Yes. Direct observation of the designer producing these designs would be good evidence. Do you have that evidence?
Until then, I will go with the processes we actually have evidence for which are evolutionary mechanisms.
very unexpected answer. In this case, i am satisfied.
p.s. it seems you changed your mind, look at our previous conversation as we discussed virus design, do you recall your frozen water argument ?
by the way, have you heard about the artifical cell project founded by Dutch goverment?
Changed my mind about what?
Are you saying that humans created the life we see today? If not, you still lack a designer. Let’s go back to what you said before:
“What if our Creator would show up, today, on Earth, and show you how he created all the species … would that be a good design argument?”
Part of the evidence would be in the demonstration of how that Creator created all the species.
no.
By the way, you know why it is possible for you guys to reverse-engineer all these things?
Because it was engineered…
nevermind. perhaps i only misunderstood something.
alright, i am not sure when we can expect our Creator to show up, meantime, what other creation proof would you accept ? From your 20+ years molecular biologist perspective…
It is possible to reverse engineer cloud formation. That doesn’t mean every cloud is designed.
1 Like
We need to see explanations for the most basic observations in biology. We need to see explanations for the tree-like patterns seen in biology, both at the morphological and genetic levels. We need to see explanations for the divergence between exons and introns. We need to see explanations for shared ERVs.
“It looks designed” just isn’t going to cut it. That is nothing more than a subjective opinion which doesn’t go far in science.
Just curious, why are you so convinced that science can be used to prove the reality of a Creator? What empiric, testable hypothesis for design (or any other metaphysical concept) could you propose using the scientific method?
Remember, gaps in our scientific knowledge are not evidence of anything more than gaps in knowledge.
2 Likes
150 years of extensive research gone…
So what do you think…why is that you still have no explanation ?
could you be more specific about this? i thought this is clear and explained…
i agree… however, lets assume it is designed… how much time do you need to conclude that it has been designed ? What is your guess? 100 more years? 1000 more years? Never? Will you keep looking for the explanation don’t matter how long does it take?
there is one think i like about you… unlike other atheists i know, you don’t pretend everything has been resolved…
hey, that’s Cees Dekker @cees_dekker who has been on this forum, I think! I have his book “Science Geek Sam and His Secret Logbook” 
didn’t know he helped found that symposium. Felicitaties. Hoe gaat et?
Small world!
1 Like
Just lurking here, but I think what T_aquaticus meant was that we would need to see satisfying Creationist explanations of all these things (with clear evidence to back it up) in order to believe in a Creationist account.
You misunderstand. I am not making a claim about what is possible to design. I am stating that this is the definition of life as distinguished from machine. I expect that we will design biochemical machines, but I deny that something without self-organization should in any way be called alive.
AND… I am rather suprised that you would be so bold as to presume to know anything about what I can do. I shall respond in kind by saying that I am a physicist which I believe is superior to an engineer in every way – a theorist rather than what is after all only a technician. But if you want to call truce and tone it down, showing some respect yourself, then I can show some respect to your profession as well. Try it.