My favorite argument for the existence of God

[doubtingmerle]

this is not what you said here:

"That is quite different from a multi-cellular being making moving gears."

"The bacterium uses molecular level forces to move the flagellum. A multi-celled creature would need some method of attaching muscles to the spinning component, which probably is not even possible."

so basically you are argue that gears cant evolve in a larger scale then a single cell. so i showed it's actually possible according to evolution.

Don`t be silly. We had already talked about creatures that synchronized legs with gear like mechanisms. That has nothing to do with the detailed explanation of the problem with supplying blood and attaching muscles to continuously spinning gears. You simply ignore what people write, and pretend you are responding.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Don`t be silly. We had already talked about creatures that synchronized legs with gear like mechanisms. That has nothing to do with the detailed explanation of the problem with supplying blood and attaching muscles to continuously spinning gears. You simply ignore what people write, and pretend you are responding.

Yeah; he's trolling - he's been asked to define or explain what he means numerous times and hasn't answered or explained anything - he just continues making equivocations, constructing straw men and invalid analogies, and pretending to read minds.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yeah; he's trolling - he's been asked to define or explain what he means numerous times and hasn't answered or explained anything - he just continues making equivocations, constructing straw men and invalid analogies, and pretending to read minds.

I think Xianghua misunderstands his own sources.

ID proponents make the case that certain innovations are so complex they could not have evolved, at least not unassisted, and therefore something or somebody intervened. And the argument is not that bad and could have some merit, but it always seems to fall down on scrutiny. Living organisms have a great deal of redundancy and flexibility in their design, which allows them to try novel differences. So what may seem irreducibly complex really is not. ID proponents compare physical organisms to robots and watches, but in general it is just an analogy they are making, not a proof. But Xianghua has converted their analogy about robots to a proof that, since a robot cannot evolve, therefore an analogous penguin cannot evolve. But as many have tried to point out, this is not logically valid. The fact that one thing is analogous to another does not mean that everything that is true of one is true of the other.

So if he had stuck with the actual ID claims, at least he could have the appearance of an intelligent argument. But alas, the ID argument has mutated here.

 

[Jimmy D]

I think Xianghua misunderstands his own sources.

ID proponents make the case that certain innovations are so complex they could not have evolved, at least not unassisted, and therefore something or somebody intervened. And the argument is not that bad and could have some merit, but it always seems to fall down on scrutiny. Living organisms have a great deal of redundancy and flexibility in their design, which allows them to try novel differences. So what may seem irreducibly complex really is not. ID proponents compare physical organisms to robots and watches, but in general it is just an analogy they are making, not a proof. But Xianghua has converted their analogy about robots to a proof that, since a robot cannot evolve, therefore an analogous penguin cannot evolve. But as many have tried to point out, this is not logically valid. The fact that one thing is analogous to another does not mean that everything that is true of one is true of the other.

So if he had stuck with the actual ID claims, at least he could have the appearance of an intelligent argument. But alas, the ID argument has mutated here.

 

[xianghua]

I said no such thing.

here:

i asked:

"if we will made a robot that made from organic components like proteins and dna. you will agree to consider it as a robot in this case?"

and you answered:

"On consideration, no. I think the word should be reserved for non-biological machines"

so basically your limit between a living and non living thing is the matter it's made from.

 

[xianghua]

Don`t be silly. We had already talked about creatures that synchronized legs with gear like mechanisms. That has nothing to do with the detailed explanation of the problem with supplying blood and attaching muscles to continuously spinning gears. You simply ignore what people write, and pretend you are responding.

as i said: scientists dont know how many systems evolved. and they still claiming that they evolved somehow. so your claim that it's impossible dont hold water even by evolutionery criteria. you can just say that you dont know if a multi-cell spinning motor can evolve or not. so or so: a spinning motor in any size is evidence for design.

 

[lesliedellow]

as i said: scientists dont know how many systems evolved. and they still claiming that they evolved somehow. so your claim that it's impossible dont hold water even by evolutionery criteria. you can just say that you dont know if a multi-cell spinning motor can evolve or not. so or so: a spinning motor in any size is evidence for design.

Seemingly you are not even bright enough to see the mechanical impossibility of using muscle to power a spinning rotor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

as i said: scientists dont know how many systems evolved. and they still claiming that they evolved somehow. so your claim that it's impossible dont hold water even by evolutionery criteria. you can just say that you dont know if a multi-cell spinning motor can evolve or not. so or so: a spinning motor in any size is evidence for design.

But they do know how many systems evolved. For example they know how the "motor" evolved that you keep referring to:

Meanwhile you have no explanation at all.

 

[xianghua]

But they do know how many systems evolved. For example they know how the "motor" evolved that you keep referring to:

Meanwhile you have no explanation at all.

as i said to you in other thread: it's only a hypothetical model with several assumptions.

so we basically have a fact (a motor need a designer) against a belief ( a motor can evolve naturally). please try again...

 

[lesliedellow]

so we basically have a fact (a motor need a designer) against a belief ( a motor can evolve naturally). please try again...

And what makes it a fact? Because you say so?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think Xianghua misunderstands his own sources.

ID proponents make the case that certain innovations are so complex they could not have evolved, at least not unassisted, and therefore something or somebody intervened. And the argument is not that bad and could have some merit, but it always seems to fall down on scrutiny. Living organisms have a great deal of redundancy and flexibility in their design, which allows them to try novel differences. So what may seem irreducibly complex really is not. ID proponents compare physical organisms to robots and watches, but in general it is just an analogy they are making, not a proof. But Xianghua has converted their analogy about robots to a proof that, since a robot cannot evolve, therefore an analogous penguin cannot evolve. But as many have tried to point out, this is not logically valid. The fact that one thing is analogous to another does not mean that everything that is true of one is true of the other.

So if he had stuck with the actual ID claims, at least he could have the appearance of an intelligent argument. But alas, the ID argument has mutated here.

That may well be so, but I don't think he's acting (ironically) in good faith - he asks vague and ambiguous questions that he won't clarify when asked, and he's been asked to make his point or argument explicit, but has not done so. In short, he ignores anything that might expose whatever point he's trying to make to critical scrutiny.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... so basically your limit between a living and non living thing is the matter it's made from.

No, my general criteria for what is and isn't a robot is whether it's biological or not - and by that I mean whether it's living or not. In general, if it's alive, it's not a robot. Others may have different opinions, and there will probably be edge cases where the category is ambiguous.

Now, be brave(!), and give your criteria for a robot, and why you think it's of interest here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

as i said to you in other thread: it's only a hypothetical model with several assumptions.

so we basically have a fact (a motor need a designer) against a belief ( a motor can evolve naturally). please try again...

And as I pointed out to you your claim of "assumptions" is a loss on your part unless you can name specific assumptions. You probably do not even understand what the word means. It is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence. You have no evidence. You only have myths. You lose.

 

[doubtingmerle]

as i said: scientists dont know how many systems evolved. and they still claiming that they evolved somehow. so your claim that it's impossible dont hold water even by evolutionery criteria. you can just say that you dont know if a multi-cell spinning motor can evolve or not. so or so: a spinning motor in any size is evidence for design.

Why do you misrepresent what people write?

I did not say a spinning multi-celled biological motor was known to be impossible. I said it is probably not possible because of the problems with blood flow and muscle attachment to the moving parts.

And I already explained to you why a one-celled flagellum is different from a multi-celled spinning wheel. When I tell you my comments about multi-celled spinning wheels do not apply to single cells, and you just ignore it and say my comments apply to single cells, that is out and out wrong.

Please quit making stuff up that people never said.

 

[xianghua]

And what makes it a fact? Because you say so?

so it's not a fact that a motor need a designer? ok.

 

[xianghua]

No, my general criteria for what is and isn't a robot is whether it's biological or not - and by that I mean whether it's living or not. In general, if it's alive, it's not a robot.

so what is your definition of something that is alive?

 

[xianghua]

he assume that those steps were actuallt beneficial and indeed existed. he cant prove it.

And as I pointed out to you your claim of "assumptions" is a loss on your part unless you can name specific assumptions.

he assume that those steps were actually beneficial and indeed existed in the past. he cant prove it at all.

 

[xianghua]

Why do you misrepresent what people write?

I did not say a spinning multi-celled biological motor was known to be impossible. I said it is probably not possible because of the problems with blood flow and muscle attachment to the moving parts.

And I already explained to you why a one-celled flagellum is different from a multi-celled spinning wheel. When I tell you my comments about multi-celled spinning wheels do not apply to single cells, and you just ignore it and say my comments apply to single cells, that is out and out wrong.

Please quit making stuff up that people never said.

so or so: as i said: scientists dont know how many systems evolved. and they still claiming that they evolved somehow. so evolution will be just fine if we will find a car in nature. so or so: a spinning motor in any size is evidence for design.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so what is your definition of something that is alive?

It doesn't matter.

If you have a point or argument to make, make it.

 

[Jimmy D]

he assume that those steps were actuallt beneficial and indeed existed. he cant prove it.



he assume that those steps were actually beneficial and indeed existed in the past. he cant prove it at all.

It's a possible pathway. When you have evidence that it can't evolve you might have a point, although you'll then have your work cut out demonstrating how it was designed and who the designer was, until then you are blowing hot air.