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.
As far as designing a video camera stepwise from a still camera, that’s pretty much how the progression of technology works.
You should follow the AGW fiasco. Just sayin'.Yes, I hear a lot about "interpreting evidence" from people who don't believe scientists know what they are doing. Oddly enough I never hear it from scientists. Likely because the tests they perform are designed to falsify a position and there is no way to interpret that.
Two sides in this case, for illustrative purposes. And my point is about both sides. One sees a certain attribute and sees proof of evolution. The other sees the exact same attribute and sees proof of a designer.
Interestingly, as the former gains evidence, they need to change their position while the latter does not.
You are overthinking it. A simple picture to make a simple, and valid, point.Not really.
That picture is more about perceptions and how the brain interprets visual inputs. More about physiology than presuppositions.
...
Right. Because we observe designers of cars, we don’t need to theorize in how they came to exist. Since we can’t say the same for flagella, evolution remains the best explanation for their existence. See how that works?thanks. so can you change stepwise a still camera into a video camera?
the same about the car: can you make a car stepwise from a non car? again: since you are an intelligent designer we dont need the ability to reproduce in this case.
Absolutely.Is that a presupposition?
Do you consider living things to be engineered?
You are overstating and over-simplifying it to the point of absurdity.You are overthinking it. A simple picture to make a simple, and valid, point.
Guilt by association. I'm not Ken Ham. I disagree with him.That is not a compliment to those that refuse to change.
Ken Ham said it best - when asked what evidence could make him change his mind about creationism, he said that nothing could, as he believes the bible is true.
A closed mind will never change, regardless of evidence, yet you seem to see that as a strength?
Absolutely.
The body I occupy is a self healing, self replicating biological machine. It is a marvel more complex and efficient than anything man has ever imagined creating. It is nanotech at its finest, but far more than that.
It is also very well engineered.
You should follow the AGW fiasco. Just sayin'.
Actually, ID is the best explanation, so far. A lot of us just haven't met the designer yet.Right. Because we observe designers of cars, we don’t need to theorize in how they came to exist. Since we can’t say the same for flagella, evolution remains the best explanation for their existence. See how that works?
Opinions vary.You are overstating and over-simplifying it to the point of absurdity.
So, you disagree, then?And so you have revealed your presupposition.
Complete with buzzwords, hyperbole, and unwarranted certainty.
And will you soon link to that youtube video of kinesin?
IT guy, right?
Me too.I know a climate scientist and believe him over someone who has no background in science. Just saying.
Wrong. If your explanation is missing a mechanism (the designer, in your case) then you have no explanation.Actually, ID is the best explanation, so far. A lot of us just haven't met the designer yet.
That is not a compliment to those that refuse to change.
Ken Ham said it best - when asked what evidence could make him change his mind about creationism, he said that nothing could, as he believes the bible is true.
A closed mind will never change, regardless of evidence, yet you seem to see that as a strength?
So, you disagree, then?
A friend of mine has a friend that is an actual rocket scientist. I love his take on stuff. He says, "Even rocket science ain't rocket science."
Fact is, none of this is complicated. People just try to make it seem so. What is difficult is coming up with NEW theories and information. A lot of folks here are just parroting what some professor told them.
Bottom line is that for most of us here, what we believe depends on which authoritative sources we most respect.
And most of the scientists doing the boring work in evolution theory are the ones least sure of it.
Science, yes. Evolution theory proponents, not so much.
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?