Example of Creation or Design

[rikuoamero]

In the 'Ask a Group' subforum, the following question was posed to creationists and/or intelligent design advocates.

Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design are often critical of the theory of evolution. But their criticism leaves their opponents with the feeling that they don't actually understand evolution.

Question for Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design: can you explain what is meant by evolution?

User 2timothy316 has gotten into a discussion with me, and in one of his most recent responses to me, where he opined

Because creation/intelligent can be observed

I asked for an example

Where? When? Can you show me a creature being designed (not by humans) and show me the designer?

So the topic for discussion here is for 2timothy316 (or anyone really) to give examples of what they think is creation/intelligent design (not by humans, since what's the point of looking at examples from humans?) of lifeforms, and of the designer/creator.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 86 by rikuoamero]

I am no longer interested in continuing this discussion due to intellectual dishonesty.

Perhaps you could respond to challenges and stop being intellectually dishonest then?

This is like a complaint I heard from one of my employees last week:
"Gah!!! I'm sick and tired of my own attitude"

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 86 by rikuoamero]

I am no longer interested in continuing this discussion due to intellectual dishonesty.

Perhaps you could respond to challenges and stop being intellectually dishonest then?

This is like a complaint I heard from one of my employees last week:
"Gah!!! I'm sick and tired of my own attitude"

I honestly don't think timothy was being dishonest...at least apart from his accusations towards me of the same. You'll notice that in my various comments to him, I pointed out that he never once gave a candidate for who could be the designer of the bird's egg in my scenario, and that is precisely because he can't, and more importantly: he knew that. He knew that with regard to who could be the designer of the bird's egg, the only possible candidate he could give is God, and as I explained in my previous comment, such a candidate would be rejected immediately, since it is functionally the same as saying "A wizard did it", and somehow expecting it to still be taken seriously. (that and giving any other candidate would mean undermining any reason he has to believe theologically for why God is the creator/designer)

No, timothy was not being dishonest, just stubborn. The only dishonesty on his part are his accusations towards me of being dishonest.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 87 by Clownboat]


Moderator Warning

Please refrain from uncivil tones and personal attacks such as, "don't shower us with your ignorance."

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

Interesting and worrisome. So there are people calling themselves evolutionist that really have it wrong?

Just in case it wasn't clear, the link you posted came from a creationist site. I am sure evolutionists don't always get every little details right, but those who call themselves creationists always get something wrong.

If you're wrong and they are right how would we know?

That's easy, simply go by what the scientific consensus says.

Did the force natural selection come about randomly or does it show signs of being designed?

Neither. Natural selection come about naturally.

Remember, the definition for designed is 'something with a purpose'. The product of random has no purpose.

Okay, the answer is still the same. Things that arises naturally has no purpose either.

[Clownboat]

I honestly don't think timothy was being dishonest...at least apart from his accusations towards me of the same. You'll notice that in my various comments to him, I pointed out that he never once gave a candidate for who could be the designer of the bird's egg in my scenario, and that is precisely because he can't, and more importantly: he knew that. He knew that with regard to who could be the designer of the bird's egg, the only possible candidate he could give is God, and as I explained in my previous comment, such a candidate would be rejected immediately, since it is functionally the same as saying "A wizard did it", and somehow expecting it to still be taken seriously. (that and giving any other candidate would mean undermining any reason he has to believe theologically for why God is the creator/designer)

No, timothy was not being dishonest, just stubborn. The only dishonesty on his part are his accusations towards me of being dishonest.

Just to clarify, he is the one claiming intellectual dishonesty.

"I am no longer interested in continuing this discussion due to intellectual dishonesty."

I do appreciate his honesty though.

[2timothy316]

Did the force natural selection come about randomly or does it show signs of being designed?

Neither. Natural selection come about naturally.

Wait, so neither random or designed? Lets see if that is even a viable answer using a dictionary.

Merriam-Webster -
Naturally: being in accordance with or determined by nature
Nature: a creative and controlling force in the universe.
Designed: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.
Random: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method.

You said 'neither'. That does not fit with the definitions. There can't be a 'neither' so that is not an acceptable answer.

Note the definition of 'nature'. Do you accept the definition given by the Merriam Webster dictionary?

Remember, the definition for designed is 'something with a purpose'. The product of random has no purpose.

Okay, the answer is still the same. Things that arises naturally has no purpose either.

So an egg has no purpose? So a bird embryo would do just fine without an egg shell?

Did the egg evolve for the embryo or the other way around? How did 'nature' determine (a word used in the definition of naturally) to create (another word used to describe nature) the egg?

[Neatras]

Nature: a creative and controlling force in the universe.

So of the many definitions Merriam-Webster provided, you chose this one. How predictable.

[2timothy316]

Nature: a creative and controlling force in the universe.

So of the many definitions Merriam-Webster provided, you chose this one. How predictable.

Do you normally not agree with dictionaries? Is the Merriam-webster dictionary wrong? Where do you go for the definitions of words?

The oxford dictionary says of nature, "The physical force regarded as causing and regulating the phenomena of the world."

Is that one unacceptable? It uses the word regulate. "Control by means of rules and regulations."

When did dictionaries become bad for intellectual understanding of the English language? An interesting phenomenon happens with those that call themselves Christians. They will suddenly turn on the book/s that is supposed to be their support. I had one guy even say that a dictionary doesn't have the final say over what a word means...my question then is...who the heck does? lol

[William]

[Replying to post 92 by rikuoamero]

I honestly don't think timothy was being dishonest...at least apart from his accusations towards me of the same. You'll notice that in my various comments to him, I pointed out that he never once gave a candidate for who could be the designer of the bird's egg in my scenario, and that is precisely because he can't, and more importantly: he knew that. He knew that with regard to who could be the designer of the bird's egg, the only possible candidate he could give is God, and as I explained in my previous comment, such a candidate would be rejected immediately, since it is functionally the same as saying "A wizard did it", and somehow expecting it to still be taken seriously. (that and giving any other candidate would mean undermining any reason he has to believe theologically for why God is the creator/designer)

From my perspective your reasoning is skewered in relation to the part in bold.

You are declaring that GOD is 'a wizard' which isn't even the generic understanding of GOD, but more to the point is a common atheist based slur, which is in itself a dishonest manner in which to argue.

The argument really isn't about the claim that "A wizard did it", and you announcing that it might as well be, doesn't in any way make any case against the idea of GOD. It simply dresses GOD up in - not only a form - but one clothed with wizards attire and doing wizardry acts.

Then again, show me this wizard you have got your example from - show me this wizard who can create eggs.

Perhaps the wizard looks like this?:



Or maybe the wizard looks like this?:



But whatever, please share with everyone, who this wizard is who you claim 'GOD might as well be.'

Because I have yet to see any theist argument that GOD is a 'wizard' and I have yet to see atheist motivated slurs about what GOD 'might as well be' hold any substance in relation to good sound honest argument about the subject, and certainly claiming that the universe can form as it has done without any intelligence involved in that process is far MORE a case of magical thinking than "GOD did it" is.

[Rufus21]

You are declaring that GOD is 'a wizard' which isn't even the generic understanding of GOD, but more to the point is a common atheist based slur, which is in itself a dishonest manner in which to argue.

Is it really that far-fetched?

WIZARD

Merriam-webster:

1: a wise man :sage
2: one skilled in magic :sorcerer
3: a very clever or skillful person


Cambridge dictionary:

A man who is believed to have magical powers and, esp. in stories, uses them to help or harm people.
You might call someone a wizard who has great skill or who manages to do something that is extremely difficult.


Oxford dictionary:
1: (in legends and fairy tales) a man who has magical powers.
1.1: A person who is very skilled in a particular field or activity.