How to choose between creation and evolution.

[xianghua]

No, a spinning motor is not evidence for design. It's evidence for a spinning motor. We need to look into it in more detail to see whether it implies a designer or not. An electric motor requires that someone designed it, which is a safe bet as all electric motors that we know of were designed.

but i never seen someone who made an electric motor in front of my eyes. so according to that criteria i cant conclude design?

 

[xianghua]

That thing hasn't got a self-replicating system.

When you find an actual watch that can reproduce biologically, call me.

so if it will have a self replicating system it will not be a watch by your definition?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

but i never seen someone who made an electric motor in front of my eyes. so according to that criteria i cant conclude design?

Do you deny that if you go to the patent office you will find large numbers of designs for electric motors? Do you deny that companies that create electric motors design them? Have you heard of Google patent search? Try: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_vis=1&q=electric+motor&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

How many patents will you find for the flagellum of a bacteria?

Just because you pretend to not know something that everyone knows that you know, doesn't mean that you have actually created an argument.

 

[rjs330]

It is not.

If organisms share ancestry, then very specific testable predictions naturally flow from that.
Just like the collective DNA of you and your siblings, tells us that you have the same parents - not that you were created seperatly by the same "designer".

There is ancestry and then there is evolutionary ancestry. Two different things completely. We can see ancestry of families because DNA can show it, because of the uniqueness of the DNA belonging to that family and being human.

DNA also shows we are not chimps. There are similarities, but the amount of differences are great and enough to out them side by side and we can see which is a chimp and which is a human. It is only assumed that there is common ancestry with chimps and humans because if the similarities. Instead of looking at the differences and saying we don't have common ancestry. We can tell the difference. But somehow that equates to us and chimps having common ancestor. Its not provable and not observable.

 

[rjs330]

Do you deny that if you go to the patent office you will find large numbers of designs for electric motors? Do you deny that companies that create electric motors design them? Have you heard of Google patent search? Try: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_vis=1&q=electric+motor&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

How many patents will you find for the flagellum of a bacteria?

Just because you pretend to not know something that everyone knows that you know, doesn't mean that you have actually created an argument.

So because you or I can't create bacteria we can conclude it wasn't designed? That's exactly why we should conclude it was. We see everything else that has a function as designed. But the function of life has none. It's illogical.

 

[Speedwell]

So because you or I can't create bacteria we can conclude it wasn't designed?

Wrong. Design is unfalsifiable--it can never be ruled out. We can never conclude that something wasn't designed.

 

[pitabread]

The hierarchies themselves are an assumption.

The hierarchies are a mathematical construct generated via algorithmic processes based on an underlying dataset. They're an output, not an assumption.

 

[rjs330]

Wrong. Design is unfalsifiable--it can never be ruled out. We can never conclude that something wasn't designed.

But that's what our evolutionist friends believe. The majority of them on this board anyway. They consistency argue against design.

All the evidence points to is common design. The rest of it is an assumption since we cannot and have not ever observed any if the evolutionary claims occurring. We can't verify any of it.

 

[pitabread]

You are making a common mistake. We have moon rocks and we have tested them.

There are no moon rocks because there is no moon. A bunch of rocks doesn't prove anything.

I found a rock outside, does this mean I went to the moon?

NASA can show you a moon rocks and the proven tests to show it is one and in fact could do the test right in front of you.

NASA is no an objective source since they need to keep their grant funding. They'll tell you whatever you want to believe.

There is no evidence for the moon, there are no moon rocks, and you can't prove it.

 

[VirOptimus]

You do realize that the world is falling apart because of the 'general agreement' of the experts.

What on earth are you talking about?

Science is quite simply the way we describe physical reality.

 

[rjs330]

The hierarchies are a mathematical construct generated via algorithmic processes based on an underlying dataset. They're an output, not an assumption.

What's the mathmatical construct? Isn't it based upon an if/then argument? If such and such happened then this is the outcome. That's an assumption.

 

[Speedwell]

But that's what our evolutionist friends believe. The majority of them on this board anyway. They consistency argue against design.

All the evidence points to is common design. The rest of it is an assumption since we cannot and have not ever observed any if the evolutionary claims occurring. We can't verify any of it.

Wrong. They, we, consistently argue against design being provable in the way IDists claim.
Which is a very different thing from denying the presence of design.

 

[rjs330]

There are no moon rocks because there is no moon. A bunch of rocks doesn't prove anything.

I found a rock outside, does this mean I went to the moon?



NASA is no an objective source since they need to keep their grant funding. They'll tell you whatever you want to believe.

There is no evidence for the moon, there are no moon rocks, and you can't prove it.

There isn't any evidence for air either. Nor is there for water or the sidewalk on your street either. In fact there is no evidence that you exist either. So I guess I can ignore whatever you say since you dont exist.

 

[rjs330]

Wrong. They, we, consistently argue against design being provable in the way IDists claim.
Which is a very different thing from denying the presence of design.

ID is more provable than evolution. All the constructs used in biology is evidence of design. Because nothing functions in our world without it. Unless of course you are an evolutionist. Then we deny observable reality and say everything we know that has function is designed EXEPT the mist complex function of them all which is life.

Then we go on and say since we have never observed the process in action and can't test the process we believe it anyway.

 

[pitabread]

What's the mathmatical construct? Isn't it based upon an if/then argument? If such and such happened then this is the outcome. That's an assumption.

Hierarchical trees are basically a way of representing relationships of things based on underlying data. That's all they really are.

There are various different algorithmic ways of generating them and naturally different data sets that can be used. So you've have to look at how they are specifically constructed before making any claims about any assumptions in their construction. You can read more about it here: Computational phylogenetics - Wikipedia

But the trees themselves are not an assumption. They are just an output.

 

[VirOptimus]

ID is more provable than evolution. All the constructs used in biology is evidence of design. Because nothing functions in our world without it. Unless of course you are an evolutionist. Then we deny observable reality and say everything we know that has function is designed EXEPT the mist complex function of them all which is life.

Then we go on and say since we have never observed the process in action and can't test the process we believe it anyway.

No this is all wrong.

ID is unfalsifable and therefore not science. Its just religion.

 

[pitabread]

There isn't any evidence for air either. Nor is there for water or the sidewalk on your street either. In fact there is no evidence that you exist either. So I guess I can ignore whatever you say since you dont exist.

Are you starting to appreciate the absurdity of denying the existence of the moon?

I'm trying to get you to understand that this is how you sound to the rest of us when you keep denying the reality of biological evolution.

 

[pitabread]

ID is unfalsifable and therefore not science. Its just religion.

There could arguably be a case for "scientific ID", which would currently mean it's a failed science. The problem is they've never come up with a robust way of detecting artificial design in biology in the first place. So it's never gotten off the ground.

But beyond that the concept of ID was hijacked by creationists and is generally used to push a religious agenda.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All?

Yes: all.

You are welcome to cite me a scientific publication that says otherwise.
That's what professional biologists do you know.... they study things and then they publish their findings in appropriate journals.

Seeing design (where design is clearly evident) implies a designer, which is contrary to the dogma of evolution. And as stated earlier I believe that surgeons are more concerned with the design of the person they are cutting into than their evolutionary origins.

Again, you are welcome to cite me a paper.

 

[pitabread]

ID is more provable than evolution. All the constructs used in biology is evidence of design.

Which makes no sense unless you are again arguing that the designer either used evolution for their design or otherwise created outputs designed to mimic the process.

This "everything is evidence for design" line of argument is just silly, since you'd need to first construct a scientific model of ID then test it accordingly. Thus far IDists have never really done that.

Unless of course you are an evolutionist. Then we deny observable reality and say everything we know that has function is designed EXEPT the mist complex function of them all which is life.

Except that the current Theory of Evolution was borne out of observable reality. It's a subset of fundamentalist believers who have their knickers in a knot over not being an independent, magical creation who are taking exception over it.