What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

havoc writes:So Im assuming that you think that there is evidence for non biological design. Can you objectively observe a non biological thing and make a determination as to whether it is designed or not? Does this same evidence apply to biology? If not why not? Do you accept the same evidence in one case but not in the other?I think the evolutionist thought goes like this. Life is not designed so there is no evidence of design in life.

slevesque writes: First of all, the burden of proof is on those who claim life can arise through natural processes. Not the other way around.

havoc writes:I dont think evolution could ever lead to this level of design. So I find these fine tuned features as evidence of design.

havoc writes:So there is no reason to believe that non living can become living? How about the fact that it has never been observed.

havoc writes:If scientists show that non life can become life without the help of the scientists then that would be evidence consistant with abiogenesis. If it takes a team of Intelligent scientists to cause non life to become life. This in no way would be evidence of abiogenesis.

havoc writes:Not what I said, but you allready know that.Is water freezing below 32 degrees proof that it can freeze at 50 degrees?What is up with the insults? I’m sure you are an intelligent person who happens to be wrong.

havoc writes:Please explain how abiogenesis and spontaneous generation differ?

slevesque writes:This is a fallacious reasoning once again. You cannot assert natural processes causes a particular thing just because we have observed natural processes in general.Think about it, suppose I turned lead into gold and you told me I did so via a natural mean. But when I asked why you think this is so, you answered ''because I have observed natural processes''. This would clearly be illogical, just because you saw an appl fall to the ground, or an electric current create a magnetic field, or any other natural process it does not mean anything concerning turning lead into gold. You actually need to have at least a plausible naturalistic mechanism, and/or observed revelant natural processes. I'll be honest jar, you have brought very little to this discussion appart from repeating useless things such as this ad nauseam ...

Drevmar writes:Okay I read most of what is in this "debate." It occurred to me that I would like to make two interjections.1) Since there is nothing anywhere which shows, proves or in any way demonstrates anything in microevolution ever pushing through to macroevolution (which I KNOW nobody wants that word [macroevolution] used) this leads me to believe that even though a God could allow or even make (macro)evolution happen, it likely didn't. and,

Drevmar writes:2) I have proven to my own satisfaction (knowing) through my own experimentation (four successfully and dramatically answered requests) that God actually does exist, therefore I accept His claim to have created everything and I am convinced that evolution only occurs within a species (or whatever you would choose to call it) and does not ever make (for instance) a dog become anything else but a dog.I know this is slightly different to the standard "debate" entry and probably "against the rules" but I thought it needed to be said.Also, I would like to recommend to all "scientists" that they try for themselves to make contact with God, it does take some humility and sincerity, but it is worth finding out for sure.

slevesque writes: Once again IC has a specific definition, and the IDers use it as evidence for design because it happens to be that the only currently known way to produce such a system is through design.

slevesque writes:Here is the crux of the matter, but it comes down to exactly what I described earlier in the thread as the other alternative to design for IC systems: making multiple steps at a time.In your example, there are at least two steps: adding the spring, and using it for a different purpose.In biological systems, 'steps' are simply mutations. To evolve IC systems, you need to have multiple simultaneous mutations. If you doubt this, consider that all researches that try to find a mechanism to evolve such systems approach it by trying to find a mechanism in which multiple simultaneous mutations will become visible to selection.

slevesque writes:Then it comes down to the same thing. Randomness does not know the arch it is building will be advantageous once it is finished.It doesn't know that the arch it is building, although useless and a waste of material right now, will be better then the scaffolds it has right now.This situation still requires foresight, or random luck

Drevmar writes:I accomplished my objective in my post. Thanks.

Percy writes:Off-topic question: How *old* is that boat, and what's that big, bulbous thing on the front behind the bow gun?--Percy