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'd like to answer your question, but you'll need to define design for me.
Evasion, deflection, shifting the burden, denial and claiming I am quote mining. Just the usual.What is evasion, again?
No evidence to support the claim that Dawkins makes about design being an illusion. Imagine that.On the other hand, still no evidence for illusion of design.
Evasion, deflection, shifting the burden, denial and claiming I am quote mining. Just the usual.
You don't see design so why worry about it?You need to define design and what would falsify it.
You need to define design and what would falsify it.
Your inability to understand what the claim is, who made it and who has the burden is evident. Materialists think they have no burden.Not complicated, but if you can't do it and don't want to be exposed and instead rest your case on appearance (which is subjective) than you ignore this request and keep saying someone else has the burden.
And this is all repeated, with a straight face.
Yes, I demonstrated that you quote mine. Yes, design is illusory. Yes, you're gullible for accepting it. Yes, Dawkins states the watchmaker is blind.Evasion, deflection, shifting the burden, denial and claiming I am quote mining. Just the usual.
And in 3...2...1...
They want a definition for design that they deny? Dawkins makes it clear:I wonder what the definition of design was when the claim was made of illusion of design?
Explain how I have quote mined.Yes, I demonstrated that you quote mine. Yes, design is illusory. Yes, you're gullible for accepting it. Yes, Dawkins states the watchmaker is blind.
No, you haven't defined design. You haven't offered evidence of a designer. You haven't stated what would falsify design.
Who are you accusing of lying?When someone outright lies, I feel like we may have went too far.
They want a definition for design that they deny? Dawkins makes it clear:
ON the cover of his book, "The Blind Watchmaker"
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."
Here is another of his quotes from the book:
"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Physics books may be complicated, but ...The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book.
I know right. Denial pure and simple.Amazing that he uses the terms 'architecture', 'engineering' and 'machine' in his denial of design.
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?