Some random discussion on evolution...

[46AND2]

i cant since there is a natural process that can create waterfalls. thus i cant conclude design when i see a waterfall.

Think VERY carefully about what you just said here...

 

[Ophiolite]

Think VERY carefully about what you just said here...

Nailed it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then how do you account for the differences on CF?

The internet allows for the oddest of odd-balls with big mouths to
spout what they believe. I'd get kicked out of any church that I
gave a sermon at.

Other questions?

 

[pitabread]

The internet allows for the oddest of odd-balls with big mouths to spout what they believe.

Are you calling your fellow creationists here the "oddest of odd-balls"?

As an aside, I've noticed very few creationists on this forum come to the aid of one another. Which given the sheer disparity of creationist beliefs here is probably not unsurprising.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

i cant since there is a natural process that can create waterfalls. thus i cant conclude design when i see a waterfall.

It's now there for all to see - after 2 years @xianghua has finally admitted his argument about design is nonsense.

 

[Kylie]

For the same reason I grow raspberries instead of buying them.
We all know that building something from scratch is more satisfying.
I'd rather build a tesla than just find one with the keys in it.

And would you start your raspberry growing endeavour by trying to evolve raspberries from more primitive plants?

 

[pitabread]

It's now there for all to see - after 2 years @xianghua has finally admitted his argument about design is nonsense.

Oh snap!

 

[Kylie]

We all heard it the first time you claimed it.
Common complaint from every person and every topic.

Yeah, this response doesn't actually address the issue.

 

[Kylie]

why it will be evidence against design? we all know that a fan is evidence for design. why doest it matter if it can reproduce or not?

Because if an object is designed and artificially built, it does not require the ability to reproduce itself.

After all, if fans could reproduce themselves, it would put all the people in the fan factories out of work.

 

[SkyWriting]

And would you start your raspberry growing endeavour by trying to evolve raspberries from more primitive plants?

If I could encode DNA....absolutely. What a blast!
I'd start with just one cell...at the most.
Then watch it grow, as planned.
This assumes I am patient and have the time.

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you calling your fellow creationists here the "oddest of odd-balls"?

On the whole.

 

[xianghua]

Because if an object is designed and artificially built, it does not require the ability to reproduce itself.

After all, if fans could reproduce themselves, it would put all the people in the fan factories out of work.

so a fan that is able to reproduce doesnt need design?. ok. why you believe that a natural process can made something that even the smartest man on earth cant do?

 

[xianghua]

It's now there for all to see - after 2 years @xianghua has finally admitted his argument about design is nonsense.

actually the opposite is true. i never said that we can always detect design. we can detect design only in some objects that are clearly the product of design. like watch a car or an airplane. you dont?

 

[Speedwell]

actually the opposite is true. i never said that we can always detect design. we can detect design only in some objects that are clearly the product of design. like watch a car or an airplane. you dont?

Only because we can tell that they are man-made. In natural objects it is not possible to tell--just like you admitted with the waterfall example.

 

[xianghua]

Only because we can tell that they are man-made.

and you believe that because we have no natural process that can make a car or a watch. right?

 

[Speedwell]

and you believe that because we have no natural process that can make a car or a watch. right?

No, because in a car or watch I can discover evidence of human manufacturing techniques in use.

 

[xianghua]

No, because in a car or watch I can discover evidence of human manufacturing techniques in use.

so if you will see a car evolving naturally in front of your eyes you will still conclude design?

 

[Speedwell]

so if you will see a car evolving naturally in front of your eyes you will still conclude design?

No, because if I see it evolving naturally there won't be evidence of human manufacturing techniques.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

actually the opposite is true. i never said that we can always detect design.

The opposite is not true. Your whole schtick is that we can detect design simply by looking at something, but when asked to demonstrate how this works your answer was "I can't".

we can detect design only in some objects that are clearly the product of design. like watch a car or an airplane. you dont?

How do you know they are designed? If you are relying on prior knowledge then you are not detecting design. If you have no prior knowledge but can detect design you should be able to use the same technique to identify any object that has been designed, yet you were unable to identify the designed waterfall. That's tacit admission that your argument is worthless and wrong.

 

[Kylie]

so a fan that is able to reproduce doesnt need design?. ok. why you believe that a natural process can made something that even the smartest man on earth cant do?

No...

You can't reverse the logic and expect it to work.

That's like saying that since mammals don't have feathers, any animal that doesn't have feathers is a mammal.

Likewise, if a fan is incapable of reproducing, then it MUST be artificially manufactured, because they have no way of manufacturing themselves. But if they can reproduce, they can still be made in a factory as well. It's just that being made in a factory isn't the only option.