I understand you are new here and my way of thinking is not known to you. However, my way of thinking is not what the OP is about. You don't need to understand my position to know yours.
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.
I understand you are new here and my way of thinking is not known to you. However, my way of thinking is not what the OP is about. You don't need to understand my position to know yours.We're interested in how you think. It actually helps my argument quite a bit and you'll be able to see my position clearly. Why are you avoiding this? It's part of how I will discuss with you.
I asked you what we were seeing in the inner workings of the cell that simply were not there?
How are we seeing the measurements of the parameters in the universe incorrectly with human bias?
Nested Hierarchy has no bearing on the parameters of the universe appearing designed.
Nested Hierarchy has no bearing on how things appear designed.
This is a thread for non-believers to support their positions on the appearance of design.
Either show where I said 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."
Or retract.
Otherwise, you're being intentionally dishonest. You're a ID/Creo, so I'm not surprised in the least in your disingenuous posts. It's obvious you're interested in making a point, even to the extent of lying, rather than trying to understand my point.
I asked, what face are we seeing in the inner workings of the cell or the parameters of the universe?
Objective evidence of design. You claim that those inner workings were designed, yet no objective evidence for this claim is seen.
It is human bias that sees design in these measurements.
It does have bearing on the other topics that we have discussed. Please don't ask for evidence, and then run away from it.
Why doesn't it have bearing on the question of whether organisms are designed? Please explain.
I will keep showing you that support until you address it.
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.
The face of design. The same bias that causes us to see faces and animals in such things as clouds and moths is the same bias that makes us see design in objects.
You claim the inner workings of the cell having the appearance of design is not actually designed. What objective evidence confirms your position?
Are measurements not actual objective accounts of the parameters themselves? Are they not required for life to exist as we know it on earth? How do you explain this connection of the parameters being exactly what is required for life to exist and not only life but life that is conscious? What is being humanly biased?
I have nearly 16,000 posts and I would hope that not each and every one of them connect to this one. There is a diverse amount of topics on this forum that is why we make threads.
It doesn't explain the appearance of design.
You have provided examples of seeing images in things that are not what the image actually is. That is not equivalent to the actual workings/functions of life forms or the actual measurements of the parameters of the universe. You have not shown what face we are seeing in these.
I was implying nothing. I explicitly meant what I stated.You never said: "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."
What you said implied that their are beliefs that were created by the evolutionary model that provide false beliefs instilled within the mind. Is that not true?
The objective fact that people can see ducks where there aren't ducks.
What you lack are objective CRITERIA. Do you understand the difference between measurements and criteria?
You already forgot about mentioning the eye in this thread?
It does have bearing on whether the features in an organism came about through natural processes instead of through design. If all the evidence points to natural processes instead of design, then it does tell us that it is human bias that is seeing design in organisms.
What you need is an objective hypothesis that depends on something other than your subjective judgement of whether something is designed or not.
It is entirely equivalent. Seeing faces is equivalent to seeing intent. How many times have we seen the appearance of Jesus on a piece of toast, and this is interpretted as an intentional miracle produced by God? The human mind is biased towards associating coincidences with intent.
That is of no concern to me. You are not special to me. And I am not interested in a one sided/quiz show discussion.
I understand mine, but you don't. That's what I'm illustrating.
I am not concerned with my position and not making any claims of actual design in this thread. I am asking for non-believers to support their own positions.So... how do you uphold your burden of proof? Just curious.
I did...I was implying nothing. I explicitly meant what I stated.
Are you going to retract or not?
This seems more life indoctrination rather than reasoning. Do they believe that the cloud is a duck?
Provide evidence that anyone anywhere when seeing a cloud that looks like a duck or bunny or any other image thinks that image is real.
Yes, do you?
I remember. So?
This is saying that if one can see evolution in say bird's beaks, it should explain and not be questioned in relation to specified complexity in the inner workings of a cell?
Do you see how this might not be too convincing?
Add to that the human biases of certain scientists that have been behind the concept of humans being biased to seeing design and explaining it away by saying it is an illusion without giving any objective evidence that the appearance is an illusion makes it more unconvincing.
Like the "objective hypothesis" that is based on the subjective judgment of those that hold no design exists even if it appears to exist?
It is not equivalent. It is showing a common practice of seeing images of things we know are not there in reality. We know that the cloud is not a duck or bunny. We know that the image in the toast is based on subjective interpretation. The inner workings of a cell, the function and complexity are not mere images of something they are not. They really are specifically complex and have purpose and intent. The purpose and intent are shown in their function.
I am not concerned with my position and not making any claims of actual design in this thread. I am asking for non-believers to support their own positions.
Do you believe that Jesus on a piece of toast was designed by a deity? Some people do.
Why does it it have the appearance of a duck?
Why do you fail to see that life is not designed for the same reason that the cloud is not a duck?
What are the objective criteria that you are using to determine if measurements are consistent with design or not with design?
Then why did you say this?
"I have nearly 16,000 posts and I would hope that not each and every one of them connect to this one. There is a diverse amount of topics on this forum that is why we make threads."
If you freely admit to talking about eyes in this thread which I responded to about the nested hierarchy of eyes in this thread, they why act the victim as if I am digging through other threads?
The features in birds, including beaks, fall into a nested hierarchy with other amniotes, other vertebrates, and other animals. Evolution explains why you see this pattern. Design does not. All of the evidence is consistent with evolution.
I can see why no amount of evidence will ever convince you. The nested hierarchy was quite persuasive in my eyes.
You are talking in circles again.
The objective test is the nested hierarchy. Evolution produces a nested hierarchy.
Then why don't you understand that the appearance of design is not the same as evidence for design?
I am sorry but you have not. I must say you have given it a go and I can respect that. However, you are only supplying a concept rather than evidence. You are claiming that if we can show life evolved then that explains everything without the need to supply objective evidence specifically. Evolution then evolution explains everything so it explains nothing.We have supported it.
We are not addressing what I think or believe.
Can you support your own position without asserting it by default?
Deflection?
You haven't shown the connection between seeing things that are not real but have the image of something that is real and the real function and purpose in the universe and living forms.
Because I was discussing the appearance of design in the universe parameters and not life forms:
Beaks do not equate to the specified complexity of the functions and purpose in the inner cell.
Since when does evolution mean no Design?
Have you forgotten that you do not believe that evolution is an atheist theory.
The fact that living things fall into groups is not a point against design unless you have evidence that confirms that design would not employ evolutionary means to an end.
It is evidence to you of evolution. That has nothing to do with the appearance of design in the universe or living forms.
It is a classification system devised by humans to understand the connections between life forms. Evolution then evolution is not objective evidence to confirm that the appearance of design is an illusion.
What do you need clarification on?
I repeat: Since when does evolution mean no Design? Have you forgotten that you do not believe that evolution is an atheist theory. The fact that living things fall into groups is not a point against design unless you have evidence that confirms that design would not employ evolutionary means to an end.
You haven't shown any objective evidence that confirms that the appearance of design is an illusion.
I am sorry but you have not. I must say you have given it a go and I can respect that. However, you are only supplying a concept rather than evidence. You are claiming that if we can show life evolved then that explains everything without the need to supply objective evidence specifically. Evolution then evolution explains everything so it explains nothing.
You were the one who brought it up.
"This seems more life indoctrination rather than reasoning. Do they believe that the cloud is a duck?"
You brought personal beliefs into this. You are the one who brought in the criteria of what people profess is their true belief. Please stop introducing criteria if you are going to abandon them later.
Yes, I can, and I have. I presented the appearance of faces and animals in inanimate objects as the evidence for appearance not being evidence of the real thing. I showed you why the human brain is biased towards drawing associations, even if those associations don't exist for real.
The "appearance" of design is the same exact thing as seeing a Jesus on a cracker and thinking that this coincidence is purposeful.
Yes, you are deflecting. Why does the cloud have the appearance of a duck? Why do you think that appearance is there? Do you think it is just coincidence?
I have drawn that connection. The evidence for evolution in life shows that the connection is false.
You were also discussing the inner workings of cells, beaks on birds, eyes in animals, and whole sorts of biological evidence which nested hierarchies have direct bearing on.
Specified complexity is a meaningless term.
Since always.
It isn't an atheist theory. Just because a theory contradicts the way you want God to act in nature does not mean that it argues against the existence of God. Disproving Intelligent Design does not disprove the existence of God.
I thought evolution didn't have anything to say about whether or not God was involved.If it evolved, then it isn't designed, by definition.
It has everything to do with it. How can you say that evidence which falsifies design has nothing to do with determining if something is designed?
I didn't say "evolution then evolution". Please stop putting words in my mouth. Please stop misrepresenting my position. Please stop using these underhanded tactics to avoid the evidence.
The nested hierarchies are objective. They are real. They aren't something that humans just made up.
"Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
I am only asking that you stop using circular arguments.
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Yes, I have.
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?