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.
A process falsifies nothing of the sort.
The process verifies intelligent design for reasons you illogically claim unable to SEE.
So the existence of naturalistic evolution verifies ID? You're right--I really don't see that.A process falsifies nothing of the sort. The process verifies intelligent design for reasons you illogically claim unable to SEE.
So the existence of naturalistic evolution verifies ID? You're right--I really don't see that.
If naturalistic abiogenesis is eventually demonstrated, will that verify ID too?
Right on both counts.
In short, discovery of mathematics in nature isn't an invention of mathematics, it is a DISCOVERY of mathematics in nature. Like discovering a chessboard and a book of instructions alongside it on how to play.
Well, I am just too stupid or wicked to see it, I guess. I don't see how existence of the process of evolution by variation and selection verifies the notion that a "designer" must periodically intervene with it.Right on both counts.
But ID proposes that it be "true" most of the time.BTW
I never agreed that evolution is true.
Are you saying that you accept abiogenesis, and count it as evidence for an intelligent designer?
Can you give a single example of what wouldn't be evidence for intelligent design?
There are machines that are programmed to play chess against themselves. I personally had one approx. 20 years ago. Very common function.Chess doesn't play itself. Chemistry does. The two are not comparable.
Abiogenesis? Accept something that has never been observed in nature nor forced to happen in a lab?
Everything is composed of molecules, atoms. electrons, neutrons, protons which indicate order and planning.
You might feel impelled to dismiss such organization by merely saying that nature did it. I am persuaded differently.
There are machines that are programmed to play chess against themselves.
My name isn't ID.Well, I am just too stupid or wicked to see it, I guess. I don't see how existence of the process of evolution by variation and selection verifies the notion that a "designer" must periodically intervene with it.
But ID proposes that it be "true" most of the time.
I have repeatedly explained what I mean but you keep purposefully misrepresenting. Such a tactic tends to bring discussions to an end.Computers do not spontaneous form through natural processes. Chemistry does.
I never claimed that a designer has to be constantly tweaking a process that he might have put in motion.
I am not arguing against theistic evolution as I have explained a million times before only to get the response ofTranslation: "Tails I win, heads you lose!!!"
Yeah, it was already clear to most of us that you deny the biological facts of reality the second you identified as a cdesign proponentsists.
The many anti-biology PRATT video's about DNA and flagellums and such, also kind of make it obvious....
I am not arguing against theistic evolution as I have explained a million times before only to get the response of
"Ï cain't see!"
No. They just need to be arranged with coded information by an intelligent designer . . .
Relationship a love relationship
That is false. Math isn't found under a rock.Math is just a human expression / attempt at explaining patterns in reality.
It is, by all means, a human invention.
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?