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.
Just because you can't falsify it doesn't mean that it is unfalsifiable in principle. But even if it was, it wouldn't help your argument. Similarity in function or superficial appearance to an intelligently designed object would still not be evidence of intelligent design.evolution is unfalsifiable too.
That has been shown to you so many times over the past few years that it is not worth it to try again. In any case, the falsifiability of evolution has no bearing on your argument. You're just trying to change the subject.so show me a testable way to falsify it.
so a self replicating car isnt evidence for design?
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.
All cars I have ever seen have evidence of manufacture and therefore I conclude they were designed.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.
so if you will find a self replicating car you will conclude design or not?Self replication and being designed are two separate things. We can not look at something's ability (or lack of ability) to self-replicate and make any determination about whether it is designed.
Designed self-replicating things are possible. Non-designed self replicating things are possible. Designed non-replicating things are possible. Non-designed, non-replicating things are possible.
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:so if you will find a self replicating car you will conclude design or not?
I have never seen a car without evidences of intentional manufacture. You have suggested that such a car might exist, but so far you haven't shown us one. If you did, we wouldn't be able tell if it was designed or not. That is because mere similarity of function or superficial resemblance to a designed object is not evidence of design.me too. but it seems that some guys here think otherwise. so this note isnt for me.
For instance. If I look at a living creature I see no sign of any manufacturing process known to be used by humans. Consequently, I can't tell if it was intentionally manufactured or occurred naturally. Of course, it might have been manufactured by aliens by some process I don't know about, but then I wouldn't be able to tell if it was manufactured or not, and so I wouldn't be able to tell if it was designed or not.why do you think that a living creature has no such evidence? because its not made of plastic for instance?
You obviously do not understand or you wouldn't keep repeating the same ridiculous "argument". Have you ever seen a car with no signs of manufacture? Come to that, do you even know what signs of manufacture even are?me too. but it seems that some guys here think otherwise. so this note isnt for me.
why do you think that a living creature has no such evidence? because its not made of plastic for instance?
so if you will find a self replicating car you will conclude design or not?
some here said that a car by itself isnt evidence for design. again- im not the address here.You obviously do not understand or you wouldn't keep repeating the same ridiculous "argument". Have you ever seen a car with no signs of manufacture? Come to that, do you even know what signs of manufacture even are?
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?