What is ID?

[Speedwell]

wait a minute. you already said that you will have no problem to accept creation de-novo if we have evidence that god exist. i asked you: "so lets say for the sake of the argument that god existence is a fact. in this case you will also say that its seems impossible (creation de-novo)?" and you answer was :""No, I will not"

so i confused now from your own words. if you agree that we have a good evidence for design- then we can also accept easily creation de-novo. and then we have no real need for evolution.

you also claiming that we have a good evidence for evolution. but so far you have failed to show any real evidence that doesnt base about belief. and its seems that you also believe in an atheistic evolution and not in a theistic one. so even if i will accept evolution we cant argue for an atheistic one. so what is your position actually?

Except that there is no good evidence for design.

 

[Speedwell]

here is one that we may discuss about already:

Bacterial Flagella: Structure, importance and examples of flagellated bacteria - microbeonline

the flagellum is a spinning motor. we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design and not a natural process. so we know that nature was designed and not evolved by a nantural process.

Hogwash.

1. A "spinning motor" is not evidence for design.
2. The evolution of the flagellum is not a mystery for evolution.
3. Even if it was, showing that evolution is incapable of producing it is not evidence for any other possible process.
4. In any case, you have presented no other possible process. Just saying "it must have been designed." is an empty cop-out.

 

[xianghua]

Hogwash.

1. A "spinning motor" is not evidence for design.

are you serious? if so we can say that a car isnt an evidence for design too. what is the difference?

 

[Speedwell]

are you serious? if so we can say that a car isnt an evidence for design too. what is the difference?

The reason I can say that a car is designed is not because of its functional organization, but because is shows signs of human manufacture.

Functional organization is never, by itself, sufficient evidence to conclude design.

 

[xianghua]

The reason I can say that a car is designed is not because of its functional organization, but because is shows signs of human manufacture.

Functional organization is never, by itself, sufficient evidence to conclude design.

genomes also showing signs of human manufacture:

Synthetic genomes: The next step for the synthetic genome : Nature : Nature Research

so according to this criteria we need to conclude that genomes are the prodcut of design.

 

[Skreeper]

the flagellum is a spinning motor. we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design and not a natural process. so we know that nature was designed and not evolved by a nantural process.

 

[Speedwell]

genomes also showing signs of human manufacture:

Synthetic genomes: The next step for the synthetic genome : Nature : Nature Research

so according to this criteria we need to conclude that genomes are the prodcut of design.

Logic fail. Given a bulldozer and enough time I could build a replica of the Grand Canyon. My replica would be designed. Does that mean that the original Grand Canyon was also designed? Or is it the product of natural causes?

BTW, your logical fallacy has a name: Affirming the Consequent. Look it up..

 

[xianghua]

Logic fail. Given a bulldozer and enough time I could build a replica of the Grand Canyon. My replica would be designed. Does that mean that the original Grand Canyon was also designed? Or is it the product of natural causes?

BTW, your logical fallacy has a name: Affirming the Consequent. Look it up..

that was *your* criteria and not mine. so now we have a new criteria: something that cant evolve naturally. but remember also that motores cant evolved naturally. so again we get back to the fact that motors are the prudct of design.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

are you serious? if so we can say that a car isnt an evidence for design too. what is the difference?

The difference is that we know that cars were designed and we know that there is no semi-functional version of a motor nor mechanism for the semi-functional version of a motor to become a functional one. Cars also have no mechanism to come into existence without another thing putting them together.

At the very least, you need to be talking about a self-replicating robot in these weird hypotheticals, because anything that can't exist without being intentionally assembled by an intelligent being is absolutely evidence for design.

That's also the difference between a flagellum and an engine. If the right chemicals come together in the right order, a functioning flagellum will form. There are no spontaneous reactions that make an engine. A human input is required.

 

[Speedwell]

that was *your* criteria and not mine. so now we have a new criteria: something that cant evolve naturally. but remember also that motores cant evolved naturally. so again we get back to the fact that motors are the prudoct of design.

So your argument so far amounts to this:

1. "I, Xiaghua, assert without evidence or explanation that the flagellum could not have evolved naturally."
2. "I, Xiangua, assert that the only possible alternative explanation which accounts for the flagellum is Intelligent Design, a process which I cannot describe or provide any evidence for."

So now what?

 

[Colter]

here is one that we may discuss about already:

Bacterial Flagella: Structure, importance and examples of flagellated bacteria - microbeonline

the flagellum is a spinning motor. we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design and not a natural process. so we know that nature was designed and not evolved by a nantural process.

Obviously that was designed, but it's still not "proof" beyond the common sense of a wise person. Even miracles performed in front of people aren't proof, remember what the Pharisees said about Jesus' miracles of healing? They said Satan was doing that stuff! Just because something is obvious to some does not mean it's obvious to others.

 

[bhsmte]

genomes also showing signs of human manufacture:

Synthetic genomes: The next step for the synthetic genome : Nature : Nature Research

so according to this criteria we need to conclude that genomes are the prodcut of design.

LOL

 

[Skreeper]

genomes also showing signs of human manufacture:

Synthetic genomes: The next step for the synthetic genome : Nature : Nature Research

so according to this criteria we need to conclude that genomes are the prodcut of design.

Some ponds are designed and created by humans. Does that mean every pond is a product of design?

 

[Jimmy D]

that was *your* criteria and not mine. so now we have a new criteria: something that cant evolve naturally. but remember also that motores cant evolved naturally. so again we get back to the fact that motors are the prudct of design.

You would do well to think about Speedwell's responses on this page a bit more, your arguments are clearly flawed, in many ways.

 

[doubtingmerle]

wait a minute. you already said that you will have no problem to accept creation de-novo if we have evidence that god exist. i asked you: "so lets say for the sake of the argument that god existence is a fact. in this case you will also say that its seems impossible (creation de-novo)?" and you answer was :""No, I will not"

so i confused now from your own words. if you agree that we have a good evidence for design- then we can also accept easily creation de-novo. and then we have no real need for evolution.

you also claiming that we have a good evidence for evolution. but so far you have failed to show any real evidence that doesnt base about belief. and its seems that you also believe in an atheistic evolution and not in a theistic one. so even if i will accept evolution we cant argue for an atheistic one. so what is your position actually?

You are changing the meaning of the word "it". You had said "so lets say for the sake of the argument that god existence is a fact. in this case you will also say that its seems impossible?" and I said"No, I will not"

What I was saying was, if you show me evidence that God exists, then I will not say that it (that is, God's existence) is impossible. Pronouns in English refer to the context you were talking about. You cannot simply use a pronoun, and then say that since I agreed to "it" happening, that therefore you can change the meaning of "it" to anything you want and claim that I agreed with it.

!!!!!

Oh for crying out loud.

The problem is that you go from "An all powerful God could do anything" to "Therefore anything I say happened, really did happen." That jump in logic is not justified.

 

[doubtingmerle]

double post

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

the flagellum is a spinning motor.

It is LIKE a spining motor.

we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design and not a natural process. so we know that nature was designed and not evolved by a nantural process.

That is, we know that ACTUAL spinning motors made up from metals, plastics, rubber tubes, etc are designed.

Also, you might want to inform yourself on the evolution of the flagellum.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

are you serious? if so we can say that a car isnt an evidence for design too. what is the difference?

The difference is simple.
First, cars aren't biological organisms that reproduce with variation and compete with peers over limited resources. As such, cars aren't subject to a process like biological evolution.

Second:

So to conclude, not only can we show that cars aren't subject to the process of evolution... we can also easily demonstrate that cars are designed and manufactured by humans.

How's that for "differences" between both?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

that was *your* criteria and not mine.

The incorrect application and misrepresentation of Speedwell's criteria, is entirely your responsability.

so now we have a new criteria: something that cant evolve naturally. but remember also that motores cant evolved naturally. so again we get back to the fact that motors are the prudct of design.

No. Again we go back to the fact that you are extremely stubborn or incredibly intellectually dishonest. Probably, you are a little of both.

 

[Colter]

It is LIKE a spining motor.



That is, we know that ACTUAL spinning motors made up from metals, plastics, rubber tubes, etc are designed.

Also, you might want to inform yourself on the evolution of the flagellum.

That is an example of the faith of atheism, that all these living things defy the law of inertia in seeking higher and more complex life forms for no particular reason. Its the notion that there was no purpose or plan behind the ironic evolution of all these life forms that even complement each other in their unplanned function?