the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.

Ultimately, the argument we are using is that if the evidence is consistent with natural processes, then we conclude that natural processes did it... Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point?

I don't understand this point at all. How else could it possibly look? If you design a universe and it has processes in it then those processes will, no doubt, look natural. I mean what else would a designer use if not natural processes? Or put another way, whatever a designer might use would become a defacto natural process.

As to the question of why is the hypothetical designer is not immediately apparent I don't know but I don't think deception is the only option. Being a wee little human in a 14.5 billion yr old universe with a wee little brain might be another possibility.

As soon as the physical evidence doesn't matter, then the conversation is over.

No one is saying that the evidence doesn't matter. I am just taking exception to what is being inferred from the evidence and trying to be rigorous with the logic.

Is it possible to identify ourselves as being part of a designed system from the inside of that system?

Actually, the whole point is for ID/creationists to once again demonstrate that ID/creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that can never be falsified by any evidence, no matter what that evidence is.

Better check with jar on that but yeah. My objective is to examine my own belief on the subject.

The claims that we can't "judge design" just further support that conclusion.

I am just saying that any apparent localized disorder in the goings on of the universe isn't a very robust argument against the existence of a designer.

edit

but apparently we are not talking about that

Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

Sure it is there too but I think there is evidence that it existed in many cultures long before the Christians wrote it down. A designer or god is a posited answer for the so far unanswerable question of origin and that question has been around for about as long as we have been asking questions. I just mean that if the Christian narrative is inconsistent with what nature reveals that doesn't detract from the idea of a creator that is perhaps different from what is described in the bible.

Right on, you're right.

I think my misunderstanding stemmed from a divergence between the slight contextual difference, and the big conceptual difference, from there is a designer and there could be a designer. But I could be wrong about that too

Cheers!

...from there is a designer and there could be a designer.

This is a critical distinction.

The whole concept of God is falsifiable.

How?

ProtoTypical writes: I don't understand this point at all. How else could it possibly look? If you design a universe and it has processes in it then those processes will, no doubt, look natural.

If species were separately designed then we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy since there is no reason that a designer would force its designs into a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect to see a nested hierarchy is if species evolved from a common ancestor.

Is it possible to identify ourselves as being part of a designed system from the inside of that system?

As described above, yes. If we suddenly saw nearly all species suddenly appear in the fossil record just 10,000 years ago, then I think we could conclude that there is a high probability that we are in a designed system of life.

My objective is to examine my own belief on the subject.

If I may make a suggestion, your first step should be to ask yourself what it would take to prove ID/creationism wrong. That is what any good scientist would do. What would it take to disprove ID/creationism when it comes to the question of the origin of species?

From what I have seen so far, you seem to have taken the position that a designer can do anything and produce every possible observation. If that is the case, then I don't see how your belief can be examined.

Coyote writes: Phat writes: The whole concept of God is falsifiable. how?

Off topic but on point, this is the question.

How did placental mammals manage to evolve from an egg-laying reptile? In order for this to happen, a line of reptiles would have had to have evolved a complete placental reproductive system while still being egg-layers.

My fragile, egg-shell mind has a lot of trouble understanding this idea. Help needed.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Too funny.

Or placental mammals did not evolve directly from reptiles but rather other forms of mammals such as marsupials. Remember the big difference is really pretty minor across several boundaries, and there are also reptiles that give live birth as well as species of reptiles that have a structure similar to a mammalian placenta such as skinks.

Egg production happens even in the Great Apes like humans.

The variety and evolution of reproduction methods is amazing.

How did a line of reptiles evolve the system of milk production and mammary glands of mammals?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Look at monotremes and marsupials

Maybe I'm wrong. The concept is unprovable yet I suppose it is also unfalsifiable.

I think that jars point about designers being irrelevant is a bit pompous on our part, however.

Slowly and over long periods of time. Lots of animals secrete juices from their skin including many reptiles. The mammary system is simply a continuation of that.

quote:

---

Slowly and over long periods of time. Lots of animals secrete juices from their skin including many reptiles. The mammary system is simply a continuation of that.

---

Sorry, "Slowly over long periods of time" doesn't explain anything. This is the Darwinist's equivalent of the Creationists' "God did it." Any mammary system is very complex, but you seem happy to believe that such a system evolved by sheer luck. This is akin to believing a mammary system could evolve in a human male. Fantasy and rank speculation masquerading as science.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

silly child writes: Any mammary system is very complex, but you seem happy to believe that such a system evolved by sheer luck.

Silly Rabbi, Kicks are for Trids.

How silly can you get Dredge? No luck involved; instead there are changes that get filtered by natural selection. You really need to go back and learn some of the very basic basics.

There was never a goal to "Develop a mammary system" or any other system. Anyone beyond elementary school should understand that.

Evolution is not goal oriented or even directional.

Go back and try to learn the basics before trying to sound like you know squat.

quote:

---

How silly can you get Dredge? No luck involved; instead there are changes that get filtered by natural selection.

---

Really. How does 0.05% of a mammary system confer a survival advantage?