Some random discussion on evolution...

[pitabread]

why not? humans designed genomes.

How would you detect a human designed genome?

 

[Speedwell]

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?

I don't. I just don't know about one right now, and from what we have learned about the natural world so far it doesn't seem likely, so molded plastic parts makes design a pretty safe bet.

 

[xianghua]

Did you not even pay attention to what I said?

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

so? what about the car? can you detect design when you see a self replicating car?

 

[pitabread]

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

Of course you would know how it was built. If we're talking about a car, then you are already basing design detection on pre-existing knowledge of that very object.

You can't simultaneously detect design of car but at the same time pretend you don't know what a car is or how cars are manufactured.

You're trying to make simultaneously contradictory claims and it's not going to work.

 

[pitabread]

can you detect design when you see a self replicating car?

Nobody has ever seen such a thing, because such things do not exist.

If your argument is going to keep coming back to arguing about fantasy objects with no basis in reality, then your argument is just bad. You need to find a new argument.

In the two years you've been babbling about self-replacing cars, this argument has never worked.

 

[xianghua]

Of course you would know how it was built.

incorrect. some cars are made by a factory and some by human hands.

 

[pitabread]

incorrect. some cars are made by a factory and some by human hands.

...

That's kind of splitting hairs don't you think? Whether a car is built in a factory or built by hand, it's still ultimately designed and built by people and will involve a lot of the same processes (e.g. welding, bolting, etc).

Furthermore, there probably are ways of detecting whether a car was hand assembled or assembled on a factory assembly line (e.g. if it's mass produces versus custom).

Regardless, none of this changes the fact you are detecting design based on your pre-existing knowledge of cars. That's why you keep invoking human made objects in your arguments. Because you already know how they are made.

 

[xianghua]

I don't.

if you dont know than you cant conclude design when you see a plastic. thuse the argument fail.

 

[xianghua]

...

That's kind of splitting hairs don't you think?

what doest "splitting hairs" mean? anyway...

Whether a car is built in a factory or built by hand, it's still ultimately designed

great. so we can detect design without knowing how the object was made after all. thanks.

 

[Speedwell]

if you dont know than you cant conclude design when you see a plastic. thuse the argument fail.

No, it doesn't. My argument was that I can be pretty sure that molded plastic parts indicate design, and unless you can show me a natural process which produces molded plastic parts my argument does not fail. What you don't seem to get is that I don't have to prove the presence of design. All I have to do is detect it when I can.

 

[Speedwell]

what doest "splitting hairs" mean? anyway...



great. so we can detect design without knowing how the object was made after all. thanks.

Wrong again. Both factory methods and hand building methods leave evidence of intentional manufacture, which is what the conclusion of design is based on.

 

[xianghua]

Wrong again. Both factory methods and hand building methods leave evidence of intentional manufacture, which is what the conclusion of design is based on.

that is not what pitabread is talking about: "If you want to argue that living creatures are created, then tell us how they are created.". so now we see that we dont need to know how something was made to know it was designed.

 

[pitabread]

what doest "splitting hairs" mean? anyway...

It means you're making distinctions that aren't relevant to the point of the discussion.

great. so we can detect design without knowing how the object was made after all. thanks.

Except we do know how it was designed/built. Whether a car is built in a factory or by hand, the fundamental process of construction is still the same.

This is why you keep invoking cars in your discussion; you can only detect design if it's something you already know is made by humans.

 

[Speedwell]

that is not what pitabread is talking about: "If you want to argue that living creatures are created, then tell us how they are created.". so now we see that we dont need to know how something was made to know it was designed.

That's not what Pitabread said.

 

[xianghua]

No, it doesn't. My argument was that I can be pretty sure that molded plastic parts indicate design, and unless you can show me a natural process which produces molded plastic parts my argument does not fail.

ok. can you show me how a living thing can evolve from non living thing? according to your own criteria if we have no natural explanation (like the plastic) then we can concludee design. right?

 

[pitabread]

that is not what pitabread is talking about: "If you want to argue that living creatures are created, then tell us how they are created.". so now we see that we dont need to know how something was made to know it was designed.

Yes, you really do.

This is why you keep using things like cars, cell phones, etc, in your examples. You need to invoke objects of known human origin, so you can argue design based on knowledge of their creation.

So tell us, how were living things created?

 

[xianghua]

It means you're making distinctions that aren't relevant to the point of the discussion.



Except we do know how it was designed/built.

no you dont. you just see a car. a car can be made by different ways. and again: we also know how genomes are deigned. so what is your point actually?

 

[Speedwell]

ok. can you show me how a living thing can evolve from non living thing? according to your own criteria if we have no natural explanation (like the plastic) then we can concludee design. right?

You can always conclude intelligent design. Intelligent design is an unfalsifiable proposition and can never be ruled out. Your problem is that you want to prove the presence of intentional design, and you can't do that unless you can show evidence of intentional manufacture.

 

[xianghua]

You can always conclude intelligent design. Intelligent design is an unfalsifiable proposition and can never be ruled out. Your problem is that you want to prove the presence of intentional design, and you can't do that unless you can show evidence of intentional manufacture.

and you said that the plastic is evidence of intentional manufacture since we have no evidence that such a plastic can evolve naturally. this is why i asked you if you can show me how a natural process can evolve a living creature. can you show that?

 

[pitabread]

no you dont. you just see a car. a car can be made by different ways.

Not really. Whether a car is hand assembled or built on an assembly line, the process is fundamentally the same.

And that's the point: you're using pre-existing knowledge of something's design/creation to argue for that something's design/creation.

You've never demonstrated anything to the contrary.

and again: we also know how genomes are deigned. so what is your point actually?

And I asked you before: how would you detect design in a human designed genome?

You didn't answer that question.