Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
The evidence of design is the apparent design in living things. THE EVIDENCE is DESIGN.
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.
The evidence of design is the apparent design in living things. THE EVIDENCE is DESIGN.And yet you have shown no "evidence of design". When you come up with some evidence for design perhaps you will be taken a bit more seriously.
The problem is what do you determine as evolution? It used to be that monkeys became man. Now it is all about adaptation. There is not evidence at all that monkeys became man but there is plenty of evidence of adaptation which is what Darwin observed in finches beaks but atheistic scientists jumped on this and made a whole theory about evolution that included monkey/man scenario as a means to get God out of the picture.
They were so desperate to prove a theory as fact they invented the Piltdown Man in the 50s and claimed that it was evidence of the gaps in the fossil record. Fifty years later they admitted it was a complete hoax.
Excellent! That is an excellent example of what we are talking about. If I saw a blob of anything it would not tell me anything about it.
The evidence of design is the apparent design in living things. THE EVIDENCE is DESIGN.
You haven't provided evidence that this is "absurdly" false..
You haven't shown that the appearance of design is subjective.
How do you know it is a duck?
Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/parr-i-doh-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) wherein the mind perceives a familiar pattern where none actually exists.
Mere appearances mean nothing and that is the point. It is in the systems, structures, features and function where the "apparent" design is observed not in the blob of proteins or whatever.Then appearances mean nothing.
Mere appearances mean nothing and that is the point.
Where is your evidence that the appearance is an incorrect, deceptive and produced by evolutionary processes?Thank you.
Now, where is your evidence for design that is something other than the appearance of design?
No my argument is like this in a nutshell.This is your argument in a nutshell.
I claim that Leprechauns make rainbows. My evidence is that rainbows look like they were made by Leprechauns.
If it doesn't work for rainbows, then it doesn't work for design.
Let me guess, you will ignore this again and repeat the same things over and over.
Biologists don't make this claim, you are mistaken in what they are talking about.It has the appearance of a duck, does it not?
Wouldn't you know it. You finally discovered why the appearance of design is not evidence of design.
Where is your evidence that the appearance is an incorrect, deceptive and produced by evolutionary processes?
Where is your evidence that the appearance is an incorrect, deceptive and produced by evolutionary processes?
The appearance of design is created by not just a mere "appearance" of something that is not actually real. The features, structures, systems and functions actually exist and are structured and function in the same way as human designs are and have purpose and have designs which show planning and timing which again are found in human design.
If this appearance is incorrect, deceptive and an illusion it is up to you to show the evidence that shows evolutionary processes were responsible for providing this appearance. Dawkins has not and you have not.
Evasion. You continue to say my "subjective" opinion but it is not "my" subjective opinion. It is no one's subjective opinion. It is evidence, apparent and in all life forms. The subjective part comes in when the evidence needs to be explained in naturalistic terms and no evidence for that explanation can be given.Your subjective opinion about appearances is irrelevant to the question of design. I don't even need to address your claims one way or the other since they have no bearing on the subject.
The fact is the only proven evolution is micro evolution it would explain different breeds etc. Macro evolution is completely stretching the imagination.
Evolutionists struggle to answer why we dont see tons of useless organs and limbs that should be evolving, which means we are not evolving.
And then we have no evidence of the common ancestor or reptile mammal fossils or anything like that, that would be decent evidence.
Not to mention macro evolution was taught in Pagan Greece as an idea where life came from. Quite pathetic that atheists bash on Christians for God yet put blind faith into this.
The judge has no training or education in biology. Educated and trained biologists all observe design. If you want to claim this appearance is an incorrect or deceptive you need to show how this is produced with evidence.That is the mere appearance of design.
"It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed.(23:73 (Behe)). This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system. "
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science
Even judges in courts can see that.
All you can do is deny it is objective evidence but the evidence speaks for itself.All I need to show is that it isn't objective evidence, which it isn't.
The fact is the only proven evolution is micro evolution it would explain different breeds etc. Macro evolution is completely stretching the imagination.
Which is what we would expect from a primitive culture than never travelled more than a thousand miles from their original lands.
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?