DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
In other words, the PRATT known as "irreducible complexity" with some teleological sauce on top...
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.
I am not sure what you mean by my perception but I'll give it a go. My perception of design is recognition of those elements that show an inner complexity in function and structure that interact with other systems of the same which interact with more of the same within the whole that appear to have planning to achieve a set purpose.
What kind of answer are you looking for here?
Do you expect me to line out the exact evolutionary pathway of every corner of a cell - which would span a time period of about 2 to 3 billion years before multi-cellular life existed?
Yes, you are and that is the problem.Yes, we are. Or at least... I am.
See video I presented to Loudmouth.What is your evidence for these claims?
Right back at cha./facepalm
This is impossible without the complexity of the replicating cell. The very first living organism was extremely complex with a inner life very similar to a working factory humans have created.There is only the natural process of competing systems who reproduce with variation. Which inevitably leads to the systems becoming "optimised" or "specialised" for the environment in which they live.
Repeat mantra.The very real inevitable consequences of this inevitable process, combined with the much dreaded mountains of evidence for evolution, does not suggest any planning or purpose whatsoever.
What do you mean by inanimate?Thank you!
I'm with you until you get to: "...that appear to have planning to achieve a set purpose." How does something inanimate have a purpose?
Do you think that is what Dawkins, Crick and Davies are referring to when they claim the appearance of design?In other words, the PRATT known as "irreducible complexity" with some teleological sauce on top...
Non living things. Are they designed? Do they have a purpose?What do you mean by inanimate?
I am just arguing biological systems that biologists have claimed the design we see in these systems is just an illusion.Non living things. Are they designed? Do they have a purpose?
So there is no design in Elements, Isotopes, Molecules, or Compounds?I am just arguing biological systems that biologists have claimed the design we see in these systems is just an illusion.
I am just arguing biological systems that biologists have claimed the design we see in these systems is just an illusion.
So there is no design in Elements, Isotopes, Molecules, or Compounds?
Is the duck in this cloud just an illusion?
Or, as you argue, is that a real duck since it has the appearance of a duck?
Is the duck in this cloud just an illusion?
Or, as you argue, is that a real duck since it has the appearance of a duck?
I already posted the evidence. Are you telling me you can't spot the evidence for homology in this picture?
Sorry but this is just hilarious as in the nested hierarchy thread you're posting pictures saying it is undeniable evidence of shared ancestry because it has an appearance of similarity. Your whole reality is based on darwinian illusions.
Patterns are not what I am discussing and you know that but you feel more comfortable with bunnies and ducks in clouds.
Thus animate objects are made up of inanimate objects? Yes, we are talking about the same thing, I'm just starting at the very base, or genesis if you prefer. By what mechanism are these basic inanimate objects derived?I am not referring to them specifically in regard to the systems being discussed. All "things" are made up of matter and matter of elements and so forth.
Do you think that is what Dawkins, Crick and Davies are referring to when they claim the appearance of design?
Do you think that is what Dawkins, Crick and Davies are referring to when they claim the appearance of design?
You are talking about visual patterns.You are talking about patterns in proteins. You know that.
Are you telling me that you can't determine if this is a human or not?
Remember, don't use any similarities.
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?