2 proofs that nature was designed

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... as far as the OP and creation is concerned, God has not left anything to chance, He has planned and designed everything according to His purposes.

I'm afraid "It's true because I say so" carries no weight in the Physical & Life Science forums.

 

[driewerf]

I think the best answer I can give is that as far as every creature that has ever existed is concerned, they have come about directly as a result of our God's creativity and intelligence, and power. He has left nothing as far as His creation is concerned, to chance.

Which, if true would mean that the very first experiment in genetics would be bonkers. The ratios of features observed by Gregor Mendel match exactly a random distribution of genes.
ooops, there goes your viewpoint.

 

[pitabread]

Oh look, this thread again. I guess the last dozen times these "proofs" were debunked wasn't enough for the OP. :/

 

[Kylie]

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

Haven't you made these same arguments before, and weren't your arguments refuted before as well? Why do you keep raising the same flawed arguments again and again?

 

[Ophiolite]

Haven't you made these same arguments before, and weren't your arguments refuted before as well? Why do you keep raising the same flawed arguments again and again?

Of course a parallel question might be asked. Why do we continue to refute these flawed arguments with the same body of well founded argument, sound logic and abundant evidence? Clearly this isn't a thread on Christian Forums. This is Ground Hog Day.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sure that Xianghua is just as baffled as we are. He is absolutely and completely convinced that functional complexity is evidence of design--regards it as an obvious and objective truth. He can't understand why we won't acknowledge it.

 

[Kylie]

Of course a parallel question might be asked. Why do we continue to refute these flawed arguments with the same body of well founded argument, sound logic and abundant evidence?

Well, there are people who may not have seen the previous threads, and so we must respond to these points each time lest some people consider them accurate.

Clearly this isn't a thread on Christian Forums. This is Ground Hog Day.

Also, I got you babe.

 

[pitabread]

I'm sure that Xianghua is just as baffled as we are. He is absolutely and completely convinced that functional complexity is evidence of design--regards it as an obvious and objective truth. He can't understand why we won't acknowledge it.

And when he backs himself into a corner trying to argue one thing, he'll waffle and start arguing the exact opposite.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And when he backs himself into a corner trying to argue one thing, he'll waffle and start arguing the exact opposite.

Or do what he's done now - walk away with no response, then start a new thread with the same nonsense pretending he has something new and irrefutable.

Bring on the dancing penguins!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Bring on the dancing penguins!

I want dancing robot penguins and cars that reproduce...

 

[xianghua]

Who knows? there's no such thing as a self replicating watch...

We've been through all this nonsense repeatedly pointing out how your analogies fail every time through equivocation and false equivalence fallacies.

Having said that, systems that behave like clocks can be produced by selective evolution:

first, a pndulum needs about 3 parts as starting point. so 3 parts at once isnt "small steps". second, we can answer theoretical questions in science. so do you agree that if we will find a self replicating watch we will need to conclude design or not?

 

[Speedwell]

first, a pndulum needs about 2 parts as starting point. so 3 parts at once isnt "small steps". second, we can answer theoretical questions in science. so do you agree that if we will find a self replicating watch we will need to conclude design or not?

Not unless there is evidence of design.

 

[xianghua]

Haven't you made these same arguments before, and weren't your arguments refuted before as well? Why do you keep raising the same flawed arguments again and again?

maybe because its never been refuted?

 

[xianghua]

A watch is not evidence of design

lets agree to disagree.

 

[Speedwell]

lets agree to disagree.

Why not just explain why a "watch" is evidence of design?

 

[pitabread]

maybe because its never been refuted?

Oh, they've been refuted eight ways from Sunday. No idea why you keep reposting the same nonsense unless you're just trolling at this point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

first, a pndulum needs about 3 parts as starting point. so 3 parts at once isnt "small steps".

So, we can add pendulums (pendula?) to the list of things you don't understand...

... do you agree that if we will find a self replicating watch we will need to conclude design or not?

That depends how you define a watch. All known watches are designed and non-replicating. We don't know how to design a self-replicating watch.

But, as I told you last time, most organisms have biological clocks and do replicate - you could potentially tell the time with them - are they watches? Other non-reproducing systems have regular behaviours but are not designed - and we do tell the time with them (we even use some of them to produce our most accurate clocks) - are they watches?

So, how do you define 'watch' in this context?

 

[pitabread]

Why not just explain why a "watch" is evidence of design?

Has xianghua ever explained what his criteria for design is? I don't seem to recall him ever clarifying that.

 

[Speedwell]

Has xianghua ever explained what his criteria for design is? I don't seem to recall him ever clarifying that.

I have the impression that he has at times advanced the idea that functional complexity is evidence of design. That's apparently why he makes arguments to the effect that if man-made robot penguins are designed, a real penguin must have been designed as well.

 

[Larniavc]

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

Please tell me that magical animal cars will, with ill deserved confidence, be soon hoving into view.