Some random discussion on evolution...

Ophiolite · Jul 16, 2019

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

I cannot recall a single occasion when he has acknowledged the strength of an argument. In most cases he does not even acknowledge an argument has been presented. His belief system is monolithic and obsessive.

tas8831 · Jul 17, 2019

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

According to you, this is exactly the same as a living thing:

tas8831 · Jul 17, 2019

dad said:
We have a demonstrable ability to know what is obviously created! Ask a kindergarten kid if a bridge just appeared from nature.

We know bridges are 'created' because we know that WE create them.

With this "logic", the only answer is that you think we created ourselves.

You don't seem to get that analogies are not real evidence (just teaching tools, essentially), and that you cannot arbitrarily swap the objects used in the analogy as you see fit to 'make your point.'

Defeated time and again.

loveofourlord · Jul 20, 2019

xianghua said:
can you calculate the chance for a non-living watch to evolve by a natural process?

have you heard about feathers? a reptile dont have feathers.

dinosaurs do which they evolved from.

xianghua · Jul 21, 2019

Kylie said:
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.

so some gears are the product of design and some arent? its like saying that some cars are the product of design and some arent.

xianghua · Jul 21, 2019

loveofourlord said:
dinosaurs do which they evolved from.

so you believe.

pitabread · Jul 21, 2019

xianghua said:
its like saying that some cars are the product of design and some arent.

It's not when you're talking about biological organisms versus manufactured objects.

Do we need to go over the difference between living organisms and manufactured objects again?

xianghua · Jul 21, 2019

pitabread said:
It's not when you're talking about biological organisms versus manufactured objects.

some genomes are also manufactured so its not correct.

Speedwell · Jul 21, 2019

xianghua said:
so some gears are the product of design and some arent?

Let's put it this way: We have evidence that some gears are products of intentional manufacture so we know they are designed. Some gears appear to be natural objects and there is no evidence of intentional manufacture so we can't tell whether they are designed or not.

You are always going to get the same answer no matter how many different ways you ask the question or how many hypothetical objects you think up:

1. Evidence of intentional manufacture is found. Intelligent design can be concluded.
2. No evidence of intentional manufacture is found. No conclusion about design is possible, either for or against.

Those are and always will be the only possible answers to any scenario you set up.

Speedwell · Jul 21, 2019

xianghua said:
some genomes are also manufactured so its not correct.

Right. Some genomes are manufactured, but if there is no evidence of that manufacture, if they can't be distinguished from naturally occurring genomes in any way then it will not be possible to determine if they were intelligently designed or not.

pitabread · Jul 21, 2019

xianghua said:
some genomes are also manufactured so its not correct.

You were trying to draw an analogy based on cars versus cars, not living organisms and non-living objects.

There seems to be this big disconnect in your posts when distinguishing between these things.

pitabread · Jul 21, 2019

Speedwell said:
Right. Some genomes are manufactured, but if there is no evidence of that manufacture, if they can't be distinguished from naturally occurring genomes in any way then it will not be possible to determine if they were intelligently designed or not.

This is precisely the case. With GM organisms for example, the only way to detect artificially modified genetic sequences is with pre-existing knowledge of those sequences.

This is why it astounds me that people think ID can detect "design" in living things when they can't even detect design in organisms we know have been modified by humans. Otherwise ID would be self-funded from that application alone.

Ophiolite · Jul 21, 2019

Speedwell said:
Let's put it this way: We have evidence that some gears are products of intentional manufacture so we know they are designed. Some gears appear to be natural objects and there is no evidence of intentional manufacture so we can't tell whether they are designed or not.

You are always going to get the same answer no matter how many different ways you ask the question or how many hypothetical objects you think up:

1. Evidence of intentional manufacture is found. Intelligent design can be concluded.
2. No evidence of intentional manufacture is found. No conclusion about design is possible, either for or against.

Those are and always will be the only possible answers to any scenario you set up.

I should like to add a third scenario:
3.No evidence of intentional manufacture is found, but evidence of natural development is found. Provisionally conclude that natural development is responsible.

Speedwell · Jul 21, 2019

I agree, with the proviso that natural development does not rule out design as an unfalsifiable metaphysical concept.

Ophiolite · Jul 21, 2019

Speedwell said:
I agree, with the proviso that natural development does not rule out design as an unfalsifiable metaphysical concept.

Roger to that.

Kylie · Jul 21, 2019

xianghua said:
so some gears are the product of design and some arent? its like saying that some cars are the product of design and some arent.

I suppose that if cars had some way of reproducing and they were able to evolve.

But your imaginary reproducing cars have never been shown to exist. Your imaginary things are not evidence against evolution.

xianghua · Jul 23, 2019

Kylie said:
I suppose that if cars had some way of reproducing and they were able to evolve.

so a self replicating car isnt evidence for design?

Speedwell · Jul 23, 2019

xianghua said:
so a self replicating car isnt evidence for design?

You are always going to get the same answer no matter how many different ways you ask the question or how many hypothetical objects you think up:

1. Evidence of intentional manufacture is found. Intelligent design can be concluded.

2. No evidence of intentional manufacture is found. No conclusion about intelligent design is possible, either for or against.

Those are and always will be the only possible answers to any scenario you set up.

xianghua · Jul 23, 2019

Speedwell said:
1. Evidence of intentional manufacture is found.

but according to your criteria even a car by itself isnt evidence for intentional manufacture. so we cant conclude design by looking at a car.

xianghua · Jul 23, 2019

Speedwell said:
I agree, with the proviso that natural development does not rule out design as an unfalsifiable metaphysical concept.

evolution is unfalsifiable too.

Some random discussion on evolution...

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency