Intelligent Design

quote:

---

I can't see any problem with no rings changing to one. Imagine a rod rotating in a smooth sleeve bearing - it will be effective, but it will tend to wear and go out-of-true. So there will be an evolutionary pressure to build up reinforcing rings at the ends of the tube, and a tendency for the centre of the tube (which is unused) to disappear. These rings will then tend to operate a little bit like ball-races. This is a credible sequence.

---

So the rings came about because of "evolutionary pressure." That sounds like "wand-waving" to me.When I see a machine, I know it has been created.* Self-Assembly and Repair
* Water-cooled rotary Engine
* Proton Motive-force drive system
* Forward and Reverse gears
* Operating Speeds of up to 100,000 RPM
* Directional Capability within 1/4 of a turn
* Hard-wired transduction system with short-term memory(Text + Image Source: AiG Missing Link | Answers in Genesis )David

quote:

---

I'm assuming you implicitly mean all machines. I don't doubt you could recognise a human built machine, but all machines.....?

---

That flagellum looks like it could be taken out of a manual on how to rebuild a car. It looks like a human designed machine to me. And that's what the Bible says: Evidence of God is in creation. I do think this is ultimately faith alone and if I had my way, neither would be taught as Science.

quote:

---

Evolution doesn't have the information to tell you how a flagellae evolved, but then you can't tell me how a creator did it, either.

---

No, I cannot. But I am content with "God created it."

quote:

---

This would require an ID for the ID, non?

---

I am also content with things beyond my comprehension. One thing I thought of recently to explain this to myself is this:Something created man. Something created that. Something created that... on to infinity. God is infinite. So God rather than create something, to create something, to create man... just created man directly.

quote:

---

I digress. This is is the traditional staple of the creationist. A God of the gaps argument. I can't see how this could occur naturally, so it didn't.

---

Actually, creationists avoid the God of the gaps argument. That's why I reject Evolution being put into the Bible. The more Man tries to explain the world without God, the more the Bible must fit Man's ideas -- thus becoming a God of the gaps.

quote:

---

If you're so sure you can infer design, then tell me how you tell the difference between a naturally occurring system, & a designed one. Think carefully.

---

I can tell you if some thing are designed. I cannot tell you if something is not designed.Designed:
"Hello world! How the heck are you!? Want to go play in the park?"Don't know if it was designed:
"yasccibybfoadnasomynamdqm"Is that what you mean? Maybe you can give me examples of naturally occuring and designed systems.David

quote:

---

No, that’s not what I mean, give me the criteria that you objectively apply to something in order to determine that it was designed. You are just reasserting that you can recognise design. Tell me how.

---

I don't know -- Let me try.It would have to be non-random. I wouldn't be able to say a pile of sand is designed. But if it was arranged in such a way to spell my name, I would say with certainty that it was designed.Which would bring us to the next point. It must have some meaning. There are 54! different possible combinations of a deck of cards. A meaningful order is far far more probable than a meaningless order. I would conclude if it was ace to king, seperated by suits that someone put it that way.If I saw a pile of cards, I wouldn't conclude design. But if I saw cards used in such a way to build some sort of structure, I would conclude design because each part is set in such a way as to have a function. In other words -- a non-functional pile of cards is far more likely than a functional pile.So what have we got here to conclude design:Meaning. Function. Non-Random. Complexity.The more of these qualities something has, the more sure we can say it has been designed. The Flagella has at least three. D.N.A. has all four.David

quote:

---

Snowfall. It is non-random, both throughout the year & geographically. Snowflakes are complex. Function? To delight small children. To allow the accumulation of water at the poles, causing sea level changes. Make the lanscape white in order to reflect radiation. To ensure a release of water in the spring to facilitate plant growth. Take your pick. Function is another entirely subjective factor. In order to ascribe function you need to know what the designer required of his design, right? There may be other consequences of the design that are not the original intended function, for example my computer throws out heat, but that's not indended, it's a by product. So, as long as a system can be shown to have a potentially positive effect on something, you cannot discard that as an intended function, since you don't know the mind of the designer.

---

A snow-flake isn't complex at all -- it is repetitive. In Biology my freshman year of college we learned that life is both complex and orderly.Ocean: Complex and Random.
SaltCrystal/Snow-Flake: Not Complex and Not Random
Life: Complex and Non-RandomMy teacher would be so proud...David