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.
They are not.
A mountain is unique, complex and has a function in climate conditions.
Are mountains "designed"?
I just gave you an example of geology.
Computers are made from unnaturally occuring elements.
Computers bare labels like "made in china".
I can go and visit a computer factory.
It's not.
No you see common design. You interpret what you see as you wish.But what we see in life is not "common design".
What we see are nested hierarchies.
It's not the same thing.
Yes mountains are designed to do exactly what you said they do. Just because we call it geology doesn't make it "not designed".
In fact the point they do exactly what you say which assists life to exist on this planet tells us it's designed to make it so life exists.
No you see common design. You interpret what you see as you wish.
It's interesting that you can fully believe in evidence of human contrivance, but reject Godly contrivance. Design IS present in nature and since the Bible tells us God created it makes sense. Since we observe functuonality and purpose is aways designed it is only logical to apply it to life.You are engaging in an equivocation fallacy for sophistical purposes, just like the radical Dominionists at the Discovery Institute who originated it.
"Design" as a term, is used with two different and distinct meanings.
First of all, it means "purpose." As a theist, I believe that the universe is infused with divine telos. But purpose is not directly detectable in an object or phenomena, it must be inferred from other evidence. Typically, it is inferred from evidence of human manufacture, Paley's "indications of contrivance." Such evidence as tool and molding marks, the use of refined alloys and non-natural materials, etc. Consequently, the presence of design as purpose is a scientifically unfalsifiable proposition. Its presence can be concluded by inference from other evidence, but cannot be demonstrated directly and it can never be scientifically ruled out. That is sufficient for me as a believer, but I understand it is not enough for those whose political agenda requres that it's presence be demonstrated directly.
On the other hand "design" is also used to describe functional arrangements of components, but this usage does not imply purpose.
The equivocation fallacy is obvious: "Design (as functionality) is present in nature, therefore design (as telos) is proven."
I don't reject it, but because it is unfalsifiable it can't be a scientific proposition.It's interesting that you can fully believe in evidence of human contrivance, but reject Godly contrivance.
That's what we believe, but it can't be demonstrated scientifically.Design IS present in nature and since the Bible tells us God created it makes sense.
Functionality and purpose are not the same thing. You accused us of identifying them except where that identity might lead to belief in your God. That was rather insulting of you, I thought, but it is also a logical fallacy--the fallacy of equivocation.Since we observe functuonality and purpose is aways designed it is only logical to apply it to life.
Of course the mountains were formed. No one said they weren't.lol, okay.
I rest my case, assuming most people here have had explained to them how mountains form during high school geology.
Creation and design. Stuff had to come from somewhere. If the universe didn't exist 4.6 billion years ago where did it all come from?
It's not an interpretation.
It's the output of counting and mapping the matches.
The pattern factually exists.
You can stick your head in the sand again now. Don't forget to stuff your ears and scream "lalala".
We've already been through this Speed. God said it specifically in Exodus. I merely quote what he says. It's like quoting anyone else. If we have the quote it's a quote. It's what the person said. And God said it .But why should we believe what you say God says?
As a creationist I assume that since all things have DNA and all things have some similarities that God used the same building blocks to create all life.
I don't reject it, but because it is unfalsifiable it can't be a scientific proposition.That's what we believe, but it can't be demonstrated scientifically. Functionality and purpose are not the same thing. You accused us of identifying them except where that identity might lead to belief in your God. That was rather insulting of you, I thought, but it is also a logical fallacy--the fallacy of equivocation.
It's an interpretation of what you see. All you see is patterns or all you see is similarities and you interpret them to mean evolution. We interpret them as evidence that God created this world and we see that as evidence that supports what the Bible says happened.
Why did God use the same building blocks to create all life? If He had made the DNA of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas, or the DNA of whales and hippopotamuses, entirely different, there would have been no danger of people inferring biological relationships from similarities in DNA, and there would have been no doubt about the different species having been separately created.
But can creationists use the patterns and similarities to make testable predictions? That is what scientists do. For example, Charles Darwin used our similarity to chimpanzees and gorillas to predict that the earliest forms of humans would be found in Africa. The discovery of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster confirmed this prediction. If the earliest forms of humans had been found in Asia, or in Europe or the Americas, Darwin's prediction would have failed, and that failure would have cast doubt on his theory.
It means nothing of the kind. What it means is the existence of God can never be disproven by science.God is unfalsifiable. So does that mean he does not exist?
Only if you assume that functionality cannot come about by natural causes. Which is the thing you are trying to prove. Tsk. And you are only trying to prove it because you don't realize that natural causes can be as much of a vehicle for divine telos as direct divine intervention.Functionality and purpose are always evidence of design.
I think most Bible Scholars would have told you the same thing. Since the history of the Bible occurs in the area of Africa and moves to the land of Canaan during the founding of Israel. I certainly believed the earliest men would be found in Africa. No surprise.
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?