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.
I am claiming that living forms appear to be designed with intentional purpose as specifically admitted by all biologists I am aware of. This evidence of design with purpose is either correct and accurate or is present only due to evolutionary processes that create an illusion of design. If it is indeed only an illusion of actual design it is incumbent on those who claim it is to provide the evidence that shows it is an illusion.Are you claiming actual, intended design in biological systems? Yes or no?
What is the insult? Dawkins is an avid and outspoken anti-theist which in Christian theology is anti-Christ attitude. Do you take offense to characterizing Dawkins as such?Are you now reduced to throwing out insults?
Which was never what I claimed. That is a straw man.You have provided nothing.
I do not think you fully understand the concept of falsification. That you perceive design (or not) is not a test for design.
"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."Point out the insult if you will.
I am claiming that living forms appear to be designed with intentional purpose as specifically admitted by all biologists I am aware of.
This evidence of design . . .
Design has recognizable features which are present in design produced by intelligent agents.No, design is perceived...
That goes without saying. Do you have the training and education equal to or better than the biologists that claim design is apparent in living forms?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.
Yes, and no one feels it appears like an actual face. You are using a category error in your analogy.Recall the 'face' in the cliff face; did it have to be a real face to produce the illusion of a face?
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.
Design has recognizable features which are present in design produced by intelligent agents.
What was I to look for in that video?That's ok, they have. SEE: http://www.artofthecell.com/the-inner-life-of-the-cell
Yet all you can offer is what you perceive. No testable, falsifiable criteria.You are absolutely right, I don't perceive design I observe it
All of the biologists that you have cited to date have only admitted to the perception of "design". It "looks" that way.and so do all biologists that I am aware of.
But you cannot offer a means of falsification. You are not doing science.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.
Despicable is an adjective that some feel represents Dawkins. I find his remarks about Christians and religion despicable as well. Christians are told they are gullible all the time so I don't think you can cry foul there. Blind will follow the blind is a similar accusation encountered by Christians here all the time."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."
The objective evidence is the design present in all living forms.That is a subjective recognition.
We are asking for objective evidence.
"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."
Are you claiming actual, intended design in biological systems? Yes or no?
I do not personally take offence, but I am only making an observation that he seems to be reduced to attacking the person, and those that accept the science that he is doing, rather than addressing said science.What is the insult? Dawkins is an avid and outspoken anti-theist which in Christian theology is anti-Christ attitude. Do you take offense to characterizing Dawkins as such?
Scientific research and methodology? Do you not recognize that.What was I to look for in that video?
I am offering what biologists observe in life forms.Yet all you can offer is what you perceive. No testable, falsifiable criteria.
No, not perception of design...illusion of design. They observe living forms appear to be designed for a purpose meaning they look like they are designed with a purpose. It is either accurate or an illusion and they are claiming illusion.All of the biologists that you have cited to date have only admitted to the perception of "design". It "looks" that way.
Neither are you but the scientists are and they observe design in living things and are claiming that the design is an illusion of design. No scientific evidence is given for that conclusion.But you cannot offer a means of falsification. You are not doing science.
The irony!I do not personally take offence, but I am only making an observation that he seems to be reduced to attacking the person, and those that accept the science that he is doing, rather than addressing said science.
I do not personally take offence, but I am only making an observation that he seems to be reduced to attacking the person, and those that accept the science that he is doing, rather than addressing said science.
Let your conscience be your guide. Jiminy Cricket, and all that.
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?