When did evolution begin?

[Oncedeceived]

And yet you have shown no "evidence of design". When you come up with some evidence for design perhaps you will be taken a bit more seriously.

The evidence of design is the apparent design in living things. THE EVIDENCE is DESIGN.

 

[Astrophile]

The problem is what do you determine as evolution? It used to be that monkeys became man. Now it is all about adaptation. There is not evidence at all that monkeys became man but there is plenty of evidence of adaptation which is what Darwin observed in finches beaks but atheistic scientists jumped on this and made a whole theory about evolution that included monkey/man scenario as a means to get God out of the picture.

They were so desperate to prove a theory as fact they invented the Piltdown Man in the 50s and claimed that it was evidence of the gaps in the fossil record. Fifty years later they admitted it was a complete hoax.

You have got your facts about Piltdown Man wrong. The 'discovery' of Piltdown Man was officially announced on 18 December 1912, not in the 1950s; it was exposed as a fake on 23 November 1953, nearly 62 years ago, and 41 years (not 'fifty years') after the supposed discovery. By the way, when you say 'they invented the Piltdown Man', whom do you mean by 'they'?

 

[Loudmouth]

Excellent! That is an excellent example of what we are talking about. If I saw a blob of anything it would not tell me anything about it.

Then appearances mean nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence of design is the apparent design in living things. THE EVIDENCE is DESIGN.

APPEARANCES ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

 

[Loudmouth]

You haven't provided evidence that this is "absurdly" false..

This is your argument in a nutshell.

I claim that Leprechauns make rainbows. My evidence is that rainbows look like they were made by Leprechauns.

If it doesn't work for rainbows, then it doesn't work for design.

You haven't shown that the appearance of design is subjective.

Yes, I have, on many occasions. The appearance of design is no the product of an objective methodology, it does not have a unit of measure, and it is not falsifiable through statistical analysis.

Let me guess, you will ignore this again and repeat the same things over and over.

How do you know it is a duck?

It has the appearance of a duck, does it not?

Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/parr-i-doh-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) wherein the mind perceives a familiar pattern where none actually exists.

Wouldn't you know it. You finally discovered why the appearance of design is not evidence of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then appearances mean nothing.

Mere appearances mean nothing and that is the point. It is in the systems, structures, features and function where the "apparent" design is observed not in the blob of proteins or whatever.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mere appearances mean nothing and that is the point.

Thank you.

Now, where is your evidence for design that is something other than the appearance of design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thank you.

Now, where is your evidence for design that is something other than the appearance of design?

Where is your evidence that the appearance is an incorrect, deceptive and produced by evolutionary processes?

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is your argument in a nutshell.

I claim that Leprechauns make rainbows. My evidence is that rainbows look like they were made by Leprechauns.

If it doesn't work for rainbows, then it doesn't work for design.

No my argument is like this in a nutshell.
Dawkins a prominent biologist (atheistic as he may be) claims that there is the appearance of design in all living things. Frances Crick and other prominent biologists agree. The design that is apparent in living forms Dawkins claims is an illusion produced by evolutionary processes.

The appearance of design is created by not just a mere "appearance" of something that is not actually real. The features, structures, systems and functions actually exist and are structured and function in the same way as human designs are and have purpose and have designs which show planning and timing which again are found in human design. If this appearance is incorrect, deceptive and an illusion it is up to you to show the evidence that shows evolutionary processes were responsible for providing this appearance. Dawkins has not and you have not.



Yes, I have, on many occasions. The appearance of design is no the product of an objective methodology, it does not have a unit of measure, and it is not falsifiable through statistical analysis.[/Quote]
But it is...view the videos. When you can explain how these systems were produced which show assembly lines (human design) Production Lines (human design) Factories (human design) rotor systems (human design) and others that show design in the ways we experience and recognize design.

Let me guess, you will ignore this again and repeat the same things over and over.

Let me guess, you will continue to make a category error and repeat over and over it can't be real, it can't be real!

It has the appearance of a duck, does it not?

Biologists don't make this claim, you are mistaken in what they are talking about.

Wouldn't you know it. You finally discovered why the appearance of design is not evidence of design.

The evidence that they exist are in the videos above.

 

[justlookinla]

Where is your evidence that the appearance is an incorrect, deceptive and produced by evolutionary processes?

Their absence of evidence speaks loudly.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where is your evidence that the appearance is an incorrect, deceptive and produced by evolutionary processes?

Your subjective opinion about appearances is irrelevant to the question of design. I don't even need to address your claims one way or the other since they have no bearing on the subject.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Their absence of evidence speaks loudly.

Indeed.

 

[Tzhaar724]

The fact is the only proven evolution is micro evolution it would explain different breeds etc. Macro evolution is completely stretching the imagination. Evolutionists struggle to answer why we dont see tons of useless organs and limbs that should be evolving, which means we are not evolving. And then we have no evidence of the common ancestor or reptile mammal fossils or anything like that, that would be decent evidence. Not to mention macro evolution was taught in Pagan Greece as an idea where life came from. Quite pathetic that atheists bash on Christians for God yet put blind faith into this.

 

[Loudmouth]

The appearance of design is created by not just a mere "appearance" of something that is not actually real. The features, structures, systems and functions actually exist and are structured and function in the same way as human designs are and have purpose and have designs which show planning and timing which again are found in human design.

That is the mere appearance of design.

"It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed.(23:73 (Behe)). This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system. "
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science

Even judges in courts can see that.

If this appearance is incorrect, deceptive and an illusion it is up to you to show the evidence that shows evolutionary processes were responsible for providing this appearance. Dawkins has not and you have not.

All I need to show is that it isn't objective evidence, which it isn't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your subjective opinion about appearances is irrelevant to the question of design. I don't even need to address your claims one way or the other since they have no bearing on the subject.

Evasion. You continue to say my "subjective" opinion but it is not "my" subjective opinion. It is no one's subjective opinion. It is evidence, apparent and in all life forms. The subjective part comes in when the evidence needs to be explained in naturalistic terms and no evidence for that explanation can be given.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact is the only proven evolution is micro evolution it would explain different breeds etc. Macro evolution is completely stretching the imagination.

We have observed macroevolution on many occasions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evolutionists struggle to answer why we dont see tons of useless organs and limbs that should be evolving, which means we are not evolving.

That's because they don't have to become useless in order to evolve.

And then we have no evidence of the common ancestor or reptile mammal fossils or anything like that, that would be decent evidence.

We have the transitional fossils.

Not to mention macro evolution was taught in Pagan Greece as an idea where life came from. Quite pathetic that atheists bash on Christians for God yet put blind faith into this.

We have the evidence, so why would we need faith?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is the mere appearance of design.

"It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed.(23:73 (Behe)). This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system. "
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science

Even judges in courts can see that.

The judge has no training or education in biology. Educated and trained biologists all observe design. If you want to claim this appearance is an incorrect or deceptive you need to show how this is produced with evidence.

All I need to show is that it isn't objective evidence, which it isn't.

All you can do is deny it is objective evidence but the evidence speaks for itself.

 

[justlookinla]

The fact is the only proven evolution is micro evolution it would explain different breeds etc. Macro evolution is completely stretching the imagination.

Right. Imagine a pine tree and an elephant created from the same life form....impossible isn't it?

 

[PastorFreud]

Too bad there is not a more reliable source than your memory, because I really would like to know more. I went to the British Museum last summer, but alas, won't be going back anytime soon.

Job uses clearly metaphorical language in many parts. How do you determine what is ancient storytelling hyperbole and metaphor and what is literal, historical account?

 

[PastorFreud]

Which is what we would expect from a primitive culture than never travelled more than a thousand miles from their original lands.

Ramen!