Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But wait, this was the result of a natural process....
It seems that your definition thus does not hold up, as written.
So, what is missing?
In the case of ID it's worse than that. It's an attempt to indoctrinate youth to accept the totalitarian theocracy which the Discovery Institute would like to impose on the country.Uncritical faith in a political movement using religious beliefs as cover for removing science from public school?
That's your warped masqueraded description of what I said and meant.No, functional organization is how you reach the conclusion that the water pump is designed. The rest of us require something more. In order to conclude intentional organization--intelligent design--directly from nothing but functional organization you must have already decided that functional organization cannot arise without an ID. Thus your "inductive leap" is nothing more than circular logic.
Another warped pro-atheist description of what is being attempted.Uncritical faith in a political movement using religious beliefs as cover for removing science from public school?
Great! Now we're getting somewhere...
First of all, I have an issue with the bolded part. That seems like a loaded term. It implies "intention", while that is exactly the thing that needs to be determined here.
So instead, let's swap that word with mere "function".
Let's put that definition to the test, shall we?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that you took no issue with the idea of "adaption" to an environment, correct?
Let's take the example of bears and polar bears.
You agree that a polar bear's white fur is the result of adaption to a white background for hunting purposes, yes?
So, the function of white fur in the polar bear would be better camouflage while hunting, correct?
But wait, this was the result of a natural process....
It seems that your definition thus does not hold up, as written.
So, what is missing?
No, actually. I reach the conclusion that a water pump is designed, not by what it does, but by what it looks like and the materials it is made from.
But apparantly, the same can not be said about the "purpose" / "function" of white fur in a polar bear..........
Equivocation error.
Except that the exact same logic doesn't work for the white fur of the polar bear......
I'm not seeing any test...... I'm seeing a mere claim.
I'm seeing you simply claim that the heart is a machine that was manufactured.
You haven't given us anything here by which it can be verified if this is actually the case.
And in fact, if we apply your method to something else, like the white fur of bears, then suddenly it doesn't work anymore. So clearly your method needs a little work.
You mean like... with the white fur of polar bears?
Nope. The actual response is: your method as explained here, doesn't work.
All you have to do is look at the Discovery Institute's own publications to dispel that notion.Another warped pro-atheist description of what is being attempted.
The material has absolutely NOHING to do with qualifying or disqualifying something displaying a planning mind.
A pump can be made of plastic, metal, or any other material and it would still indicate a planning mind.
The white fur on a Polar Bear just convinces me that this creature was designed to have white fur because it benefits him in colder climates where white fur is an advantage.
In fact, adaptation itself is evidence that the mind which designed foresaw that it would need to adapt and took precautionary measures.
There is no equivocation in referring to biological organisms as biological machines.
The comparison is a common usage and it is a valid analogy.
So you need to prove how the analogy is false
because the similarity in organization for a purpose is identical.
Ow, I completely and utterly disagree with that. If I find a piece of broken plastic somewhere... I don't need to know what it was a part of or what it was used for or what-have-you. I instantly know that it is a manufactured object. So do you.
Yes. Because those materials aren't naturally occuring materials.
Wait,... so you believe polar bears were "designed" by god (oeps, sorry "designer") as-is?
LOL!
"heads I win, tails you lose"
It is, when you call them "machines" to sneak in this mental picture:
View attachment 188004
Yes. But not in the way that you pretend it to be. Not in the way, pictured above.
Only in the way of life being a system consisting of various parts, that just obbey local rules and in doing such, performing a function in the larger system.
There are also quite a few differences with machines that are not anologous.
For example... living organisms self-reproduce with variation and are subject to natural selection. While machines are unnatural, manufactured, products.
Check.
For a function. And it is not identical, it is similar. And in a lot of ways only conceptually similar. It is...-drumroll-... analogous to it.
And you know what isn't "identical" or even only "similar"? How they originate.
See above.
Machines are manufactured.
Living systems are born with variation and are subsequently subject to natural selection.
Another warped pro-atheist description of what is being attempted.
The material has absolutely NOHING to do with qualifying or disqualifying something displaying a planning mind. A pump can be made of plastic, metal, or any other material and it would still indicate a planning mind.
The white fur on a Polar Bear just convinces me that this creature was designed to have white fur because it benefits him in colder climates where white fur is an advantage.
I never claimed that Polar bears were created as is. I clearly said that if they adapted to circumstances by producing white fur then that adaptation was already programed into their genetic caps abilities by a designer who foresaw the need for such an adaptation.
I clearly said that if they adapted to circumstances by producing white fur then that adaptation was already programed into their genetic caps abilities by a designer who foresaw the need for such an adaptation.
We aren't talking about how organisms propagate today asexually or sexually. We are talking about how they display evidence of having been designed to do so.
The ones who refer to biological machines are biologists themselves who perceive a strong similarity and for good reasons.
Give the guy a break. He has to convince us that his criteria for intelligent design are the only possible criteria so he can continue to accuse us of hypocrisy for not finding intelligent design in natural objects like he does.With magic anything is possible!
If you like these just so stories, see Just So Stories - Wikipedia for many more fine works of children's fiction.
Give the guy a break. He has to convince us that his criteria for intelligent design are the only possible criteria so he can continue to accuse us of hypocrisy for not finding intelligent design in natural objects like he does.
It's not an easy job.
I clearly said that if they adapted to circumstances by producing white fur then that adaptation was already programed into their genetic caps abilities by a designer who foresaw the need for such an adaptation.
We aren't talking about how organisms propagate today asexually or sexually. We are talking about how they display evidence of having been designed to do so.
The ones who refer to biological machines are biologists themselves who perceive a strong similarity and for good reasons.
Molecular machine - Wikipedia
Biological molecular machines
I have to second the request for an explanation and evidence for this statement.
How are adaptations pre-programmed into DNA? What is the mechanism? How are those adaptations turned on? Which proteins are involved in the process, if any?
If only you would talk about it. You seem to do everything but talk about evidence.
How are they evidence of design?
I am not arguing pro evolution. I am merely explaining how your theory fits in with theistic evolution and therefore need not be atheistic.
So your request for minute details is irrelevant and better asked of an evolutionist.
Also, sorry but this idea that mindless nature produces biological machines and computerized dendrites seems like a Mother Goose Father Rooster story to me.
I agree! With abracadabra magic you can have life suddenly popping its head out of slime and smiling back at you and fish turning into people if you provide it with enough abracadabra time.With magic anything is possible!
If you like these just so stories, see Just So Stories - Wikipedia for many more fine works of children's fiction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?