Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Yet, you can not give one piece of evidence that the appearance of design in living forms is 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.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm familiar with the mountains of evidence, which is why I accept ToE.
What face? I see a cliff.Do you deny the appearance of the face on that cliff?
Do you have something other than subjective appearances?
So you feel Dawkins, Crick and others also have zero proof to support their claim that living forms have the appearance of design?Right, I have zero proof to support your opinion that there is appearance of design.
Nothing in your bible that provides evidence for the appearance of design being an illusion.
Nothing in your bible that provides evidence for the appearance of design being an illusion.
Design connects the designer. If something is designed there is a designer.Because to verify that it was indeed designed by an entity you need to show a connection. You are not showing a connection to a designer.
He has repeatedly voiced that opinion. I am not misrepresenting him in anyway.I feel that you are blatantly misrepresenting what Dawkins meant when he said that - which I've already pointed out to you.
Present your specific evidence for the appearance of design being an illusion, or present Dawkins evidence but don't put up a link that is evidence of evolution because that is a cop out and isn't the issue in the first place.It's not a bible. Why do you try to discredit scientific findings by making them look like your religious beliefs? You are revealing more than you would like.
You didn't deal with any of the pieces of evidence on that list.
Just because you think that materialists have no burden of proof, they do. You need to understand the nuances of the process of discussion. Your side of the issue does not get a free ride.Why do that, when it is simpler to shift the burden?
Present your specific evidence for the appearance of design being an illusion, or present Dawkins evidence but don't put up a link that is evidence of evolution because that is a cop out and isn't the issue in the first place.
IF it isn't a bible why can't you present evidence without posting that link repeatedly when asked to provide evidence for a particular feature or system?
And why do you continue to ignore the fact that I have presented his view of that appearance of design he has said exists. He wants you to believe that it is an illusion and he tells you stories of how that is an illusion but there is no...no evidence given that it is an illusion.He also says that you are impressed by design. Why did he say that, do you think?
Once claims: Appearance of design = Designer!Just because you think that materialists have no burden of proof, they do. You need to understand the nuances of the process of discussion. Your side of the issue does not get a free ride.
Just because you think that materialists have no burden of proof, they do.
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?