You haven't shown any evidence for design mechanisms that can produce these functions. Where have we ever observed deities using magic to make biological organisms?
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.
You haven't shown any evidence for non-designed mechanisms that can produce those functions.
No, that would require it to be my claim which it is not. It is a claim made by Dawkins and others.Yet another shift in the burden of proof.
No, that would require it to be my claim which it is not. It is a claim made by Dawkins and others.
How did math predict the age of the universe or the number of galaxies?
Lol, they didn't get the numbers by simply looking.
Then how did they get those numbers without any of the data collected from astronomical observations?
http://www.artofthecell.com/the-inner-life-of-the-cellWhere can we read their peer reviewed papers? Where can read about their methodologies, measurements, and statistical analyses?
Right, what produces design...intelligent beings or physical or natural processes. How do we recognize intelligent design over the natural processes. We have to recognize what intelligent agents produce what nature produces and determine which is more reasonable considering the way each designs. The evidence is design, which way it was designed is determined by how it is best explained. Is it better explained by natural occurring processes or intelligent agent?That's not a correct null hypothesis. A correct methodology and hypothesis can differentiate between non-design producing those attributes and design producing those attributes.
What!!!! We have design by intelligent agents all over the place which we can recognize because we have a history of design in evidence.You haven't shown any evidence for design mechanisms that can produce these functions. Where have we ever observed deities using magic to make biological organisms?
Are you claiming actual, intended design in biological systems? Yes or no?That is not what I said. In the case of burden of proof, it rests on the one making the positive claim. <snip false dichotomy>.
No, design is perceived...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
All that is needed to support that claim is for some people to see "design" (whatever they mean by that) in whatever is being discussed. Personally, I do not see this "design" that you allude to.and the subjective claim is that it is an illusion.
Recall the 'face' in the cliff face; did it have to be a real face to produce the illusion of a face?If design was not present and recognized there would be no illusion.
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.
You haven't shown any evidence for non-designed mechanisms that can produce those functions.
You have provided nothing.That is ok, biologists do.
I do not think you fully understand the concept of falsification. That you perceive design (or not) is not a test for design.Falsification would include no recognizable attributes which are the same or similar to human design.
Are you now reduced to throwing out insults?Dawkins is such a despicable anti-theist and anitChrist he makes these claims that the gullible will embrace, never realizing until it's too late that his claim of illusion of design had absolutely no evidence to back it up. But, since it's an anti-theist rant, the blind will follow the blind.
If the physical world is all there is and evolution the only process from which this illusion of design produced it is up to you to show the natural physical processes produced the design from which this illusion is claimed.You haven't shown any evidence for design mechanisms that can produce these functions. Where have we ever observed deities using magic to make biological organisms?
Are you now reduced to throwing out insults?
That's ok, they have. SEE: http://www.artofthecell.com/the-inner-life-of-the-cellYou have provided nothing.
You are absolutely right, I don't perceive design I observe it and so do all biologists that I am aware of. The test is the recognition of intelligent agents designs being compared to those in life forms and the observation that the design is the same or similar to those made by intelligent agents.I do not think you fully understand the concept of falsification. That you perceive design (or not) is not a test for 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?