Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
I really doubt that. Maybe we should stay to the posts and not the poster?
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 really doubt that. Maybe we should stay to the posts and not the poster?You know, I always find this amusing, when by sheer numbers, more Christians disagree with her position, than atheists do.
Gotta label any disagreement as atheist though.
What good are muscles attach to an eyeball that can't move
That what I did. What Darwin wrote is nothing but a fairy tale.
Natural laws of themselves lacks direction and intelligence and can't plan ahead.
By definition something that is design has a designer.
Are you ok with Once using Dawkins quote that describes all who accept the illusion of design as being gullible?
Yes and no. They do show design in that they are adapted to their environments but it goes deeper than even that. It goes down as far as the workings of the cell for instance.Just to clarify this, I think that all biologists agree that living things show the appearance of design in that they are adapted to their environments, but it does not follow that that appearance is evidence of actual intelligent design. As I understand it, the appearance of design is a consequence of a process of natural selection, that is differential reproductive success.
How is that shown to be an error?Thus the appearance of design is not an illusion, but it is an error to regard it as evidence of actual design.
Design produced by natural processes?
Cloud. Rocks. Water. You're certainly consistent in your attempt to change the focus from design elements in humanity.
Complexity, functionality and purpose are basic elements of design, bacterial flagellum or not.
You know you never described the evolutionary process which created tactile sensory units. Why not?
Those are also found in things produced by natural processes.
It is possible to say but that doesn't mean it is true.That is another topic altogether. It could be said that the fundamental aspects of religious experience are nothing more than false associations that a person gives special significance to.
I did. You never addressed the evidence. Why not?
Is that a hobbyist Dr.'s diagnosis?What I call; cherry pick syndrome.
Is it going to be rocks or rivers this time? Or a face in a cloud?
No, you simply gave a link. Why not just describe it? In your own words?
It is design produced by natural processes. It falsifies your claims.
I did describe it in my own words. I invited you to discuss the evidence I presented, and you still haven't. The thread is found right here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/
The evidence is the properties that denote design.Yes, evidence is evidence. When are you going to present the evidence.
So you are claiming that Richard Dawkins, Frances Crick and many other biologists are not speaking about the facts in regard to life forms and the systems within them?That is a philosophical assessment, and only that.
Right, I agree. The evidence speaks for itself. It shows the properties associated with what we recognize as design. There are two options, is it actual or it is due to natural processes. If due to natural processes there should be evidence that provides an explanation for the properties we recognize as design. So far, that has not been given.Yes, I know, but do you really understand that and that a philosophical argument does not constitute evidence?
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?