" as if they have discovered something.

evolution is not a directed efficient process towards a goal, a finished and sophisticated structure. its a patchwork of half-measures,, of pre-existing organs being re-purposed for something entirely different, of a slow and wandering process that only looks directed when you see the end product with no inkling of the meanders involved in gettingthere.

old behe presented a really nice defense of irreducible complexity in his book years ago called darwin's black box.

unfortunately for the argument, the irreducibly complex structures he used as examples actually have easily concieved intermediate steps involving ordinary re-purposing. i cant remember whether there was actual evidence presented for the pathways, and his scientific opponents were rude assholes, but all his examples of a structure that could be irreducibly complex turned out to be weak and refutable. so until something is discovered that actually is irreducibly complex, with no reasonable alternative, the idea is a theory in search of evidence. not the other way around.

[Kiahanie]

As I recall, Behe's examples were all static, bound to fail as analogies because complex systems are dynamic. Plus, his irreducible examples were reduced by people with more imagination.

[8livesleft]

evolution is not a directed efficient process towards a goal, a finished and sophisticated structure. its a patchwork of half-measures,, of pre-existing organs being re-purposed for something entirely different, of a slow and wandering process that only looks directed when you see the end product with no inkling of the meanders involved in gettingthere.

Well said

Billions of years, mountains of failed designs and many more failing at an alarming rate. 

[none]

oh come on, somewhere out there has got to be a set of tits that love me

[8livesleft]

oh come on, somewhere out there has got to be a set of tits that love me

I guess it makes sense that you mention tits after I say mountains hehe

[none]

for the little birds too

[8livesleft]

The beginning: time zero.

Based on what is currently known about the universe, maybe.

Except that and every other current theory, too much is still unknown.

What set what into motion.

Good question. Unfortunately, it only applies to a universe with a clear beginning and doesn't apply to cyclical, eternal universe models.

However, assuming a set beginning, then there are many possibilities:

1. Unknown forces
2. Unknown conditions prior to expansion
3. A powerful sentient entity

etc...

There are likely many more but that's what I can think of at the moment.

Here, only 1 of those things is sentient. Why assume it automatically?