Some random discussion on evolution...

[dad]

And what does it mean to "properly explore creation"?

You keep saying things, but do not substantiate them with anything... If you're going to go in circles, then we may as well end this discussion here. I've given you a half dozen opportunities to this, but you seem unable to do so.

Ok

 

[Kylie]

so according to you these may not be the product of design?:

I find it very unlikely that they are the result of evolution, given the extreme uniformness of their structure. Natural things rarely have such sharply defined angles or straight lines.

But you can't post a picture of something designed and then say that since these were designed, then ALL such structures must also be designed.

 

[Kylie]

There is nothing wrong logically with realizing that obviously designed mechanical units- and even in sync together, are made by someone. It would be crazy and illogical to think they just appeared or grew out of the grass or whatever!

You keep committing the same logical fallacy. Argument from incredulity. You assume that because you can't imagine how to could be natural that it can't possibly be natural. And then you use that to bolster your own bias against it.

 

[dad]

You keep committing the same logical fallacy. Argument from incredulity. You assume that because you can't imagine how to could be natural that it can't possibly be natural. And then you use that to bolster your own bias against it.

There is no remote possibility synchronized gears in a back yard could be natural. That is obvious.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no remote possibility synchronized gears in a back yard could be natural. That is obvious.

But in a living organism not so much.

 

[Kylie]

There is no remote possibility synchronized gears in a back yard could be natural. That is obvious.

And look, you've committed that same logical fallacy yet again! That's the seventh time you've done it!

 

[dad]

But in a living organism not so much.

One you admit an obviously designed set of synchronized gears left in a yard has to be designed, we can move on to the more incredible mechanics of creation.

 

[pitabread]

One you admit an obviously designed set of synchronized gears left in a yard has to be designed, we can move on to the more incredible mechanics of creation.

Without a demonstrable methodology for detecting design, one cannot move onto the "more incredible mechanics of creation" because you don't know if what you're dealing with is created in the first place.

Effectively all you're doing is assuming your conclusion.

This is why ID has failed.

 

[dad]

Without a demonstrable methodology for detecting design, one cannot move onto the "more incredible mechanics of creation" because you don't know if what you're dealing with is created in the first place.

We have a demonstrable ability to know what is obviously created! Ask a kindergarten kid if a bridge just appeared from nature. Ask them if their house just grew up from the ground! You denial of the obvious is noted. Synchronized gears in a back yard simply could not have gotten there by nature alone.

I don't know what 'ID" really is. But on that point, of realizing intricate machines are not here by any other way than being designed, they are correct.

If you find a watch in your bathroom, would you think maybe it just grew there from mold or something?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know what 'ID" really is.

No, you don't. No doubt you think we only reject ID in order to deny a creator. But then, you also don't know why many believers in a creator also reject ID

 

[pitabread]

We have a demonstrable ability to know what is obviously created! Ask a kindergarten kid if a bridge just appeared from nature. Ask them if their house just grew up from the ground! You denial of the obvious is noted.

This is just an example of relying on preexisting knowledge. Kids are taught to recognize these things as designed based on knowledge that humans build houses and bridges.

The challenge is recognizing design in absence of preexisting knowledge of how things are created.

I don't know what 'ID" really is. But on that point, of realizing intricate machines are not here by any other way than being designed, they are correct.

If you're talking about human-manufactured machines, those are recognized as such based on preexisting knowledge of human manufacture.

In the case of living organisms, the ID movement has not produced any demonstrable methods for detecting design in living organisms.

 

[xianghua]

I find it very unlikely that they are the result of evolution, given the extreme uniformness of their structure.

but you suggested that gears may evolve naturally. so according to your criteria you cant tell if these gears are the product of design. so why you conclude design after all? you should not be able to tell.

 

[xianghua]

You don't post a picture of something asking whether it's a designed object, and then arbitrarily tell someone what it is or isn't. I told you that, yes, it's a designed object. And this is based on knowledge of how UFO photos are faked using human manufactured objects like hubcaps,

but i already said that its a real ufo in this case. so under this assumption can you conclude design or not?

 

[Speedwell]

but i already said that its a real ufo in this case. so under this assumption can you conclude design or not?

What do you mean by "real UFO?" Some people believe they are space ships piloted by aliens. Is that what you mean? But even if they are extraterrestrial in origin, that is not the only possibility. They could be natural objects, living creatures even.

 

[Speedwell]

but you suggested that gears may evolve naturally. so according to your criteria you cant tell if these gears are the product of design. so why you conclude design after all? you should not be able to tell.

Because they appear to be made of molded plastic. Nature is not known to produce objects made of molded plastic.

 

[pitabread]

but i already said that its a real ufo in this case. so under this assumption can you conclude design or not?

Again, you don't get to arbitrarily decide what a picture of something is or isn't. I've already given you my answer and it's not going to change just because it's not what you wanted to hear.

 

[xianghua]

Because they appear to be made of molded plastic. Nature is not known to produce objects made of molded plastic.

kylie said nothing about plastic.

 

[Speedwell]

kylie said nothing about plastic.

No, I did. Kylie was explaining other evidence of intentional manufacture which might lead to the conclusion that the objects were designed.

 

[Kylie]

but you suggested that gears may evolve naturally. so according to your criteria you cant tell if these gears are the product of design. so why you conclude design after all? you should not be able to tell.

Why do I conclude design? Did you even read my post? I was very clear about why I took these particular gears to be designed.

 

[Speedwell]

Why do I conclude design? Did you even read my post? I was very clear about why I took these particular gears to be designed.

He's going to be very disappointed when he figures out that he can't twist it into "just because they are gears."