The stumbling block for atheists.

[Michael]

Yes, you were stacking the deck.

When I asked you to give an example of something that could be used to define "designed", you just give me an example of something life already does.

That's like if I was claiming Fords are better than Toyotas, and you disagreed, you might ask me to give an example of something that makes a car good, and then I said it has Ford written on the grill.

The whole purpose of me asking you to 'design' a living agent rather than rely upon me to do so, was to give you a chance to *not* stack the deck if you felt that I was trying to do so.

My design? I've never said there was a design.

I'm starting to think that you're intentionally avoiding this exercise because you don't like the implications.

Which evolution by means of natural selection explains perfectly.

I'm *not* questioning EV theory!

Apart from making each animal from scratch, I can't really think of anything. And even then, using evolution - a process which will do all the hard work for me - is a better option.

So "evolution" (as a process) could have been an "intelligently designed" feature to take care of the hard work for you?

So you are trying to get me to accept ID by getting me to intelligently design a life form?

I'm ultimately trying to get you to realize that it's possible for more than one "hypothesis" to explain the same data set. I doubt this exercise is going to change your opinions about EV theory, but it might change your opinions about intelligent design.

Why do you think I haven't?

Well, for starters, you only seem to associate "intelligent design" with YEC, or making lifeforms *separately*. It need not have worked like that at all.

I've thought about it and rejected it, long before I started discussing it with you. The evidence does not support ID.

How so?

Care to explain why this is a requirement? Evolution does not require awareness.

Your evidence to support that statement please? AFAIK, only living and "aware" things can evolve over time.

If you can't even define it, then how can it be essential?

It's essential becuse it defines the difference between inanimate objects and living organisms.

No need to be condescending, using "quote marks" like that.

That wasn't my intent.

Again, I will point out that evolution has no goals. Life does not need to plan ahead the way you seem to be implying.

We're going in circles at this point. I didn't say anything about EV theory. I simply asked you to intelligently design an agent of life so that we could come up with an agreed upon list of predictions that ID theory might make. Assuming you ever get around to it, you'll figure out that ID theory "predicts" pretty much exactly the same thing as EV theory. I didn't stack the deck. It's just a natural set of "predictions" that fall right out of ID, just like they fall right out of EV theory. EV theory wasn't invented in a vacuum either. It was meant to "explain" things that we already observed in nature.

 

[Michael]

Why are Christians here so extensively arguing with atheists?

I like to think of it as "evangelism".

 

[MissRowy]

Gee I wondered why it was so dusty in here!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's try this a different way then. Assuming that the goal is long term biodiversity, and widespread life throughout the universe, how would you go about "intelligently" designing such an agent?

If the answer to that question is indistingsuishable from the answer of "what properties would naturally evolving living systems with a natural origin have?", then your "criteria" for detecting design in living systems would be entirely useless to actually detect design.

If the designed and the natural looks exactly alike, then what is the actual difference?

 

[dad]

Does it look that way?? By the way did you actually do physics at school?

Why, would that help in the origins debate? Physics existed in Noah's day?

 

[JD16]

Why, would that help in the origins debate? Physics existed in Noah's day?

Of course it did, the speed of light was the same back then as it is now.

 

[dad]

Of course it did, the speed of light was the same back then as it is now.

Great, so show evidence that it was the same (or is) in deep space. Simple. Walk the walk.

 

[JD16]

Great, so show evidence that it was the same (or is) in deep space. Simple. Walk the walk.

The speed of light is constant in a given medium,....are you suggesting that the laws of physics are different back then?

 

[dad]

The speed of light is constant in a given medium,....are you suggesting that the laws of physics are different back then?

Have we any reason to assume they were not? But I have a question, where is this vacuum you talk about that light is 'constant' in? Earth?

 

[JD16]

Have we any reason to assume they were not? But I have a question, where is this vacuum you talk about that light is 'constant' in? Earth?

The question is why is there such assumption? what is that based on? And how can we tell? I didn't mention anything about vacuum,....but the speed of light can be tested and demonstrated here on earth, or are you disputing that fact?

 

[dad]

The question is why is there such assumption? what is that based on?

Nothing at all! Circular reasoning and religious belief.

And how can we tell?

How can science tell? If they can't they better pipe down.


I didn't mention anything about vacuum,....but the speed of light can be tested and demonstrated here on earth, or are you disputing that fact?[/QUOTE] OK, so you said in 'given medium'. Now you admit we are talking about on earth! Now, how about at the edges of the universe?

 

[lesliedellow]

I have a question, where is this vacuum you talk about that light is 'constant' in? Earth?

We'll shoot you into space so that you can find out.

 

[JD16]

Now, how about at the edges of the universe?

What about it? What has the speed of light at the edge of the universe got to do with the speed of light of light on earth which can be demonstrated to be constant?

 

[dad]

We'll shoot you into space so that you can find out.

No rockets can go to the stars. Be realistic.

 

[dad]

What about it? What has the speed of light at the edge of the universe got to do with the speed of light of light on earth which can be demonstrated to be constant?

The issue is not what time is like on earth, or how light behaves here...how much time it takes to do something. The issue is science claiming great distances and ages based on assuming time exists everywhere.

 

[JD16]

The issue is not what time is like on earth, or how light behaves here...how much time it takes to do something. The issue is science claiming great distances and ages based on assuming time exists everywhere.

Time does exist everywhere, just at different speed,

Time dilation - Wikipedia

But really whats your point?
Our discussion started with you mentioning did physics exist back then,....I replied of course, and gave the speed of light as an example,..and you go off on a major tangent trying to prove what? So if you claim that physics didn't exist back then or different in any way, please, by all means, shows us...

 

[dad]

Time does exist everywhere, just at different speed,

Time dilation - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation Show how that that articles shows time exists everywhere? Also it sounds somewhat odd to me to say time exists at different speeds.

Our discussion started with you mentioning did physics exist back then,....I replied of course, and gave the speed of light as an example,.

The speed of light now and on earth does not relate to origins, or the far universe.

.and you go off on a major tangent trying to prove what? So if you claim that physics didn't exist back then or different in any way, please, by all means, shows us...

I can show a different world from the bible. From science you are resigned to the fact that you do not know.

That is significant because ALL models of the past on earth are based on the laws being the same.

 

[JD16]

Nothing at all! Circular reasoning and religious belief.

Circular reasoning? You do enjoy chasing your tail do you? If that is what you base your argument on, it's no wonder that your mindset is stuck in the bronze age...

Now you admit we are talking about on earth!

Wth do you mean admit? I was always talking about here on earth,...show me where did I mention anywhere else? Your blatant disingenuity is obvious, therefore the discussion is over.

 

[lesliedellow]

Circular reasoning? You do enjoy chasing your tail do you? If that is what you base your argument on, it's no wonder that your mindset is stuck in the bronze age...



Wth do you mean admit? I was always talking about here on earth,...show me where did I mention anywhere else? Your blatant disingenuity is obvious, therefore the discussion is over.

It is pointless trying to argue with Dad. He doesn't allow himself to be constrained by mere facts, and he makes up hypotheses as he goes along.

 

[JD16]

It is pointless trying to argue with Dad. He doesn't allow himself to be constrained by mere facts, and he makes up hypotheses as he goes along.

Thanks for the heads up,....One of those make it up as you go along fellers...