Blind Watchmaker is Richard Dawkins. There is nothing wrong with the definition. It sounds like you have a problem with Stephen Meyer. If there is a problem with the definition, then show it. That being since the definition is taken from Dawkins book. Blind Watchmaker.
Wow, you really are incapable of communicating clearly. Go and read post 1061 again. You said:
"Our dispute with evolution comes with this definition. Stephen Meyer.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on ran-
dom variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.
Besides, there are overlaps and differences in accounts. Evolution by the above definition is pure fiction."
First, if it is from Richard Dawkins, why did you put Stephen Meyer's name on it?
Secondly, I never said I had a problem with that definition. You presented that as a definition and then claimed it was fiction. I asked you to support your claim that it is fiction.
Stop trying to twist the conversation.
It is. The Evos have not demonstrated it happened as they state. Either universal common descent or blind watchmaker evolution. They have not proved their positive. You can only prove negatives philosophically. Squared circles, married bachelors.
Rubbish. You can't argue that evolution is false simply because no one has proven it correct.
(BTW, there is a HUGE amount of evidence showing that evolution is correct.)
What they have is an atheistic interpretation of the history of life here. What they do is fit the evidence into their narrative.
You demonstrate yet again that you have no idea how science works.
Don't get your information about science from creationist propaganda mills.
Also, ignore evidence that does not fit their narrative.
Want to give me some actual evidence to support this claim, or do you think just make baseless claims is a good way to make a point?
Life requires a living cause, for example, in favor of unscientific postulates all life from nonlife only.
Is God alive?
Life is evidence. Life needs a living cause. The effect is evidence of the cause, and you are evidence of your parents, not a rock absent your parents. Enough of the double standards. Now provide empirical evidence for life arising from nonlife.
Are amino acids alive?
You can't reasonably show it is a fact. You need to reasonably prove your positive.
Once again, you resort to the childish, "I'm right because you can't prove I'm wrong!"
If you claim the evolution is impossible, you must show me WHY it is impossible!
Show me even a single post where you have presented an explanation of why some aspect of evolution is flawed.
What none of the atheists on here have done is produced one shred of evidence for their blind faith beliefs all life here is from nonlife. That is just for starters.
So you get to claim that your position is correct without having to provide a single shred of evidence for it, purely because those who disagree with you have not explained it to you to your satisfaction?
Wow, that's an amazingly bad argument.
But that logic, I have proved that there is no God many times over!
''Undirected processes cannot produce the exquisite complexity of the living cell.''
And I've said it many times before, and it seems that some people are unable to grasp this simply fact: EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.
''If you wish to assert that the bacterium, along with all its nanotechnology, genetic information processing system and enormous amount of pre-loaded digitally encoded information, are the results of unguided processes then the burden is on you, not us.''
And evolution explains it very nicely.
The fact you don't understand evolution does not invalidate evolution.
It just means you need to be better educated about things before you start talking about them.
