I already asked the question. Please answer it.
Does that tree have the appearance of a nose and mouth?
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.
The question is would Richard Dawkins or Francis Crick be impressed that this has the appearance of design? I would think not.
What??Go on then, show us why you're not gullible like Dawkins suggests you are for accepting the appearance of design.
Yep, which has no relationship to what we are discussing and if you think so then you must admit that those you believe should be in the know and who should know the difference between a tree having something that looks like a mouth and nose and the complexity of function and form of the systems in question.I already asked the question. Please answer it.
Does that tree have the appearance of a nose and mouth?
Yep, which has no relationship to what we are discussing . . .
and if you think so then you must admit that those you believe should be in the know and who should know the difference between a tree having something that looks like a mouth and nose and the complexity of function and form of the systems in question.
We can use evidence in the designed object to determine the techniques and mechanisms used to design the object. We can find tool marks. We can measure isotope and atomic ratios to determine how the metal was made and even what quarry it came from. We can determine if it was cast or forged.
So where is the equivalent evidence for life? What were the techniques and tools used to design life?
Nope. All we're asking is what design? This is where you get to jump in and show us why you're not gullible for accepting the illusion of design.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.
I'm pretending to not see the face just like others pretend that seeing a face in a cliff or a tree is equivalent to the function and form in systems within systems.Are you saying the appearance of a face on that cliff is only an illusion to those that see it?
You haven't provided evidence that it is an illusion.Nope. All we're asking is what design? This is where you get to jump in and show us why you're not gullible for accepting the illusion of design.
Nope.I don't think you're purposely ignoring the single simple point I'm trying to make, so I ask once again. The identification of the designer isn't necessary in determining if something is designed, is it?
Oncedeceived, remember, you're talking about a craft (science) that once used to teach that the moon had seas and Mars had canals & polar caps, based on what they thought they saw.Yep, which has no relationship to what we are discussing and if you think so then you must admit that those you believe should be in the know and who should know the difference between a tree having something that looks like a mouth and nose and the complexity of function and form of the systems in question.
I'm pretending to not see the face just like others pretend that seeing a face in a cliff or a tree is equivalent to the function and form in systems within systems.
At some point, you're going to proffer actual evidence for a designer/s. Otherwise, you remain gullible, as the Dawkins quote you like to use, suggests you are for accepting the appearance of design.You haven't provided evidence that it is an illusion.
Oncedeceived, remember, you're talking about a craft (science) that once used to teach that the moon had seas and Mars had canals & polar caps, based on what they thought they saw.
Not to mention seeing Pluto as our 9th planet, Haeckel's drawings, and a host of other ghosts in their machines.
If they would have applied these same arguments to their own "discoveries," we wouldn't have had those gaffs in history.
It's rare if you can find a scientist who walks his talk.
I agree, you should probably move this discussion to the Philosophy forum, as we do like to discuss actual evidence here.At some point, you're going to proffer actual evidence for a designer/s. Otherwise, you remain gullible, as the Dawkins quote you like to use, suggests you are for accepting the appearance of design.
BTW, I don't need to provide evidence for illusions. I do not accept there is appearance of design in nature, that's the horse you're riding in this race.
I don't think you're purposely ignoring the single simple point I'm trying to make, so I ask once again. The identification of the designer isn't necessary in determining if something is designed, is it?
Yep, which has no relationship to what we are discussing and if you think so then you must admit that those you believe should be in the know and who should know the difference between a tree having something that looks like a mouth and nose and the complexity of function and form of the systems in question.
Luckily with technology today we don't have to rely on the scientists interpretation of the evidence but study the evidence ourselves. It is very clear that the Bacterial Flagellum and the helicopter are designed similarly not by appearance alone but the mechanics and function that they provide.
Exactly. They tend to shy away from complex, functional and purposeful systems when discussing design.
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?