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.
By that logic, every gear we know about is the result of human manufacture, so any gear we find must be manufactured by humans.for the simple fact that every gear we know about is the result of design and we never seen any natural process that can produce gears.
We have a known process (evolution) which we know changes populations of biological forms over time. Scientists can (and do) even investigate how specific features evolved via that process. Something like the 'gears' in Issus coleoptratus would make an interesting feature to study.
no. it can be any type of of intelligent. including aliens. so its not realy a good counter argument.
how is that different? we know that gears need intelligent. we know that it cant be human. thus we can conclude that non-human intelligent made these gears.No. We have no evidence of aliens, so there is no reason to think that any gears found on Earth were manufactured by aliens. If we found gears in a meteorite or a lunar rock, that might be a different matter.
Just applying your logic. But we've already been there, done that, and showed it was fatally flawed.no. it can be any type of of intelligent. including aliens. so its not realy a good counter argument.
No, we don't. We conclude that some gears were designed based on indicators of intent.how is that different? we know that gears need intelligent.
Which indicators of intent demonstrate non-human manufacture? You need to support this assertion.we know that it cant be human. thus we can conclude that non-human intelligent made these gears.
We don't know that, because we know a non-intelligent process can produce results that have useful functionality that can be mistaken for human design - we even use versions of that process to produce functional products for our own use.we know that gears need intelligent. we know that it cant be human. thus we can conclude that non-human intelligent made these gears.
Which might also happen by design.great. so till you have an empirical explanation for these gears the best explanation is still design. so far we just have a belief that gears can evolve naturally.
Not unless we can examine it closely enough to find evidence of design. For all you know, a "real" flying saucer (if there is such a thing) is a living creature which has evolved space flight.you cant conclude design if you will see a real flying saucer?
great. so till you have an empirical explanation for these gears the best explanation is still design. so far we just have a belief that gears can evolve naturally.
Show me an example and I'll tell you.you cant conclude design if you will see a real flying saucer?
We have a known process (evolution) which we know changes populations of biological forms over time. Scientists can (and do) even investigate how specific features evolved via that process. Something like the 'gears' in Issus coleoptratus would make an interesting feature to study.
Now if you want to argue they are the product of design, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. You can start by showing us a plausible mechanism for such design.
If you want direct empirical evidence that Darwinian evolutionary processes can produce effective and efficient results (I would call them 'designs' in a less teleologically oriented forum), a nice example is the NASA evolved antenna, a very efficient end product that no human would have designed:"We have a known process (evolution)"
Well we have one known process which can great gears (creative intelligence) and also a speculative theory...(evolution) which some argue might be able to also
we know that gears can be designed through creative agency- that is utterly unambiguous, and nobody disputes this, correct?
whether or not the same can be designed by natural processes... it's certainly an interesting claim, but can we say we know? with the same level of confidence? of course not.
Bottom line: we only have one definitely known cause for such things as this and digital information systems as we see in DNA required to build those gears. That's not to say natural processes are impossible, of course it's debatable- that's what we're here for! we just don't have the same level of scientific verification for that claim yet.
And yet we have more scientific verification for the claim than we do for the existence of a deity. On that basis if we withhold acceptance of evolutionary theory we should definitely withhold acceptance of a deity.Bottom line: we only have one definitely known cause for such things as this and digital information systems as we see in DNA required to build those gears. That's not to say natural processes are impossible, of course it's debatable- that's what we're here for! we just don't have the same level of scientific verification for that claim yet.
It looks very much like what I have produced while fretting with paper clips. But surely not! That would mean random actions could produce something of value!!!If you want direct empirical evidence that Darwinian evolutionary processes can produce effective and efficient results (I would call them 'designs' in a less teleologically oriented forum), a nice example is the NASA evolved antenna, a very efficient end product that no human would have designed:
And yet we have more scientific verification for the claim than we do for the existence of a deity. On that basis if we withhold acceptance of evolutionary theory we should definitely withhold acceptance of a deity.
"Creative intelligence" is not a process."We have a known process (evolution)"
Well we have one known process which can great gears (creative intelligence) and also a speculative theory...(evolution) which some argue might be able to also.
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?