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 having a discussion with you, not a video.
I don't deny that the appearance of design is an illusion, just like the duck in the cloud, and just like the experts have been telling you.
Where is the evidence for actual design?
...So what's the "purpose" of the molecular machines in our cells?
...And here we get to the root of the problem, don't we? It doesn't. The only firm evidence we could find is direct indications of the designer's work. Watching the house being built, going to city hall to pick up the blueprints. Beyond that, you can go a step down in terms and see if analogous structures were "designed", and if this structure has any known way of forming naturally. For example, a very old building - no known naturalistic mechanism is known for the construction of buildings, and every building we've seen so far has been constructed by humans.What evidence do you think Design would leave?
To provide the functions necessary for the system to do what it needs to do.
Both. The appearance is subjective and an illusion when present.So is the appearance there and only an illusion or is only subjective which means that it isn't an illusion it just isn't really there at all?
What evidence do you think Design would leave?
When a human designs something, such as an artist carving Mt. Rushmore what evidence is there for that human design?I don't know. In the same way that I do not know what evidence I would look for if I were searching for leprechauns. Since id is a concept with absolutely zero evidence behind it, I do not know what type or kind of evidence would be consistent with id. If you have some evidence that you believe supports id then share it.
So why doesn't this apply to HIV protease?
Both. The appearance is subjective and an illusion when present.
Blueprints and historical documents describing the human carving. What else is there?When a human designs something, such as an artist carving Mt. Rushmore what evidence is there for that human design?
I think they found what they claimed to. Calcified collagen fibres. The distinctionI was making is that this is not pliable tissue likethat discovered by Schweitzer via demineralizing fossil bone.But calcification occurs in living organisms. Why are you associating this with the collagen being 'mineralized' in the sense of being fossilized? From every test they ran they have concluded that the structures are virtually indistinguishable from actual protein.
You didn't answer my question. What exactly do you think they found?
Schweitzer is extrapolating a laboratory environment-controlled 2 year experiment to 70,000,000 years with natural exposure to the elements. If that isn't speculation, I would like to know what your idea of speculation is.
I haven't read Angstrom's critique.
Yes, but you know perfectly well such considerations are completely banned from discussion. Not only can the idea of dinosaurs being younger than previously thought not be discussed in a formal academic setting, but for a secular scientist to even communicate such an idea on a personal blog would possibly cost him his career, for both being a heretic and lending comfort to the enemy. Lets be honest. That is the politicized environment your camp has cultivated over the years.
So now this line of evidence that questions deep-time will be absorbed into deep-time. The next generation of students will grow up believing it has been proven that such organic material can potentially be preserved for hundreds of millions of years.
That is why your analogy below fails. It does not do service to the complex ad-hoc nature of deep-time/evolution models.
In principle you are correct, but equating the subject at hand with the cougar scenario is simplified to the point of being plain wrong.
But you have not substantiated that claim I'm any way. You have provided no evidence that certain data "will be discarded whether or not contamination is identified". This is especially problematic for you because someone who has actually done work in the field has told you otherwise.Yes, sources of contamination are studied in some cases. That doesn't really change my argument, that old-earth geologic dating models are constructed based on whether or not the data agrees with evolution. Data that does not fit with the evolutionary model will be discarded whether or not contamination is identified. It has to be.
But the interpretations that established an old-earth view were wrong. And also it can be argued that the idea of an old-earth was becoming philosophically fashionable by the intelligentsia of this time who held considerable sway over scholarly institutions. (much like the ideological push for Darwinian Evolution a few decades later) The actual scientific data is only part of the equation. On both sides we are dealing with men with beliefs.
Anyways. regardless of its inception, the fact is that nobody has been allowed to question deep-time for generations. Hypotheses and models must conform to evolutionary beliefs or be discarded. There is no other option.
Sorry, I meant if far into the future it was found.Blueprints and historical documents describing the human carving. What else is there?
Sorry, I meant if far into the future it was found.
Your arguments are pathetic and you know it, ID is just another way to relieve the gullible of their money.They have the signature of design in the the assembly line features, factory like features, complex functionality that works in the main system as well as the whole organism. Are you denying that life forms appear designed?
If claims are going to be made that require it yes.
I haven't but biologists in the field have.
I am using the first replicating cell. Not the origin of life. The cell that had the ability to replicate and able to evolve. I hope that clears that up.
Yes. That creates an even bigger problem for a materialist
No, it isn't hard. I think it is a cop out but that is my opinion.
Right,
and I don't really care about those organisms that come later although they still have immense complexity I am discussing the first life forms.
Its your choice if you don't wish to take a look.
You made a positive claim. Support it.
This is an atheist support concept that allows them to side step their own responsibility for their claims.
The design is seen in life forms, the purpose of function is present in life forms.
Design is in evidence
, if you claim it is not design but an illusion, that no purpose or planning is involved it is up to you to support your counter claim.
Design is already invoked and not by me but by the biologists that work in the field.
Nehemiah 9:6:
"You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.
Isaiah 66:2
"For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.
Isaiah 45:18
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else.
Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
No, there is a blend. The physical world was created by the supernatural. We can discover and gain knowledge about the natural world and in that world we can see that supernatural hand in it, not always but certainly in life forms and the universe's laws and parameters.
God and the Bible. You asked for my personal story and that is it. Here however, we try to stay within the scientific areas of discussion.
When a human designs something, such as an artist carving Mt. Rushmore what evidence is there for that human design?
And who relieved college students of their money when their tuition was tripled by Parliament?Your arguments are pathetic and you know it, ID is just another way to relieve the gullible of their money.
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?