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.
If you're relying on "common usage" for your scientific understandings...Well, that is the common usage of the word.
Evolutionists have their own definition of it?
I would suggest that they discard the term completely in order not to give a counterproductive impression to the general public who does perceive it that way.
I take that as a "yes" then. Sorry, not playing. When you feel like an intellectually honest discussion, let me know.Well, if it is that frustrating then I don't blame you.
Who you wish perceived it that way.Well, that is the common usage of the word.
Evolutionists have their own definition of it?
I would suggest that they discard the term completely in order not to give a counterproductive impression to the general public who does perceive it that way.
That the eyes work perfectly as they were
intended to do. Any other type of eye may
be useful in certain circumstances, but ours
are the best for seeing not only optimally, but
being able to see beauty in all of nature.
"instead of being a great disadvantage, or a “curse” or being incorrectly constructed, the inverted retina is a tremendous advance in function and design compared with the simple and less complicated verted arrangement. One problem amongst many, for evolutionists, is to explain how this abrupt major retinal transformation from the verted type in invertebrates to the inverted vertebrate model came about as nothing in paleontology offers any support. (Hamilton 1985, p. 63)"
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/the-human-retina-shows-evidence-of-good-design/
Not at all. The word itself conveys that concept regardless of how I might feel about it.Who you wish perceived it that way.
Who you wish could be encouraged to confuse the two common meanings of the term:
Design as organization to a function, and design as purpose or intention.
Before they degenerated into blood suckers, yes.
What do you mean by backwards design and forwards design of the retina?
Design implies a designer or a planning mind. Perhaps you should use another word. . . . .
Not at all. The word itself conveys that concept regardless of how I might feel about it.
That is why it is counterproductive for atheists to use it.
Wrong. The word "design" can convey either meaning. It's not your property and you don't get to restrict who can use it if the commonly understood meanings do not suit your rhetorical purposes. If you insist that the word "design" can only imply purpose or intention you are being dishonest.Not at all. The word itself conveys that concept regardless of how I might feel about it.
That is why it is counterproductive for atheists to use it.
Can you explain how that "degeneration" occurred without an evolutionary mechanism?
Hmmph. Why would you call the development of blood sucking ability a "degeneration"? From the standpoint of the mosquito, its a very successful way to make a living.
"How" is precisely the point of the discussion here. I can show the mechanism I'm endorsing. You need to be able to show one for yours if you're claiming yours explains the available evidence better."All adult mosquitoes feed on the nectar or honey dew of plants to get sugar, and that provides enough nourishment for both males and females to live, but females also need to produce eggs. To create eggs, females need protein, which they get from the blood of animals. Only a few species of mosquitoes can store enough energy as larvae, to produce eggs when they're adults, without needing a meal of blood. "
http://www.mosquitoreviews.com/mosquitoes-eat.html
How doesn't matter for the purpose of
discussion here. Only the fact that it did
happen.
I NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM.
Not at all. The word itself conveys that concept regardless of how I might feel about it.
That is why it is counterproductive for atheists to use it.
"How" is precisely the point of the discussion here. I can show the mechanism I'm endorsing. You need to be able to show one for yours if you're claiming yours explains the available evidence better.
True. But I am not claiming that all evolutionists are atheists in that sentence am I?
What you can do is create a myth of how
things could have happened, but only
God knows exactly what happened, when
and how.
What I am saying is that it takes brains and intelligent design to create the organic chemistry needed for tasks such as eye functions.
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?