Do intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer?

[wilson]

Where I have avoided answering this question?

My question to you appears here:
http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,61835.msg825952.html#msg825952
I see no answer to the question in any response of yours. If I missed it, perhaps you can show me.

Reply #2081 demonstrated your definition being completely inadequate and is self sabotaging to your own position.

No! It only proves that I gave no definitions at all.

Do you believe Jehovah is designed?

No! I do believe that Jehovah is the Great Designer.

Jehovah's shares properties on your list of things that are designed.

That is not possible because He is a Spirit.
?.?.?.God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.?? (John 4:24)

I showed you that to allow you to amend your definition prior to continuing.

That is not necessary because I gave no definitions at all!

I don't want a drawn out conversation with you.

Then you should refrain from commenting on my posts. This one's got you on the run.

Short, sharp and to the point is preferred.

Take your own advice.

When faced with a demonstration of your poor reasoning, you attack the person and not the argument.

My reasonableness is well documented; but who's attacking you?

You demonstrate your continued failure to understand reciprocity.

Seems more like you're attacking me!

You answered someone else's question how is it my "turn" to answer yours?

Because you endorsed the question.

I am happy to answer your question wilson but please try to remain civilized, reasonable and honest.

I see that remark as another personal attack.

I dare say that you do not know what it means to be honest.

In lieu of a demonstration of an understanding of reciprocity, you sling childish insults.  Are you pleased with your behaviour? You are once again demonstrating very un-Christlike behaviour, I for one am not surprised.

That can easily be determined. Answer this question:
If a person admits to being a thief, a womaniser and a liar, is he honest?

In lieu of a demonstration of an understanding of reciprocity, you sling childish insults.  Are you pleased with your behaviour?

Reprimand yourself! That is exactly what you're doing.

You are once again demonstrating very un-Christlike behaviour, I for one am not surprised.

Personal attack.

What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?

The antonym of contrived.  1. Natural

Not a person nor thing. Irrelevant.

Thing
noun
1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.
2. some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described:
The stick had a brass thing on it.
3. anything that is or may become an object of thought:
things of the spirit.
4. things, matters; affairs:
Things are going well now.
5. a fact, circumstance, or state of affairs:
It is a curious thing.
6. an action, deed, event, or performance:
to do great things; His death was a horrible thing.
7. a particular, respect, or detail:
perfect in all things.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/thing

Did you say: "Short, sharp and to the point is preferred.?"

As the word "thing" has one of the broadest definition of all words in the English language, please enlighten me as to how "natural" is not a thing.  By saying "natural" is not a thing, you are saying it is nothing.

"Natural" and "spontaneous" are adjectives. That says enough.

Is that really your position you are willing to defend?

Nope! Not with your twist on it.

2. Spontaneous

Not a person nor thing. Irrelevant.

Same as above.

Same as above - an adjective.

Your dismissal is all you can muster, inspite of your claims of being reasonable, you demonstrate repeatedly you do not understand reason nor how to be reasonable.

Personal attack.

Look at the question again. You cannot show me "natural" nor "spontaneous."

Let me remind you of the question you asked:
What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?
Where did you ask me to "show you" things?

There's your problem. I didn't ask. I said you cannot show me "natural" or "spontaneous." Can you?

Maybe you should look at the question again and stop trying to twist words.

I wrote it and I see no twist.

I could put your name where you put "Jehovah" in your post and leave you to figure that out.
You answers here are dishonest - an obvious attempt to mislead. None of your verbal tricks will work here.
Your answers here are wrong because natural and spontaneous are not things.

Whatever! I will not engage in an exchange of insults with you, which is clearly what you want to do and which is also the sign of the loser.

Maybe because you think you've done enough here? No - that is not what I want to do. I'll settle for an answer to the question you inherited:
What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?

I recommend you stick to the texts and try not to make it personal.
Bye. 

You mean that? If you do, don't come back, or you'll get scratched again.
This discussion has made one thing clear:
Believers have concrete reasons for determining what is designed.
Unbelievers have no criteria by which to determine that an object is not designed.

[wabbit111]

Believers have concrete reasons for determining what is designed.

What concrete reasons?

Unbelievers have no criteria by which to determine that an object is not designed.[/size][/color]

Untrue.

[wilson]

Believers have concrete reasons for determining what is designed.

What concrete reasons?

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,61835.msg825952.html#msg825952

Unbelievers have no criteria by which to determine that an object is not designed.

Untrue.

OK!
What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?

[wabbit111]

Believers have concrete reasons for determining what is designed.

What concrete reasons?

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,61835.msg825952.html#msg825952

Descriptions that can be applied to designed and non designed things are not concrete reasons for detemining what is designed!

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Reply #2081 demonstrated your definition being completely inadequate and is self sabotaging to your own position.

No! It only proves that I gave no definitions at all.

Did you not provide a definition of the criteria Reply #2073?

Do you believe Jehovah is designed?

No! I do believe that Jehovah is the Great Designer.

Believe what what you want, it makes not difference to reality.

Jehovah's shares properties on your list of things that are designed.

That is not possible because He is a Spirit.

So Jehovah has none of these properties? 
1.   Necessary.
2.   Planned.
3.   Useful.
4.   Modeled.
5.   Functional.
6.   Economical.
7.   Intentional.
8.   Practical.
9.   Superior.
10. Draftable.
11. Orderly.
12. Having a designated objective.
13. Having a designated purpose.
14. Having functions capable of imitation.
15. Worthy of imitation, etc, etc.

Wow, you are even more un-Christlike than I expected.  That seem heretical even for the false prophets of the JW's.

I showed you that to allow you to amend your definition prior to continuing.

That is not necessary because I gave no definitions at all!

LOL, have faith in that, Reply #2073 refutes your denial.

I don't want a drawn out conversation with you.

Then you should refrain from commenting on my posts. This one's got you on the run.

More false accusations, more demonstration of un-Christlike behaviour. By the fruits you will know them and by your sour grapes it is easy to distinguish between those who try to be like Christ and you.

Short, sharp and to the point is preferred.

Take your own advice.

Only sniping left? 

When faced with a demonstration of your poor reasoning, you attack the person and not the argument.

My reasonableness is well documented; but who's attacking you?

Read comprehension fail. I asked you to "please try to remain civilized, reasonable and honest." because you have a history of conducting yourself differently and wanted to encourage you to be better than your normal self.

You demonstrate your continued failure to understand reciprocity.

Seems more like you're attacking me!

Reading comprehension fail or do you always try and play the victim?

You answered someone else's question how is it my "turn" to answer yours?

Because you endorsed the question.

So?  I endorsed your earlier efforts too? It was a good question that in your attempts to answer shot yourself in the foot.  Then you provided a definition of the criteria for what is designed that Jehovah fits into. Sinking your own position.  In your vain efforts to recover, you continue to sink further.

I am happy to answer your question wilson but please try to remain civilized, reasonable and honest.

I see that remark as another personal attack.

You see a lot of things that are not there, hallmarks of design, personal attacks.  What does "remain" mean?  Unfortunately once again you did not follow basic instruction and pursue personally attack others in lieu of answering basic questions. Again, I am not surprised due to your posting history.

I dare say that you do not know what it means to be honest.

In lieu of a demonstration of an understanding of reciprocity, you sling childish insults.  Are you pleased with your behaviour? You are once again demonstrating very un-Christlike behaviour, I for one am not surprised.

That can easily be determined. Answer this question:
If a person admits to being a thief, a womaniser and a liar, is he honest?

Back tracking wilson?
"I only have what the Jehovah's Witnesses have not stolen from me". Is that a true statement?

In lieu of a demonstration of an understanding of reciprocity, you sling childish insults.  Are you pleased with your behaviour?

Reprimand yourself! That is exactly what you're doing.

A lack of self reflection and correction on your part.  No surprises there.  Your history speaks volumes.

You are once again demonstrating very un-Christlike behaviour, I for one am not surprised.

Personal attack.

Were you personally attacking Eyes when you said he was a "fake Christian"? Do you object to the very things you do?  Please advise if you see any hypocrisy in your actions, I am not sure?

]Thing
noun
1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.
2. some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described:
The stick had a brass thing on it.
3. anything that is or may become an object of thought:
things of the spirit.
4. things, matters; affairs:
Things are going well now.
5. a fact, circumstance, or state of affairs:
It is a curious thing.
6. an action, deed, event, or performance:
to do great things; His death was a horrible thing.
7. a particular, respect, or detail:
perfect in all things.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/thing

Did you say: "Short, sharp and to the point is preferred.?"

Yes, preferred. Do you not know what that means either?

As the word "thing" has one of the broadest definition of all words in the English language, please enlighten me as to how "natural" is not a thing.  By saying "natural" is not a thing, you are saying it is nothing.

"Natural" and "spontaneous" are adjectives. That says enough.

Giggle.  Are you incapable of reading a dictionary?

Nature
noun           noun          noun         noun        noun           noun          noun         noun           noun          noun         noun        noun           noun          noun        noun1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization:
In nature, wild dogs hunt in packs.
3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers:
The abandoned power plant was reclaimed by nature, covered in overgrowth and home to feral animals.
4. natural scenery:
Tourists at the resort are surrounded by nature.
5. the universe, with all its phenomena:
Conservation of energy is a universal law of nature.
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art:
a portrait true to nature.[/quote]
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nature

Tell me wilson, was you claim truthful or was it untruthful?

I
s that really your position you are willing to defend?

Nope! Not with your twist on it.

What twist? Did I misrepresent your position is some way?

2. Spontaneous

Not a person nor thing. Irrelevant.

Same as above.

Same as above - an adjective.

Now all adjectives are nothing? Is there no such thing as attributes?  Better drop the JW propaganda, it is doing you no good.

Your dismissal is all you can muster, inspite of your claims of being reasonable, you demonstrate repeatedly you do not understand reason nor how to be reasonable.

Personal attack.

Are you incapable of distinguishing between a personal attack and an observation?  You claim you have the properties of X. X is demonstrably lacking from your properties. You claim all of those who observe the false statement is attacking you. Once again proving your statement is false. 

Look at the question again. You cannot show me "natural" nor "spontaneous."

Let me remind you of the question you asked:
What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?
Where did you ask me to "show you" things?

There's your problem. I didn't ask. I said you cannot show me "natural" or "spontaneous." Can you?

No question, no answer. That was an easy one to deal with.

Maybe you should look at the question again and stop trying to twist words.

I wrote it and I see no twist.

Were they supposed to be 2 separate paragraphs? "Look at the question again. You cannot show me "natural" nor "spontaneous.""

I could put your name where you put "Jehovah" in your post and leave you to figure that out.
You answers here are dishonest - an obvious attempt to mislead. None of your verbal tricks will work here.
Your answers here are wrong because natural and spontaneous are not things.

Whatever! I will not engage in an exchange of insults with you, which is clearly what you want to do and which is also the sign of the loser.

Maybe because you think you've done enough here? No - that is not what I want to do.

Why should anyone care what you want to do?

You mean that? If you do, don't come back, or you'll get scratched again.

Wilson thinks he is capable of scratching people over the internet, how cute. 

I am on holidays for 2 weeks.  I may read any responses on my return if I feel like it. 

[wilson]

Believers have concrete reasons for determining what is designed.

What concrete reasons?

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,61835.msg825952.html#msg825952

Descriptions that can be applied to designed and non designed things are not concrete reasons for detemining what is designed!

What non-designed things?
See if you can apply any description I made to anything not designed.

[wabbit111]

Believers have concrete reasons for determining what is designed.

What concrete reasons?

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,61835.msg825952.html#msg825952

Descriptions that can be applied to designed and non designed things are not concrete reasons for detemining what is designed!

What non-designed things?
See if you can apply any description I made to anything not designed.

1, 3, 5, 14 and 15 apply to clouds

[wilson]

quote author=wilson link=topic=61835.msg826015#msg826015 date=1484057609]
Reply #2081 demonstrated your definition being completely inadequate and is self sabotaging to your own position.

No! It only proves that I gave no definitions at all.

Did you not provide a definition of the criteria Reply #2073?

No!

Do you believe Jehovah is designed?

No! I do believe that Jehovah is the Great Designer.

Believe what what you want, it makes not difference to reality.

I don't need your permission.

Jehovah's shares properties on your list of things that are designed.

That is not possible because He is a Spirit.

So Jehovah has none of these properties? 
1.   Necessary.
2.   Planned............

Wow, you are even more un-Christlike than I expected.  That seem heretical even for the false prophets of the JW's.

That's your problem. You seem to think it is smart by following my every statement with stupid questions.

I showed you that to allow you to amend your definition prior to continuing.

That is not necessary because I gave no definitions at all!

LOL, have faith in that, Reply #2073 refutes your denial.

Nope! What do you think I'm defining?

I don't want a drawn out conversation with you.

Then you should refrain from commenting on my posts. This one's got you on the run.

More false accusations, more demonstration of un-Christlike behaviour. By the fruits you will know them and by your sour grapes it is easy to distinguish between those who try to be like Christ and you.

This one's got you on the run.

Short, sharp and to the point is preferred.

Take your own advice.

Only sniping left?

DEFINITION:
snipe
3. a shot, usually from a hidden position.
verb (used without object), sniped, sniping.
4. to shoot or hunt snipe.
5. to shoot at individuals as opportunity offers from a concealed or distant position:
The enemy was sniping from the roofs.
6. to attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, especially anonymously or from a safe distance.
I am not taking shots at you from the side the way you constantly do to me.

When faced with a demonstration of your poor reasoning, you attack the person and not the argument.

My reasonableness is well documented; but who's attacking you?

Read comprehension fail. I asked you to "please try to remain civilized, reasonable and honest." because you have a history of conducting yourself differently and wanted to encourage you to be better than your normal self.

Suggesting that I am no longer civilized, reasonable nor honest. Don't underestimate other people.

You demonstrate your continued failure to understand reciprocity.

Seems more like you're attacking me![/quote]

Reading comprehension fail or do you always try and play the victim?

Another stupid question.

You answered someone else's question how is it my "turn" to answer yours?

Because you endorsed the question.[/quote]

So?  I endorsed your earlier efforts too? It was a good question that in your attempts to answer shot yourself in the foot.  Then you provided a definition of the criteria for what is designed that Jehovah fits into. Sinking your own position.  In your vain efforts to recover, you continue to sink further.

My foot's OK, but I see you limping in your efforts to answers the question.

I am happy to answer your question wilson but please try to remain civilized, reasonable and honest.

I see that remark as another personal attack.

You see a lot of things that are not there, hallmarks of design, personal attacks.  What does "remain" mean?  Unfortunately once again you did not follow basic instruction and pursue personally attack others in lieu of answering basic questions. Again, I am not surprised due to your posting history.[/s]

I dare say that you do not know what it means to be honest.

In lieu of a demonstration of an understanding of reciprocity, you sling childish insults.  Are you pleased with your behaviour?

More stupid questions.

You are once again demonstrating very un-Christlike behaviour, I for one am not surprised.

That can easily be determined. Answer this question:
If a person admits to being a thief, a womaniser and a liar, is he honest?[/quote]

Back tracking wilson? "I only have what the Jehovah's Witnesses have not stolen from me". Is that a true statement?

More stupid questions. And you didn't answer the question. Want me to repeat it?

In lieu of a demonstration of an understanding of reciprocity, you sling childish insults. Are you pleased with your behaviour?

Reprimand yourself! That is exactly what you're doing.[/quote]
A lack of self reflection and correction on your part.  No surprises there.  Your history speaks volumes.

You are once again demonstrating very un-Christlike behaviour, I for one am not surprised.

Personal attack.[/quote]

Were you personally attacking Eyes when you said he was a "fake Christian"? Do you object to the very things you do?  Please advise if you see any hypocrisy in your actions, I am not sure?

More stupid questions.

Did you say: "Short, sharp and to the point is preferred.?"

Yes, preferred. Do you not know what that means either?

Another stupid question.

As the word "thing" has one of the broadest definition of all words in the English language, please enlighten me as to how "natural" is not a thing.  By saying "natural" is not a thing, you are saying it is nothing.

That is nonsense!
"Natural" and "spontaneous" are adjectives. That says enough.
Nature and natural are quite different. Just like color and colorful.

Is that really your position you are willing to defend?

Nope! Not with your twist on it.

What twist? Did I misrepresent your position is some way?

You are beating the air.

2. Spontaneous

Not a person nor thing. Irrelevant.[/quote]

Same as above.

Same as above - an adjective.

Now all adjectives are nothing?

Another stupid question.

Is there no such thing as attributes?

Another stupid question.

Your dismissal is all you can muster, inspite of your claims of being reasonable, you demonstrate repeatedly you do not understand reason nor how to be reasonable.

Personal attack.[/quote]

Are you incapable of distinguishing between a personal attack and an observation?

Another stupid question.

You claim you have the properties of X. X is demonstrably lacking from your properties. You claim all of those who observe the false statement is attacking you. Once again proving your statement is false. 

Show me the claim.

Look at the question again. You cannot show me "natural" nor "spontaneous."

Let me remind you of the question you asked:
What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?
Where did you ask me to "show you" things?

There's your problem. I didn't ask. I said you cannot show me "natural" or "spontaneous." Can you?

No question, no answer. That was an easy one to deal with.
Maybe you should look at the question again and stop trying to twist words.

You still cannot show me "natural" or "spontaneous."I wrote it and I see no twist.

Were they supposed to be 2 separate paragraphs? "Look at the question again. You cannot show me "natural" nor "spontaneous.""

Irrelevant. Maybe because you think you've done enough here? No - that is not what I want to do.

Why should anyone care what you want to do?

Another stupid question.

Bye.

You mean that? If you do, don't come back, or you'll get scratched again.

Wilson thinks he is capable of scratching people over the internet, how cute.

I didn't have to scratch you. You just ran into the wrong environment.
Let me remind you of the question asked:
What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?
We will patiently wait for your answer. Keep in mind how badly you messed up so far.

I will commemorate this failure of yours by altering my signature.

[composer]

All these accusations by wilson against TS in just one of wilson's typical despicable, judgmental & shameful Posts?

That's your problem. You seem to think it is smart by following my every statement with stupid questions.

Another stupid question.

More stupid questions.

More stupid questions.

Another stupid question.

Another stupid question.

Another stupid question.

Another stupid question.

Another stupid question.

stupid: Lacking intelligence (WordWeb)

stupid: given to unintelligent decisions or acts (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid)

cf.

whoever says, ?You despicable fool!? will be liable to the fiery Ge?hen?na.*+ (Matt. 5:22) nw Story book pretend translation

&

. . . .  whoever says ?Fool? will be sent to fiery hell. (Matt. 5:22) NET Story book

fool: implied by     wilson the Former Episcopalian & Life-time Botchtowerite    as being stupid!


I will commemorate this latest failure of yours wilson, by again NOT altering my signature! 

[wilson]

Believers have concrete reasons for determining what is designed.

What concrete reasons?

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,61835.msg825952.html#msg825952

Descriptions that can be applied to designed and non designed things are not concrete reasons for detemining what is designed!

What non-designed things?
See if you can apply any description I made to anything not designed.

1, 3, 5, 14 and 15 apply to clouds

Clouds consist of condensed water vapor. Water is designed.

[wabbit111]

Clouds consist of condensed water vapor. Water is designed.

Water can be made.  Diatomic hydrogen gas and diatomic oxygen gas can be combined to simultaneously produce water and electricity. Tell me, is this designed water or an unwanted by-product of a hydrogen fuel cell?

[wilson]

Clouds consist of condensed water vapor. Water is designed.

Water can be made.  Diatomic hydrogen gas and diatomic oxygen gas can be combined to simultaneously produce water and electricity. Tell me, is this designed water or an unwanted by-product of a hydrogen fuel cell?

That's not my concern.
Can you answer the question?:
What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?

[wabbit111]

Clouds consist of condensed water vapor. Water is designed.

Water can be made.  Diatomic hydrogen gas and diatomic oxygen gas can be combined to simultaneously produce water and electricity. Tell me, is this designed water or an unwanted by-product of a hydrogen fuel cell?

That's not my concern.

Well that throws your concrete reasons for determining what is designed, into doubt. Do you have any other concrete reasons or was that it?

[wilson]

The Haltere of the Fly
? Why is the common housefly able to perform complex and precise aerobatic maneuvers? When hit by a gust of wind, why can the insect quickly right itself and maintain its course? The answer involves, in part, two tiny appendages called halteres, one located behind each wing.

Consider:
A haltere is like a tiny drumstick with a knob on the end. During flight, the halteres swing up and down at the same frequency as the wings but in the opposite direction. Scientists have discovered that halteres serve as an ingenious type of gyroscope, helping flies to remain stable during flight.

With their clubbed ends, halteres ?beat in one particular direction, like the pendulum of a clock,? says the Encyclopedia of Adaptations in the Natural World. If, during flight, a fly abruptly turns, whether intentionally or because of a sudden gust of wind, ?the stem of the haltere will twist,? states the encyclopedia. ?This twisting is detected by a dense cluster of nerve endings attached to the haltere, and the information is fed to the brain so the fly can take the appropriate action to stay . . . on course.? As a result, flies are highly agile and hard to catch.

Engineers see countless applications of haltere-inspired technology in such things as robots, micromechanical flying insects, and space vehicles. ?Who would have thought a small, unlovely creature like the fly could teach us so much?? wrote aerospace researcher Rafal Zbikowski." (AW 11/12 p. 11)

What do you think? Did the gyroscopic haltere of the fly come about by chance? Or was it designed?

[wabbit111]

The Haltere of the Fly
? Why is the common housefly able to perform complex and precise aerobatic maneuvers? When hit by a gust of wind, why can the insect quickly right itself and maintain its course? The answer involves, in part, two tiny appendages called halteres, one located behind each wing.

Consider:
A haltere is like a tiny drumstick with a knob on the end. During flight, the halteres swing up and down at the same frequency as the wings but in the opposite direction. Scientists have discovered that halteres serve as an ingenious type of gyroscope, helping flies to remain stable during flight.

With their clubbed ends, halteres ?beat in one particular direction, like the pendulum of a clock,? says the Encyclopedia of Adaptations in the Natural World. If, during flight, a fly abruptly turns, whether intentionally or because of a sudden gust of wind, ?the stem of the haltere will twist,? states the encyclopedia. ?This twisting is detected by a dense cluster of nerve endings attached to the haltere, and the information is fed to the brain so the fly can take the appropriate action to stay . . . on course.? As a result, flies are highly agile and hard to catch.

Engineers see countless applications of haltere-inspired technology in such things as robots, micromechanical flying insects, and space vehicles. ?Who would have thought a small, unlovely creature like the fly could teach us so much?? wrote aerospace researcher Rafal Zbikowski." (AW 11/12 p. 11)

What do you think? Did the gyroscopic haltere of the fly come about by chance? Or was it designed?

Neither.

[wilson]

The Haltere of the Fly
? Why is the common housefly able to perform complex and precise aerobatic maneuvers? When hit by a gust of wind, why can the insect quickly right itself and maintain its course? The answer involves, in part, two tiny appendages called halteres, one located behind each wing.

Consider:
A haltere is like a tiny drumstick with a knob on the end. During flight, the halteres swing up and down at the same frequency as the wings but in the opposite direction. Scientists have discovered that halteres serve as an ingenious type of gyroscope, helping flies to remain stable during flight.

With their clubbed ends, halteres ?beat in one particular direction, like the pendulum of a clock,? says the Encyclopedia of Adaptations in the Natural World. If, during flight, a fly abruptly turns, whether intentionally or because of a sudden gust of wind, ?the stem of the haltere will twist,? states the encyclopedia. ?This twisting is detected by a dense cluster of nerve endings attached to the haltere, and the information is fed to the brain so the fly can take the appropriate action to stay . . . on course.? As a result, flies are highly agile and hard to catch.

Engineers see countless applications of haltere-inspired technology in such things as robots, micromechanical flying insects, and space vehicles. ?Who would have thought a small, unlovely creature like the fly could teach us so much?? wrote aerospace researcher Rafal Zbikowski." (AW 11/12 p. 11)

What do you think? Did the gyroscopic haltere of the fly come about by chance? Or was it designed?

Neither.

How do you know?
Let's see you answer the question:

What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?

[wabbit111]

The Haltere of the Fly
? Why is the common housefly able to perform complex and precise aerobatic maneuvers? When hit by a gust of wind, why can the insect quickly right itself and maintain its course? The answer involves, in part, two tiny appendages called halteres, one located behind each wing.

Consider:
A haltere is like a tiny drumstick with a knob on the end. During flight, the halteres swing up and down at the same frequency as the wings but in the opposite direction. Scientists have discovered that halteres serve as an ingenious type of gyroscope, helping flies to remain stable during flight.

With their clubbed ends, halteres ?beat in one particular direction, like the pendulum of a clock,? says the Encyclopedia of Adaptations in the Natural World. If, during flight, a fly abruptly turns, whether intentionally or because of a sudden gust of wind, ?the stem of the haltere will twist,? states the encyclopedia. ?This twisting is detected by a dense cluster of nerve endings attached to the haltere, and the information is fed to the brain so the fly can take the appropriate action to stay . . . on course.? As a result, flies are highly agile and hard to catch.

Engineers see countless applications of haltere-inspired technology in such things as robots, micromechanical flying insects, and space vehicles. ?Who would have thought a small, unlovely creature like the fly could teach us so much?? wrote aerospace researcher Rafal Zbikowski." (AW 11/12 p. 11)

What do you think? Did the gyroscopic haltere of the fly come about by chance? Or was it designed?

Neither.

How do you know?
Let's see you answer the question:

What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?

First things first Wilson. You still have not addressed the doubt over the claim you made before you asked me this question.

[wilson]

The Haltere of the Fly
? Why is the common housefly able to perform complex and precise aerobatic maneuvers? When hit by a gust of wind, why can the insect quickly right itself and maintain its course? The answer involves, in part, two tiny appendages called halteres, one located behind each wing.

Consider:
A haltere is like a tiny drumstick with a knob on the end. During flight, the halteres swing up and down at the same frequency as the wings but in the opposite direction. Scientists have discovered that halteres serve as an ingenious type of gyroscope, helping flies to remain stable during flight.

With their clubbed ends, halteres ?beat in one particular direction, like the pendulum of a clock,? says the Encyclopedia of Adaptations in the Natural World. If, during flight, a fly abruptly turns, whether intentionally or because of a sudden gust of wind, ?the stem of the haltere will twist,? states the encyclopedia. ?This twisting is detected by a dense cluster of nerve endings attached to the haltere, and the information is fed to the brain so the fly can take the appropriate action to stay . . . on course.? As a result, flies are highly agile and hard to catch.

Engineers see countless applications of haltere-inspired technology in such things as robots, micromechanical flying insects, and space vehicles. ?Who would have thought a small, unlovely creature like the fly could teach us so much?? wrote aerospace researcher Rafal Zbikowski." (AW 11/12 p. 11)

What do you think? Did the gyroscopic haltere of the fly come about by chance? Or was it designed?

Neither.

How do you know?
Let's see you answer the question:

What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?

First things first Wilson. You still have not addressed the doubt over the claim you made before you asked me this question.

What are you talking about? You have my list.
Trying to delay the inevitable? Get on with it!

[wabbit111]

The Haltere of the Fly
? Why is the common housefly able to perform complex and precise aerobatic maneuvers? When hit by a gust of wind, why can the insect quickly right itself and maintain its course? The answer involves, in part, two tiny appendages called halteres, one located behind each wing.

Consider:
A haltere is like a tiny drumstick with a knob on the end. During flight, the halteres swing up and down at the same frequency as the wings but in the opposite direction. Scientists have discovered that halteres serve as an ingenious type of gyroscope, helping flies to remain stable during flight.

With their clubbed ends, halteres ?beat in one particular direction, like the pendulum of a clock,? says the Encyclopedia of Adaptations in the Natural World. If, during flight, a fly abruptly turns, whether intentionally or because of a sudden gust of wind, ?the stem of the haltere will twist,? states the encyclopedia. ?This twisting is detected by a dense cluster of nerve endings attached to the haltere, and the information is fed to the brain so the fly can take the appropriate action to stay . . . on course.? As a result, flies are highly agile and hard to catch.

Engineers see countless applications of haltere-inspired technology in such things as robots, micromechanical flying insects, and space vehicles. ?Who would have thought a small, unlovely creature like the fly could teach us so much?? wrote aerospace researcher Rafal Zbikowski." (AW 11/12 p. 11)

What do you think? Did the gyroscopic haltere of the fly come about by chance? Or was it designed?

Neither.

How do you know?
Let's see you answer the question:

What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?

First things first Wilson. You still have not addressed the doubt over the claim you made before you asked me this question.

What are you talking about? You have my list.
Trying to delay the inevitable? Get on with it!

I have your list and I demonstrated it is equally applicable to non designed things, so what other concrete criteria have you got?

[composer]

I have your list and I demonstrated it is equally applicable to non designed things, so what other concrete criteria have you got?

  wilson the Former Polytheist Episcopalian & Life-time Botchtowerite,    with his (ahem) great knowledge only a believer can have, falsely thought & falsely preached he had concrete evidence his Former Episcopalian Gods were responsible!

He dumped all that as his foolishness and blundered along to what the Botchtower led him to believe,'til 1954, when they admitted they had misled him & their entire Cult and so they dumped that ideology for Botchtower ideology take 2 = wilson's ideology take tentative 3. 

The well documented & recorded History of the bumbling buffoons at Botchtower HQ, shows all that could easily change yet again depending on what BORG HQ publishes next!   

Even wilson himself  has spoken out AGAINST his latest bible, admitting its content is founded upon BS!/MYTHS/False claims/Whatever he chooses to call it!

e.g. Prov. 30:25 nw pretend translation 

[composer]

Let's see you answer the question:

What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?

YOUR criteria so far has been based upon ' blind ' faith & God(s) hopping! 

You falsely believed your Episcopalian Polytheist Gods were not designed!

You then realised your foolishness & blundered along to your next foolishness, i.e. Botchtower God(s) take 1. (YOUR false ideology take 2)

You believed your Botchtower derived Polytheist Gods were not designed!

Then in 1954 you were told of your repeated foolishness, and so you dumped all that yet again and went to Botchtower ideology take 2 (YOUR ideology take 3!)

You apparently currently believe your Botchtower God (Post 1954) was not designed!

Yet you contradict even your latest beliefs, by exposing the bible as unreliable, it being based upon falsehoods/MYTHS/ERROR! by your contradicting e.g. Prov. 30:25!

So YOUR Criteria for something NOT designed is flippant & based upon an unreliable faith & your admitted current fallible propaganda!

[wilson]

Engineers see countless applications of haltere-inspired technology in such things as robots, micromechanical flying insects, and space vehicles. ?Who would have thought a small, unlovely creature like the fly could teach us so much?? wrote aerospace researcher Rafal Zbikowski." (AW 11/12 p. 11)

What do you think? Did the gyroscopic haltere of the fly come about by chance? Or was it designed?

Neither.

How do you know?
Let's see you answer the question:

What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?

First things first Wilson. You still have not addressed the doubt over the claim you made before you asked me this question.

What are you talking about? You have my list.
Trying to delay the inevitable? Get on with it!

I have your list and I demonstrated it is equally applicable to non designed things, so what other concrete criteria have you got?

I musta missed that. What non-designed things? Everything tangible is designed.

[composer]

What non-designed things? Everything is designed.

IF as you allege ' Everything is designed ' then unless you are contradicting yourself yet again, that must include your various God(s)!

QED


BTW: I just ' caught you out adding the word ' tangible ' to try to cover your latest blunder!

I didn't miss that!     

[wilson]

The Bacterial Flagellum
? Even under a powerful microscope, it appears tiny and insignificant. It has been compared to a powerful outboard motor attached to a boat. What is the bacterial flagellum?

There are different kinds of flagella, but the bacterial flagellum (Latin, ?whip?) is probably the most studied. Attached to the cell wall of bacteria, the flagellum rotates, enabling the microorganism to go forward, stop, move in reverse, and change direction. It is estimated that half of all known bacteria are equipped with variations of flagella.

The DNA in the bacteria or microorganism contains the ?drawings? of the flagellum and its propulsion unit. The entire assembly consists of about 40 proteins, which can be compared to the parts in a motor. Amazingly, it builds itself in only 20 minutes!
The publication The Evolution Controversy states:
?The bacterial flagellum includes a rotary motor that spins around at speeds of 6,000 to 17,000 rpm. Even more remarkable, it can change direction in as little as a quarter turn, and then spin 17,000 rpm in the other direction.? New Scientist magazine calls the bacterial flagellum ?a prime example of a complex molecular system?an intricate nanomachine beyond the craft of any human engineer.?

Scientists are baffled by the fact that the tiny bacterial flagellum self-assembles in the exact order that is needed for all 40 parts to fit together properly and function correctly.

What do you think? Did the bacterial flagellum come about by chance, or was it designed? (AW 2/11 p. 24)

[wabbit111]

The Bacterial Flagellum
? Even under a powerful microscope, it appears tiny and insignificant. It has been compared to a powerful outboard motor attached to a boat. What is the bacterial flagellum?

There are different kinds of flagella, but the bacterial flagellum (Latin, ?whip?) is probably the most studied. Attached to the cell wall of bacteria, the flagellum rotates, enabling the microorganism to go forward, stop, move in reverse, and change direction. It is estimated that half of all known bacteria are equipped with variations of flagella.

The DNA in the bacteria or microorganism contains the ?drawings? of the flagellum and its propulsion unit. The entire assembly consists of about 40 proteins, which can be compared to the parts in a motor. Amazingly, it builds itself in only 20 minutes!
The publication The Evolution Controversy states:
?The bacterial flagellum includes a rotary motor that spins around at speeds of 6,000 to 17,000 rpm. Even more remarkable, it can change direction in as little as a quarter turn, and then spin 17,000 rpm in the other direction.? New Scientist magazine calls the bacterial flagellum ?a prime example of a complex molecular system?an intricate nanomachine beyond the craft of any human engineer.?

Scientists are baffled by the fact that the tiny bacterial flagellum self-assembles in the exact order that is needed for all 40 parts to fit together properly and function correctly.

What do you think? Did the bacterial flagellum come about by chance, or was it designed? (AW 2/11 p. 24)

Neither.

[wilson]

The Bacterial Flagellum
? Even under a powerful microscope, it appears tiny and insignificant. It has been compared to a powerful outboard motor attached to a boat. What is the bacterial flagellum?

There are different kinds of flagella, but the bacterial flagellum (Latin, ?whip?) is probably the most studied. Attached to the cell wall of bacteria, the flagellum rotates, enabling the microorganism to go forward, stop, move in reverse, and change direction. It is estimated that half of all known bacteria are equipped with variations of flagella.

The DNA in the bacteria or microorganism contains the ?drawings? of the flagellum and its propulsion unit. The entire assembly consists of about 40 proteins, which can be compared to the parts in a motor. Amazingly, it builds itself in only 20 minutes!
The publication The Evolution Controversy states:
?The bacterial flagellum includes a rotary motor that spins around at speeds of 6,000 to 17,000 rpm. Even more remarkable, it can change direction in as little as a quarter turn, and then spin 17,000 rpm in the other direction.? New Scientist magazine calls the bacterial flagellum ?a prime example of a complex molecular system?an intricate nanomachine beyond the craft of any human engineer.?

Scientists are baffled by the fact that the tiny bacterial flagellum self-assembles in the exact order that is needed for all 40 parts to fit together properly and function correctly.

What do you think? Did the bacterial flagellum come about by chance, or was it designed? (AW 2/11 p. 24)

Neither.

I have your list and I demonstrated it is equally applicable to non designed things, so what other concrete criteria have you got?

What non-designed things? Everything tangible is designed.
Whatsamatter? You stuck?

[Hemingway]

The Bacterial Flagellum
? Even under a powerful microscope, it appears tiny and insignificant. It has been compared to a powerful outboard motor attached to a boat. What is the bacterial flagellum?

There are different kinds of flagella, but the bacterial flagellum (Latin, ?whip?) is probably the most studied. Attached to the cell wall of bacteria, the flagellum rotates, enabling the microorganism to go forward, stop, move in reverse, and change direction. It is estimated that half of all known bacteria are equipped with variations of flagella.

The DNA in the bacteria or microorganism contains the ?drawings? of the flagellum and its propulsion unit. The entire assembly consists of about 40 proteins, which can be compared to the parts in a motor. Amazingly, it builds itself in only 20 minutes!
The publication The Evolution Controversy states:
?The bacterial flagellum includes a rotary motor that spins around at speeds of 6,000 to 17,000 rpm. Even more remarkable, it can change direction in as little as a quarter turn, and then spin 17,000 rpm in the other direction.? New Scientist magazine calls the bacterial flagellum ?a prime example of a complex molecular system?an intricate nanomachine beyond the craft of any human engineer.?

Scientists are baffled by the fact that the tiny bacterial flagellum self-assembles in the exact order that is needed for all 40 parts to fit together properly and function correctly.

What do you think? Did the bacterial flagellum come about by chance, or was it designed? (AW 2/11 p. 24)

Wilson... the Bacterial Flagellum and irreducible complexity has been destroyed in court. Are you familiar with the Dover case and how poorly Behe performed when challenged by his peers in the witness box?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

[wabbit111]

The Bacterial Flagellum
? Even under a powerful microscope, it appears tiny and insignificant. It has been compared to a powerful outboard motor attached to a boat. What is the bacterial flagellum?

There are different kinds of flagella, but the bacterial flagellum (Latin, ?whip?) is probably the most studied. Attached to the cell wall of bacteria, the flagellum rotates, enabling the microorganism to go forward, stop, move in reverse, and change direction. It is estimated that half of all known bacteria are equipped with variations of flagella.

The DNA in the bacteria or microorganism contains the ?drawings? of the flagellum and its propulsion unit. The entire assembly consists of about 40 proteins, which can be compared to the parts in a motor. Amazingly, it builds itself in only 20 minutes!
The publication The Evolution Controversy states:
?The bacterial flagellum includes a rotary motor that spins around at speeds of 6,000 to 17,000 rpm. Even more remarkable, it can change direction in as little as a quarter turn, and then spin 17,000 rpm in the other direction.? New Scientist magazine calls the bacterial flagellum ?a prime example of a complex molecular system?an intricate nanomachine beyond the craft of any human engineer.?

Scientists are baffled by the fact that the tiny bacterial flagellum self-assembles in the exact order that is needed for all 40 parts to fit together properly and function correctly.

What do you think? Did the bacterial flagellum come about by chance, or was it designed? (AW 2/11 p. 24)

Neither.

I have your list and I demonstrated it is equally applicable to non designed things, so what other concrete criteria have you got?

What non-designed things? Everything tangible is designed.
Whatsamatter? You stuck?

Stuck? no.

It has just dawned on me you have no idea what designed means and are imposing your own definition of the word.

[wilson]

The Bacterial Flagellum
? Even under a powerful microscope, it appears tiny and insignificant. It has been compared to a powerful outboard motor attached to a boat. What is the bacterial flagellum?

There are different kinds of flagella, but the bacterial flagellum (Latin, ?whip?) is probably the most studied. Attached to the cell wall of bacteria, the flagellum rotates, enabling the microorganism to go forward, stop, move in reverse, and change direction. It is estimated that half of all known bacteria are equipped with variations of flagella.

The DNA in the bacteria or microorganism contains the ?drawings? of the flagellum and its propulsion unit. The entire assembly consists of about 40 proteins, which can be compared to the parts in a motor. Amazingly, it builds itself in only 20 minutes!
The publication The Evolution Controversy states:
?The bacterial flagellum includes a rotary motor that spins around at speeds of 6,000 to 17,000 rpm. Even more remarkable, it can change direction in as little as a quarter turn, and then spin 17,000 rpm in the other direction.? New Scientist magazine calls the bacterial flagellum ?a prime example of a complex molecular system?an intricate nanomachine beyond the craft of any human engineer.?

Scientists are baffled by the fact that the tiny bacterial flagellum self-assembles in the exact order that is needed for all 40 parts to fit together properly and function correctly.

What do you think? Did the bacterial flagellum come about by chance, or was it designed? (AW 2/11 p. 24)

Neither.

I have your list and I demonstrated it is equally applicable to non designed things, so what other concrete criteria have you got?

What non-designed things? Everything tangible is designed.
Whatsamatter? You stuck?

Stuck? no.

It has just dawned on me you have no idea what designed means and are imposing your own definition of the word.

Why hasn't it dawned on you that I never even tried to define the word?

[wilson]

The Bacterial Flagellum
? Even under a powerful microscope, it appears tiny and insignificant. It has been compared to a powerful outboard motor attached to a boat. What is the bacterial flagellum?

There are different kinds of flagella, but the bacterial flagellum (Latin, ?whip?) is probably the most studied. Attached to the cell wall of bacteria, the flagellum rotates, enabling the microorganism to go forward, stop, move in reverse, and change direction. It is estimated that half of all known bacteria are equipped with variations of flagella.

The DNA in the bacteria or microorganism contains the ?drawings? of the flagellum and its propulsion unit. The entire assembly consists of about 40 proteins, which can be compared to the parts in a motor. Amazingly, it builds itself in only 20 minutes!
The publication The Evolution Controversy states:
?The bacterial flagellum includes a rotary motor that spins around at speeds of 6,000 to 17,000 rpm. Even more remarkable, it can change direction in as little as a quarter turn, and then spin 17,000 rpm in the other direction.? New Scientist magazine calls the bacterial flagellum ?a prime example of a complex molecular system?an intricate nanomachine beyond the craft of any human engineer.?

Scientists are baffled by the fact that the tiny bacterial flagellum self-assembles in the exact order that is needed for all 40 parts to fit together properly and function correctly.

What do you think? Did the bacterial flagellum come about by chance, or was it designed? (AW 2/11 p. 24)

Wilson... the Bacterial Flagellum and irreducible complexity has been destroyed in court. Are you familiar with the Dover case and how poorly Behe performed when challenged by his peers in the witness box?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

I think that there is a special channel that all defenders of evolution fall into when it comes to life on earth.
I would hope that you are capable of thinking beyond those parameters.
FYI, the bacterial flagellum and irreducible complexity does exist. They were not destroyed by the court decision.  They will never be destroyed.
You resort to court references to avoid having to deal with them.
Did you even notice the question? I'll repeat it:
"Did the bacterial flagellum come about by chance, or was it designed?"
I wonder if you can answer that.
I don't care about court cases, I don't care about Behe. Just try to answer the question.
And try this one, too:
What criteria has to be satisfied in order for you to determine that something is NOT designed?