2 proofs that nature was designed

[Speedwell]

I wouldn't be game enough to suggest He didn't apply intelligent design and engineering into all creation, I have more self respect for my goodly welfare than that.

Sure. But He didn't use ID to do it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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. this is because it has a self replicating system and made from organic components, so its basically like any other walking creature. but we know that even such a robot\ watch is evidence for design. therefore nature need design too.

we also find these gears in nature, and we know that gears are the product of design:


https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...the-first-time

Have you posted these arguments before? Were they shown to be erroneous?

Honest answers only, please.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Have you posted these arguments before? Were they shown to be erroneous?

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg

I know. It wouldn't be so bad if he was honest about things, but his deliberate and persistent dishonesty really needs to be highlighted.

 

[Tony B]

Sure. But He didn't use ID to do it.

Ok. Excuse my ignorance, but I thought ID was an acronym for intelligent design! Am I missing something here?

 

[Speedwell]

Ok. Excuse my ignorance, but I thought ID was an acronym for intelligent design! Am I missing something here?

ID is an acronym for Intelligent Design (note the caps) a specific proposal of the Discovery Institute of Seattle, as I told you. It is a much more specific and detailed claim than merely saying that God used his "intelligence" to "design" the universe, which no theist would really have an argument with.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok. Excuse my ignorance, but I thought ID was an acronym for intelligent design! Am I missing something here?

Yes. The Discovery Institute promulgates the pseudo-scientific 'Intelligent Design' as a scientific theory to rival the theory of evolution by natural selection. However, internal documents have disclosed that it is part of a fraudulent strategy (the 'Wedge Strategy') to get creationism taught as science in schools. This strategy has been tested and rejected in court, with one of the principal contributors being forced to admit it is no more scientific than astrology.

 

[Tony B]

ID is an acronym for Intelligent Design (note the caps) a specific proposal of the Discovery Institute of Seattle, as I told you. It is a much more specific and detailed claim than merely saying that God used his "intelligence" to "design" the universe, which no theist would really have an argument with.

Well it had nothing to do with me, my deductions. I came to the conclusion that God used intelligent design and engineering in His creation, on my own volition, just by applying logic. Not sure what that institute is about, and am not interested. I'm careful not to let my faith get entangled in useless discussions and theories, in the same way Paul didn't.

Shalom.

 

[Speedwell]

Well it had nothing to do with me, my deductions. I came to the conclusion that God used intelligent design and engineering in His creation, on my own volition, just by applying logic. Not sure what that institute is about, and am not interested. I'm careful not to let my faith get entangled in useless discussions and theories, in the same way Paul didn't.

Shalom.

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.

 

[Tony B]

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.

These aren't my ideas, they are God's revelation. And if I had children, I certainly wouldn't be sending them to a public school, or any religious institution school either. I'd either be home schooling or local neighbourhood Christian group schooling.

Anyway, we all have the choice to believe what we want to, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Out of curiosity, what is the 'other religion' you belong to?

 

[Speedwell]

These aren't my ideas, they are God's revelation. And if I had children, I certainly wouldn't be sending them to a public school, or any religious institution school either. I'd either be home schooling or local neighbourhood Christian group schooling.

Anyway, we all have the choice to believe what we want to, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Just to be sure we understand what we're disagreeing about: There is nothing wrong with characterizing God's creative activity as "designing" or "engineering" if that's what you want to do, although it seems somewhat fanciful to me. On the other hand, when you call those ideas of yours "ID" you risk being taken for a member of a gang of radical Calvinists who want to replace the government of the US with a totalitarian theocracy. Basically, I'm just offering friendly advice, not disagreeing with you.

Out of curiosity, what is the 'other religion' you belong to?

I'm an Anglican--what conservative Evangelicals call a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie," and not considered to be a real Christian by the Trump administration--which is why I changed my designation to "other religion."

 

[Tony B]

Just to be sure we understand what we're disagreeing about: There is nothing wrong with characterizing God's creative activity as "designing" or "engineering" if that's what you want to do, although it seems somewhat fanciful to me. On the other hand, when you call those ideas of yours "ID" you risk being taken for a member of a gang of radical Calvinists who want to replace the government of the US with a totalitarian theocracy. Basically, I'm just offering friendly advice, not disagreeing with you.

I'm an Anglican--what conservative Evangelicals call a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie," and not considered to be a real Christian by the Trump administration--which is why I changed my designation to "other religion."

Is it that bad over there.... from the sidelines, and hopefully I'm not pontificating, but it seems from our distance that the US appears to be about to implode on itself! I hope we've got that wrong, and it doesn't happen.

 

[VirOptimus]

 

[MIDutch]

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. this is because it has a self replicating system and made from organic components, so its basically like any other walking creature. but we know that even such a robot\ watch is evidence for design. therefore nature need design too.

we also find these gears in nature, and we know that gears are the product of design:


https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...the-first-time

If this "design" is so good (and we know it is because it is quite common in human designs) then why isn't it found throughout the natural world? Why is it ONLY in this one insect? How incompetent must a "designer" be to come up with such a brilliant solution to an engineering problem and use it in only one life form (on a MICROSCOPIC level no less) in the entire Cosmos?

Also, being omnipotent, and having "created" everything a mere 6000 years ago, it could very easily have snapped it's fingers and included this design in pretty much anything it wanted to in order to leave no doubt that everything from insects to tectonic plates were the product of a "designer" because they all incorporate gears in their moving parts.

 

[Ophiolite]

You're still on this? After every single time that this whole thing has been disproven?
Commitment, I'll definitely call it that.

Or deserving of being committed?

 

[Ophiolite]

Anyway, we all have the choice to believe what we want to, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

It is true that we have that choice, but it is one that I think we should think long and hard before making. Many of the things I "believe" are definitely things that I would rather were not true, but when the evidence points in that direction then that is the right thing to believe. Any other approach would be, to use religious terminology, sinful - or in secular terms, downright dumb.

To put it another way, I don't really believe anything, but I accept a great deal based upon evidence. Not the evidence of my eyes, for witnesses are notoriously unreliable and I see no reason to think I may be an exception, but carefully gathered and tested and substantiated evidence. I choose that approach not because I want to, but because it makes sense. And because it makes sense - then I want to.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To put it another way, I don't really believe anything, but I accept a great deal based upon evidence. Not the evidence of my eyes, for witnesses are notoriously unreliable and I see no reason to think I may be an exception, but carefully gathered and tested and substantiated evidence. I choose that approach not because I want to, but because it makes sense. And because it makes sense - then I want to.

Yes, well put.

 

[driewerf]

I can't fathom how anyone can believe that intelligent design and engineering can come from unintelligence, ...

And i can't fathom how, using loaded words like "intelligent design" and "engineering" do NOT point that the author of these words is stacking the deck.

 

[driewerf]

I can't fathom how anyone can believe that intelligent design and engineering can come from unintelligence, which you would have to conclude if you don't believe in a Creator God. Surely that has to be regarded as an illogical conclusion.

Adaptation, yes, as a mechanism of intelligent design, but just by evolution or chance...that's just illogical in my opinion, and beggars belief!

Reacting to the last part:
Tony B, are you the measure of all things? Everything you just happen not to understand is wrong and illogical?

 

[Tony B]

Reacting to the last part:
Tony B, are you the measure of all things? Everything you just happen not to understand is wrong and illogical?

Quite frankly, I'm gobsmacked that you and others that have similar ungodly/anti-God demeanours are able to remain on a Christian Forum site...I would have tossed you out right after you, having heard the faith explanation, decided you wanted nothing to do with it. Your spirit is dead, and is unable to discern/understand godly truths. I prefer to discuss Christianity with people that are searching, and not waste my time arguing with someone that is fixed on plotting their own demise, and who might draw off a new Christian, or a Christian week in faith, into the same abyss that they are trudging towards. I will work with the humble and contrite of heart, but will resist the haughty and godless. If you develop humility, let me know, I'd love to have a chat with you then.