- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- 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.
How would you go about determining whether an animal you had never seen before, was designed or naturally evolved that way?
No. Which makes the impression of design subjective. Thanks for proving my point!
If I remember rightly this is the argument that was thrown out of court because the guy who had studied it [Michael Behe] could not make a case for ID using this very thing at the Dover trial.
As usual it got dropped for a couple of years now it's back again and this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.............
which only goes to show just how desperate some people really are.
Since when is the truth flaming? what did I write that was flaming?Are you trying to get this thread closed. They're cracking down on flaming.
Since when is the truth flaming? what did I write that was flaming?
if you mean the part 'which only goes to show just how desperate some people really are.' why do creationists keep repeating the same old PRATTS time after time if they are not desperate? that's the truth.
If misrepresenting evolution theory is the only way you have to argue against it..... Then your objections aren't going to have any impact.
How can it be an ad hominem I am not writing about one person I am writing about creationists in general who are so desperate they keep bringing back the same PRATTs time after time.It's an ad hominem aimed at those who disagree with you. Thin ice for the thread.
But you said "show dogs" are evidence of objective design. I asked how you tell the difference between those and naturally occurring canines.
Observation is part of science. We can take an actual objective biological system and its function and compare it to an actual functional designed system and see objectively the function and structure are designed similarly. It rests on objective evidence of both systems.Because it relies on human opinion, not on objective measurement or observation of the actual designing.
Now this is an intelligent argument...not.Of course the bacterial flagellum is designed, only maybe not that intelligently.
1. Creationists are people.How can it be an ad hominem I am not writing about one person I am writing about creationists in general who are so desperate they keep bringing back the same PRATTs time after time.
What went on in court had a virtual montage of political and religious elements that were involved. NO one has confirmed by evidence that the BF could have evolved step by step and keep a healthy functioning organism in the process. There are could be and maybes and stories.If I remember rightly this is the argument that was thrown out of court because the guy who had studied it [Michael Behe] could not make a case for ID using this very thing at the Dover trial.
As usual it got dropped for a couple of years now it's back again and this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.............
which only goes to show just how desperate some people really are.
I'm confused.The Holy Spirit guides us away from our natural inclinations, which is our "deep seated" problem, toward better 'unnatural' inclinations.
It could be because:For the same reason that we don't need to "believe" that clouds that look like ducks aren't actually ducks.
The BF is actual. The function is actual. It is similar to the actual rotor system designed by humans. The actual appearance and function of both systems actually are structurally similar and functionally similar. This is a case of real systems being designed for a purpose that show similar design and function. It doesn't take Rocket Science to objectively conclude the appearance is not an illusion.To explain it, would require to explain the difference between the words "appearance" and "actual". And you've already demonstrated time and again the inability (or unwillingness) to understand (or recognise) the difference.
Does appearance have function? Does it have function in the way a designed similar system has function? It is you that needs to show by evidence that this similarity of function and design is an illusion.To say that an appearance is not mere appearance, but an actual thing, you'ld need to support that. Can you?
What is evolution?The only people who do not accepted evolution are the people who do not understand it or reject it for religious reasons,
which are you? I suspect both.
What evidence do you have to justify that it is an illusion?Evidence?
What justification do you have for that claim?
The only people who do not accepted evolution are the people who do not understand it or reject it for religious reasons,
which are you? I suspect both.
You don't even know you are doing it do you?What is evolution?
What went on in court had a virtual montage of political and religious elements that were involved. NO one has confirmed by evidence that the BF could have evolved step by step and keep a healthy functioning organism in the process. There are could be and maybes and stories.
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?