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.
Look through a telescope. Look through a microscope. Look with the unaided eye. The evidence is all around you.What is your evidence to show ID is the best explanation? Do you have a falsifiable test, to determine when ID is present?
Actually, ID is the best explanation, so far.
A lot of us need to see proof of purchase, not mere platitudes an anecdotes.A lot of us just haven't met the designer yet.
you dont answered my question. again: can you as a designer able to make a car stepwise? yes or no?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?
Guilt by association. I'm not Ken Ham. I disagree with him.
The bible is true, but our interpretations need a lot of work.
Look through a telescope. Look through a microscope. Look with the unaided eye. The evidence is all around you.
Prove it.
Oh, I thought that was a rhetorical question. Personally no I can’t, I don’t know anything about automotive engineering. But your question is a complete non-sequitur for the reasons I stated in my response. Again: cars and flagella come to exist by completely different processes.you dont answered my question. again: can you as a designer able to make a car stepwise? yes or no?
so a car can evolve stepwise too? prove it.
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.
Hey, I get it. Thomas needed to put his hands on Jesus to believe He had been resurrected. And I need evidence myself, and got it. It's interesting that once one is willing to believe that it was all designed, a lot of things suddenly make a great deal of sense. And a lot of understanding of how it works comes from believing it is designed.So we keep hearing.
Funny then that those who parrot that line - on here, certainly - then have to rely on repetitious mantras, assertions, co-opting of evidence for evolution, bible verses, implicit threats of damnation, doctored quotes, plagiarism to apparently try to make others see them as smart, etc. - yet in all of that, never any actual evidence.
A lot of us need to see proof of purchase, not mere platitudes an anecdotes.
So how about bagging the quips and certainty-laced assertions and lay it on us, bro?
Again: cars and flagella come to exist by completely different processes.
I'm not Behe. ID is not about science and science is not about ID.You didnt happen to read any of the transcripts from the dover trial did you? You know, the in which ID's star witness dr behe, had to admit if ID was considered science, then astrology would also be considered science. Behe didnt do well under cross examination when asked what evidence existed to include ID in science class. In fact, a conservative christian judge, scolded the ID folks, for pretending ID was science, when it was really, biblical creationism with lip stick on.
They have eyes but do not see...Don't ask me to do your homework. YOU're the one that's claiming things like complexity etc are indicators of artificial design, not me.
Meet your own burden of proof.
There is a lot there I agree with.Except that in the latter case, often times evidence is irrelevant. The ICR and AiG have that built right into their statements of faith where they explicitly reject anything that doesn't agree with their beliefs. In those cases it's not about looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion. It's about forming a conclusion regardless of the evidence.
In broader ID circles, beliefs are a bit more varied. Including people who accepted evidence of shared ancestry of species, but still believe that a designer somewhere and somehow did some tinkering along the way. In those cases, they aren't really rejecting evidence of common descent, they just have additional overlay of other beliefs.
This speaks to my Chrysler analogy.In broader ID circles, beliefs are a bit more varied. Including people who accepted evidence of shared ancestry of species, but still believe that a designer somewhere and somehow did some tinkering along the way. In those cases, they aren't really rejecting evidence of common descent, they just have additional overlay of other beliefs.
since you dont even try to explain why im wrong here- im quite sure you are the one who have no clue about this topic.
However, I've put it this way for well over two decades:
"Both sides are religious, but only one admits it."
And all that that implies.
I find that biological machines and man made machines tend to function differently. Biological machines fly by moving their wings. Man made machines fly with fixed wings and use propellers, jets or rockets to propel themselves.Again: cars and flagella come to exist by completely different processes.
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?