Some random discussion on evolution...

[pitabread]

ts also true for gears. so you believe now that gears are the product of design?

How were the gears found in Issus coleoptratus designed?

 

[Kylie]

no. we know that wings are the product of design. it can be any design. including aliens.

see above. wrong cnclusion.

So then by your logic, there is NOTHING that is natural.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So then by your logic, there is NOTHING that is natural.

Logic does not play any part in @xianghua assertions. It's all special pleading, strawmen and equivocation.

 

[pitabread]

Logic does not play any part in @xianghua assertions. It's all special pleading, strawmen and equivocation.

And false equivalence. Let's not forget about false equivalence.

 

[xianghua]

How do we know this?

because any wings we know about was the product of design and we never seen wings evolving naturally. you believe that its possible but its only a belief.

 

[xianghua]

Man made gears are the product of design. Gears in nature? No idea. I cannot say

its basically like saying "robot in nature? no idea".

 

[Speedwell]

because any wings we know about was the product of design and we never seen wings evolving naturally. you believe that its possible but its only a belief.

When we see man-made wings being deigned we see the process of design taking place and we see evidence of that process in the final product. When we see naturally occurring wings we don't see any of that evidence. On the contrary, when we look at naturally occurring wings we see evidence of a natural process in action and we have evidence that the process is capable of producing wings.

 

[Speedwell]

its basically like saying "robot in nature? no idea".

That's it. When looking for design in any object, there are only two conclusions possible:
1. Yes, there is evidence of design, or
2. "No idea."

It is never possible to rule out design.

Any man-made wings we know about are the product of design. With naturally-occurring wings we can't tell.

 

[pitabread]

because any wings we know about was the product of design and we never seen wings evolving naturally.

How are bird wings designed? Are bird wings designed and created the same way as airplane wings?

(BTW, you're yet again invoking the False Equivalence fallacy. Your argument is fallacious.)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

its basically like saying "robot in nature? no idea".

Bingo. Do you finally understand?

 

[xianghua]

Bingo. Do you finally understand?

so you basically admit that you have no idea if a robot in nature need design?.

 

[pitabread]

nevermind

 

[Speedwell]

so you basically admit that you have no idea if a robot in nature need design?.

It is impossible to rule out that a natural object IS designed. It is up to you to prove that it NEEDS design.

 

[pitabread]

It is up to you to prove that it NEEDS design.

And with an argument that isn't based on logical fallacies (e.g. circular logic, equivocation, false equivalence, etc).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so you basically admit that you have no idea if a robot in nature need design?.

Let me rephrase that slightly: I admit that there is no way of knowing if a robot in nature is the product of design.

Do you understand what that means?

 

[the iconoclast]

As a science oriented agnostic

Hey hey my enlightened and uncertain friend

Ophiolite - "Do some research and discover yourself."

Iam truly motivated by my experiences with you of recent and i have been doing such a thing - research on you.

So you acknowledge that you are a science oriented agnostic?

This would suggest you agree with Huxley - "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

Ophiolite - "iam atheistic in regard to the Christian God. This position was arrived at after approximately two decades raised in the Christian faith."

Yet

Ophiolite - "I don't even approve of atheism, of the kind where the atheist declares with certainty "there is no God". I don't hold with such ludicrous degrees of certainty"

Ophiolite - "iam reasonably certain I have not read the Bible even once. I deliberately missed out all the begats. On the other hand, I have studied portions of it in detail."


I feel it only fair to return the favour and criticize you - you know to help, right?

It seems your grasp of uncertainty is not certain. Hehe, like that?

Ophiolite - "i accept certain things as being provisionally likely based upon evidence."

So there can be certainty but it must be based on evidence? Sounds like that huxley quote - the quote you threw back at my face. While we are here what has integrity got to with it - haha tina turner!!

While i await your reply here is a question for you.

You are aware of what you wont accept re Christian God. Are you aware of what evidence you would accept re Christian God?

Cheers

Ps pls forgive me for any uneducated mistakes i make. You should be able to decipher this post.

Dont back away, play the ball where it lands.

 

[the iconoclast]

And with an argument that isn't based on logical fallacies (e.g. circular logic, equivocation, false equivalence, etc).

Hey hey you

 

[the iconoclast]

Let me rephrase that slightly: I admit that there is no way of knowing if a robot in nature is the product of design.

Do you understand what that means?

Hey sir

Im gonna be tied up with your good friend @Ophiolite.

How about you go on the attack and show me the babylonian influence on genesis. Dont be shy.

Cheers

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

as i know that gears are manmade objects.

You also know that water-features can be man-made, that doesn't mean natural waterfalls are designed. We've been through this fallacious argument before.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hey sir

Im gonna be tied up with your good friend @Ophiolite.

How about you go on the attack and show me the babylonian influence on genesis. Dont be shy.

Cheers

You're very late to the party, that comnent wasn't directed to you and your request has nothing to do with my post. Are you just looking for an argument?