justlookinla
Regular Member
Exactly. They made the claim, where's the evidence?
There is none.....it's an empty claim.
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.
It is your/his burden Davian. HIS BURDEN for HIS POSITIVE CLAIM. He must provide evidence that show the design is an illusion. The design is there, everyone admits it is there and it is up to him to show it is an illusion if you all want people to believe that it is an illusion. This isn't rocket science.
Is that an accusation of lying? Can you read minds?
My position needs no evidence. My position is that you cannot show actual, intended design.
Your next post without evidence of actual, intended design, will be accepted as abdication.
I've already addressed this point but it warrants repeating. Whether or not the field is directly related to biological evolution doesn't really matter. Their conclusions WILL bow down to the Evolutionary creation story or the researchers will be excommunicated. As we've discussed with Geology and Geochronology.. a researcher in one of those fields is simply not allowed to interpret data in a way that would contradict Evolution, (such as assigning ages or geo formation times that contradict millions-of-years models of evolutionary progression)
One of the biggest illusions permeating pop-science culture is that all fields of science independently converge on Evolution, which is laughable, because the truth is all fields of science are subjectively conformed and forced to fit Evolution. The truth of the Evolutionary faith is simply not up for questioning or testing, period.
are you sure about that?Kind of sums up how the entire global scientific community feels about ID.
Hey, you're back. I'm still waiting for you to respond to this:
http://www.christianforums.com/posts/68199710/
Ad Populum.Kind of sums up how the entire global scientific community feels about ID.
They are really good at demanding evidence for any claims that a theist makes but when the ball is in their own court they can't provide anything but assertion and mantra.Exactly. They made the claim, where's the evidence?
There is none.....it's an empty claim.
You've just reiterated your belief with tje addition of a diagram. You have still presented me with nothing more than your conviction that discordant data will be discarded "whether or not contamination is identified". Would you please produce evidence to this effect rather than merely asserting that it must be so?
ID is not rocket Science, we see evidence of design in the smallest cell, the make up of all life and in our own intelligence. If evolution has no evidence to explain why this design is an illusion, the materialist's dogma of only natural processes for life is found insufficient to account for the evidence of design.ID is not rocket science, you only need the appearance of something to be true in your own mind. No definition is necessary and no reliable test, it is just there.
It ain't science either.
Assertion and opinion based on your own personal biases.Real world, ID is useless in it.
I hope you don't mind this other side of your OP topic but design is a very real and unexplained evidence in the world that the stories of evolution try to dismiss.Sorry but it's gotten difficult to keep up with this thread.
Sorry but it's gotten difficult to keep up with this thread.
I find it rather humorous that everyone claims this but when ID proponents research certain molecular systems, mainstream science floods in to explain away any claims that ID makes about them. They don't try to explain anything unless ID proponents are researching them...would the BF even get a second look if not for Behe? Would the blood clotting cascade? It seems unless ID shines it light on some feature of life it doesn't instill the least amount of attention. Already ID has furthered Science along currently and modern Science was based upon the ideology of Christian theology to be where it is today.Yep. Also happens to be true. ID is devoid of any practical scientific use, and doesn't fit anywhere within the academic rigor of research. Just ask the DI, they'll tell you.
Lol, thanks ID for making real science better.I find it rather humorous that everyone claims this but when ID proponents research certain molecular systems, mainstream science floods in to explain away any claims that ID makes about them. They don't try to explain anything unless ID proponents are researching them...would the BF even get a second look if not for Behe? Would the blood clotting cascade? It seems unless ID shines it light on some feature of life it doesn't instill the least amount of attention. Already ID has furthered Science along currently and modern Science was based upon the ideology of Christian theology to be where it is today.
Thanks for getting back to me, but this is the same as your last reply. It is just a reiteration of your assertion thatdiscordant dates will be ignored without identifyingg the source of discordance. I would appreciate a response to the actual content of linked in my last post.
First it is important to establish what is self-evident, and what this ge frankly admits. The is te data tates" wiring evolutionary time scales.
The goal of Geochronology/Chronostratigraphy,s ution.
The goalt and never has been an independent testing of whether Evolutionary deep-time is true or not, but to find support for geologic ages under the guidance of fossil patterns depicting supposed evolutionary progression.
My conclusions flow naturally and logically from this premise. Data that is not interpreted as being useful for such calibration will tend to be filtered out as anomalous. If data does not support evolutionary time scales, then it simply has to be wrong in principle.
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?