a flying object.
what do you mean?
why not? i dont see any problem with that.
maybe human mimmic the shape of the flying saucer and not the opposite. so or so in any case i will conclude design.
What is the object? It looks like a flying saucer often depicted in science-fiction. Is it a flying saucer?
It’s not that difficult.
Say you and I both agree the object in that picture was “designed.”
You go on to claim that the “Designer” could only have been intelligent beings that live on another planet far outside our solar system, and therefore the object is conclusive evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life.
I am not convinced.
Which of us bears the burden of proof?
And beta-lactamase activity can be obtained in catalytic antibodies at a frequency of more than 10^-8.
2 Likes
I’m more likely to conclude “photoshop”.
3 Likes
I am not sure what the current scientific consensus is if you ask the questions properly.
I mean reproduction plus all the proposed evolutionary mechanisms.
I am not sure what you mean by this?
Oh. So when you wrote “reproduction alone”, you meant “NOT reproduction alone.”
OK, then.
There was a guy Aron Ra was debating, whose main argument against evolution was that human beings could not possibly have evolved from another species, because we would have gone extinct stumbling around blind waiting for our eyes to evolve.
Like that.
1 Like
I consider these mechanisms by products of reproduction. I think @Puck_Mendelssohn rightly brought the issue to my attention that my original description was too vague. By reproduction alone I meant without design involvement.
You may want to try that again in comprehensible English.
In that case we have a huge amount of evidence for the evolution of complex features.
1 Like
Exactly what do you mean by “design involvement”? What was the being that was doing these other things you imagine were happening? Just what did this being do? What is the evidence of its existence? How did it originate?
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful responses,
yep.
ok. so we both agree on the design.
no. i actually agree with you about that. it can be from any source of intelligent.
You are deflecting from the point of my post and others. It is dissonant to believe in alien designed UFO’s if one does not believe aliens exist and can visit. This is akin to the requirement that the perception of design in nature requires belief in a capable creator. All your picture does is reinforce that one cannot believe that there is design in nature apart from believing in God as designer.
How are flying saucers made?
The best answer to who the designer is in my opinion it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Messiah. The strongest evidence that we are in a designed universe is the observation of the mechanisms that are life sustaining such as transcription and translation. The strongest evidence that this designer is the God I described is the integrity of the Bible.
When you and I first were discussing this on Sandwalk I had not reached this conclusion.
Yes, hubcaps with colanders glued to their tops are manufactured (I’m going to talk about manufacture, because that’s what you’re describing – not design) by humans. If the hubcap and colander were brought to me, I could point to the specific characteristics which support that inference; most of them are that these things bear various earmarks of manufacture. If the hubcap and colander were made by aliens instead, they would still bear various earmarks of manufacture, though it is possible that we might have more difficulty recognizing those earmarks. Our ability to judge manufacture depends on our familiarity with its methods.
Speaking as a lawyer who spent a LOT of time arguing about burdens of proof, which are a useful legal concept, I have to say that this “burden of proof” thing isn’t very useful. I’d think you’d be happy with that, since it is raised against people whose views have no empirical support, like you, more often than it is against me. But burden of proof is a procedural argument about the process of arguing. It isn’t a principle of reality.
But what you really seem to mean is that if somebody contends a hubcap and colander do not need manufacture, that person needs to show why. I agree. Hubcaps and colanders are plainly manufactured. Birds are not. This does not help you in any way.
2 Likes
So you have no scientific evidence at all, just your personal religious beliefs. Something we’ve been pointing out to you for years. Will you now drop the pretense you have some scientific justification for your beliefs?
What I mean is that whatever you think the difficulty of generating any of the various versions of the bacterial flagellum is, this purported difficulty rests upon the idea of the first flagellum as a micro-machine with complex interdependencies between parts. Even if that argument against the evolution of a flagellum were right, evolution of large multicellular creatures does not normally involve such things; a huge amount of the difference between a rhino and a squirrel is in tweaks to regulatory genes.
So the part of evolution that really, really bothers people who dislike evolution is the “easy” part, so to speak. If you want to argue that all of the bilaterians are not related to each other, Behe’s descriptions of the evolution of cellular systems of prokaryotes aren’t helpful.
Define scientific evidence. Define evidence.
Define define. Define sea lioning to avoid the science.