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.
Why do you ignore the fact that he thinks you're gullible for accepting a grand design? You're gullible because you continue to assert design, yet not piece of evidence, ergo, illusion of design, to which Dawkins states you're gullible for accepting it as so.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.
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.
Design connects the designer. If something is designed there is a designer.
We don't have to know the designer to see this is designed. We connect the design to a designer we don't assume that the shelving just fell into place. We recognize design from a random set of visuals.
What subjective opinions would that be?I don't have to deal with your subjective opinions since they are not relevant to the scientific question.
And I asked you to provide the specific evidence that shows the appearance of design is an illusion and of course you won't because its not there. By providing this link you can pretend to have given me evidence when in fact you have done nothing but give evidence of the general evidence for evolution as a whole.You asked for evidence. I gave you a link to the evidence that we have presented to you several times now. As usual, you are in denial.
If you claim that the appearance of design is an illusion it is up to you to support your claim with evidence that specifically addresses the claim of illusion.I am presenting the evidence that we do have. I wasn't aware that we had to have omniscience in order to evidence a scientific theory.
What subjective opinions would that be?
And I asked you to provide the specific evidence that shows the appearance of design is an illusion and of course you won't because its not there.
The appearance of design is an empirical observation found from doing science. It has been claimed by a influential biologist who is considered to have great expertise in his field.The appearance of design is a subjective opinion, not an objective, empirical observation that is needed in science.
If the appearance is there and those in the biological sciences all concur it is there, how then is it subjective?The appearance of design.
I agree that the appearance is there. The problem for you is that it is a subjective opinion, not objective evidence.
If the appearance is there and those in the biological sciences all concur it is there, how then is it subjective?
Who is gullible here Hitch? Someone who understands the inner workings of systems that show apparent design which all who understand agree, or those who believe stories made up to explain that design as an illusion without any evidence to support that position. You and others to me seem to be the gullible ones. I am looking at the evidence, you are all swallowing stories to explain it without one bit of evidence that it is all an illusion.And it's up to you, Once, to convince us as to why you're not gullible, as Dawkins thinks you are?
Does this tree have the appearance of a nose and mouth? Is that evidence of design?
I see a cliff and water.You don't see the face in the cliff?
Is it designed?
Go on then, show us why you're not gullible like Dawkins suggests you are for accepting the appearance of design.Who is gullible here Hitch? Someone who understands the inner workings of systems that show apparent design which all who understand agree, or those who believe stories made up to explain that design as an illusion without any evidence to support that position. You and others to me seem to be the gullible ones. I am looking at the evidence, you are all swallowing stories to explain it without one bit of evidence that it is all an illusion.
We recognize design and that design invokes a designer. IF there is appearance of design and someone claims that design is not from a designer then it is their burden to show how that appearance is explained other than the normal design = designer.Once claims: Appearance of design = Designer!
Once fails: No evidence of design/Designer
You beat me to it!We recognize design and that design invokes a designer. IF there is appearance of design and someone claims that design is not from a designer then it is their burden to show how that appearance is explained other than the normal design = designer.
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?