- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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.
OkAnd 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.
so according to you these may not be the product of design?:
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!
There is no remote possibility synchronized gears in a back yard could be natural. That is obvious.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 IDI don't know what 'ID" really is.
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.
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.
I find it very unlikely that they are the result of evolution, given the extreme uniformness of their structure.
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,
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.but i already said that its a real ufo in this case. so under this assumption can you conclude design or not?
Because they appear to be made of molded plastic. Nature is not known to produce objects made of molded plastic.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.
but i already said that its a real ufo in this case. so under this assumption can you conclude design or not?
No, I did. Kylie was explaining other evidence of intentional manufacture which might lead to the conclusion that the objects were designed.kylie said nothing about plastic.
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.
He's going to be very disappointed when he figures out that he can't twist it into "just because they are gears."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.
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?