2 proofs that nature was designed

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You can't have evolution if you don't have the event that set it in motion. For example, I believe that God created everything in the beginning so nothing would exist if he didn't.

The theory of evolution deals with how life evolved, not how life came about.
Yes, how life came about is important to biology. But the first cause, the cause of life, is not of the utmost important to the theory of evolution. God could have created everything, or not. Doesn't matter to the theory of evolution.

 

[Peretheologica]

Many of us do, but it's not an argument against evolution.

Ah, well I just mentioned the big bang to explain my points. Because the root of everything is its creation. I was just stating that the fact that everything in the universe is intelligently designed and how the odds of a random explosion creating these intelligently designed structures is unlikely. Anyways I don't believe in the theory of evolution lol.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ah, well I just mentioned the big bang to explain my points. Because the root of everything is its creation. I was just stating that the fact that everything in the universe is intelligently designed and how the odds of a random explosion creating these intelligently designed structures is unlikely. Anyways I don't believe in the theory of evolution lol.

So incredulity is all you have. Could have saved everyone a lot of effort by just posting the last sentence.

 

[Speedwell]

Ah, well I just mentioned the big bang to explain my points. Because the root of everything is its creation. I was just stating that the fact that everything in the universe is intelligently designed and how the odds of a random explosion creating these intelligently designed structures is unlikely. Anyways I don't believe in the theory of evolution lol.

So what's your point? The existence of God and His authorship of our being is not really at issue in this forum.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The flaw with the theory of evolution starts in the beginning. A huge explosion materialized itself in the center of the universe and created the building blocks for the universe today, right?

The big bang wasn't an explosion and didn't occur 'in the center of the universe'. It helps to know something about what you're trying to criticise.

 

[Larniavc]

so a self replicating robot (a penguin) is evidence for design or not?

A penguin is not a robot. A robot penguin would been designed by people to simulate a penguin.

How is it that you need this explained to you?

 

[Larniavc]

a complex structure that is very unlikely to evolve naturally.

But not impossible. That’s the bottom line. It can happen. And it did happen.

 

[pitabread]

How is it that you need this explained to you?

For the record, it's been explained to him dozens of times previously. He's just following the same pattern of posting a bunch of nonsense, then disappearing for awhile, only to come back and post it again.

 

[Larniavc]

The flaw with the theory of evolution starts in the beginning. A huge explosion materialized itself in the center of the universe and created the building blocks for the universe today, right?

Wrong. It was not a huge explosion at the centre of the universe.

Here is an entry level explanation.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

 

[Larniavc]

For the record, it's been explained to him dozens of times previously. He's just following the same pattern of posting a bunch of nonsense, then disappearing for awhile, only to come back and post it again.

Yeah, I normally ask him if he’s the guy who believes in magical animal cars.

 

[Kylie]

so a self replicating robot isnt evidence for design?

The fact that it is self replicating is not, in and of itself, evidence for design.

There could be other aspects of this hypothetical robot that are evidence for design. But the ability to self replicate isn't going to be the one thing that cinches the argument.

 

[Kylie]

maybe because it seems to be too complex to evolve naturally?

How about this video, in which a guy sets up a computer program to simulate the evolution of watches? Evolution can produce complexity. This has been pointed out to you many times. Why do you keep using an argument that you know is wrong?

 

[Ophiolite]

How about this video, in which a guy sets up a computer program to simulate the evolution of watches? Evolution can produce complexity. This has been pointed out to you many times. Why do you keep using an argument that you know is wrong?

Do you have one on penguins?

 

[tas8831]

according to evolution if we will find a self replicating robot

Just stop.

 

[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.

I am assuming you have no background in biology or genetics?

Because to those that do, and are not already dedicated anti-science creationists, Meyer comes across like a snake oil salesman.

 

[tas8831]

What I'm curious about is whether you ever find information in nature, not just patterns like fibonacci sequences. I think this was one of the issues that turned Antony Flew to deism, as he said you never find information in nature that doesn't have a mind behind it (and he considered DNA information).

Anthony Flew "the world's greatest atheist" that no atheist had ever heard of and has no background in science?

 

[tas8831]

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!

So... no background in science, right?

 

[tas8831]

I'm wondering what Jesus would say, would think of your post. I don't mean to malign you or anyone else that holds to your philosophy, but I think He would be shaking His head in disbelief that anyone could come to such a conclusion. Jesus referred to what/who was created, not evolved. Rejecting I.D. is rejecting God's input, nothing in creation happened/happens by chance, surely it must be plainly ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

And so this Jesus - evidence that he is the son of Jehovah is where exactly?

Never mind... I would only get circular arguments and such.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Isn't spamming against the rules?
Or is this like Parler, where if you are on the same side as the owners, rules don't apply?

 

[tas8831]

actually its not. watch is evidence for design. even if it has a self replicating system. you disagree?

It is evidence of human design.
Are you claiming humans designed Yahweh?