Thank God for skunks

  • Thread starter Thread starter CTuck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Possible, but rare. Much more common is the examination of DNA and matching DNA with similar species to determine placement within the Tree of Life.

Skunks are closely related to Weasels and other small carnivores which commonly have strong smelling scent glands where Skunks have their defensive glands. Scent glands are reasonably common in mammals, and often used to mark territories.

Scent glands are modified sweat glands, and sweat glands are ubiquitous among land mammals.

rossum
Click to expand...
So what made the changes?
Why?
When?
How?

And how do you answer any of these without seeing a specific design form?
 
rossum said:
It is difficult to have design without a designer. We have many examples of human designed objects, so we find it reasonably easy to recognise human design. Forensic Science and Archaeology are two sciences which can recognise human design.

One issue with ID is that there is no independent evidence for their designer.
Click to expand...
Other then the fact of the design…😉

One may as well argue that a watch does not imply a watchmaker.
 
Vz71, can you repeat back to Rossum in your own words what he is saying? I really don’t think you are getting what his point is.
 
Tonitz said:
Vz71, can you repeat back to Rossum in your own words what he is saying? I really don’t think you are getting what his point is.
Click to expand...
He has ducked the question.
How do we know when something is designed?

We have examples to explain why we should not be able to define it, but no answer.
I simply do not buy into that.
There is an answer. It scares people because that answer leads directly back to God.

I see a design.
 
Of course you see a design. How can you not? You are looking for one. But because something, as I said, is dependent on God, that does not mean it was either created directly of directly designed. Or even indirectly. Such claims are insulting to Deity. Can you see why?
 
Tonitz said:
Of course you see a design. How can you not? You are looking for one. But because something, as I said, is dependent on God, that does not mean it was either created directly of directly designed. Or even indirectly. Such claims are insulting to Deity. Can you see why?
Click to expand...
So you don’t think God had a plan before he started all this?
 
Nope. It’s much more, far more wonderful than that. And yet the Church is forced to say that there is a plan of creation and salvation. Both are true. But ID? I guess it will work until those who sponsor that can evolve in their imagination and experience. Or not. Nothing held in sincerity can go against you. You never blame a first grader for not knowing physics, and if that is the inclination of the first grader to study that then there is a great adventure in store, is there not? Religion has its equivalent, even if the first grader is using physics or biology. And it is always good to know that there is way more in Reality than we can imagine. We are all still taking baby steps and rightfully work with what we have as our best at the moment. 🙂
 
You wish to lay claim that God did not design it all…
Tonitz said:
But because something, as I said, is dependent on God, that does not mean it was either created directly of directly designed.
Click to expand...
And then when questioned about this you lay claim that there is more then just a plan in place.
Tonitz said:
Nope. It’s much more, far more wonderful than that.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it was either designed or it was not.
You cannot argue both directions at the same time.
 
vz71 said:
It is also unscientific to claim that no one caused it all.
Click to expand...
And nowhere in the theory is this claim made.
It is simply unscientific to make claims for that which we have no evidence.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Like ID, for example! But not like Evolution.
So we are left with this nearly infinitely complex machine.
Click to expand...
Something of an exaggeration there!
And a pefectly reasonable conclusion that if there is a design, there is a designer.
Click to expand...
That’s a reasonable conclusion for the premise, but the premise is false as there is no evidence of design. As you said, “it is unscientific to make claim for that which we have no evidence.”
People can cry ‘unscientific’ all they want, but it is the pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, you are now clear on the differences. Evolution - evidence. IDC - no evidence.
 
You said:
You mean the scientists don’t know what happened, do they guess at a cause?
Click to expand...
@vz71: Now do you see how the ignorance gets propagated, and why it’s so frustrating not being allowed to correct the errors?
 
vz71 said:
Other then the fact of the design…
Click to expand...
ID has yet to establish that there actually is design, as opposed to something that is mistaken for design but actually is not. ID cannot yet distinguish between design and ‘designoid’.
One may as well argue that a watch does not imply a watchmaker.
Click to expand...
If it is a watch then a watchmaker is indeed implied. If it is not a watch, but a chameleon trying to look like a watch then no watchmaker is implied because there is no watch. Currently ID cannot distinguish reliably and objectively between a watch and a chameleon. Hence its inference of a watchmaker is unreliable.

rossum
 
rossum said:
ID has yet to establish that there actually is design, as opposed to something that is mistaken for design but actually is not. ID cannot yet distinguish between design and ‘designoid’.

If it is a watch then a watchmaker is indeed implied. If it is not a watch, but a chameleon trying to look like a watch then no watchmaker is implied because there is no watch. Currently ID cannot distinguish reliably and objectively between a watch and a chameleon. Hence its inference of a watchmaker is unreliable.

rossum
Click to expand...
You’re right, IDC can’t distinguish between a chameleon and a watch. But actually, it relies on not being able to make this distinction in order to make the “designer” inference!
 
rossum said:
If it is not a watch, but a chameleon trying to look like a watch then no watchmaker is implied because there is no watch. Currently ID cannot distinguish reliably and objectively between a watch and a chameleon. Hence its inference of a watchmaker is unreliable.

rossum
Click to expand...
ID does distinguish a difference between a watch and a chameleon.
While both have a designer, the watchmaker is clearly man.
The designer bbehind the chameleon is God.

The designer is different.
 
wanstronian said:
That’s a reasonable conclusion for the premise, but the premise is false as there is no evidence of design.
Click to expand...
The evidence of design is all around us.

The systems in place, the species and the diversity all speak to a grand design.

You can claim there is no design if you wish, but the volume of evidence for a design as well as what exactly the definition of design is say otherwise.

God is indeed in the drivers seat.
 
wanstronian said:
You’re right, IDC can’t distinguish between a chameleon and a watch. But actually, it relies on not being able to make this distinction in order to make the “designer” inference!
Click to expand...
Post 75.

Clearly you are not thinking your position through completely.
Else you would have picked up the error before compounding it.
 
wanstronian said:
Fine - you clear it with the mods and let’s go!
Click to expand...
You said:
Why me?
Click to expand...
Don’t bother.
He is trying to move the subject.

God has been in control of creation from the beginning, he cannot prove otherwise and must ignore an ever growing mountain of evidence with each post to continue to support the view that God is not there.

I do not envy the position.
I would want to talk about something else as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top