I have no evidence for design.
Just explain how I have quote mined. I have shown what Dawkins says about design, that it appears in living forms and that he considers it an illusion. How have I misrepresented him in anyway?Re read my previous posts.
No, that is the evidence.
Do you deny that organisms and their systems appear to be designed for a purpose?
Hmm. Are you equating this:
To this?
I have no claim in this thread. The claim of an appearance of design is made by Dawkins.Which is your claim. One that you have yet to support.
You do not hold the same position that biologists and other scientists hold then.I do not perceive organisms and their systems to appear to be designed for a purpose.
I wish that you would address what I actually said rather than putting words into my mouth. I never asserted that rivers have no purpose.No. I'm stating exactly what I said I wish people would address exactly what I say instead of trying to add to what I say and then address what is a straw man. The assertion was that rivers have no purpose. I provided a purpose for rivers. If you want to argue with that, fell free to do so.
I wish that you would address what I actually said rather than putting words into my mouth. I never asserted that rivers have no purpose.
Indeed. They like simple. They like deflection. They like control.They certainly try to turn to rivers and rocks instead of discussing creation and evolution.
Shifting the burden usually has that consequence.Yep. We keep asking and nada.