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.
They have no purposeful function a function that is complex within the complex.
The fact that we can recognize design says it all.
These are formed naturally by the wind in deserts, unless you think they are designed.I would ask what you call phenomenally complex that we know for certain were made by natural processes alone.
Are you writing on your phone? I don't understand what you're saying here.
Okay. I recognize design in the Big Dipper. Did god somehow design those stars in that particular pattern?
Provide the evidence for those precursors for life in the Cambrian that I am ignoring.
We always find a place to put them in the nested hierarchy.
Right now we have no evidence for precursors of the Cambrian fauna.
The same problem that Cadet is having.These are formed naturally by the wind in deserts, unless you think they are designed.
http://www.spiritrockshop.com/Desert_Rose.html
They have no purposeful function a function that is complex within the complex.
The same problem that Cadet is having.
You are confusing sight patterns with complex function and purpose.
I am talking about the human precursors that you are ignoring.
Also, present the evidence that those precursors don't exist. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it state that those precursors should be fossilized, and at such a rate that they would be known to modern humans. Nowhere. You are the one making the claim that they should have been found in the fossil record if they existed in the past. Where is your evidence for this claim?
Which is why fossils are evidence for evolution, not design.
Science deals with the fossils we do have, not the fossils we don't have.
Also, you still don't have an explanation for the nested hierarchy within the domain of common design. This is the fact that you are ignoring.
We have stories but we have no evidence for how molecular machines using evolution alone evolved.It appears to be your problem since complexity and function do occur through natural processes.
It is not complex in function as are molecular machines. Water naturally flows downhill. Not complex at all.Not at all. The Grand Canyon drainage basin is also complex, and it serves the function of moving water from the upper basin towards the Pacific Ocean.
Where have I ignored them?
How convenient. Once doesn't ask for evidence of a negative...remember?
No, this is a process that we have labeled. We are looking back into time and making a determination on what occurred and how.
There is an appearance of design in the life forms on earth which is dismissed by materialist so that it is not attributed to actual design.
And we have no precursors for the Cambrian Explosion fuana.
This is just an assertion on your part. There is no reason that Design can not create the nested hierarchy that man has devised to categorize life forms.
It is not complex in function as are molecular machines.
Water naturally flows downhill. Not complex at all.
No. Go ahead and give the evidence for the complexity of the inner cell by evolutionary processes. Explain how each function arose and how those proteins came to give rise to those machines.Yes it is.
Proteins naturally form. Does that make them not complex?
No. Go ahead and give the evidence for the complexity of the inner cell by evolutionary processes.
I'm not the one with the problem you are.The same problem that Cadet is having.
In post #1135
You don't remember that. Double standard, much?
You are the one using it.If you can't live to your own standards, don't use them.
We are looking at the genomes and living species in the present. We are looking at the evolutionary mechanisms at work NOW. We observe that those mechanisms produce a nested hierarchy NOW, IN THE PRESENT. We have an observed mechanism that produces a nested hierarchy. We observe that life falls into a nested hierarchy. Ergo, we conclude that modern biodiversity is a product of those mechanisms.
Common design, on the other hand, does NOT produce a nested hierarchy.
So where is the evidence that it is due to actual design?
We have no fossils right now. As already shown, that is not evidence that they didn't exist.
We are looking back at creation. Life is made up of different kinds that came from the same kinds prior to them and followed by others of the same. We see it because that is how we have categorized life forms.What reason is there that a designer would create life so that it fell into a nested hierarchy? If you can't produce one, then you have no explanation.
[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.--William of Conches
No. Go ahead and give the evidence for the complexity of the inner cell by evolutionary processes.
Explain how each function arose and how those proteins came to give rise to those machines.
Let me get this straight, if something is complex then a magic man must have designed it because there is no other wayNo. Go ahead and give the evidence for the complexity of the inner cell by evolutionary processes. Explain how each function arose and how those proteins came to give rise to those machines.
I am showing that natural processes can produce complex systems that have function. So far, I have shown you the snowflake and the Grand Canyon drainage system.
Unless you can show how an intelligent force is involved in their formation instead of natural ones, I have disproven your premise.
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?