Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists

Arguments from analogy are logical fallacies.http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

Out of curiosity, I googled the crystal structure for ATP synthase and found this: I have seen used pieces of bubble gum on the sidewalk that look more like a machine than that.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Wait, doesn't a wedge technically count as a machine?

Are ID/creationists arguing that proteins are designed because they look like wedges?

I dunno, the blob on the bottom could be a stationary motor housing, the middle part an axle, and the top part a colorful rotating assemblage to entertain an infant.

Yes, it's one of the six classic simple machines. Although it really shouldn't be, it's just a portable inclined plane.But either way it's a machine.

If you look closely, you can see a cross in there.

I wouldn't doubt it, but does it matter what they call the machine?It doesn't change the validity of the argument if, rather than being a wedge, the machine is something more sophisticated like a pump.Quibbling over whether or not it really does superficially look like a machine seems like the wrong approach. Especially given that being a "machine" can be something as simple as having a triangular shape.

Their position is even funnier when you realize that monkeys using a rock to crack nuts is an example of a machine and crows selecting hooked twigs to pull grubs from under bark are also using tools. Looks like the Intelligent Designer could be a monkey or a bird brain.

Just as this could be a duck.

Don't you see -- it's a jack-in-the-box, you crank the handle and out pops god.Enjoy

An unintelligent and incorrect bare assertion. Two statements followed by a statement about yourself. Do you expect me to now say this; "oh well, I guess I assumed my premises were true even if I have the memory of why I came up with them because someone has arrogantly stated something about me I know to be false." Your post is an impolite and unworthy joke of a response...a non-response in fact....and here is precisely why, that you may know I am not the dunder-head your treat me as...for talking to me like I am stupid, won't mean I am, Sir;1. I don't assume the premises are true.
2. How can you share an assumption not yet proven to exist? (begging the question fallacy) How can you "share an assumption"when I don't have an assumption?That's like saying, "mike you love pink hats, and we don't share your love of pink hats". But I don't love pink hats. You have yet to prove I do love them, my dear Watson.So you're going to have to get up a hell of a lot earlier in the morning.There are two premises in my syllogism which are both obvious facts of life;1. The elements of intelligent design make something designed.
If that is, "not" true, then that means you are saying the elements of design do not make something designed, meaning the elements of humanity don't make them human, the elements of a plane don't make a plane, etc...it is not an assumption that the law of identity is true, which my premise depends on, meaning we find out what a thing is by finding out what it is/what makes it what it is.2. Life has the elements of design.Again, NOT an assumption, but upon investigation, I compared all of the elements in known designs with life and found the same features. There is no difference in the specified complexity of an eye or a carburetor, both are one complete design in the body of a larger design, both each have parts which are all congruent to the goal of their being, both have contingency plans, etc...all of the features of design are present in life, an explanation to the full would naturally take me several more hundred words, and I am not compelled to do for you seeing as you have no genuinely honest motive of investigation.So the weakness of your argument is that it is nothing more than a false and bare statement, of ZERO intelligent content. A most unfair and unworthy post, Sir, given you backed your claims with THIN AIR. Your two statements were supported by six words and those six words were a statement about yourself and those agree with you as an appeal to the majority view (argumentum ad populum).As you can see in this post, my counter-claims are a proper explanation and support for my counter-claims. You must also do the same, if I am to count you as worthy of debating. Thus far you have not provided any intelligent content, I can only respect intelligent responses and naturally you may see that seldom do I come across them at EvC forum. If you want to come up higher, provide something more than the wet blat of an empty fart, because right now,..."Im LAUGHING at the superior intellect." - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.

The difference is in function. The reason an atp synthase doesn't look like a rounded, polished motor is because things do not appear on that scale, to that accuracy. USE YOUR BRAIN, and think about it. If you tried to paint a portrait of the queen on a piece of A4 sized canvas, could you get the portrait as accurate if you had to paint it on a 1mm squared piece of canvas? The appearance of things change on a very small scale, as matter looks and appears differently on that scale of extreme size.The sizes of these things and the LOOK of these things don't matter as much, meaning your argument is a superficial argument BESIDES the point. The success of an atp motor is not dependent upon what it looks like, especially on a molecular level, and on that level things are not the same as on the macro level.So then, your duck-shaped cloud has no function meaning your example is a false equivalent for it is not equivalent. That cloud has no function, and atp synthase turns adp to atp according to a level of efficiency of design, beyond human standards, THAT is it's design, not it's appearance. The parts still function correspondingly, so it's appearance is superficial.So then, the appearance of macro-level things such as bones, eyes, wings, feathers, etc...is a smooth appearance, because of their size difference. It is nothing to do with design, IMHO, making your argument tenuous.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Yes, of course it is. I agree with that. I'm trying to figure out what exactly your argument is. Evolutionary theory explains functions very well.