2 proofs that nature was designed

xianghua said:

maybe because it works?

Click to expand...

It has never worked, in all the years you've been trying it.

xianghua said:

definitions are problematic. say that you will find something that looks like a robot. but instead of plastic its made of organic components like living thing. will you conclude design or not?

Click to expand...

Only if there is evidence of design. "Looking like a robot made of organic materials" is not evidence of design.

xianghua said:

definitions are problematic. say that you will find something that looks like a robot. but instead of plastic its made of organic components like living thing. will you conclude design or not?

Click to expand...

Definitions may be problematic, but until you have provided one I see no point and no means to answer your question.

Put another way, if you don't define what you are talking about then you don't know what you are talking about.

xianghua said:

so a robot with DNA is evidence for design?

Click to expand...

Yes, the mechanical robot part of it might show evidence of design.

xianghua said:

so artificial penguin is a robot by that definition. right?

Click to expand...

And?

xianghua said:

do you agree that if we will find such a watch with DNA it will be evidence for design?

Click to expand...

Let's cut to the chase here and put aside your silly imaginary objects. Functional complexity is not evidence of design.

xianghua said:

a robot cant looks like a penguin?

Click to expand...

Of course it can look like a penguin. But looking like something does not mean being that thing.

I don't understand how this simplest of concepts is difficult for you.

xianghua said:

what if its made of organic components?

Click to expand...

You would have to be able to show that making organic components is doable.

xianghua said:

definitions are problematic. say that you will find something that looks like a robot. but instead of plastic its made of organic components like living thing. will you conclude design or not?

Click to expand...

Hold on: what is your definition of a robot?

Larnievc said:

Of course it can look like a penguin. But looking like something does not mean being that thing.

I don't understand how this simplest of concepts is difficult for you.

Click to expand...

My wife made a similar mistake. She thought I looked like I would make a reasonably good husband.
.
.
.
But not even she believes in robot penguins.

xianghua said:

so a robot with DNA is evidence for design?

Click to expand...

I did say that a mechanical construct (a robot) having a biological component (DNA) in it would clearly be evidence of design.

But you have no such thing.

xianghua said:

do you agree that if we will find such a watch with DNA it will be evidence for design?

Click to expand...

If we find such a watch with DNA, I would suspect it's a murder scene.

We've been through this nonsense more than once - it's not a valid or sound argument. Playing semantic games is not an argument; I wish you could understand that.

Let me understand this. Let's suppose we build a penguin out of biological parts. Let's suppose further that we give them DNA and reproductive systems. Let's suppose they do reproduce and there are mutations and that penguins evolve however.

Let's grant all of this. What have we shown? That humans have ingenuity. Nothing else. There would be those penguins that aren't designed and these penguins that we designed.

If we could do this, is our interlocutor suggesting that there must be a god or a designer? Major non sequitur.

Am I missing something?

Tinker Grey said:

Let me understand this. Let's suppose we build a penguin out of biological parts. Let's suppose further that we give them DNA and reproductive systems. Let's suppose they do reproduce and there are mutations and that penguins evolve however.

Let's grant all of this. What have we shown?

Click to expand...

I think I know this one: that we are animal impressionists?

Tinker Grey said:

Let me understand this. Let's suppose we build a penguin out of biological parts. Let's suppose further that we give them DNA and reproductive systems. Let's suppose they do reproduce and there are mutations and that penguins evolve however.

Let's grant all of this. What have we shown? That humans have ingenuity. Nothing else. There would be those penguins that aren't designed and these penguins that we designed.

Click to expand...

That would strictly depend whether we copied the natural penguins or designed our own from scratch (or maybe a little copying and a little designing)...

xianghua said:

do you agree that if we will find such a watch with DNA it will be evidence for design?

Click to expand...

If it's the offspring of an earlier generation, ie your fantasy watch had reproduced and we are looking at it's descendant, then we would not have evidence of design, we would have evidence of successful reproduction.

Are you evidence that your parents designed you, or are you evidence that they successfully reproduced?