The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You,

[Radrook]

The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You, evidence for an ID

 

[Maddox]

The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is an argument for the existence of God (or life-engineering aliens) that may be summarized as follows: When I see a complex object such as a watch, I know it has been designed: therefore, when I see a complex object such as a tiger, I should infer that it has been designed. This act of comparing two objects and drawing similar conclusions based on similarities (while ignoring important differences) is a prime example of a false analogy.

 

[Nithavela]

I'm sensing a pattern here.

 

[cow451]

It would seem to me that "evolution" would be the argument for Intelligent Design.

 

[Radrook]

It would seem to me that "evolution" would be the argument for Intelligent Design.

Some theists are also evolutionists who claim that the process was under divine guidance.

 

[Maddox]

Some theists are also evolutionists who claim that the process was under divine guidance.

Like Catholics and the Pope ?

 

[Radrook]

The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is an argument for the existence of God (or life-engineering aliens) that may be summarized as follows: When I see a complex object such as a watch, I know it has been designed: therefore, when I see a complex object such as a tiger, I should infer that it has been designed. This act of comparing two objects and drawing similar conclusions based on similarities (while ignoring important differences) is a prime example of a false analogy.

So now all you need to do is point out the exact reasons why it is a false analogy. Otherwise it is merely voicing an unsupported opinion.

 

[Radrook]

Like Catholics and the Pope ?

Well, even many Protestants subscribe to that idea.

 

[Chriliman]

The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is an argument for the existence of God (or life-engineering aliens) that may be summarized as follows: When I see a complex object such as a watch, I know it has been designed: therefore, when I see a complex object such as a tiger, I should infer that it has been designed. This act of comparing two objects and drawing similar conclusions based on similarities (while ignoring important differences) is a prime example of a false analogy.

On the subject of the origins of biological life on earth, it's always better to ask "who, what, where, when, why" rather than to only ask "what, where, when, why". Leaving out "who" puts a limit on the possible answers one can openly consider that could lead to the truth.

 

[Speedwell]

On the subject of the origins of biological life on earth, it's always better to ask "who, what, where, when, why" rather than to only ask "what, where, when, why". Leaving out "who" puts a limit on the possible answers one can openly consider that could lead to the truth.

Of course. But science, by it's nature, is incapable of asking the "who" question or of formulating an answer to it. That's what religion is for.

 

[bhsmte]

The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You, evidence for an ID

LOL. If there is evidence for ID, please do the following for us; provide a scientific definition of design. Also, please provide the falsifiable test we would use, to determine if design is present or not. We will await patiently.

 

[Chriliman]

Of course. But science, by it's nature, is incapable of asking the "who" question or of formulating an answer to it. That's what religion is for.

Science is only as capable as the scientists who break molds and move things forward and since a scientist is fully capable of asking the question of "who", then science as a tool will support that endeavor. Only the scientists who don't want to ask "who" will object, but are they really scientists if they don't investigate all possible causes of biological life, including "who"? I don't think so.

 

[HitchSlap]

Science is only as capable as the scientists who break molds and move things forward and since a scientist is fully capable of asking the question of "who", then science as a tool will support that endeavor. Only the scientists who don't want to ask "who" will object, but are they really scientists if they don't investigate all possible causes of biological life, including "who"? I don't think so.

Why "who?" Maybe it's a "what."

 

[Chriliman]

Why "who?" Maybe it's a "what."

See my post here.

I'm suggesting it's more important to ask "who, what, when, where, why" rather than just, "what, when, where, why" when considering the origins of biological life.

 

[HitchSlap]

See my post here.

I'm suggesting it's more important to ask "who, what, when, where, why" rather than just, "what, when, where, why" when considering the origins of biological life.

The "who" is often least important, as it leads to putting the cart before the horse. It's a evolutionary human cognitive shortcoming that's often hard to suppress. Education is the best way of overcoming this, otherwise we start making up explanations; i.e. Thor & lightning.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some theists are also evolutionists who claim that the process was under divine guidance.

I would expect that those same theists also believe that all of nature is under divine guidance, not just evolution. That would put evolution on the same level as gravity or the germ theory of disease.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science is only as capable as the scientists who break molds and move things forward and since a scientist is fully capable of asking the question of "who", then science as a tool will support that endeavor. Only the scientists who don't want to ask "who" will object, but are they really scientists if they don't investigate all possible causes of biological life, including "who"? I don't think so.

Science is an activity. Until you can show how scientists can do the investigation using scientific methodology, it is a scientific dead end. You might as well ask cowboys why they don't herd unicorns.

 

[Chriliman]

The "who" is often least important, as it leads to putting the cart before the horse.

So much so that atheistic evolutionists don't even ask "who" anymore.

It's a evolutionary human cognitive shortcoming that's often hard to suppress.

I see no need to suppress a "who" as a possible cause for biological life. In fact, suppressing that possibility is a sign of willful ignorance.

Education is the best way of overcoming this, otherwise we start making up explanations; i.e. Thor & lightning.

Agreed, education and the willingness to explore all possibilities, including a "who" as a possible cause for biological life.

 

[Loudmouth]

So now all you need to do is point out the exact reasons why it is a false analogy. Otherwise it is merely voicing an unsupported opinion.

It becomes a false analogy when we point out that pocket watches do not reproduce on their own.

 

[HitchSlap]

So much so that atheistic evolutionists don't even ask "who" anymore.

Not only atheists, but a majority of real Christian scientists do either. It's a real non-starter.

I see no need to suppress a "who" as a possible cause for biological life. In fact, suppressing that possibility is a sign of willful ignorance.

Sure, the who/what is always fun to discuss over a craft brew or aged whiskey, but at the end of the day, it's all just speculative nonsense.

Agreed, education and the willingness to explore all possibilities, including a "who" as a possible cause for biological life.

Meh, if you say so, the problem however, is that the "who" you think it is has gone out of his way to appear as if it doesn't exist at all.