It is up to you my friend to answer the question and support your position with evidence that confirms it. If you are not able to support your position then perhaps this thread is not for you.
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.
Cosmic teapots, dear. It is up to you to show that it is designed using an objective measure of design.
It is up to you my friend to answer the question and support your position with evidence that confirms it. If you are not able to support your position then perhaps this thread is not for you.
It's the null hypothesis. I'm not interested in shifting the burden of proof. The claim that design is present has not supported its burden of proof and must therefore be rejected.
But you're the one holding up intuition as though it was some way of knowing what's true. It isn't.
I didn't say this: "Which means that due to our evolutionary past we should expect and do see a mind that can't be reliable in making truth statements or recognizing the difference between true beliefs and false."How have I misrepresented your words?
The list supports your position in what way?
If it has anything to do with ID/Creo, then it's not science. I stopped beating that dead horse a long time ago.This is a prime example of confirmation bias, you dismiss something out of hand due to your own blind biases. The video has nothing to do with cdesign proponentsists. This is a teaching video and has no ties to any religious organizations.
I didn't say this: "Which means that due to our evolutionary past we should expect and do see a mind that can't be reliable in making truth statements or recognizing the difference between true beliefs and false."
Are you going to retract?
Like I said, blind confirmation biases. It has nothing to do with anything but the inner workings of the cell.If it has anything to do with ID/Creo, then it's not science. I stopped beating that dead horse a long time ago.
Is it not your position that there is an appearance of design in the universe and life forms but that appearance is an illusion set up by natural processes?
I'm sorry I don't know what you are saying here.
You seem to misunderstand the OP. I am not interested in the way I think. I know how I think and why. If you find the question in the OP too difficult to answer just move on.It will show you the errors of intuition and will show us how you think. It may even help us understand you better.
It's a simple task.
Like I said, blind confirmation biases. It has nothing to do with anything but the inner workings of the cell.
It's my position in the same way "I don't believe in god" is my position. However, I carry the burden of proof for neither. I reject the god hypothesis, and I reject the design hypothesis. I'd like to know why you consider the design hypothesis worthy of consideration, and what evidence you have that this appearance of design translates to actually being design.
"I think I've had a few too many Bahama Mamas." It was a nonsensical assumption made about your position which in retrospect I should not have made. And then I formulated it badly.
The added assertion that it appears designed is due to human bias.
It is up to you my friend to answer the question and support your position with evidence that confirms it. If you are not able to support your position then perhaps this thread is not for you.
What evidence supports the appearance of design is an illusion and the product of human bias?
You seem to misunderstand the OP. I am not interested in the way I think. I know how I think and why. If you find the question in the OP too difficult to answer just move on.
I have supported it.
1. I have pointed to several examples of human bias causing us to see things that simply aren't there when we lack an objective criteria to filter out that bias.
2. I have pointed to the nested hierarchy as evidence that these adaptations came about through evolutionary mechanisms.
Where is your evidence that a supernatural deity designed these things? Where are the objective and testable hypotheses? Where is your model that deals with the nested hierarchy and genetic data?
The multiple examples that I have given, such as the duck in the cloud and the death's head moth. They are examples that Dawkins gives as well.
Did you not say that evolution has provided the ability of the mind to create myths?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?