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.
Davian I am not finding the posts. I know that I left two unanswered, I believe two anyway.
I am still unfamiliar with this "materialistic" worldview that you keep referring to.
Appearance of design is not necessarily evidence of design. That is why I ask, by what testable criteria do you determine design? Testable, that is, outside of your worldview.
Odds that cannot be calculated in the absence of access to other universes, correct?
Where does this "naturalistic" worldview make the presupposition that the universe was designed, as yours does?
Do you see the problem with your worldview-based arguments yet?
To summarize, you believe the universe is designed because you believe it to be so?
That's like asking for evidence that gravity always sucks. Codes are a product of an intelligent mind.
I admit it would be hard for me to prove Dawkin's book "the God Delusion" was intelligent designed.
That is not me, then.The view that everything in and including the universe itself is made up of natural materials, can be explained using only those materials, and that those natural materials are all there are.
lol, not my problem. It is not my claim, it is yours.So what would be the definition of something that has only the appearance of design rather than actual design? In fact, how would you define designed?
Show that math.However, prominent physicists have determined that the laws of physics and the actual odds of all the "coincidences" of so many variables coming together at the right time and the right way and the nature of the laws themselves are improbable to a extremely high degree. They have mathematically tested the probability and it comes out unlikely that it could have occurred by mere accident.
It only 'refutes' your version of materialism.I believe that they did calculate it. However, we do not have evidence of other universes and so to claim other universes again refutes materialism, due to the fact that even if there were other universes, we could never know. We could never test them to see what laws and makeup they would have.
Yes you did. Here you said "While it is understood that there is no proof that God is behind this design or whether or not it is The Christian God, it does prove that the design of the universe and those governing principles fit within the worldview of the Christian consistently but fail in the naturalistic worldview."I didn't claim they did.
It is so very hard to stay out of the straw. See above.Not in the least. Where do you see a problem with them.
Not at all. What I believe at this moment is irrelevant, and I am not making the claim that the universe is not designed, or is solely the result of naturalistic forces. I have not seen a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, or even testable criteria, for any claims of "design", including yours.It could be equally said that you don't believe it was designed just because you believe it to be so.
Just realized I missed this post. Ok for the evidence.
From the link: Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
So, no evidence is to be found other than the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota. No reference to the first UCA other than the pattern we see in nature.
Yes, you keep saying that but when I show you supportive evidence of my position you will not accept it.
The point is that you will accept elements of ToE that are not in
evidence,
Not true. Like I said there are separate kinds in Evolutionary classification. You can't say that there are no separate kinds when in fact there are even within the system you defend.
I can give supportive evidence.
Again, not true. I went back and reread the entire thread. You are the only one that has specified separately created kinds. Post #202, #217 #222. There may be more but I don't remember and didn't write them down.
Kinds are living organisms. The kinds that are listed in the Creation Narrative are after previous kinds.
Interestingly enough, those pre-cambrian fossils just recently were analyzed and it was found that they are not marine life at all. I wasn't aware of this either due to the newness of the study but it is one more thing that substantiates that plant life was on land prior to even the Cambrian Explosion.
In the court of law, in murder trials, there is what is called circumstantial evidence. Forensic evidence is a form of circumstantial evidence.
No, I didn't. There is no counterargument. I am saying that universal common decent is man's explanation for the processes that God designed.
Really, you have no evidence for the first life form, you have no evidence for how DNA first arose, you have no evidence of how many of the cellular mechanisms even work. How in the world would you presume that you know that life was not created and designed.
I admit it would be hard for me to prove Dawkin's book "the God Delusion" was intelligent designed.
The ability of detecting something as intelligent design is something built-in. I doubt an ape could detect design. Thus it is the product of the (human) mind just like colors and sound. Some people are blind and some are deaf and some can't detect intelligent design in a code.Show that DNA was intelligently designed.
So, in other words, you have absolutely no idea how to detect it.The ability of detecting something as intelligent design is something built-in. I doubt an ape could detect design. Thus it is the product of the (human) mind just like colors and sound. Some people are blind and some are deaf and some can't detect intelligent design in a code.
The ability of detecting something as intelligent design is something built-in.
I doubt an ape could detect design. Thus it is the product of the (human) mind just like colors and sound. Some people are blind and some are deaf and some can't detect intelligent design in a code.
That is not me, then.
lol, not my problem. It is not my claim, it is yours.
The point of my asking for your testable criteria for "design" is to see if you have a workable definition of what you mean by 'design. I haven't seen it yet.
Show that math.
It only 'refutes' your version of materialism.
With no other universes for comparison, it does render your claim of design being supported by the appearance of design unfalsifiable - of no significance.
Yes you did. Here you said "While it is understood that there is no proof that God is behind this design or whether or not it is The Christian God, it does prove that the design of the universe and those governing principles fit within the worldview of the Christian consistently but fail in the naturalistic worldview."
Your statement presupposes design, then you have the "naturalistic" worldview fail to support a presupposition that it does not support.
You have made a straw-man argument.
It is so very hard to stay out of the straw. See above.
Not at all. What I believe at this moment is irrelevant, and I am not making the claim that the universe is not designed, or is solely the result of naturalistic forces. I have not seen a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, or even testable criteria, for any claims of "design", including yours.
Do you or do you not have testable criteria for your claim of the universe being designed?
The human mind sees things that aren't there all of the time. How do you know that it isn't a false detection?
The design in the universe is not due to false detection, the precise equations that are used to represent the forces of nature and all the elements prove the fine tuning that shows design.
The design in the universe is not due to false detection, the precise equations that are used to represent the forces of nature and all the elements prove the fine tuning that shows design.
You are running from the evidence again. The unity of life is evidence for a universal common ancestor even if it is not evidence for the lifeforms that came before it.
That would require you to present supportive evidence, which you haven't.
A universal common ancestor is evidenced.
All species are joined by common ancestors. There are no separate kinds. Separate kinds is a creationist term for species that do not share a common ancestor.
Then do it.
You used the term "separate kinds" in this very thread which is a creationist term for separately created kinds.
Where in the Bible does it say this?
None of those are trees or grasses like it says in the Bible.
In many cases, it is very compelling evidence, such as finding the suspect's fingerprints in the blood of the victim on the knife that killed the victim. Would you just ignore this evidence if you were a juror?
What evidence do you have that God designed it?
I presume no such thing. You are projecting again. Not everyone has presuppositions like you do.
The unity of life could be from something other than a universal common ancestor.
The three domains are not ancestral to each other.
So we have no other reason for a UCA other than to explain the way these complex domains came about.
Common decent can work without a UCA just on the three domains of life.
So once again, there is no evidence for a UCA.
I have provided as much as you have for the UCA. I have evidence across the spectrum in all areas of Science that supports my position as well.
No it isn't. Common decent is consistent with the three domains of life, by themselves. It doesn't point to a UCA.
The only reason you need a UCA is to explain the complexity for the three domains.
All species are joined by common design. Common design explains all aspects of ToE more accurately.
I have you ignored it.
I asked you specifically if there were kinds of organisms that were separate in the make up of the Nested Hierarchy. That is what I was talking about. It has been shown in this thread as well that there are indeed separate organisms, such as fish, birds, mammals.
Are you even reading what I am writing? I have repeatedly posted it.
And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
See kinds come after its kind.
I said I had supportive evidence that He designed it.
Oh yes, everyone has presuppositions. Everyone.
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?