Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
It is now. Care to explain how it arose and why it would be more advantageous over asexual reproduction?Sexual reproduction is a natural process, yes?
Upvote
0
It is now. Care to explain how it arose and why it would be more advantageous over asexual reproduction?Sexual reproduction is a natural process, yes?
Not only have I not Kept repeating there no evidence for TOE nor have I said it even once.Why do you keep repeating there's no evidence for ToE?
And please answer my question? How do you know Mt. Rushmore is designed?
That's not what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence for a designer.Again if someone refuse to believe the universe is real then there is no evidence that can prove it to that person. Anyone who refused to believe "design in nature" is real then no scientific evidence could prove to that person that it is. Design in nature is part of our universe and both by default is assumed to be real unless there is good evidence to prove otherwise.
The topic was sexual reproduction, which is the topic you posted.Are you changing the topic before I finish my point? Impressive.
Oh I see, you just want to talk about it as if it just popped into existence as is...That's correct. Not the development of sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction. Are you done with this scenic detour?
I didn't say can't I said I don't need to.You can't? How then do you know it is there?
What makes it necessary to measure something to know it is designed?Not my problem
I am still waiting for what you would provide as evidence for the face in that cliff being an illusion.
In biological life forms the appearance of design in the evidence of design. IN the universe the fine tuning provides the evidence of design, both of which have been established by scientists.That's not what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence for a designer.
IF you can't discuss the topic in full why bother?I wanted to address a single topic. If you can't hold a conversation without moving the goalposts that's fine.
Appearance is not evidence, correlation must have causation. Quantify the causation.In biological life forms the appearance of design in the evidence of design.
Design must by definition quantifies a designer.Appearance is not evidence, correlation must have causation. Quantify the causation.
lol. If you could, then you would have already.I didn't say can't I said I don't need to.
So that it is not simply opinion.What makes it necessary to measure something to know it is designed?
That is was an actual human face was not the issue; it may be an intentional design in the rock, or it may just be an illusion. What would you provide as evidence for the face in that cliff being an illusion?A real face has skin, muscle and bone, pores, and hair. The cliff face only mimics the contours of a face and has none of the features or qualities of an actual face.
...the appearance of fine tuning, if tuning was possible...In biological life forms the appearance of design in the evidence of design. IN the universe the fine tuning
...both of which are opinions of scientists. Please make an effort to be accurate.provides the evidence of design, both of which have been established by scientists.
Design in nature is the scientific evidence of the designer and what better testimony than from my video of someone who hates what he see that living systems seem to be designed by someone a million times smarter than him.That's not what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence for a designer.