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.
Curiously, those who have devoted years to assimilating the works of tens of thousands of researchers are somewhat indifferent to the fatuous viewpoints of those who couldn't be bothered to put in the effort.That evolutionary science rejects design destroys their credibility. It's like a meteorologist telling you that the sun in shining, in the middle of a thunderstorm.
Let me seeThat evolutionary science rejects design destroys their credibility. It's like a meteorologist telling you that the sun in shining, in the middle of a thunderstorm."Design" is not evidence. What I expected was the result of an experiment, a sequenced protein, a fossil or any other piece of data.
But okay. You haven't read any textbook, you haven't read any popular science book, so were have you gathered your knowledge, to be able to reject the ToE with so much confidence, that you know better than people who have been informing themselves for years, if not decades?
Do you understand how living things evolve, and how natural selection produces the appearance of design?That evolutionary science rejects design destroys their credibility. It's like a meteorologist telling you that the sun is shining, in the middle of a thunderstorm.
Do you understand how living things evolve, and how natural selection produces the appearance of design?
But it is, it's even shining in the middle of the night.
There may have been quite a few creationists that have honestly and fearlessly looked at the evidence. Those people simply accept it and move on. We are dealing with those that cannot do that here.If creationists really believed what they say they believe about a young Earth, flood geology and immutable created kinds, I would expect them to set out to learn everything they could about geology and biology, since they would expect to find evidence for their theory of creation. The fact that most creationists appear happy to remain in ignorance of these sciences suggests that either that they don't believe what they say they believe, or that they know that the evidence is against them.
I am very sure that you do not understand the concept of evidence. If you did you would realize that there is no scientific evidence for ID.Design.
It depends on what you mean by "design." a word with more than one meaning. In this case, do you mean "design" as intentionality? Or "design" as a functional arrangement of components?What is the "appearance of design"? If it quacks like a duck...
I am very sure that you do not understand the concept of evidence. If you did you would realize that there is no scientific evidence for ID.
It depends on what you mean by "design." a word with more than one meaning. In this case, do you mean "design" as intentionality? Or "design" as a functional arrangement of components?
Sorry, but that is a losing argument. In fact it tells us the opposite is true. For example I could say that "gravity is obvious" but only because I can support that claim. I can name several tests for the concept.Intelligent design is obvious. No need to prove it in a laboratory.
This is not an answer.Design.And against what evidence did you hold the ToE, to decide it did not compute?
Since we can now exclude all college level textbooks, did you read any popular science books?
"Appearance" is just the superficial outlook. The Sun appears to move across the sky. But in reality the motion is due to the rotation of the Earth. It took the effort to look beyond the superficial appearance to find that out.What is the "appearance of design"? If it quacks like a duck...
So evolution is true...somewhere in the universe.
Yeah just look at the watch sitting on the rock, it's obvious that the watch is designed when compared to the rock.Intelligent design is obvious. No need to prove it in a laboratory.
Intelligent design is obvious. No need to prove it in a laboratory.
This is a contradiction.
Not what he's saying at all, and you know it.
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?