2 proofs that nature was designed

[Kylie]

so what is the starting point?

If you had watched the video, you would have an answer to your question.

 

[Kylie]

maybe because it works?

No, it doesn't.

 

[tas8831]

what if its made of organic components?

What organic components? Who would make them and use them to build a robot?

Most importantly, why on earth do you still trot out these ridiculous "arguments" ?

you will conclude design in such a case?

Why would I do that?

Still waiting for you to explain how a robot:

ro·bot

noun

1. (especially in science fiction) a machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically.
   "the robot closed the door behind us"

would reproduce.

 

[tas8831]

maybe because it works?

Maybe not.

No, definitely not.

You seem to think that you score points every time you try it, but you can never get beyond merely asserting the same nonsense.

 

[tas8831]

a robot cant looks like a penguin?

A robot penguin made of organic parts would still need non-organic components. So nobody would be fooled as you seem to continually imply.

 

[tas8831]

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.

As usual, you produce zero proofs.

You seem to think that "organic" has some sort of meaning that it doesn't.

Please define what "organic" means to you in this context.

Then explain how a robot made of organic material would fool people into thinking it was a living thing (which, I guess, is what you are getting at).

 

[tas8831]

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.

What is your background such that you can assess the veracity, accuracy, etc., claims in those creationist videos?

 

[Astrid]

If you had watched the video, you would have an answer to your question.

Your quote about the difficulty of convincing someone they've
bring lied to could hardly be more apt for creationists.
The blow to ego, the threat to the whole rigid brittle construct
of reality, the break from their social support, and the fear of
GOD being annoyed with them is a mix too powerful for
any but the most courageously honest.

 

[Astrid]

What is your background such that you can assess the veracity, accuracy, etc., claims in those creationist videos?

The essence of a successful con is to mix fact into the
fiction.

Finding someone already convinced makes a
con almost too easy.

 

[Astrid]

For those who never studied chemistry we note that
any compound involving carbon is " organic ",
including the carbon fiber in stealth aircraft.

 

[May the facts be with you]

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."

? information processing capacity. So I take it your signed up to the Gayer Hypothesis by James Lovelock which gives the earth a personality. This fixes the problems which arise from the "blind and undirected chance" premise of evolution/naturalism.

 

[May the facts be with you]

You're well out of it. Just remember, though, that when you bring up your ideas and call them "ID" you are invoking a pseudoscientific hoax concocted by a gang of radical Calvinists as a Trojan Horse to get their doctrine into the public schools.

ID has a better scientific basis than the alternatives - I only support it because I'm trained in applied science and have then used my training for many years. Most ID supporters are also trained scientists. Usually objectors to ID descend to name-calling due to lack of evidence, so I'll stick out of this thread

 

[May the facts be with you]

You are of course free to believe anything you want.

But when belief contradict physical reality it looses every time.

It does indeed.

 

[VirOptimus]

It does indeed.

So why do you support ID which is a religious belief and not science?

 

[Kylie]

? information processing capacity. So I take it your signed up to the Gayer Hypothesis by James Lovelock which gives the earth a personality. This fixes the problems which arise from the "blind and undirected chance" premise of evolution/naturalism.

The Earth has personality? Are you suggesting that it is conscious? As in the same way I am conscious?

 

[Speedwell]

ID has a better scientific basis than the alternatives - I only support it because I'm trained in applied science and have then used my training for many years. Most ID supporters are also trained scientists. Usually objectors to ID descend to name-calling due to lack of evidence, so I'll stick out of this thread

It has no scientific basis. There is no test for the presence of design and no explanation of how the "design" gets into the critters. Pointing out that there is no evidence for ID is not "name-calling."

 

[May the facts be with you]

The Earth has personality? Are you suggesting that it is conscious? As in the same way I am conscious?

That is the ultimate terminus conclusion from James's theory. He argues that the extremes levels of interdependence by different living organisms can only be explained by his hypothesis that planet is a system with inbuilt intelligence and an ability to process information because the natualist explanation based on blind chance was inconceivable give the complexity of interactions between lifeforms. I think its nuts mind you.

 

[May the facts be with you]

So why do you support ID which is a religious belief and not science?

I'd define ID as the study of complex systems and without taking forward anything unproven. Its not religious per-sey, if it is perceived to lead to that conclusion its merely the result of Occam's razor. I suppose I look at systems analysis (which is what ID is) as one of the most powerful tools available to anyone reverse engineering any aspect of a biological system. Its no different to studying the complexity of an aircraft and how each system has been designed to interact with each other.

The dilemma only arises when one asks where it came from. That's not ID per-see, but does lead to questions which become inconvenient when asked. I suppose you are implying that these answers are beyond the realm of science, with which I agree. But true science is the investigation of facts regardless of the outcome. Occam's razor is exceptionally sharp.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'd define ID as the study of complex systems and without taking forward anything unproven. Its not religious per-sey, if it is perceived to lead to that conclusion its merely the result of Occam's razor. I suppose I look at systems analysis (which is what ID is) as one of the most powerful tools available to anyone reverse engineering any aspect of a biological system. Its no different to studying the complexity of an aircraft and how each system has been designed to interact with each other.

The dilemma only arises when one asks where it came from. That's not ID per-see, but does lead to questions which become inconvenient when asked. I suppose you are implying that these answers are beyond the realm of science, with which I agree. But true science is the investigation of facts regardless of the outcome. Occam's razor is exceptionally sharp.

No, ID is creationism in disguise.

It has no merit.

 

[Kylie]

No, ID is creationism in disguise.

It has no merit.

Exactly. I've never seen any version of ID that doesn't ultimately posit a deity as the intelligent designer.