the self replicating watch argument

[46AND2]

so a spinning motor doesnt look designed to you?

Irrelevant.

 

[xianghua]

Irrelevant.

its very relevant.

 

[46AND2]

its very relevant.

I've just explained to you why it isn't. Were you not paying attention?

 

[bhsmte]

its very relevant.

Not in any rational way it isn't.

 

[xianghua]

I've just explained to you why it isn't. Were you not paying attention?

i actually doesnt see any real design in a sand dune for instance. but i do see design in a spinning motor.

 

[bhsmte]

i actually doesnt see any real design in a sand dune for instance. but i do see design in a spinning motor.

What you see, or don't see, is important to well evidenced reality how exactly?

 

[46AND2]

i actually doesnt see any real design in a sand dune for instance. but i do see design in a spinning motor.

A sand dune isn't an object. it's a pile of many objects. Objects which you think were designed, and would therefore look designed to you. The chemical composition of sand is designed by god, and therefore looks designed to you, does it not?

 

[xianghua]

A sand dune isn't an object. it's a pile of many objects. Objects which you think were designed, and would therefore look designed to you. The chemical composition of sand is designed by god, and therefore looks designed to you, does it not?

its not realy look design to me( although it doesnt mean its not designed).

 

[46AND2]

its not realy look design to me( although it doesnt mean its not designed).

So if you can't tell if something is designed or not by the way it looks (sand), then why should we accept your argument about the way you think the flagellum LOOKS to you?

 

[bhsmte]

its not realy look design to me( although it doesnt mean its not designed).

When you come up with a reliable falsifiable test, to determine when something is designed, let us know.

 

[xianghua]

So if you can't tell if something is designed or not by the way it looks

who said i cant? by looking at a watch or a motor i can tell that someone have made it.

 

[46AND2]

who said i cant? by looking at a watch or a motor i can tell that someone have made it.

You just said you can't tell whether sand is designed or not by looking at it.

And no, the reason you know a watch or a motor is designed is because you already know that they are, and can identify one when you see it. It has nothing to do with whether it looks designed or not.

 

[dmmesdale]

When you come up with a reliable falsifiable test, to determine when something is designed, let us know.

Your existence is unscientific because it cannot be falsified by you. While you are at it can you falsify water boils at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level?

 

[46AND2]

who said i cant? by looking at a watch or a motor i can tell that someone have made it.

As a further example, demonstrating that you only know that watches are designed because you are familiar with them, not because of how they look, consider this:

A rose does not have the pigment in its genes necessary to produce the color blue. However, scientists have spliced genes from other flowers (pansies, I think), enabling them to produce a blue color.

If you went into a florist, and saw a blue rose, would you assume it was blue naturally, or would you assume it was genetically engineered? Can you tell just by looking at it?

Of course not, it is entirely dependent on whether you know if blue roses exist naturally or not. i.e., information already known prior to observation at the florist.

It is the same with watches and motors. You only know this because you are familiar with them being designed. It has nothing to do with their appearance of design, just as the blue rose does not.

 

[xianghua]

You just said you can't tell whether sand is designed or not by looking at it.

right. but i can tell if i look at a watch or a motor. so some objects looks very designed and some arent.

And no, the reason you know a watch or a motor is designed is because you already know that they are, and can identify one when you see it. It has nothing to do with whether it looks designed or not.

so you agree that this motor was designed?:

 

[46AND2]

right. but i can tell if i look at a watch or a motor. so some objects looks very designed and some arent.



so you agree that this motor was designed?:

Once again, you know that a motor is designed because you are familiar with motors being designed. When was the last time anybody observed a flagellum designed?

 

[xianghua]

Once again, you know that a motor is designed because you are familiar with motors being designed. When was the last time anybody observed a flagellum designed?

but flagellum is a kind of a motor. and you said that we know that a motor is evidence for design since we know that motors designed by humans.

 

[46AND2]

but flagellum is a kind of a motor. and you said that we know that a motor is evidence for design since we know that motors designed by humans.

Again I ask, when was the last time someone observed the process of designing a flagellum?

 

[xianghua]

Again I ask, when was the last time someone observed the design of a flagellum?

i never seen someone who designed my watches too. so according to this criteria i need to conclude that my watch was not designed?

 

[46AND2]

i never seen someone who designed my watches too. so according to this criteria i need to conclude that my watch was not designed?

When was the last time ANYONE observed the process of design for flagellum?

The fact that you, yourself, have not seen the design of a watch is irrelevant. You are familiar with the idea that watches are designed. You cannot say this about flagellum, because NOBODY has seen that process of design.