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.
As I have explained previously, in our experience there are certain properties that we recognize as design and those that lack those properties that are not designed. It is tested by way of known natural processes and whether or not there is evidence to support those processes produced it. There is no evidence to support natural processes produced it.And when this design can not be defined and or tested to determine if it exists in any reliable way, how in the world can one claim there is evidence to support it??????????????????
Please help me understand this!
No, you are simple comparing apples to oranges.Right. Special pleading. Rules don't apply to you. I remember.
Your desire to believe this is evident. If the appearance equated to appearance of bunnies in clouds, there would be not need to explain it.
You only take this stance when the observation is not what you want to believe.
The observation is design,
The evidence which biologists have observed is life forms appear to be designed with a purpose.Bzzzzzzzzz
No evidence has been presented.
The claim is that the evidence of design . . .
What alternative process could be considered, scientifically?The claim is that the evidence of design is not a product of design but a product of natural processes. Evidence-appears to be designed...explanation -->product of design or -->product of natural processes. There is no evidence which shows that this evidence is explained by natural processes.
You mean, some unnamed biologists may have an opinion that some things may appear designed. Is that all you have?The evidence which biologists have observed is life forms appear to be designed with a purpose.
But the appearance is only opinion.What I am saying here is "biologists claim that the life forms on earth and the systems within them appear to be designed for a purpose." What we observe is evidence. Scientific observation is the central element of scientific method or process. The core skill of scientist is to make observation. Scientists/biologists OBSERVE that life forms appear to be designed for a purpose. I see this evidence and it confirms what the Bible predicts should be found in the life forms God created. I am capable of making comprehensive and cognitive analysis of said evidence due to being equipped with intelligence that comes from intelligence which is more cohesive and reasonable than claiming to have my intelligence a product of a non-intelligent, mindless process devoid of intelligence.
What other kinds of processes can be considered, scientifically?As I have explained previously, in our experience there are certain properties that we recognize as design and those that lack those properties that are not designed. It is tested by way of known natural processes and whether or not there is evidence to support those processes produced it. There is no evidence to support natural processes produced it.
And what are they?
If natural processes can produce the elements of design, then they aren't elements of designer. That's what you can't seem to understand.
River systems are complex, functional, and have purpose. They have all of the supposed elements of design, yet they are the product of natural processes. Your claims have been falsified.
Biological systems exhibit the properties of sophisticated engineered systems that resemble methods developed by human engineers to accomplish complicated tasks. In biological systems we have those systems similar in human designs that include control signals that include information, detection and decision, signaling to induce a response from other systems all for a set goal. Planning is shown from mechanisms that are for correction and back-up systems that do not go into effect unless some event occurs which shows planning to address possible occurrences.I have never seen these "criteria of design". What are they?
What we observe is evidence. Scientific observation is the central element of scientific method or process. The core skill of scientist is to make observation. Scientists/biologists OBSERVE that life forms appear to be designed for a purpose.
Intelligent Design finding those properties that are recognized as design in systems and life forms that can't be shown to be by evolution alone.What other kinds of processes can be considered, scientifically?
Design in nature is the scientific evidence of the designer and what better testimony than from my video of someone who hates what he see that living systems seem to be designed by someone a million times smarter than him.
You can't get better scientific evidence than that.
Put your evidence where your psycho-babble is.She, really, really, really wants to believe she has evidence though, can't you tell?
You keep ignoring the possibility of evolution giving the results we see, instead of design. Why do you ignore the usual scientific reason for the patterns we see in living things?
Why would I believe something magically evolve that appears to be designed by someone a millions time smarter than man? Even the fossil evidence support creation more than evolution.You keep ignoring the possibility of evolution giving the results we see, instead of design. Why do you ignore the usual scientific reason for the patterns we see in living things?
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?