Yet another weasel move. Stop shifting the burden of proof. You are the one claiming that you have evidence for design. You need to show that you have that evidence.
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.
You are the one that claims that only the natural world exists and that all life must be a product of natural processes. You claim that the evidence that shows all life forms and systems appear to be designed with a purpose but that it is an illusion or subjective. It is your burden. Provide the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests that show this evidence is false and is only an illusion or concede.
explanations isn't empirical evidence.Scientists are on record as saying that things have the appearance of design. In fact, they have written books explaining why human bias makes us see design where it doesn't exist.
i never said they broke any laws.How so? What chemical laws do these molecules break?
only because it's a failure.Abiogenesis is not evolution.
maybe, on the part of creationists.The only agenda I see here are the ID/creationists who are trying to run away from the evidence, and squeeze their God into the gaps in our knowledge.
i point out what is written in science journals, god has nothing whatsoever to do with what i post.Is that what you have been trying to argue all this while, that falsifying Darwinian evolution somehow implies a creator deity? Are you yet another creationist arguing for a God of the Gaps?
actually they are, koonin and noble both give their reasoning.No, they aren't. You get that wrong every time. Eukaryote evolution continues to be dominated by neo-Darwinian mechanisms.
wrong again, darwinian evolution calls for a slow gradual change, the fossil record does not support that.In keeping with Darwinian evolution.
explanations isn't empirical evidence.
there are believable explanations for abiogenesis, but yet the field is a failure.
i never said they broke any laws.
why resort to engineering terms?
why resort to things such as the DNA code?
only because it's a failure.
if science created life tomorrow, evolutionists would be heralding it as one of its own.
maybe, on the part of creationists.
gradualists are just as bad.
i point out what is written in science journals, god has nothing whatsoever to do with what i post.
actually they are, koonin and noble both give their reasoning.
wrong again, darwinian evolution calls for a slow gradual change,
You need to understand what is subjective in science and what is objective and what determines those.
Objective evidence: obtained through observation, physical examination, and laboratory and diagnostic testing.
Subjective: Personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations of data.
Objective evidence: Evidence through observation, physical examination and diagnostic testing has shown that life forms and systems appear to be designed with a purpose.
Subjective: Evidence gained through observation, physical examination and diagnostic testing has shown that life forms and systems appear to be designed with a purpose but we interpret this evidence as false and hold a personal opinion and assume that since no designer exists that this appearance is false and just an illusion.
The scientific methodology for determining the workings of minute organisms and systems has increased the knowledge and understanding of them. We can now observe the inner life of the cell. We now know that there are 250 molecular machines in Yeast alone! Not only can we know of these machines we can look deeper and see the molecular machines themselves and with scientific experiments learn how they work. Before 1950 a cell pretty much was still thought of as a blob of gel like substance.Then show us the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests use to detect design.
The scientific methodology for determining the workings of minute organisms and systems has increased the knowledge and understanding of them.
We can now observe the inner life of the cell. We now know that there are 250 molecular machines in Yeast alone! Not only can we know of these machines we can look deeper and see the molecular machines themselves and with scientific experiments learn how they work. Before 1950 a cell pretty much was still thought of as a blob of gel like substance.
The functions and forms of these machines are all tested and documented for design elements like those found in human design. There are motors, pulleys, assembly lines, messengers, switches and even highways that cargo is carried. There are even molecular rafts that carry loads.
Evolution doesn't predict such orderly precise and purposeful machine like design, machines designed by humans.
You look at life. You see complexity. Your PERSONAL OPINION is that it APPEARS designed. That is subjective. If it wasn't subjective then you could provide ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Not just your opinion and some random quotemines.
Actual evidence of design features that appear to be engineered as humans design:
I asked for the methodology for determining design, not how something works. We use scientific methodologies to determine the inner workings of hurricanes. Does that make hurricanes designed?
Do you have some evidence that the design of these systems molecular machines are illusion? The evidence of design is there, you have to show why you feel it isn't actual design but an illusion.Where is the evidence that any of that is designed?
You really are reaching here, those molecular machines were not known when humans designed their machines. Design predicts: That life should appear designed. The fact that we see that design in life forms confirms not that humans mimick molecular machines but we following the thoughts of God create as He created. If ID is true, an intelligent agent created all life, life creates in the same way as the intelligent Designer. If ID is true like should have those features that show it was designed and we as the created in the image of the Creator should design in the same way.How is that evidence that life was designed? How is the ability of humans to mimic nature evidence that organisms are designed?
Design is apparent in all of nature. It is your burden.ID has to stand on it's own. Stop shifting the burden of proof.
See my other post to you.I don't see how humans finding the same solution as nature is evidence that nature was designed. Please explain.
How something functions, what creates that function are what shows design.
The methodology is how we determine that those functions and systems have design elements.
Do you have some evidence that the design of these systems molecular machines are illusion?
You really are reaching here, those molecular machines were not known when humans designed their machines.
Design is apparent in all of nature. It is your burden.
Nature of itself doesn't have any intelligence. Man throughout worshiped nature, himself and/or God.
That's what intelligence does, make careful selections.Why does it require intelligence to produce these features?
How about that. Everything we discovered has always been here , even written in our minds."Our brains track moving objects by applying one of the algorithms your phone's GPS uses, according to researchers."
That's what intelligence does, make careful selections.
Seriously are you just being obtuse?How?
Hurricanes do not have an appearance that the way it works that it was engineered.That is false. We use those methods to determine how hurricanes work, and hurricanes aren't designed.
No, burden of proof rests on the person that is making the positive claim. The positive claim was that the appearance of design for a purpose in life forms was an illusion. You really need to read up who has the burden when a claim is made.Again with the weasel tactics of shifting the burden of proof. It is YOUR JOB to present positive scientific evidence for your claims.
Why can't? Why can't is not the issue. Does it? Do you have evidence to show that natural processes produced the features that have human like design in life?Why can't natural processes produce features that resemble human designs?
My opinion does not create the design with purpose in life forms. The burden is yours.Your subjective opinions are not evidence. The burden remains with you.
Seriously are you just being obtuse?
Hurricanes do not have an appearance that the way it works that it was engineered.
No, burden of proof rests on the person that is making the positive claim.
Why can't? Why can't is not the issue. Does it? Do you have evidence to show that natural processes produced the features that have human like design in life?
Intelligence created this:Why does it require intelligence to produce these features?
Mindless processes devoid of intelligence was suppose to create this?
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?