Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Again, Dawkins claims the design present in life forms is an illusion. It is incumbent upon YOU to show us why that design that is apparent is only an illusion.
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.
Again, Dawkins claims the design present in life forms is an illusion. It is incumbent upon YOU to show us why that design that is apparent is only an illusion.Yes, I deny design. If you accept the illusion of design as actual design, then it's incumbent upon you to show us why we shouldn't think of you as gullible. So far, nothing.
The evidence is the design seen in organisms.So no evidence or?
Hey, if you disagree that organisms do not appear to be designed for a purpose, then you are not making any claims so you are not required to show evidence. The burden is on those that see it and claim it is an illusion.What design?
Hey, if you disagree that organisms do not appear to be designed for a purpose, then you are not making any claims so you are not required to show evidence. The burden is on those that see it and claim it is an illusion.
Nope, it's incumbent upon Dawkins. You're talking to me, and I deny design. If there's is a designer, he's blind. If, as Dawkins says, you accept the illusion of design as actual evidence for a designer, then you're gullible.Again, Dawkins claims the design present in life forms is an illusion. It is incumbent upon YOU to show us why that design that is apparent is only an illusion.
Oh how you would love to shift that burden and take it from you. No chance. Dawkins claims that the evidence of design is an illusion. It is incumbent on those making that claim to provide the evidence that it is an illusion.You claim that design exists correct? I mean, you just did. So.....evidence now.
No one has provided any evidence whatsoever to show the design seen in organisms is an illusion. IF there is no design, how would I be gullible? What would I be gullible about?Nope, it's incumbent upon Dawkins. You're talking to me, and I deny design. If there's is a designer, he's blind. If, as Dawkins says, you accept the illusion of design as actual evidence for a designer, then you're gullible.
If you are ok with the fact that we think you're gullible for accepting as evidence something that is illusory, then, by all means, continue to not offer evidence to support your assertion for a designer. One that's not blind, at least.
Oh how you would love to shift that burden and take it from you. No chance. Dawkins claims that the evidence of design is an illusion. It is incumbent on those making that claim to provide the evidence that it is an illusion.
Rivers are not governed by function nor purpose so I don't know where you get that idea.
Your watchmaker is blind. I thought you read the book?No one has provided any evidence whatsoever to show the design seen in organisms is an illusion. IF there is no design, how would I be gullible? What would I be gullible about?
How can natural selection select between color variations since that would not impact someone ability to reproduce?
The design is the evidence. It is up to anyone who claims this evidence is incorrect, inaccurate or an illusion to provide evidence to support it.
That is totally false. Dawkins, Crick and others make the claim.No one is shifting anything. You are the only person here making any claim about design. So back up your claim.
No, that is the evidence. Do you deny that organisms and their systems appear to be designed for a purpose?Actually the part in bold is the claim and it's up to you to support it.
I thought you didn't agree with Dawkins. Do you know your own position?Your watchmaker is blind. I thought you read the book?
Design is illusory and you are gullible.
Then have a discussion with Dawkins, Crick, et. al.That is totally false. Dawkins, Crick and others make the claim.
Hmm. Are you equating this:The function and purpose of rivers is to drain river valleys so they are not inundated over time.
You are just shifting the burden and ignoring the quote that claims design. You are the one quote mining. Typical.Then have a discussion with Dawkins, Crick, et. al.
I've already shown you how you've quoted mined Dawkins. He claims design is an illusion, if there's a watchmaker, he's blind, and you're gullible for accepting the illusion of design.
Your little ruse of quote mining and shifting the burden of proof while taking a presuppositionalist stand is of epic proportions.
Until you provide some evidence to support design, then gullible.
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?