Creationists: Explain how the designer created and/or modified living things on Earth

[Bungle_Bear]

we just need to show evidence for design to conclude that nature was designed.

You have been challenged in numerous threads to produce this evidence, but for some reason you seem to be unwilling to do so. If you produce that evidence then you win the argument and pretty much overturn ToE. Why are you so reluctant to do that? Fame and fortune beckon, but xianghua isn't interested?

 

[Ophiolite]

You have been challenged in numerous threads to produce this evidence, but for some reason you seem to be unwilling to do so. If you produce that evidence then you win the argument and pretty much overturn ToE. Why are you so reluctant to do that? Fame and fortune beckon, but xianghua isn't interested?

"These aren't the robot penguins you are looking for. Go about your business. Move along."

 

[xianghua]

If you produce that evidence then you win the argument and pretty much overturn ToE.

here is one evidence for design:

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

 

[xianghua]

On the first part, you're wrong. Designer did it is not a scientific claim. If you can explain how, then we can talk.

Insofar as evolution, we have an understand how that process works and we have evidence that indicates the outcome of said process. So yes, evolution really is scientific. Whether you accept that or not really doesn't matter.

so the claim that a robot doesnt need design is scientific? ok.

 

[Speedwell]

here is one evidence for design:

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

Why do you think that is evidence for design?

 

[xianghua]

Why do you think that is evidence for design?

because all gears we know of are the product of design and we never seen gears made by a natural process.

 

[Speedwell]

because all gears we know of are the product of design and we never seen gears made by a natural process.

The gears you are showing a picture of were made by a natural process.

 

[xianghua]

The gears you are showing a picture of were made by a natural process.

this is your assumption. but the evidence for that assumption doesnt exist.

 

[Speedwell]

this is your assumption. but the evidence for that assumption doesnt exist.

According to the article accompanying the picture, the gearlike structures are part of the hind legs of an insect, Issus coleoptratus. As far as I am aware, these insects reproduce in nature like other insects, and are not manufactured in insect factories. The gearlike structures in its legs were made by the natural process of growth.

 

[xianghua]

According to the article accompanying the picture, the gearlike structures are part of the hind legs of an insect, Issus coleoptratus. As far as I am aware, these insects reproduce in nature like other insects, and are not manufactured in insect factories. The gearlike structures in its legs were made by the natural process of growth.

but how it evolved? again we go back to assumption.

 

[Ophiolite]

but how it evolved? again we go back to assumption.

No. We go back to observation, investigation, hypothesis formation and testing. We infer from confirmed observations. No assumptions involved.

 

[xianghua]

No. We go back to observation, investigation, hypothesis formation and testing. We infer from confirmed observations. No assumptions involved.

you assume that fish evolved into man. this isnt a fact but an assumption.

 

[Ophiolite]

you assume that fish evolved into man. this isnt a fact but an assumption.

Are you simply not paying attention? Observations led to many inferences that were repeatedly tested. The net consequence of those validated inferences was that some fish had given rise to a branching evolutionary sequence, one of whose branches led to man. There is no assumption anywhere in there.

 

[xianghua]

Are you simply not paying attention? Observations led to many inferences that were repeatedly tested. The net consequence of those validated inferences was that some fish had given rise to a branching evolutionary sequence, one of whose branches led to man. There is no assumption anywhere in there.

yes there is. you cant prove that one evolved from another one= assumption.

 

[Ophiolite]

yes there is. you cant prove that one evolved from another one= assumption.

I realise that English is not your native language. Please accept that assumption does not mean what you think it means.

An assumption is a position one adopts, often provisionally, based upon minimal data. Once an assumption is tested and found valid, it is no longer an assumption. However, in the case of the evolution of quadrupeds assumptions do not appear to have been involved. Rather the case for their evolution emerged steadily from the observations and tests that were carried out.

 

[xianghua]

I realise that English is not your native language. Please accept that assumption does not mean what you think it means.

An assumption is a position one adopts, often provisionally, based upon minimal data. Once an assumption is tested and found valid, it is no longer an assumption. However, in the case of the evolution of quadrupeds assumptions do not appear to have been involved. Rather the case for their evolution emerged steadily from the observations and tests that were carried out.

doest the notion that a creature B evolved from a creature A is a fact or a belief?

 

[pitabread]

so the claim that a robot doesnt need design is scientific? ok.

We're not talking about robots. We're talking about biological organisms. Don't change the subject.

 

[xianghua]

We're not talking about robots. We're talking about biological organisms. Don't change the subject.

isnt a walking creature a kind of a walking robot from a physical perspective?

 

[pitabread]

isnt a walking creature a kind of a walking robot from a physical perspective?

No. We've been over this before. You're using the word "robot" incorrectly.

 

[Ophiolite]

doest the notion that a creature B evolved from a creature A is a fact or a belief?

Neither. It is the most rational and well supported explanation for a wide array of observations, experiments and tests. This is so well supported that it extremely likely to be a fact and, in most cases, can be taken as such.