The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

Yes, it does. It has given us TONS of answers. Scientific journals are full of such answers.For example, which stretches of DNA are possibly responsible for uniquely human morphology? We turn to evolution for this answer. We compare human genes with other animals using the theory of common descent to look for genes that have changed significantly in the human lineage while remaining nearly unchanged in other lineages. This has led us to many interesting answers, such as the human MYH pseudogene which may have resulted in allowing the cranium to enlarge during hominid evolution.Design, on the other hand, can only supply word salad type answers like those found in your posts. No real world applications. No avenues of research. No science. Measure mass before and after an event, such as a nuclear decay event or a collision in a particle accelerator. As it turns out, matter is not eternal. False. If order is not evidence of design then order is not evidence for design. Period.Nowhere have you shown why order is evidence of design. Nowhere. You have simply asserted it without reason. That is not how logic is used. Why do you mention order at all? Why do you consider order evidence of design? You need to establish this first before pointing the finger at others. What if I define unintelligent design as order in specific detail, consistent and sustained? Would this mean that observing order is now evidence of unintelligent design? Is your argument nothing more than a semantic argument? Great. First rule is you need to show how order is evidence of design. We can do the same for a nested hierarchy which is evidence for evolution. So now it is up to you to do the same. What does eternality of matter have to do with anything?

I have addressed it in several of my posts in this thread and you have ignored it each time. Why is order proof of design?

We don't need to know that in order to conclude that a seed can and does grow into a tree without any observable input from an intelligent being during the process, wouldn't you agree?

Sure we can. The mechanisms of evolution got their start as soon as there were imperfect replicators that competed for limited resources on Earth. How so? Why would we need to do this? What is your point? Depends on the thing. Different tests for different things. Our rules are that explanations must be testable and potentially falsifiable. It would really help if you would stick to these rules.

Baloney. You claim that order evidences design. This is your claim. Either support it or withdraw it. Claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence. Please show how order establishes design. Without this demonstration your claims will be rejected, and rightly so. However, evidence is required for which you have supplied zero. Based on what evidence?

Evolution is an explanation for the observations made in the field of biology. Evolution explains why shared characteristics amongst multicellular life fall into a nested hierarchy. Evolution explains why humans and chimps share the same ERV's at the same location in our genomes. Evolution explains why we find fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammalian features.So how does Design explain these observations? If Design can not explain these observations in a testable and falsifiable manner then what use is it? How evolution works is a part of how nature works. You want to claim that a Designer is at work in nature, but every time we study nature we observe unintelligent mechanisms at work, not a Designer. That seems to be a very seriously problem for your touted conclusion. We can look at the origin of an ordered crystal, and that origin does not require a designer. Therefore, order is not evidence of design.

We can describe the orderly formation of crystals without using a "you" so does this mean that order is not evidence of design?

Describing how something comes to be is showing its origination point. The process by which ordered crystals come to be can be described without invoking any intelligent causes. Therefore, order is not evidence of a designer since order does not require a designer. No I don't. All I need to know is how something originated, as you stated quite clearly. I know how an ordered crystal originates, and it does so without any observed designer as part of the process.As for matter, there was no matter as we know it at the beginning of our universe. Matter condensed from energy just as we observe in particle accelerators across the globe. No need for a designer here either. Matter spontaneously condenses from energy without the need for any designer in the process.

So if we find order that has no purpose would this falsify design?Also, can you please tell us why purpose requires a designer? Physician, heal thyself. Actually, they are based on jargon and philosophical nonesense. "DESRIBINING HOW SOMETHING WORKS, is not the same as showing its parts origination point."--Dawn Bertot

Nice try. Are you a creationist because you can not prove how matter came about? No. You are a creationist because of beliefs as to how that matter came about, and those beliefs are religious in nature. You can not equate this to a person who holds beliefs that matter did not have a supernatural origin since it does not involve the supernatural. The whole point of religious beliefs is that they center around the supernatural. To try and force non-supernatural beliefs under the religious heading is just ludicrous.Why is it that creationists want science to be a religion?

What originally created forest? Evidence please. What are these phenotypes and why do they suggest design? Also, what phenotypes, if found, would disprove design? Can you please tell us why unintelligent natural processes can not produce specific purpose? If we observe a naturally occuring mutation producing an enzyme that has a purpose does this falsify design? But we have observed new organisms coming about through natural and unguided processes. You have been taught about the birds and the bees, have you not? How so? How do we know that particularized function is evidence of design? If you took that same bag of calculators, dumped them on your front lawn, and then asked a class of high school students to find the designed things would they pull up clumps of grass or grab for the bugs crawling through the lawn? No. They would grab the calculators and ignore all of the life around the calculators. Shouldn't that tell you something?

Why is order evidence of design?

Can you point to something of human designs whose only purpose is itself?The purpose of a watch is not to be a watch. The purpose of a watch is to allow the designer to tell the time. The purpose of designed things is related to the designer, not the design. The purpose of designed things is to benefit the designer. Characteristics in life only benefit that life. Big difference.Can you point to a single characteristic in a single species that solely benefits another species?

It appears that your purpose on these threads is to be pedantic.

When you have magical poofing as your primary mechanism it is a bit hard to stand on your own as a science. What they are hoping to do is tear down all competing theories (by whatever means necessary) and hope that no one notices that the Emporer has no clothes.Even when we ask for experiments that could test ID we instead get experiments that are meant to test evolution.