What's The Matter?

[Oncedeceived]

This is laughable. On what other claims can we pull out "you'll find out when you die" canard? You'll know the truth behind UFOs after you die. The secrets behind 9/11 will be revealed after your final breath. Bigfoot will meet you in the afterlife.

The truth is available to all. It is hardly laughable. It is very serious.

 

[Oncedeceived]

THE GRAPH IS THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE!!!!!!

So the skulls themselves without the graph are not?

 

[Loudmouth]

The truth is available to all.

Not to living people, it would appear.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Design is the claim. Where is the evidence for design?



What evidence?

You admitted that living organisms appear designed for a purpose...correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

So the skulls themselves without the graph are not?

Objective measurements of the skulls are evidence. Subjective opinions about the skulls are not evidence. It is the methodology you use to analyze the skulls that makes it science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not to living people, it would appear.

Millions would disagree.

 

[bhsmte]

This is laughable. On what other claims can we pull out "you'll find out when you die" canard? You'll know the truth behind UFOs after you die. The secrets behind 9/11 will be revealed after your final breath. Bigfoot will meet you in the afterlife.

They have nothing now, so they pull the fear card and say; when you die................................

 

[Loudmouth]

You admitted that living organisms appear designed for a purpose...correct?

In the same way that this cloud appears to be a duck.

 

[Loudmouth]

Millions would disagree.

Then why don't you present the objective evidence that living people can observe instead of requiring people to die in order to check your claims.

 

[Davian]

Design in all of nature is the evidence. <snip other goalposts>

Then present this "evidence" in the form of a testable hypothesis. But you can't, can you?

 

[Davian]

The truth is available to all.

I do not accept your religious opinion as "truth".

It is hardly laughable. It is very serious.

You have given me no reason to believe so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Objective measurements of the skulls are evidence. Subjective opinions about the skulls are not evidence. It is the methodology you use to analyze the skulls that makes it science.

I will assume then that the skulls themselves are not evidence in your opinion then?

 

[Davian]

Millions would disagree.

"All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.”" - Isaac Asimov

 

[Oncedeceived]

I do not accept your religious opinion as "truth".

You have given me no reason to believe so.

Ok. You are fee to have your own opinion.

Sorry. I can't do more than I can.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.”" - Isaac Asimov

That is the thing about belief and science but luckily there is truth and we are all searching for it. Some even believe that science is the only way to find it. I don't agree, I just am very pleased that we are all intelligent agents created by an intelligent Being rather than from a mindless process devoid of reason or truth.

 

[Larniavc]

I just sprayed weed killer on my lawn, but a surprise rainstorm washed it off within a couple of hours. The weeds showed the characteristic 'leaf curling' but none died. I'll have to spray again. If evolution is true they should have developed immunity by now and will survive the next spraying. I'll let you know.

That's not what ToE would predict. The weed killer would have had to run it's course. Then, any weeds that had not been killed would repopulate the area sharing the immunity their parent had. What you are suggesting is the same as saying "if I shot a man and he survived, ToE says he should become immune to bullets".

Evolution takes place in populations: not individuals.

All the best.

 

[justlookinla]

In the same way that this cloud appears to be a duck.

How about humans? Creation and evolution and all, you know.

 

[justlookinla]

That's not what ToE would predict. The weed killer would have had to run it's course. Then, any weeds that had not been killed would repopulate the area sharing the immunity their parent had. What you are suggesting is the same as saying "if I shot a man and he survived, ToE says he should become immune to bullets".

Evolution takes place in populations: not individuals.

All the best.

Individual life forms are changed randomly in Darwinist evolution.

 

[Davian]

Ok. You are fee to have your own opinion.

Sorry. I can't do more than I can.

All I see you doing is trying to shift the burden of evidence from yourself, building straw-man arguments, and creating false dichotomies.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then present this "evidence" in the form of a testable hypothesis. But you can't, can you?

The hypothesis of design is if something is designed it should be recognized by having the same or similar applications as known designs produced by intelligent agents. The applications should be recognized as having purpose. Purpose should show deliberateness of activity. Purpose should present itself as in human design with having a set goal. The systems or structures should show a hierarchy of features and functions that interact with other systems and features that work together for the well being of the organism or in the case of human design the working of the desired end product.

We test these applications in living forms to find if these features, structures and functions are recognizable as set forth by the above hypothesis and with new technology we are able to observe that the above is found in living forms, biologists and other scientists who observe these recognizable attributes in living life forms to have the same or similar applications as known designs produced by intelligent agents.

We see factories, we see transportation systems, we see systems within systems with specific goals and purpose. We see structures produced by humans seen in living systems.

This evidence is interpreted by materialists as an illusion. The reality of the evidence presents itself as design but they claim it is just an illusion of design but design nevertheless.