Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Yet, you can not give one piece of evidence that the appearance of design in living forms is an illusion.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"
- Thread starter lifepsyop
- Start date
- Status
Yet, you can not give one piece of evidence that the appearance of design in living forms is an illusion.
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
So you feel Dawkins, Crick and others also have zero proof to support their claim that living forms have the appearance of design?
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Nothing in your bible that provides evidence for the appearance of design being an illusion.
Upvote
0
It's not a bible. Why do you try to discredit scientific findings by making them look like your religious beliefs? You are revealing more than you would like.
You didn't deal with any of the pieces of evidence on that list.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Design connects the designer. If something is designed there is a designer.
We don't have to know the designer to see this is designed. We connect the design to a designer we don't assume that the shelving just fell into place. We recognize design from a random set of visuals.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
He has repeatedly voiced that opinion. I am not misrepresenting him in anyway.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Present your specific evidence for the appearance of design being an illusion, or present Dawkins evidence but don't put up a link that is evidence of evolution because that is a cop out and isn't the issue in the first place.
IF it isn't a bible why can't you present evidence without posting that link repeatedly when asked to provide evidence for a particular feature or system?
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Just because you think that materialists have no burden of proof, they do. You need to understand the nuances of the process of discussion. Your side of the issue does not get a free ride.
Upvote
0
I don't have to deal with your subjective opinions since they are not relevant to the scientific question.
You asked for evidence. I gave you a link to the evidence that we have presented to you several times now. As usual, you are in denial.
I am presenting the evidence that we do have. I wasn't aware that we had to have omniscience in order to evidence a scientific theory.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
And why do you continue to ignore the fact that I have presented his view of that appearance of design he has said exists. He wants you to believe that it is an illusion and he tells you stories of how that is an illusion but there is no...no evidence given that it is an illusion.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
