Probably I don't understand what you are saying TagliatelliMonster.
Just look up the difference between "objective" and "subjective".
If you can't understand how putting your finger into a glass of water to "guess" the tempurature thereof is a subjective measurement as opposed to putting a calibrated thermometer into the water and then just read the tempurator of off it as being an objective measurement.... Then I honestly don't know what to tell you to make you understand.
As regard the question, it does not focus on Boeing, it involved a robot, and it can be any robot - no brand name; Just rivets, screws, and other components.
You know it's designed by the parts, being in place, at the precise location, to allow for those parts to function, in a particular way, to a particular end, or goal.
That's a way you tell design. Correct?
Half correct.
You don't recognise the "design" per say as a result of location of parts etc.
You actually recognise the
signs of manufacturing instead.
Indeed: the use of screws, bolts, rivets, plastics, wiring, etc. And many of those in materials that don't even occur in nature, but which have to be manufactured.
What you recognise is not design but MANUFACTURING instead.
And you don't recognise that by the blueprints or function of the object. You recognise that by the material used and the way it has been put together. And because you understand the processes involved (that humans make plastics and screws and bolts and.... and how all are used to manufacture mechanical devices and / or objects used for whatever).
Things like humans and cats and trees show NONE of such properties or parts. NONE.
We are not made from some unnatural, or even rare, materials.
We don't have company logo's on our bodies.
We don't have the equivalent of "made in taiwan" encrypted into our DNA.
And EVERYTHING about biology screams that we have evolved from common ancestors.
So not only is there NO evidence in support of this... all the evidence we actually DO have, points in the opposite direction.
So therefore, the verification of the testimony of the witnesses, may be in harmony with objective evidence.
Or it may not be.
What therefore, would the objective evidence be, in the case of the witnesses testimony in the Bible?
Why are you asking me?
It's not my job to come up with objective evidence to support the bible.
Also, the bible makes such a wide variety of (wild) claims, you'ld have to be more specific.
Because each claim requires it's own portion of supporting evidence. Or did you think that supporting one thing in the bible would automagically support the entire bible?
I don't believe you can rightly, and verifiable refer to a claim, as a belief.
I just explained in that very quote how claims and beliefs go hand in hand.
To believe requires a claim to be believed.
To make a claim, implies belief in said claim - why else would you make the claim.
You can't have one without the other. Seems extremely obvious...........................
"I believe god is real" includes the claim "god is real".
The claim "god is real" implies belief in said claim.
How could you have one without the other?
How can you believe something, if there is no claim about that something to be believed????
You require an object for your belief. That object is always reducable to a claim. Always.
Thus highlighting my point about the absurdity of people believing they have objective evidence, even though using faulty tools - in other words inaccurate measuring instruments.
The thing about objective evidence, is that it can be verified by other people.
And when that happens, faulty use of instruments will yield different results.
When it comes to scientific work, methods etc are described in detail. During review and repeats, faulty use of instruments will be apparant.
A nice example is an experiment in Zwitzerland and Itally a few years ago. They shot neutrino's from Zwitzerland to Italy and to their surprise, the neutrino's arrived "too soon" in Italy. Researchers were baffled and asked if they should question relativity.
After review, it turned out that they made quite an embarassing mistake. While calculating the time the neutrino's needed to arrive at their destination...... they forgot to take into account the relativity of time.
So faulty use of instruments yielded faulty results.
That's the thing about objective investigation methods..... you an repeat them and double check results. Objectively.
It appears to me, you misunderstood me.
I'm not saying that it has been demonstrated. Note the word claim.
To demonstrate, is to show. To claim, is to say. Both are different, as I am sure you are aware.
The ability of using DNA to identify individuals, bloodlines, infer familial ties, etc is very well demonstrated.