What's The Matter?

[Skaloop]

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?

No. Which makes the impression of design subjective. Thanks for proving my point!

 

[Skaloop]

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?

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.

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?

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.

 

[justlookinla]

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?

 

[Skaloop]

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.

 

[justlookinla]

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?

 

[Skaloop]

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.

 

[justlookinla]

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 it's designed for a purpose, the simple conclusion is intent in the design. No way around that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Does the molecular machine of the BF have a purpose? I imagine you would agree that yes, it has a purpose.
Purpose:
: the reason why something is done or used : the aim or intention of something

: the feeling of being determined to do or achieve something

: the aim or goal of a person : what a person is trying to do, become, etc.

Now all of these show that intent is a priori to purpose. Are you claiming that scientists do not have a good working knowledge of the meaning behind purpose?

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.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

Sure is a lot of dancing around the issue going on. Nobody ever offered any evidence for the illusion of design, did they?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure is a lot of dancing around the issue going on. Nobody ever offered any evidence for the illusion of design, did they?

Zero, not one bit...nada.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

If misrepresenting evolution theory is the only way you have to argue against it..... Then your objections aren't going to have any impact.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok. Explain?

For the same reason that we don't need to "believe" that clouds that look like ducks aren't actually ducks.

To explain it, would require to explain the difference between the words "appearance" and "actual". And you've already demonstrated time and again the inability (or unwillingness) to understand (or recognise) the difference.

To say that an appearance is not mere appearance, but an actual thing, you'ld need to support that. Can you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What evidence do you cite that shows it is subjectively seen in life forms?

Because it relies on human opinion, not on objective measurement or observation of the actual designing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'll vouch for it (the flagellum motor). It's definitely designed.

Evidence?
What justification do you have for that claim?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is a pretty elaborate contraption. That it was designed is obvious. No fancy scientific formula needed.

Just like it is "obvious" that the sun goes around the world and not the other way round, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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 "dancing" here is you people pretending that certain words can't mean different things in different context.

This discussion is just as ridiculous as the "it's just a theory" thing.

 

[Jan Volkes]

As evolution is not universally accepted is it not just another subjective belief?

The only people who do not accepted evolution are the people who do not understand it or reject it for religious reasons,
which are you? I suspect both.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Is this designed:

Is this?

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.
As usual it got dropped for a couple of years now it's back again and this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.............
which only goes to show just how desperate some people really are.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Of course the bacterial flagellum is designed, only maybe not that intelligently.