Originally posted by KellyJayNo - I'm making a case for the sub-components of a car NOT having a natural affinity to each other. Nothing to do with cars being / not being human.
Test 3:
Do the "parts" of a car show a natural affinity to each other? - No = design
You are making a strong case for cars not being human, but where are
your points touching on design?
Kelly
If you do not understand why this is a valid test to see if something can evolve or requires design, just ask.
Originally posted by timebombtedI do not see it as a valid test for design, you can have rocks in an
No - I'm making a case for the sub-components of a car NOT having a natural affinity to each other. Nothing to do with cars being / not being human.
If you do not understand why this is a valid test to see if something can evolve or requires design, just ask.
area scattered about without any perceivable pattern that suggests
they were placed there on purpose; you can have rocks in a pattern
that forms, "welcome to Hoopeston" and to me that suggests
design, it has nothing to do with the basic affinity of the make up
of the rocks. You can have twigs lying in and around a tree without
any perceivable pattern that suggests design, or you can find
something that has twigs and other odds and ends placed together
so that small bird eggs could fit in them, to me that suggests design,
and the affinity of the make up of the twigs has nothing to do with
the design or none design of the twigs too. You seem more intent,
or you seem more concern about life in your tests than you do design
itself, if you cannot recognize design or understand it, how can you
tell me it is not there? It is almost like your saying if I cannot see
the factory the car was made in, or the bird that created the nest I
refuse to say can be shown by a test it was put together by design.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not need to see the car factory to conclude design. An analysis purely of the the cars subcomponents will show firstly the parts do not occur naturally in the environment, and secondly they do NOT have a natural affinity to each other, thus would not have come together in any naturally occuring way....... someone or somethings needed to fit them together. Simple enough test and logical conclusion to be drawn.
I do not see it as a valid test for design, you can have rocks in an
area scattered about without any perceivable pattern that suggests
they were placed there on purpose; you can have rocks in a pattern
that forms, "welcome to Hoopeston" and to me that suggests
design, it has nothing to do with the basic affinity of the make up
of the rocks. You can ha ...[text shortened]... created the nest I
refuse to say can be shown by a test it was put together by design.
Kelly
Where is your confusion with this issue? Then again I'm probably debating with someone who uses the 747 from a hurricane in a junkyard analogy also :0(
Rock patterns - ok, no pattern = most likely just fell that way or can be explained by understanding the processes that moves the earth below them (plate tectonics etc - or is this something else you don't believe occurs). Alternatively, no pattern could also be design if someone was just throwing rocks of a cliff....... however, rock patterns spelling out words = extremely likely to be design as the statistical probability of them falling in this way would be astronomical..... would really depend on the frequency of the rocks falling and the length of the word. Do you know somewhere where this has happened with such frequency that we really need to question whether or not "rock words" are a product of design or a natural event?
Originally posted by timebombtedI'm all for trying to figure out what are the odds of words being put
I do not need to see the car factory to conclude design. An analysis purely of the the cars subcomponents will show firstly the parts do not occur naturally in the environment, and secondly they do NOT have a natural affinity to each other, thus would not have come together in any naturally occuring way....... someone or somethings needed to fit them tog ...[text shortened]... lly need to question whether or not "rock words" are a product of design or a natural event?
to there out with rocks, how about words on computer's screen or
book? Can we come up with odds on something like that being design
or just happening naturally by the odds of them falling into place?
There some type of test for that too? What is so specieal about words
in your opinion that show design by their very nature?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedThat goes straight back to you need to know where they came from,
Assume there is no designer / design for cars.
For there to be more than 1 car they require a method of reproduction.
Without reproduction (self replication) it can imply they have been produced. This is just one line of evidence why cars are designed / created.
which is not a test for design. That is simply a "I need to know how
they began inorder to tell you how they began", it isn't a test for
design it is a look at the factory. If life were designed all you could
see is the current process of it in action, that does not tell you how
it started only what the current state is. This answer is a complete
cop out in my opinion.
Kelly
edit: "I really was interested in why
you felt evolution of the eye was such a fact, you never produced
anything that amounted to much to prove that point, the things you
did bring like variety, and and such were just statements of belief
on your part as near as I could tell."
Well I don’t’ “believe” nothing about the evolution of the eye -I know only the scientific approach regarding this organ: the first eye-like structure was a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, and probably through changes and complexities the human eye was formed. Through natural selection different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -and I repeat that the human eye is not the best one (because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, therefore if God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was not that perfect design).
It is possible that the simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator, and then random changes created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made “vision” a bit sharper. At the same time, the opening of the pit is gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture. Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes that they correspond to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists’ hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago.
edit: "You on the other hand suggested we debate the subject, and
your strongest points so far has been go read someone else's book."
KellyJay,
A scientific theory describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together and stands until proven wrong -it is never proven correct. Nothing till today has disproved the theory of the evolution; in contrary a whole range of scientific disciplines have supported, refined, and expanded it. I proposed you to check the data on your own because everybody must be at least a bit familiar with an issue in order to debate about it.
Originally posted by black beetleI think that's his point. Further few people are sufficiently aware of this -- most tend to act as if scientific theory were ironclad fact and so act in 'faith' of science.
A scientific theory describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together and stands until proven wrong -it is never proven correct.
Correct me if I've misunderstood you, KJ.
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasthis is stupid, the bible doesnt say the earth is flat, you just interpret the bible to say its flat.
In the bible there are several passages that show that Earth is flat:
Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”
Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdo ...[text shortened]... glory.”
[b]Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
Example:
Daniel 4:10-11
You have actually taken this out of context, this is merely a dream that the king had, and i don't think you have a good case proving christians wrong with a dream someone had🙂
Revelation 1:7
You presume here that Jesus isnt actually moving and that everyone can see him at the same time. It just says that jesus will return and everyone will see him at one stage. Like Daniel this is also a vision, so same deal as above.
Mathew 4:8
I dont think this should be taken to literally because even if the earth was flat you still wouldnt be able to see more than 100kms away. I think here it is important to note that this shouldnt be taken literally, for example it could be saying that Jesus looked over the earth, he earth being made up of all the kingdoms. You shouldnt always just look at the words, you should look at their context and what they ACTUALLY mean.
I think you need to do your research before you start making statements that aren't true🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage…most tend to act as if scientific theory were ironclad fact and so act in 'faith' of science. …
I think that's his point. Further few people are sufficiently aware of this -- most tend to act as if scientific theory were ironclad fact and so act in 'faith' of science.
Correct me if I've misunderstood you, KJ.
Obviously, not all scientific theories are “proven” and, for those that are not proven, it would not be rational for a person to regard those theories as “scientific fact”. I can think of some such unproven theories that neither I nor most people assume to be fact simply because they are unproven! -I think you may be underestimating the general intelligence of (most) other people -many (if not most) laymen are misled and deceived by the news media that continually gives out a lot of crap by making out this or that theory is being proven (such as so called “proof” of cold fusion) but, if most people are presented with the actual complete and undistorted facts rather than biased hyped-up nonsense, most would recognise that an unproven theory is just that.
However, some scientific theories are “proven” to the point where you would be irrational to assume that there was more than a vanishing small probability that they are false. Such well proven theories are “scientific facts” and no ‘faith’ is required to believe those theories they are correct.
I consider that the freezing point of water at 1 atmosphere of pressure is 0C -actually it has to be -because that is exactly how 0C is defined! -so perhaps a better example would be that the temperature that water is at its maximum density 1 atmosphere of pressure is 4C (surprisingly) give or take 0.5C and I do not consider it ‘faith’ to believe that scientific fact because I can make measurements and observations to verify this.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDespite the volume of verbiage I'm not sure you're getting the point.
[b]…most tend to act as if scientific theory were ironclad fact and so act in 'faith' of science. …
Obviously, not all scientific theories are “proven” and, for those that are not proven, it would not be rational for a person to regard those theories as “scientific fact”. I can think of some such unproven theories that neither I nor most peo ...[text shortened]... are “scientific facts” and no ‘faith’ is required to believe those theories they are correct.[/b]
But if you do, do respond to it instead of blathering around it.
Originally posted by TheBadBishopPeople often walk around with ready-made ideas about how things have been -- the Big Bang, dinosaurs, cave-men, and the rest -- without questioning whether these things are correct or not.
A good example of this is particle theory. They teach this in senior school chemistry and physics yet since no one can see an atomic particle it is not "scientifically" proven.
A good historical example would be 'Columbus thought the Earth was flat'.
Originally posted by TheBadBishopWrong. It is "scientifically" proven -by indirect observation. And, if you want further proof, if it was wrong no modern computer would work and the chemical industry wouldn’t be able to make their chemicals etc etc.
A good example of this is particle theory. They teach this in senior school chemistry and physics yet since no one can see an atomic particle it is not "scientifically" proven.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYet most people can't understand the proof so they have to take the scientists at their word.
Wrong. It is "scientifically" proven -by indirect observation. And, if you want further proof, if it was wrong no modern computer would work and the chemical industry wouldn’t be able to make their chemicals etc etc.
Like it or not y'all are a bunch of techno-priests.