Crowns&Laurels
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 2,769
- 751
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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.
Why do you say that? Because they didn't discover your particular god?
I will assume then that the skulls themselves are not evidence in your opinion then?
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.
Ok. You are fee to have your own opinion.
Sorry. I can't do more than I can.
What were you expecting to happen? That their discoveries would lower the price of milk at the market?
That is not what I said. In the case of burden of proof, it rests on the one making the positive claim. Dawkins makes a positive claim that the design for a purpose that we observe in living forms is an illusion of design produced by evolutionary processes. The burden rests on him and those that agree with that contention.Yet another false dichotomy. Even if everyone else was wrong, it would not automatically prove you right.
Those pictures seem great to me. I have no idea what you would qualify as "great".Name one great thing astrophysics has accomplished in the past thirty years besides take nice snapshots from their satellites.
Name one great thing astrophysics has accomplished in the past thirty years besides take nice snapshots from their satellites.
It isn't a negative, it is a positive claim. It seems more intellectually bankrupt to make a claim the design observed is an illusion and have nothing to support that claim. Design is observed and the subjective claim is that it is an illusion. If design was not present and recognized there would be no illusion.lol. Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt, but it may be all they have left.
Individual life forms are changed randomly in Darwinist evolution.
You are the one that is not supplying evidence. Not answering direct yes or no questions.That's the point we have been making. All you seem capable of doing is repeating the claim over and over. Evidence you do not have.
It isn't a negative, it is a positive claim. It seems more intellectually bankrupt to make a claim the design observed is an illusion and have nothing to support that claim.
Design is observed and the subjective claim is that it is an illusion. If design was not present and recognized there would be no illusion.
You are the one that is not supplying evidence. Not answering direct yes or no questions.
The first estimates of how common Earth-like planets are, as discovered by the Kepler sattelite.
The first estimates of how many galaxies there are in the Universe, as discovered by the Hubble telescope in the deep field images.
First big surveys of type Ia supernovae for measuring the expansion of the universe, and its acceleration/deceleration through time.
The first high detail maps of the temperature and fluctuations within the cosmic microwave background which allows for calculating the age of the universe.
Those are the four big ones off the top of my head.
All which mathematics has already shown to be virtually certain, and which all is just visual confirmation.
They've come right out with their own mouths and said they've hit a wall. String theory has been around since the 70's, for example, and has gotten utterly nowhere.
That is ok, biologists do. Falsification would include no recognizable attributes which are the same or similar to human design.You provided no means of testing, no units to use, and no means of falsification. I cannot test your "hypothesis".
You haven't shown any evidence for non-designed mechanisms that can produce those functions.How do you test the null hypothesis, that non-design mechanisms can produce those functions? Why is design required for those things to exist?
That is ok, biologists do.
Falsification would include no recognizable attributes which are the same or similar to human design.
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?