Some random discussion on evolution...

[Speedwell]

evolution is unfalsifiable too.

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.

 

[xianghua]

Just because you can't falsify it doesn't mean that it is unfalsifiable in principle.

so show me a testable way to falsify it.

 

[Speedwell]

so show me a testable way to falsify it.

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.

 

[pitabread]

evolution is unfalsifiable too.

*sigh*

 

[Kylie]

so a self replicating car isnt evidence for design?

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.

 

[Kylie]

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.

No, a car's ability to replicate or a car's inability to replicate does not reflect whether it is designed or not.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

This really is an incredibly simple concept. Why do you struggle to understand?

 

[xianghua]

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.

so if you will find a self replicating car you will conclude design or not?

 

[xianghua]

All cars I have ever seen have evidence of manufacture and therefore I conclude they were designed.

me too. but it seems that some guys here think otherwise. so this note isnt for me.

 

[Speedwell]

so if you will find a self replicating car you will conclude design 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]

me too. but it seems that some guys here think otherwise. so this note isnt for me.

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.

 

[xianghua]

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

why do you think that a living creature has no such evidence? because its not made of plastic for instance?

 

[Speedwell]

why do you think that a living creature has no such evidence? because its not made of plastic for instance?

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.

I suspect that part of the problem we are having communicating about this is that our dichotomies don't line up:

For you, it's "designed/not designed."

For me, it's "designed/can't determine."

 

[Bungle_Bear]

me too. but it seems that some guys here think otherwise. so this note isnt for me.

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?

 

[pitabread]

why do you think that a living creature has no such evidence? because its not made of plastic for instance?

If you want to argue that living creatures are created, then tell us how they are created. Explain to us the process of the creation of a living creature.

Then from that you can explain how you would identify the hallmarks of creation in a living creature.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then from that you can explain how you would identify the hallmarks of creation in a living creature.

That's an easy one, Pitabread. It looks as if it is designed.

 

[Kylie]

so if you will find a self replicating car you will conclude design or not?

Did you not even pay attention to what I said?

The fact that something can self replicate does not mean it is designed!

 

[xianghua]

For instance. If I look at a living creature I see no sign of any manufacturing process known to be used by humans

why not? humans designed genomes. on the other hand: if for you plastic=designed, how do you know there is no natural process that can made plastic?

 

[xianghua]

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?

some here said that a car by itself isnt evidence for design. again- im not the address here.

 

[xianghua]

If you want to argue that living creatures are created, then tell us how they are created.

irrelevant. if i see a car on a far planet i can conclude design without knowing how the car was build.