Creationists: Explain how the designer created and/or modified living things on Earth

Bungle_Bear · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
we just need to show evidence for design to conclude that nature was designed.

You have been challenged in numerous threads to produce this evidence, but for some reason you seem to be unwilling to do so. If you produce that evidence then you win the argument and pretty much overturn ToE. Why are you so reluctant to do that? Fame and fortune beckon, but xianghua isn't interested?

Ophiolite · Jun 24, 2019

Bungle_Bear said:
You have been challenged in numerous threads to produce this evidence, but for some reason you seem to be unwilling to do so. If you produce that evidence then you win the argument and pretty much overturn ToE. Why are you so reluctant to do that? Fame and fortune beckon, but xianghua isn't interested?

"These aren't the robot penguins you are looking for. Go about your business. Move along."

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

Bungle_Bear said:
If you produce that evidence then you win the argument and pretty much overturn ToE.

here is one evidence for design:

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA1Ni83ODUvb3JpZ2luYWwvaW5zZWN0LWdlYXJzLmpwZw==

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

pitabread said:
On the first part, you're wrong. Designer did it is not a scientific claim. If you can explain how, then we can talk.

Insofar as evolution, we have an understand how that process works and we have evidence that indicates the outcome of said process. So yes, evolution really is scientific. Whether you accept that or not really doesn't matter.

so the claim that a robot doesnt need design is scientific? ok.

Speedwell · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
here is one evidence for design:

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

Why do you think that is evidence for design?

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

Speedwell said:
Why do you think that is evidence for design?

because all gears we know of are the product of design and we never seen gears made by a natural process.

Speedwell · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
because all gears we know of are the product of design and we never seen gears made by a natural process.

The gears you are showing a picture of were made by a natural process.

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

Speedwell said:
The gears you are showing a picture of were made by a natural process.

this is your assumption. but the evidence for that assumption doesnt exist.

Speedwell · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
this is your assumption. but the evidence for that assumption doesnt exist.

According to the article accompanying the picture, the gearlike structures are part of the hind legs of an insect, Issus coleoptratus. As far as I am aware, these insects reproduce in nature like other insects, and are not manufactured in insect factories. The gearlike structures in its legs were made by the natural process of growth.

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

Speedwell said:
According to the article accompanying the picture, the gearlike structures are part of the hind legs of an insect, Issus coleoptratus. As far as I am aware, these insects reproduce in nature like other insects, and are not manufactured in insect factories. The gearlike structures in its legs were made by the natural process of growth.

but how it evolved? again we go back to assumption.

Ophiolite · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
but how it evolved? again we go back to assumption.

No. We go back to observation, investigation, hypothesis formation and testing. We infer from confirmed observations. No assumptions involved.

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

Ophiolite said:
No. We go back to observation, investigation, hypothesis formation and testing. We infer from confirmed observations. No assumptions involved.

you assume that fish evolved into man. this isnt a fact but an assumption.

Ophiolite · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
you assume that fish evolved into man. this isnt a fact but an assumption.

Are you simply not paying attention? Observations led to many inferences that were repeatedly tested. The net consequence of those validated inferences was that some fish had given rise to a branching evolutionary sequence, one of whose branches led to man. There is no assumption anywhere in there.

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

Ophiolite said:
Are you simply not paying attention? Observations led to many inferences that were repeatedly tested. The net consequence of those validated inferences was that some fish had given rise to a branching evolutionary sequence, one of whose branches led to man. There is no assumption anywhere in there.

yes there is. you cant prove that one evolved from another one= assumption.

Ophiolite · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
yes there is. you cant prove that one evolved from another one= assumption.

I realise that English is not your native language. Please accept that assumption does not mean what you think it means.

An assumption is a position one adopts, often provisionally, based upon minimal data. Once an assumption is tested and found valid, it is no longer an assumption. However, in the case of the evolution of quadrupeds assumptions do not appear to have been involved. Rather the case for their evolution emerged steadily from the observations and tests that were carried out.

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

Ophiolite said:
I realise that English is not your native language. Please accept that assumption does not mean what you think it means.

An assumption is a position one adopts, often provisionally, based upon minimal data. Once an assumption is tested and found valid, it is no longer an assumption. However, in the case of the evolution of quadrupeds assumptions do not appear to have been involved. Rather the case for their evolution emerged steadily from the observations and tests that were carried out.

doest the notion that a creature B evolved from a creature A is a fact or a belief?

pitabread · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
so the claim that a robot doesnt need design is scientific? ok.

We're not talking about robots. We're talking about biological organisms. Don't change the subject.

xianghua · Jun 24, 2019

pitabread said:
We're not talking about robots. We're talking about biological organisms. Don't change the subject.

isnt a walking creature a kind of a walking robot from a physical perspective?

pitabread · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
isnt a walking creature a kind of a walking robot from a physical perspective?

No. We've been over this before. You're using the word "robot" incorrectly.

Ophiolite · Jun 24, 2019

xianghua said:
doest the notion that a creature B evolved from a creature A is a fact or a belief?

Neither. It is the most rational and well supported explanation for a wide array of observations, experiments and tests. This is so well supported that it extremely likely to be a fact and, in most cases, can be taken as such.

Creationists: Explain how the designer created and/or modified living things on Earth

Whoot!

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Similar threads