2 proofs that nature was designed

[Ophiolite]

So, how do you define 'watch' in this context?

Something you, or Paley, find on a heath.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Something you, or Paley, find on a heath.

Paley wasn't daft enough to suggest a self-replicating watch

 

[Bungle_Bear]

lets agree to disagree.

No, let's not. Let's agree what actually is evidence of design. That is the fundamental issue at stake here, so simply handwaving away a fact you find inconvenient is not acceptable.

Over to you - what constitutes evidence of design?

 

[Kylie]

maybe because its never been refuted?

Yes it has. Your refusal to acknowledge the refutation does not mean that the refutation never happened.

 

[Ophiolite]

Paley wasn't daft enough to suggest a self-replicating watch

True. Darwin admired Paley's work and logical thinking, having a copy of his work on the Beagle.

 

[pitabread]

I have the impression that he has at times advanced the idea that functional complexity is evidence of design. That's apparently why he makes arguments to the effect that if man-made robot penguins are designed, a real penguin must have been designed as well.

I don't think I've seen him make specific claims re: functional complexity (then again, most ID proponents don't).

He always seems to just invoke similarities and make arguments based on false equivalence.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think I've seen him make specific claims re: functional complexity (then again, most ID proponents don't).

He always seems to just invoke similarities and make arguments based on false equivalence.

Maybe so. I might be reading 'specified complexity' into his remarks.

 

[Ophiolite]

Maybe so. I might be reading 'specified complexity' into his remarks.

It may be that 'randomly oriented simplicity' can look very like 'specified complexity'.

 

[xianghua]

Yes it has. Your refusal to acknowledge the refutation does not mean that the refutation never happened.

so a self replicating robot isnt evidence for design?

 

[xianghua]

No, let's not. Let's agree what actually is evidence of design. That is the fundamental issue at stake here, so simply handwaving away a fact you find inconvenient is not acceptable.

so a self replicating robot (a penguin) is evidence for design or not?

Over to you - what constitutes evidence of design?

a complex structure that is very unlikely to evolve naturally.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so a self replicating robot isnt evidence for design?

No, it's evidence for trolling.

 

[xianghua]

Why not just explain why a "watch" is evidence of design?

maybe because it seems to be too complex to evolve naturally?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so a self replicating robot (a penguin) is evidence for design or not?

No, it's evidence of trolling. We all know you've had the same conversation with multiple people and had the same response from all of us. Continuing like this is just trolling.

a complex structure that is very unlikely to evolve naturally.

What is the actual evidence that indicates it did not evolve naturally?

 

[xianghua]

That depends how you define a watch. All known watches are designed and non-replicating. We don't know how to design a self-replicating watch.

so if you will find such a watch will you conclude design or evolution?

So, how do you define 'watch' in this context?

i dont think that we need definitions since definitions are problematic. im talking about a watch with 12 digits, 2 hands etc.

 

[Speedwell]

so a self replicating robot isnt evidence for design?

Why should it be?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so if you will find such a watch will you conclude design or evolution?

I answered this earlier.

i dont think that we need definitions since definitions are problematic. im talking about a watch with 12 digits, 2 hands etc.

Without definitions, coherent communication is impossible - as you so clearly demonstrate.

 

[Peretheologica]

The flaw with the theory of evolution starts in the beginning. A huge explosion materialized itself in the center of the universe and created the building blocks for the universe today, right? What strikes me as odd is the sheer amount of randomness that could've been generated by a so-called "fortuitous" detonation is infinite. Yet, the world we live in today is not random; rather it can be explained. We don't live in a randomly generated reality in which nothing coincides with anything else. The universe follows a set collection of blueprints that can be seen from a tiny creature all the way up to a planet. I believe that you have to have more faith that God doesn't exist than by believing he does exist.

People say that God can't exist because of the torment we see in this world, and I say, why do you believe God has to follow your philosophy? Jesus was crucified on the cross and suffered one of the most painful deaths a human being can suffer. If Jesus suffered, so can we.

"Why did God allow sin in the first place." God was curious, he let his creation have a mind of its own. He shared the attributes that he had with us and allowed us to share some of his power. Yet, we turned on him. Imagine God as a programmer who worked tirelessly to create AI to represent his traits, but one day the AI turned against him. The programmer could easily have easily programmed the AI to obey his every command, but he gave it the freedom to see what the AI would do by itself. The programmer is not going to completely delete the AI, but teach it how to respect its master. In today's world, we're like God's AI. We can get viruses (sin) very easily. And just like how people who are new with computers click on ads that say "Click here to win 100,000 dollars," our sins are like viruses that tempt us to click on them and infect us to separate us even further from our creator.

"I can't see God so he isn't real." Let me ask you, can you see gravity? or air? when a fight breaks out, you can feel the tension in the air, can you see that? We know the 1st dimension exists because we are of a higher dimension and we can easily understand it. We know the 2nd dimension exists because again we are of a higher dimension and we can easily understand it. We know the 3rd dimension exists because that's the dimension in which we reside. There is evidence that a 4th dimension exists but we cannot see it. If you live by sight alone, you'll miss out on many things.

I'm just saying, the odds of an explosion being generated out of nothing and creating intelligently designed systems and frameworks that all coincide with each other (mathematics, science, etc.) is harder to believe than someone of a higher power simply speaking everything into existence. Idk man, just my 2 cents.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A huge explosion materialized itself in the center of the universe and created the building blocks for the universe today, right?

The fact that you claim that the Big Bang counts as the start of evolution really pretty much invalidates anything else you will say about your opinion of evolution.

 

[Peretheologica]

The fact that you claim that the Big Bang counts as the start of evolution really pretty much invalidates anything else you will say about your opinion of evolution.

You can't have evolution if you don't have the event that set it in motion. For example, I believe that God created everything in the beginning so nothing would exist if he didn't.

 

[Speedwell]

You can't have evolution if you don't have the event that set it in motion. For example, I believe that God created everything in the beginning so nothing would exist if he didn't.

Many of us do, but it's not an argument against evolution.