Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
So they presuppose dishonesty in believers so they don't run actual calculations...that is logical.
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.
So they presuppose dishonesty in believers so they don't run actual calculations...that is logical.People have pointed out the huge problems with the Ark and most will not run actual calculations since they know the dishonesty of flood believers. Since we can show the immense problems that much more modern ships that are not this large failed the burden of proof is upon you to show that an actual ark could survive the flood. The reason that no one that can has gone to the hard work to refute the Ark nonsense is because they know that they would be accused of making a starwman argument for any design that they proposed themselves.
I never said that there not not any, you implied that many of these scientists believe that some sort of magic was necessary.Frances Collins is one. He believes in evolution but he claims that God created the universe and life in it.
Michael Denton is one. He believes in evolution but doesn't believe evolution alone explains life on earth.
Michael Behe is one. He believes in evolution but doesn't believe that evolution alone explains life on earth.
No one presupposes dishonesty in believers. Believers in these various stories have been shown to be dishonest time after time.So they presuppose dishonesty in believers so they don't run actual calculations...that is logical.
I am not asking for evidence that supports the theory of evolution. You don't know what claims have been made, what evidence has been supplied and what that evidence is to support yet you claim I am ignorant of evidence and have had evidence provided for me. What does that say about how much you actually know about the discussion and how little information you had to go on before branding me just a creationist that doesn't know what evidence is?Loudmouth has given you evidence. What exactly are you asking for here? What "illusion of design" are you talking about? You gave a poorly worded and vague claim and then dishonestly demand an answer. Also if you want to demand evidence you need to be able recognize evidence when presented to you. Did Loudmouth give you evidence that supports the theory of evolution?
In this instance I provided scientists who calculated the findings. I showed you an actual Ark being constructed and how it is being used for tourists. Where is the dishonesty?No one presupposes dishonesty in believers. Believers in these various stories have been shown to be dishonest time after time.
Fine here you go:I am not asking for evidence that supports the theory of evolution. You don't know what claims have been made, what evidence has been supplied and what that evidence is to support yet you claim I am ignorant of evidence and have had evidence provided for me. What does that say about how much you actually know about the discussion and how little information you had to go on before branding me just a creationist that doesn't know what evidence is?
For your information, so that you can make an knowledgeable assessment of evidence provided and the claims that were made.
Richard Dawkins in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" makes the claim that the apparent design observed in life forms and systems are just an illusion created by evolutionary processes. He doesn't supply any evidence for this specific claim. I am asking for evidence that shows this design with a purpose is an illusion created by evolutionary processes.
"I seek to know the mind of GOD, everything else is just details" A.Einstein He also said that Atheists were simply folks in need of additional data... "Hmmmm", God caused evolution.A neat & logical progression of life development. Take a bow,LORD. nice job
You presented an article where they only calculated whether the Ark would float with a very limited number of species.In this instance I provided scientists who calculated the findings. I showed you an actual Ark being constructed and how it is being used for tourists. Where is the dishonesty?
I never once said any magic was necessary. Is this your form of honesty? Please provide three examples of biologists that are theists that believe that God was not necessary for evolution or life on earth.I never said that there not not any, you implied that many of these scientists believe that some sort of magic was necessary.
No he hasn't. No one has provided a step by step evolutionary path that shows function for all those step to the final product of the Bacterial Flagellum. No one. They claim they show how it could have been done, how it might have occurred but nothing that confirms that the path that they are providing could provide functional forms along the way or how they would give rise to the Bacterial Flagellum. However, it is a mute point considering that was not an element in our discussion. All that matters is that he believes in evolution, common descent as well and still believes that evolution alone does not explain life on earth.By the way Behe was an extremely poor example to site since almost all of his claims have been refuted.
Actually they wanted to but they were not allowed to because the construction didn't meet modern safety standards.You presented an article where they only calculated whether the Ark would float with a very limited number of species.
The Ark that was constructed has never sailed as far as I can see. If it has ever been put out to sea I would appreciate that. It is not a good example at all since the owners will not test it realistically.
Neither of those are an honest example of how the Ark could survive the flood.
I never once said any magic was necessary. Is this your form of honesty? Please provide three examples of biologists that are theists that believe that God was not necessary for evolution or life on earth.
No he hasn't. No one has provided a step by step evolutionary path that shows function for all those step to the final product of the Bacterial Flagellum. No one. They claim they show how it could have been done, how it might have occurred but nothing that confirms that the path that they are providing could provide functional forms along the way or how they would give rise to the Bacterial Flagellum.
In other words experts knew that it would fail.Actually they wanted to but they were not allowed to because the construction didn't meet modern safety standards.
I've read the paper. It is not very very very well supported by evidence for a step to step functional system leading to the Bacterial Flagellum. It could be, it might have been and seems plausible but there is NO evidence that shows evolutionary processes gave rise to the Bacterial Flagellum in a step to step pathway. They are resting on already complex systems to start with.Fine here you go:
I know that a video is not really "evidence". But if you go to YouTube and click on "SHOW MORE" it will give you a link to the much more thorough paper that it was based upon, and if you go to the references sited in that article you will find more than 200 links to the peer reviewed article that the paper was based upon. My suggestion.... Just watch the video and know that it is very very very well supported by peer reviewed science.
And now you have shown that you do not understand the nature of evidence.I've read the paper. It is not very very very well supported by evidence for a step to step functional system leading to the Bacterial Flagellum. It could be, it might have been and seems plausible but there is NO evidence that shows evolutionary processes gave rise to the Bacterial Flagellum in a step to step pathway. They are resting on already complex systems to start with.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/world/europe/johans-ark-noah-dutch/
You really do have a problem with burden of proof don't you. I didn't make the claim that creationist scientists lie about literature they cite. It is not up to me to provide you or Rick with your evidence for your claim.
I've read the paper. It is not very very very well supported by evidence for a step to step functional system leading to the Bacterial Flagellum.
You know what scientific evidence is, you feel you know well enough to instruct others; so please provide the specific evidence that evolution produces an illusion of design in molecular machines.
This is what was said:Now you are changing your claim. The problem is that no Christian can show the need of a god for evolution. If scientists say that they accept the theory of evolution that is good enough for me.
They don't have to. You don't understand Behe's original claim that he had to modify after the fact. And showing how it might have happened does refute Behe. He said that it was not possible. He said that one protein not existing made the whole structure useless. The man made claims that it was impossible to get from point A to point B. He has been shown to be wrong. And remember how I accused you of moving the goal posts. You just did so again. You tried to change what was necessary to prove Behe wrong. Now you want proof of each and every step and the order that they were taken in. You are not being honest in your debate.
The evidence is design. It is up to those who claim that evidence is incorrect by way of being an illusion created by evolutionary processes. Could be and might haves do not provide evidence.Nothing will be in your eyes, so why try? You will just deny anything that is presented, as you did here. All the while, you won't produce a shred of evidence for design.
The design is the evidence. Provide the evidence that this apparent design is incorrect or inaccurate due to it being produced by evolutionary processes.And now you are in full shift mode. You can't provide a shred of evidence that anything in the cell was designed.
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?