If there is intricate order in nature as you suggest, what other evidence would you need to demonstrate design, of even indirect evidence
I'd need evidence for design, rather than evidence for intricate order.
To be more specific, there are all sorts of flaws and quirks in living things which are hallmarks of evolution, but which no-one would have chosen to design, least of all an omniscient being. (Here I am thinking of shared morphology without shared function, the agreement of molecular phylogeny with itself and with other lines of evidence, the existence of intermediate forms in the fossil record, pseudogenes, ERVs, vestigial features, features acquired and lost during embryological development and their consistency with phylogeny and the fossil record, etc, etc). So if there had been design, I would expect these not to exist, and for you to be able to point that out.
(It would also be nice if you could show us God doing even a little bit of magic or creating just one beetle or worm, but it's not strictly necessary.)
Yes A pile of rocks that has fallen randomly off the side of a hill
Is it just the pile of rocks that is lacking design? What about the hill that they fell from or the gravity that pulled them down? How can I distinguish between a random pile of rocks and a designed pile of rocks?
I doubt it Jar but this why you you fellas stay tucked away in your little holes on websites and won't debate in person
No jar the has never ended You fellas simply misdirect minds away from simple truth and rules
A few of us can see precisely what your doing. It doesn't work for your position. The debate will never be over as long as people like yourself ignore evidence and Set up rules different for themself
Do you mean something like creationists are asked to prove the existence of a Designer and His designs while evolutionists don't expect to do more than point to the mug on the desk as evidence of (human) design?
Well, we do more than point to the mug --- we point to the manufacture of mugs. Here is a video of a mug factory.
So then I can say --- my mug is the sort of thing that's usually made like that, so I infer that it was in fact made like that.
Now let us turn our attention to a living thing, say an anteater. How are anteaters usually produced? By other organisms reproducing with variation. Without some designer or creator intervening. Without God doing magic. The creationist therefore needs evidence that some anteater was once produced in some way that is different from how anteaters are normally produced. I can say: this is a mug, so it was made how mugs are normally made; the creationist needs evidence that once upon a time an anteater was made in the way that anteaters are not normally made.
So yeah, the creationist has a bigger problem. That's not because we have set the bar too high, it's because he is trying to prove something which is much less obviously true. (It is in fact false, but even if it was true, these considerations show that it would be much harder to prove.)
We don't need to point to the stamped information on the mug, we can tell it's the product of design just by looking at it -- or recognizing its function -- and we can tell the same from objects found in an archaeological dig: a pile of bones is easily distinguished from a clay vessel or an arrowhead and we don't need "Made in China" stamped on them to tell the difference.
I agree that bones are easily distinguished from designed objects. I'm gonna concede that point.
I believe that living things all bear the stamp of design, "irreducible complexity" being a big part of the evidence, and that evolution couldn't possibly explain what we see, but we'll never be able to prove this to them.
Whereas it is relatively easy to convince me of something that is true.
The problem Dr A is you are hopelessly restrained by using Indirect evidence for the explanation of all things or existence But you pretend you have a better method for establishing evidence. You don't
What is the evidence of how things are here at all and how would you go about establish that evidence
You Dr A. What your Mug factory does for you, specific revelation in the form of the word of God does for us. It supports our existing indirect evidence
™ Version 4.2
(1)
