As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[xianghua]

Some motors are designed. Some come about by means of evolution.

so some motors dont need design?. ok. lets agree to disagree.

 

[xianghua]

It's a question of the evidence particular to the case - is there evidence that birds have evolved? Yes. Is there evidence that flying craft with aliens inside them evolved? No. If one lands on my lawn and some aliens walk out of it, I would assume unless some other evidence was produced that they designed and built it. If I'd never read about any evidence of evolution then I would probably assume that birds were either designed or just popped into existence somehow, but there is a wealth of evidence to support the idea that they evolved. We can go all round the houses but I'm not sure what your issue with that last part is.

ok. so before we will test the evidence for evolution, do you agree that the burden of proof is on the side that claim that a self replicating robot (a penguin) can evolve naturally?

 

[Speedwell]

so some motors dont need design?. ok. lets agree to disagree.

The question is, why do you need to prove the presence of design in natural objects? The presence of design cannot be disproven. I should think that would be enough for any theist.

 

[Speedwell]

ok. so before we will test the evidence for evolution, do you agree that the burden of proof is on the side that claim that a self replicating robot (a penguin) can evolve naturally?

No, it is not, for two reasons.
1. At the present time, evolution is the only plausible explanation for the existence of penguins. If you want to propose some other explanation, the burden of proof is on you.
2. The presence of design in natural objects like penguins is unfalsifiable and as such is an inadequate explanatory mechanism. Until you can present a proposed explanatory mechanism you have nothing to offer.

 

[xianghua]

The presence of design cannot be disproven.

its also true for evolution so why you believe in evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

its also true for evolution so why you believe in evolution?

It can be, although you deny it'
I accept that penguins and all other life forms evolved from a common ancestor and believe that they are designed. You believe that all life forms are designed but reject evolution and offer no other explanation as to how it happened.
I think I will stick with my position for the time being.

 

[Tom 1]

now im a bit confuse since you said before that: "There isn’t any way to demonstrate or prove design"

so we can prove design or not?

What I mean is that if I saw something that looked like a vehicle of some sort, I'd assume it was designed and built using materials that were also created artificially, based on my experience of using and fixing machines etc, as well as just knowing that metals and plastics and machines and all the rest of it are made in factories by people (and other machines) following a design drawn up by a person. That is all observable. If I see a bird I have no reason to believe that it's components were manufactured or put together in the same kind of way. I don't see how you could apply the same criteria to both.

 

[Speedwell]

What I mean is that if I saw something that looked like a vehicle of some sort, I'd assume it was designed and built using materials that were also created artificially, based on my experience of using and fixing machines etc, as well as just knowing that metals and plastics and machines and all the rest of it are made in factories by people (and other machines) following a design drawn up by a person. That is all observable. If I see a bird I have no reason to believe that it's components were manufactured or put together in the same kind of way. I don't see how you could apply the same criteria to both.

Xianghua is under the impression that similarity of form or function to an object know to be designed is an unanswerable argument for the presence of design. In fact, it is the only argument he has.

 

[Steve Petersen]

What I mean is that if I saw something that looked like a vehicle of some sort, I'd assume it was designed and built using materials that were also created artificially, based on my experience of using and fixing machines etc, as well as just knowing that metals and plastics and machines and all the rest of it are made in factories by people (and other machines) following a design drawn up by a person. That is all observable. If I see a bird I have no reason to believe that it's components were manufactured or put together in the same kind of way. I don't see how you could apply the same criteria to both.

So, do ships exist for the sake of barnacles?

 

[pitabread]

Xianghua is under the impression that similarity of form or function to an object know to be designed is an unanswerable argument for the presence of design. In fact, it is the only argument he has.

Not only this, but it's been repeatedly explained that such an argument is an example of the False Equivalence fallacy. Yet he doesn't seem to care.

 

[Tom 1]

So, do ships exist for the sake of barnacles?

Ask Captain Haddock.

 

[Kylie]

so some motors dont need design?. ok. lets agree to disagree.

Why do you disagree?

 

[Tom 1]

So, do ships exist for the sake of barnacles?

I don't think I get your question. If you mean assuming based on association then my brain would fit barnacles into one category and ships into another.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I don't think I get your question. If you mean assuming based on association then my brain would fit barnacles into one category and ships into another.

One poster seemed to be pushing the Anthropic Principle. I was addressing that.

 

[Tom 1]

One poster seemed to be pushing the Anthropic Principle. I was addressing that.

Ah ok, went over my head. Maybe the barnacles were happy with the rocks and the ship was just a happy accident.

 

[xianghua]

It can be,

show how. do you agree with others that an out of place fossil will falsify evolution?

 

[xianghua]

What I mean is that if I saw something that looked like a vehicle of some sort, I'd assume it was designed and built using materials that were also created artificially, based on my experience of using and fixing machines etc, as well as just knowing that metals and plastics and machines and all the rest of it are made in factories by people (and other machines) following a design drawn up by a person. That is all observable. If I see a bird I have no reason to believe that it's components were manufactured or put together in the same kind of way. I don't see how you could apply the same criteria to both.

ok. but first i need an answer to my last question: before we will test the evidence for evolution, do you agree that the burden of proof is on the side that claim that a self replicating robot (a penguin) can evolve naturally?

 

[xianghua]

Why do you disagree?

because we never seen a motor evolving naturally.

 

[Speedwell]

because we never seen a motor evolving naturally.

We have never seen a man-made motor evolve naturally. But if you extend the definition of "motor" to include naturally occurring objects then your argument does not apply.

 

[Speedwell]

ok. but first i need an answer to my last question: before we will test the evidence for evolution, do you agree that the burden of proof is on the side that claim that a self replicating robot (a penguin) can evolve naturally?

Your question has already been answered, post #1104. The answer is no.