What's The Matter?

[Oncedeceived]

Irrelevant. Appearances aren't evidence.

I repeat...Loudmouth, explain... Show us how scientists can determine there is an appearance of design.

Please answer the question.

 

[bhsmte]

I have provided evidence. I saw the appearance of aliens and a space ship and i observed the same. The evidence is the appearance of space ships and aliens.

 

[justlookinla]

I have provided evidence. I saw the appearance of aliens and a space ship and i observed the same. The evidence is the appearance of space ships and aliens.

Evidence? Post number please where you provided the evidence that you were abducted by space aliens.

Oh...and while you're at it, evidence for the illusion of design also.

 

[Loudmouth]

I repeat...Loudmouth, explain... Show us how scientists can determine there is an appearance of design.

I repeat. Irrelevant since we are discussing evidence, not appearances.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I repeat. Irrelevant since we are discussing evidence, not appearances.

This is clearly evasion. I take this as a fail for you.

 

[justlookinla]

This is clearly evasion. I take this as a fail for you.

At least the tired old rocks and rivers evasive tactic wasn't again used.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is clearly evasion. I take this as a fail for you.

The evasion is trying to turn the conversation to appearances instead of evidence. You have been evading this entire time.

Start presenting evidence or admit that you have none.

 

[Loudmouth]

Interesting find. This was part of the ruling in the Dover ID trial.

"It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed. (23:73 (Behe)). This inference to design based upon the appearance of a "purposeful arrangement of parts" is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system."
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitz...strict/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_81_of_139

 

[bhsmte]

The evasion is trying to turn the conversation to appearances instead of evidence. You have been evading this entire time.

Start presenting evidence or admit that you have none.

Behe tried to use this appearance to classify ID as real science as well. Guess what, he couldn't do it either.

 

[justlookinla]

Behe tried to use this appearance to classify ID as real science as well. Guess what, he couldn't do it either.

Dawkins tried to claim illusion of design too. Guess what, he didn't have the evidence to support his claim.

 

[Strathos]

I am not sure who you are posting this to but I am going to respond. I am responding to a fellow Christian here so I am responding to a person who as I already knows that God exists so the argument is based on that. Those who do not believe that God exists or has anything to do with the process of evolution at all are not included in this post. This post is theist to theist who do not challenge the claim that God created the universe and everything in it.

You seem to be under the same faulty impression that the materialists are; it is an either or situation, either God did it and so no evolution or evolution did it and no God. God engineered life to allow for adaptation to the environment and evolution is part of that. However, He can engineer systems and features in His creation that declare His Glory...
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
And:
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Which means that when we look back in history and see the creation and see life throughout history His work within it is clearly seen. All throughout history mankind knew when they saw the complexity in all of nature that it was God that created it. Then Darwin comes along and takes that creative process of God and gives it a label and finds certain creative avenues that God uses to allow life to adapt and change to the environment and boom no need for God. Whether God micromanaged or engineered life according to a plan and it needs no micromanagement at all is really not the issue. The complex structures, features, and functions reflect as God intended to show His handiwork in creation. He wanted us to see His design to declare His work.

I don't agree that understanding how these processes work means "no need for God". When we figured out how lightning and storms work, did that suddenly mean there was "no need for God"? What about when we figured out how gravity and orbital mechanics work?

It's obvious that, no matter how much we discover about how the universe works, believers will accept that God created it and non-believers won't.

If we don't know how something works in the universe, we'll say that God is responsible, but we don't know the details yet, while non-believers will just say they don't know the answer. If we find out how it works, we'll say "Oh, so that's how He did it", while non-believers will say "Oh, so that's how it works."

They're just two different worldviews but either way the scientific facts are the same.

 

[Skaloop]

If you made the claim you were abducted by aliens last week, it's up to you to offer evidence to support your claim. If one makes the claim that design is an illusion, it's up to them to offer evidence to support the claim.

Neither will be offered, I'm sure.

And you've made the claim that life was designed, yet offered no objective evidence to support that claim.

 

[justlookinla]

And you've made the claim that life was designed, yet offered no objective evidence to support that claim.

And there's been not one bit of evidence for the illusion of design claim.

 

[HitchSlap]

And there's been not one bit of evidence for the illusion of design claim.

Nor fairies, for that matter. Therefore, fairies!

 

[Skaloop]

And there's been not one bit of evidence for the illusion of design claim.

So what? You still need to provide some evidence (objective evidence) of design.

Still, the evidence for non-design is abundant. It's evidenced by things like the double-nested hierarchy, the convoluted path of the blood vessels in giraffes, the location of our waste management system right next to our pleasure zone, and more. There is, unfortunately for you, absolutely zero objective evidence of design.

 

[justlookinla]

Nor fairies, for that matter. Therefore, fairies!

And still....not one bit of evidence.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

I have spoken with many scientists and was completely astonished by their blindness! I have also spoken with many people about evolution and astonished by their blindness also. Without a doubt, when one is not saved the Light of reason is not within them.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1

Matter! Matter is the physical property of all things material! God created all matter from nothing as we were all told but, actually God created all physical matter from spiritual water! (2 Peter 3:15, Rev 21:6) The water of life actually.

I was very logical when I asked them this one simple question; "Where did the matter come from that you associate with the Big Bang?" They told me "It came from microscopic pieces of matter that were in open space." I said "Fine, and where did THAT matter come from?" Because they were not saved, Truth was not in them and they could not answer.

Honestly, if one really thinks about it, God creating physical matter from spiritual water is absolutely ridiculous! Insane actually!

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

God is the primary cause of everything in universe.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Spirit? really?
Could this be one of the reasons why the US has so many deep seated problems?

Human are all spirits in essence, and the human spirits create and solve their problems.

 

[justlookinla]

So what? You still need to provide some evidence (objective evidence) of design.

So what? The 'what' is that Darwinists make claims concerning humanity which has absolutely no evidence.

Still, the evidence for non-design is abundant.

The claim was illusion of design....and the claim was baseless. Your attempt to change the term is akin to the politicians attempting to change "illegal alien" to "undocumented worker".

It's evidenced by things like the double-nested hierarchy, the convoluted path of the blood vessels in giraffes, the location of our waste management system right next to our pleasure zone, and more. There is, unfortunately for you, absolutely zero objective evidence of design.

Explain how is that evidence for illusion of design?

 

[justlookinla]

God is the primary cause of everything in universe.

True.