Evidence for Design (3)

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
What is designing the parts?

Natural processes, like evolution.

Are you unaware that natural processes also produce designs? For example, this ripple design was produced by the natural process of wind travelling over sand:

gloss_sanddune.jpg
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Biological reproduction.

lol so biological reproduction starts evolution?

I bet you would have various opinions on that.

I thought evolution started biological reproduction?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The theory of evolution would be unchanged if a simple RNA replicator was created by a deity or advanced race, and then life as we see it evolved from that RNA replicator.

Evolution relies on abiogenesis as much as car repair or metallurgy relies on the Big Bang.



Prove yourself right.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Do you understand how logic works or not?

see if you search google scholar, do you know what you find?

stellar evolution,

how is stellar evolution involved with the theory of evolution?

see you are defining evolution one way when science uses it another.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, state your case.

We await your response.

you can no longer say ID has no peer reviews, because you refuse to read it.

so I am supposed to
read the peer review

and post peer review arguments by C&P?

wouldn't that be copywrite?

If I don't C&P it and summarize it, then you can find error in my summary. Which makes ME wrong. So thats out of the question too.



See the only way for you to really be proven wrong is for me to break a rule somewhere, well I wont do that.

you can read it yourself just as easily as I can.

If you find the peer review wrong, then fine.

But you can no longer state that ID has no peer reviews.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
see if you search google scholar, do you know what you find?

stellar evolution,

how is stellar evolution involved with the theory of evolution?

see you are defining evolution one way when science uses it another.

Stellar evolution is entirely unrelated to biological evolution. The only connection is the name, and that is only because someone saw the process that stars undergo is analogous to (not the same, but with features that can be loosely compared to) the process living populations undergo.

Your confusing or conflating the two processes is similar to confusing the pure colors black, white, red, and yellow for the average skin tone of the human racial groups. If you use the crayons with those names to color people in a coloring book, it will not look at all like what we see in nature.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
you can no longer say ID has no peer reviews, because you refuse to read it.

so I am supposed to
read the peer review

and post peer review arguments by C&P?

wouldn't that be copywrite?

If I don't C&P it and summarize it, then you can find error in my summary. Which makes ME wrong. So thats out of the question too.



See the only way for you to really be proven wrong is for me to break a rule somewhere, well I wont do that.

you can read it yourself just as easily as I can.

If you find the peer review wrong, then fine.

But you can no longer state that ID has no peer reviews.

No. You are supposed to explain ID in your own words. You can use terms that are commonly defined in the "science, " and even define those terms for people who are unfamiliar with them. You can then post links that confirm your statements in peer-reviewed papers. In posting the link, you can include a brief, on-topic quote to show that the link does confirm your statement (no more than two sentences or 10% of the entire paper, whichever is less) without breaking either copyright laws or forum rules.

This shows that you understand the topic yourself and assures us that the link will include an answer to our question. Many of you posts have had a very strange vagueness to them. It was as if you were saying, "I have no idea what you are talking about, but maybe this paper is something that might have your answer.
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟21,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Natural processes, like evolution.

Are you unaware that natural processes also produce designs? For example, this ripple design was produced by the natural process of wind travelling over sand:

gloss_sanddune.jpg

What do ripples in sand from the wind have to do with genetic machinery?
Does wind build skyscrapers?

You are comparing design in sand (non-living materials) to complex
machinery in living organisms keeping them alive.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
What do ripples in sand from the wind have to do with genetic machinery?

Ripples in sand are designs produced by natural processes.

Does wind build skyscrapers?

Do skyscrapers reproduce?

You are comparing design in sand (non-living materials) to complex
machinery in living organisms keeping them alive.

What does complexity have to do with whether or not a design is produced by natural processes?
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
it's actually more accurate to say "prove there is no neuclear in nuclear physics"

abiogenesis relies on evolution as it's primary engine.

prove me wrong.

I await your response.


It's rare that I run across an example of fractal wrongness... but this is one. Your argument is simply fractally wrong.


Abiogenesis can not rely on evolution as it's primary engine, because prior to Abiogenesis, there's nothing there to evolve.

Evolution by natural selection can only take place on an organism that already exists, and if the organism already exists, then abiogenesis has already happened and is finished.

Abiogenesis is the initial formation of life. Evolution is how life changes over time.

If you can't see the obvious separation between those two topics, I don't know what else to say.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
you can no longer say ID has no peer reviews, because you refuse to read it.

We can as long as you fail to show how any peer reviewed papers support ID.

so I am supposed to
read the peer review

and post peer review arguments by C&P?

wouldn't that be copywrite?

If I don't C&P it and summarize it, then you can find error in my summary. Which makes ME wrong. So thats out of the question too.



See the only way for you to really be proven wrong is for me to break a rule somewhere, well I wont do that.

you can read it yourself just as easily as I can.

If you find the peer review wrong, then fine.

This is a DISCUSSION forum, not a suggested reading forum. How can we have a discussion if you are incapable of reading the article and summarizing why it supports Intelligent Design? Why should we do all the heavy lifting to support YOUR claims?

If you think a peer reviewed article supports ID then tell us why you think that. Show us how the experiments in the paper test specific ID hypotheses, and have sufficient controls to rule out the null hypothesis. This is what real scientists do, by the way.

What I find ironic is that ID supporters will go on and on how they are silenced and prevented from discussing ID. Here we are begging you to discuss ID science, AND YOU ARE REFUSING TO DO SO.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
see if you search google scholar, do you know what you find?

stellar evolution,

how is stellar evolution involved with the theory of evolution?

It isn't, just as the evolution of modern electronic media is unrelated to stellar evolution. The evolution of democracy in 19th century Europe is also unrelated to biological evolution. The evolution of capitalist economies in the 20th century is also unrelated to cosmic evolution.

Just because they both have evolution in the description does not mean they are related.

see you are defining evolution one way when science uses it another.

Evolution is defined as change over time in all of them, and it is used that way in science. What you refuse to understand is that the mechanisms that cause change over time in each system differs.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
lol so biological reproduction starts evolution?

Yes, along with having an intracellular metabolism that creates a thermodynamic gradient across the cellular membrane. As I said, as soon as you have biological organisms reproducing and competing for metabolic resources you have evolution.

I bet you would have various opinions on that.

Then find them.

I thought evolution started biological reproduction?

False. Abiogenesis is the current scientific hypothesis that deals with the production of biological reproduction.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Neither. Simple, single celled biological organisms came first.
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟21,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Ripples in sand are designs produced by natural processes.

Do skyscrapers reproduce?

What does complexity have to do with whether or not a design is produced by natural processes?

Does wind and sand reproduce?

Complexity matters because natural processes do not produce nano-sized complex genetic structures that humans can't begin to reproduce. In fact we often copy designs in nature to make things.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Does wind and sand reproduce?

No, which is why we don't see them evolving like life does. The whole point is that design is produced by natural processes.

Complexity matters because natural processes do not produce nano-sized complex genetic structures that humans can't begin to reproduce.

Based on what evidence? Why can't nature produce complex genetic structures that humans are not able to reproduce at this time?

In fact we often copy designs in nature to make things.

Why does that preclude them from being the product of natural processes?
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟21,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
No, which is why we don't see them evolving like life does. The whole point is that design is produced by natural processes.

I don't believe that nature has the mental capacity or random capacity to design complex genetic machinery on the scale that we observe it.

Can you demonstrate this so that I can actually see it working each step of the way? Not on paper or imagined on a fancy drawing. I want actual scientific observation or reproduction.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe that nature has the mental capacity or random capacity to design complex genetic machinery on the scale that we observe it.

Can you demonstrate this so that I can actually see it working each step of the way? Not on paper or imagined on a fancy drawing. I want actual scientific observation or reproduction.

I'm sure you do.
 
Upvote 0

mathetes123

Newbie
Dec 26, 2011
2,469
53
✟10,634.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No, which is why we don't see them evolving like life does. The whole point is that design is produced by natural processes.



Based on what evidence? Why can't nature produce complex genetic structures that humans are not able to reproduce at this time?



Why does that preclude them from being the product of natural processes?

Seriously, you can accept that nature can design itself, but not that an intelligent creator designed it, and evolutionist claim creationists throw out reason to believe what they do.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I don't believe that nature has the mental capacity or random capacity to design complex genetic machinery on the scale that we observe it.

I am talking about how reality works, not what you believe or don't believe. If I believe that the Sun orbits the Earth, will my beliefs make it so?

you demonstrate this so that I can actually see it working each step of the way?

Burden of proof fallacy. You are claiming that nature can't do it. Support your claim. If you can't, then just say so.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Seriously, you can accept that nature can design itself, but not that an intelligent creator designed it, and evolutionist claim creationists throw out reason to believe what they do.

The difference is that we have evidence that supports evolution, but no evidence that supports any intelligent creator. When we compare the human genome to that of other apes we see the fingerprints of evolution all over them, from shared genetic markers to selection in genes compared to non-coding and non-regulatory DNA. All of the evidence points to humans evolving from an ancestor shared with other apes. No evidence points to an intelligent creator. We would have to throw out reason to ignore this evidence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Seriously, you can accept that nature can design itself, but not that an intelligent creator designed it, and evolutionist claim creationists throw out reason to believe what they do.

Seriously. It's observed. What more do you require?
 
Upvote 0