My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Kylie]

its an hypothetical question. lets assume that this bicycle evolved in front of your eyes:

(image from X-Rated Spektor BMX Bike 20" Wheel)

now, since your definition for bicycle required design, its not a bicycle by definition. you see now why definitions are problematic?

Once again, you don't get it.

Even if bicycles COULD evolve, a single bicycle would NOT. Evolution is a change in a population OVER MANY GENERATIONS. Individuals NEVER evolve.

What you are asking is completely non-nonsensical. It's like me asking you where a circle would have its corners. "But circles don't have corners," you would say. "Yes, but HYPOTHETICALLY, can you show me where they are?" See what I mean? You are embarrassing yourself by trying to talk about evolution when you CLEARLY don't understand one of the most basic ideas about it.

Learn what evolution is, then we can talk. Until then, your arguments are literally meaningless.

 

[bhsmte]

Once again, you don't get it.

Even if bicycles COULD evolve, a single bicycle would NOT. Evolution is a change in a population OVER MANY GENERATIONS. Individuals NEVER evolve.

What you are asking is completely non-nonsensical. It's like me asking you where a circle would have its corners. "But circles don't have corners," you would say. "Yes, but HYPOTHETICALLY, can you show me where they are?" See what I mean? You are embarrassing yourself by trying to talk about evolution when you CLEARLY don't understand one of the most basic ideas about it.

Learn what evolution is, then we can talk. Until then, your arguments are literally meaningless.

You are correct.

You can refute his argument a million times and he would still repeat. It is all he has.

 

[Kylie]

You are correct.

You can refute his argument a million times and he would still repeat. It is all he has.

He's a one-trick-pony.

 

[xianghua]

By "evolve in front of my eyes" you mean I observe generations upon generations of some objects having sex, getting pregant, bearing offspring, and at some point this bicycle is born?

it can happen in many ways. but just without a designer. will you agree that in such a case this bicycle will not be a bicycle by definition since its evolved without a designer?

 

[xianghua]

Once again, you don't get it.

Even if bicycles COULD evolve, a single bicycle would NOT.

why not? lets assume that we living in a world with a natural process that is able to evolve a single bicycle in one minute. according to your definition it will not be a bicycle since its evolve naturally. right?

 

[Kylie]

why not? lets assume that we living in a world with a natural process that is able to evolve a single bicycle in one minute. according to your definition it will not be a bicycle since its evolve naturally. right?

So you want to redefine "evolution" to mean something that is NOT evolution!

How about I drop a plate and watch as it evolves into lots of broken pieces on the floor? Or I mop the floor to make it evolve from a dirty floor to a clean one? I just had my breakfast, in which my ham and cheese toastie evolved from a single piece of food to a mushed up thing in my tummy.

You have no idea what evolution is, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are making yourself look like a fool.

 

[quatona]

it can happen in many ways.

In which ways can evolution happen - other than the way I described it?

 

[xianghua]

In which ways can evolution happen - other than the way I described it?

in any way you want. will you agree that in such a case this bicycle will not be a bicycle by definition since its evolved without a designer?

 

[quatona]

in any way you want.

Evolution doesn´t work the way I want but the way it does.

will you agree that in such a case this bicycle will not be a bicycle by definition since its evolved without a designer?

If this item has evolved the way evolution works, it is a living being. Bicycles are not living beings, by definition - therefore I won´t call this living being "bycicle", just like I don´t call a whale a "fountain" or a bird an "aeroplane".

 

[xianghua]

Evolution doesn´t work the way I want but the way it does.

If this item has evolved the way evolution works, it is a living being. Bicycles are not living beings, by definition - therefore I won´t call this living being "bycicle", just like I don´t call a whale a "fountain" or a bird an "aeroplane".

but they are physically identical. they just created in a different way (one by design and the second by a natural process). so why call it in a different name?

 

[Speedwell]

but they are physically identical. they just created in a different way (one by design and the second by a natural process). so why call it in a different name?

The name is not important. What is important is that the "bicycle" you showed us a picture of does not reproduce with heritable variation and thus cannot evolve according to the mechanism proposed by the theory of evolution. It has no genome, no reproductive organs and no offspring.

 

[quatona]

but they are physically identical.

No, inanimate things that can´t procreate and living beings that can procreate are not physically identical.

 

[xianghua]

The name is not important. What is important is that the "bicycle" you showed us a picture of does not reproduce with heritable variation and thus cannot evolve according to the mechanism proposed by the theory of evolution. It has no genome, no reproductive organs and no offspring.

so its not realy a bicycle by definition?

 

[Speedwell]

so its not realy a bicycle by definition?

You can call it whatever you want. The name is not important. What is important is that the "bicycle" you showed us a picture of does not reproduce with heritable variation and thus cannot evolve according to the mechanism proposed by the theory of evolution. It has no genome, no reproductive organs and no offspring.

These fantastic examples of yours serve no purpose. If you can show that a given object was man-made then you can conclude it was designed. If you can't show that it was man-made then you can't conclude it was designed. It might be designed, but you can't conlude it absolutely.

Giving an object the same name as another object known to be designed as a way to conclude design is fatuous nonsense.

 

[xianghua]

No, inanimate things that can´t procreate and living beings that can procreate are not physically identical.

but i speak about inanimate bicycle. so they indeed physically identical.

 

[quatona]

but i speak about inanimate bicycle. so they indeed physically identical.

Then they haven´t evolved.

 

[xianghua]

You can call it whatever you want. The name is not important.

irs very important to those here who argue for definitions.

 

[xianghua]

Then they haven´t evolved.

but i ask what if they were able to evolve by a natural process. in this case you will still cal it a bicycle or not?

 

[quatona]

but i ask what if they were able to evolve by a natural process. in this case you will still cal it a bicycle or not?

I already answered this question (#829).
You then changed your question to 'but what if it were physically identical with an non-living bicycle?", and I also answered this question (#836).

 

[Speedwell]

but i ask what if they were able to evolve by a natural process. in this case you will still cal it a bicycle or not?

I would call it "a bicycle with reproductive organs and a genome, capable of reproducing with heritable variation."

But I would not have to conclude it was designed just because it had "bicycle" in its name and all the bicycles we know about now are designed.