Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you can take someone who has never seen a German shepherd or a wolf, and ask them which was designed and which evolved naturally, they would be able to make that distinction?
I think that comes from who has studied the features and functions of the organisms and understand the design similarities of those and human like designs. Can you quote one microbiologist or biologist that does not agree that these functions, structures, and features appear to be designed for a purpose?
You don't see the similarity between molecular machines and human design...why not? What makes you feel the bacterial flagellum shows no design but we see something so similar design in the rotor system in a helicopter?
As in specifically saying those words? I dunno. Probably not. But "designed for a purpose", as you use it, implies intent. Microbiologists might say that things are designed for a purpose, but I've yet to hear one say that there was intent behind it.
How can something be designed for a purpose with no intent behind it?
That's my point, pretty much. People will say something was designed for a purpose, in a colloquial sense, but microbiologists wouldn't say it in a technical sense.
I wonder why they won't say it? Would that be a lack of professional integrity?
No, it's a matter of meaning and context. In casual (aka colloquial or laymen's terms) speech, saying something was designed is one thing. There's no mention of a designer, certainly not a designer with intent; it's "designed" by natural selection, selective pressures, environment, etc. But in technical speech, there is no design with intent.
They won't say it due to lack of integrity, but rather they won't say it because it's not true.
Does the molecular machine of the BF have a purpose? I imagine you would agree that yes, it has a purpose.As in specifically saying those words? I dunno. Probably not. But "designed for a purpose", as you use it, implies intent. Microbiologists might say that things are designed for a purpose, but I've yet to hear one say that there was intent behind it.
In what way are they not analogous? A man made lake would be created to look natural. A lake however is in a very different category than a molecular machine. Not only do they look like they are designed in the way that humans have designed but they function in the ways that humans design things to function.For starters, because they are not analogous. Secondly, because we know that the helicopter was designed, but we don't know that the flagellum was designed. A man-made lake could look as much of a lake as a natural lake, but we can still know that one was designed and one wasn't.
IF they say as they do that they appear designed with a purpose, there is the a priori of intent due to the meaning of the word. They may claim that this appearance is due to natural processes and is an illusion but there is no evidence given for that.No, it's a matter of meaning and context. In casual (aka colloquial or laymen's terms) speech, saying something was designed is one thing. There's no mention of a designer, certainly not a designer with intent; it's "designed" by natural selection, selective pressures, environment, etc. But in technical speech, there is no design with intent.
They won't say it due to lack of integrity, but rather they won't say it because it's not true.
IF they say as they do that they appear designed with a purpose, there is the a priori of intent due to the meaning of the word. They may claim that this appearance is due to natural processes and is an illusion but there is no evidence given for that.
Zero, not one bit...nada.Sure is a lot of dancing around the issue going on. Nobody ever offered any evidence for the illusion of design, did they?
I just sprayed weed killer on my lawn, but a surprise rainstorm washed it off within a couple of hours. The weeds showed the characteristic 'leaf curling' but none died. I'll have to spray again. If evolution is true they should have developed immunity by now and will survive the next spraying. I'll let you know.
Ok. Explain?
What evidence do you cite that shows it is subjectively seen in life forms?
I'll vouch for it (the flagellum motor). It's definitely designed.
That is a pretty elaborate contraption. That it was designed is obvious. No fancy scientific formula needed.
Sure is a lot of dancing around the issue going on. Nobody ever offered any evidence for the illusion of design, did they?
The only people who do not accepted evolution are the people who do not understand it or reject it for religious reasons,As evolution is not universally accepted is it not just another subjective belief?
If I remember rightly this is the argument that was thrown out of court because the guy who had studied it [Michael Behe] could not make a case for ID using this very thing at the Dover trial.Is this designed:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?