2 proofs that nature was designed

[xianghua]

according to evolution if we will find a self replicating robot (or a watch) that made from organic components, we need to conclude that such a robot evolved by a natural process. this is because it has a self replicating system and made from organic components, so its basically like any other walking creature. but we know that even such a robot\ watch is evidence for design. therefore nature need design too.

we also find these gears in nature, and we know that gears are the product of design:


https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...the-first-time

 

[Speedwell]

according to evolution if we will find a self replicating robot (or a watch) that made from organic components, we need to conclude that such a robot evolved by a natural process.

Wrong. That is not "according to evolution." It is according to some fantasy version of evolution which you have made up.

this is because it has a self replicating system and made from organic components

Wrong. That is not how a conclusion about design is reached. Just because you have been gone for a while doesn't mean we have forgotten your previous attempts to misrepresent evolution in order to build a straw man.

 

[musicalpilgrim]

There are some good videos on YouTube to explain the signature in the Cell, intelligent design, Stephen Meyer on Youtube. Also Darwin's Doubt. I watched the recordings and have bought the books. They are so good in explaining who designed DNA.

 

[Rachel20]

What I'm curious about is whether you ever find information in nature, not just patterns like fibonacci sequences. I think this was one of the issues that turned Antony Flew to deism, as he said you never find information in nature that doesn't have a mind behind it (and he considered DNA information).

 

[Tony B]

according to evolution if we will find a self replicating robot (or a watch) that made from organic components, we need to conclude that such a robot evolved by a natural process. this is because it has a self replicating system and made from organic components, so its basically like any other walking creature. but we know that even such a robot\ watch is evidence for design. therefore nature need design too.

we also find these gears in nature, and we know that gears are the product of design:


https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...the-first-time

I can't fathom how anyone can believe that intelligent design and engineering can come from unintelligence, which you would have to conclude if you don't believe in a Creator God. Surely that has to be regarded as an illogical conclusion.

Adaptation, yes, as a mechanism of intelligent design, but just by evolution or chance...that's just illogical in my opinion, and beggars belief!

 

[Speedwell]

I can't fathom how anyone can believe that intelligent design and engineering can come from unintelligence, which you would have to conclude if you don't believe in a Creator God. Surely that has to be regarded as an illogical conclusion.

Adaptation, yes, as a mechanism of intelligent design, but just by evolution or chance...that's just illogical in my opinion, and beggars belief!

It's not a question of a creator God. The existence of God is really not an issue in this forum (except when it is is raised dishonestly by creationists) and rejecting ID is not the same as rejecting a creator God, as many Traditional Christian denominations which have rejected ID will be happy to explain to you. As far as design and engineering coming from intelligence is concerned, the interacting stochastic processes which make up the evolving biosphere represent enough information processing capacity to account for the functional complexity which we observe without invoking "intelligence."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're still on this? After every single time that this whole thing has been disproven?
Commitment, I'll definitely call it that.

 

[Tony B]

It's not a question of a creator God. The existence of God is really not an issue in this forum (except when it is is raised dishonestly by creationists) and rejecting ID is not the same as rejecting a creator God, as many Traditional Christian denominations which have rejected ID will be happy to explain to you. As far as design and engineering coming from intelligence is concerned, the interacting stochastic processes which make up the evolving biosphere represent enough information processing capacity to account for the functional complexity which we observe without invoking "intelligence."

I'm wondering what Jesus would say, would think of your post. I don't mean to malign you or anyone else that holds to your philosophy, but I think He would be shaking His head in disbelief that anyone could come to such a conclusion. Jesus referred to what/who was created, not evolved. Rejecting I.D. is rejecting God's input, nothing in creation happened/happens by chance, surely it must be plainly ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm wondering what Jesus would say, would think of your post. I don't mean to malign you or anyone else that holds to your philosophy, but I think He would be shaking His head in disbelief that anyone could come to such a conclusion. Jesus referred to what/who was created, not evolved. Rejecting I.D. is rejecting God's input, nothing in creation happened/happens by chance, surely it must be plainly ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Rejecting ID is not "rejecting God's input." ID is a specific proposal by the Discovery Institute of Seattle about the exact nature of "God's input." Painting the rejection of ID as a rejection of God's authorship of our being is nothing but a slimy propaganda move.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The watch thing was put to bed by Darwin 150 years ago. You may want to cast about for arguments that are a little fresher.

 

[jacks]

The watch thing was put to bed by Darwin 150 years ago. You may want to cast about for arguments that are a little fresher.

O.K. I'll bite. I wasn't aware that Darwin talked about "the watch thing". I really don't know much about it, do you have a link I could read?

 

[inquiring mind]

Rejecting ID is not "rejecting God's input." ID is a specific proposal by the Discovery Institute of Seattle about the exact nature of "God's input." Painting the rejection of ID as a rejection of God's authorship of our being is nothing but a slimy propaganda move.

Speedwell, suppose you tell us where you do see God's input...

 

[Speedwell]

Speedwell, suppose you tell us where you do see God's input...

That's rather an odd question and I'm not sure I understand it. I suppose the short answer is no, I don't expect to find God's greasy fingerprints on the machinery to prove that He made it.

 

[inquiring mind]

That's rather an odd question and I'm not sure I understand it. I suppose the short answer is no, I don't expect to find God's greasy fingerprints on the machinery to prove that He made it.

That’s not a surprise. No Genesis, no higher intelligence acknowledged as far as I can understand from your comments, so I was just curious, that’s all.

 

[essentialsaltes]

O.K. I'll bite. I wasn't aware that Darwin talked about "the watch thing". I really don't know much about it, do you have a link I could read?

This provides a good overview of the watch argument.

 

[Speedwell]

That’s not a surprise. No Genesis, no higher intelligence acknowledged as far as I can understand from your comments, so I was just curious, that’s all.

It's not hard. I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible...plus there is about two thousand years worth of Christian theology about why God has no need to involve Himself in mundane, day-to-day natural processes to the extent of physically manipulating them Himself. His causal involvement is of a different order altogether which is entirely invisible and of no concern to science.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's not hard. I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible...plus there is about two thousand years worth of Christian theology about why God has no need to involve Himself in mundane, day-to-day natural processes to the extent of physically manipulating them Himself.

That’s great Speedwell, sounds like you lean toward Deism, and I was never one to condemn that philosophy. I wasn’t trying to classify you, that’s none of my business, like I said, just curious where God was in your comments. You answered that.

His causal involvement is of a different order altogether which is entirely invisible and of no concern to science.

Doesn't science itself fall under that ‘all things visible and invisible’ part?

 

[Speedwell]

That’s great Speedwell, sounds like you lean toward Deism, and I was never one to condemn that philosophy. I wasn’t trying to classify you, that’s none of my business, like I said, just curious where God was in your comments. You answered that.

Your opinion of Traditional Christians is noted.

Doesn't science itself fall under that ‘all things visible and invisible’ part?

Science is an intellectual tool for understanding the natural universe. that's all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

according to evolution if we will find a self replicating robot (or a watch) that made from organic components, we need to conclude that such a robot evolved by a natural process. this is because it has a self replicating system and made from organic components, so its basically like any other walking creature. but we know that even such a robot\ watch is evidence for design. therefore nature need design too.

we also find these gears in nature, and we know that gears are the product of design:


https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...the-first-time

Repetition. I refer you to the previous threads in which you failed with exactly the same argument.

 

[Tony B]

Rejecting ID is not "rejecting God's input." ID is a specific proposal by the Discovery Institute of Seattle about the exact nature of "God's input." Painting the rejection of ID as a rejection of God's authorship of our being is nothing but a slimy propaganda move.

Well I don't know of that institute or of its particular philosophy, and I'm not interested in looking into it either. I've only had One teacher on my Christian walk, and His name is Jesus.

I wouldn't be game enough to suggest He didn't apply intelligent design and engineering into all creation, I have more self respect for my goodly welfare than that.

We need to consider some of the nasties in creation, and be careful not to insult or offend The Creator of those. Scripture says the reverential and worshipful fear of God is the source of wisdom.