He’s probably also confusing epistemic certainty with psychological/subjective certainty.
You can feel psychological or subjective certainty with respect to the existence of bacteria, without having absolute objective epistemic certainty.
2 Likes
Calling something a “spinning motor” doesn’t make it designed.
1 Like
I just spilled some coffee on the floor.
I cannot say what is the probability of the particular coffee stain that resulted. Does it follow that the coffee stain was designed?
2 Likes
as i said several times: lets agree to disagree.
no. but we have a natural explanation for that stain. on the other hand we have no real natural explanation for a motor and thus its not the same. hard claim need hard proof.
No, let’s first of all agree that you don’t actually know that all motors are the product of design. You assume that to be the case based on nothing more than the fact that human designed motors were designed by humans. That’s it, that’s all you have.
We do, it’s evolution. But if we didn’t have an explanation for them, that would just leave us without an explanation. That does not make design automatically true.
2 Likes
Then prove the flagellum was designed. Show me the designer creating a flagellum. That’s what you mean by hard proof right? Direct demonstration. Then do it, demonstrate what you are asking others to do.
You wouldn’t be holding a hypocritical double standard would you?
1 Like
All these things are possible if God guides Evolution.
Are you here to dispute with Atheists? Or are you here to discuss the Genealogical Adam/Eve scenarios?
That is not true of what was said in context, it is not cool to misrepresent other people’s words. As Allen and Puck have patiently explained, practical acceptance of an widely observed feature of nature is not the same as proof. Science rests upon empirical observation and experimentation, and therefore, in principle, allows that some further observation or experiment might happen to invalidate any given current understanding, and because of that, is subject to continual refinement. That principle is not bounded. Math is different, the Pythagorean theorem will not be overturned and we know that. If you insist on being “that guy” who uses proof and fact in scientific discussion, it is a free country, but you only serve to weaken your case.
Do you define a spinning motor as an induction motor or internal combustion engine? Then bacteria are not so equipped. Does your definition extend to any physical system that spins and does work? Then the accretion disk around a black hole is definitely spinning and powers enormously energetic perpendicular jets. No design required.
2 Likes
Imagine that someone tells you that he has just spilled some caffe on the floor and that the particular coffee stain displays very clearly the following pattern: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Design
Would you believe him?
Can you explain why according to you this should come as absolutely no surprise?
Well, that has not happened. But the underpass virgin Mary has…
2 Likes
Not on his mere say-so, no. I generally don’t find that spilt coffee falls into letters at all, much less complete sentences. Generally when I spill liquids I get a sort of rounded starburst pattern with small offshoots in all directions. Those are the sorts of patterns I expect from liquids falling onto a flat horizontal surface. So even though any particular pattern is a priori unlikely, I would say they’re generally much more likely than complete sentences.
Now what does this have to do with evolution?
Yes, we have been over this, but, as I tried to show you many times, I think your case regarding local optima and all this stuff is weak. So I guess we have to agree to disagree on this issue.
That may be what you think, but I have to ask where have you tried this? Can you link me one of your attempts to show this?
If you give me a large enough supply of coffee and a large enough floor to use as my canvas, I can certainly create that pattern by spilling coffee. (In any case, sheer hypotheticals don’t really help your case. Spilling coffee has nothing to do with evolution.)
Your illustration suffers from the same flaws as the motor illustration and Paley’s watch in the forest: Humans build mechanical motors and watches and humans write texts in natural languages. So of course we recognize human-designed motors, watches, and texts as being produced by human designers. But none of these illustrations provide a basis for doubting the structures built by evolutionary processes over time.
Keep in mind that I also have no doubt that God designed everything we see around us. I just don’t understand why natural processes like evolution could not have implemented those designs. (I’m also a Molinist, so that should help explain why I don’t see any need for front-loading.)
2 Likes
People see things in shapes.
Yes, I believe that people see things in shapes, even if what they see isn’t real.
You are going to need more than personal opinion. You need to show that the method being used can capture all possible sequence combinations that can produce a specific function.
One of my favorites is a picture of Lenin that appeared on a shower curtain:
4 Likes
We don’t have enough evidence that natural process can generate functional information and arrange parts for a functional purpose.
When you go back to Darwins inference there is very little support for what we are observing inside cells other then his rhetorical skill positioning his opponents so they would have to prove a negative.
1 Like
Where is the evidence for a supernatural deity creating functional information and arranging parts?