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.
Alright, so perhaps saying you think they're both "wrong" is incorrect, but I'm guessing you're at least doubtful about either theory. Do you have a view about the origins of life that's different from either creationism or Darwinism?Zosimus said:I never claimed they were both wrong. I deny that anyone can tell whether one or the other is correct in the absence, of course, of seeing a burning bush and hearing someone say "Moses, Moses..."
Yes.
But is is not delusional to view objects and believe that they appear to have all the attributes of design but accept that they aren't designed.
Why would one dismiss every example of objects which appear to be designed, have the qualities of being designed, have the attributes of being designed but then it not be delusional to do so?
Exactly! That is why I posted my thread about everything being an illusion. The design we see in nature is just an illusion or delusion depending on who is making the claim. We see Francis Crick claiming that biologists must continue to remind themselves that they are not seeing design but evolution. Richard Dawkins claims that the world appears to be designed but it is an illusion, and they say Christians are delusional...
So what are the qualities and attributes of being designed? Can they be described in such a way so we can reliably tell if an object is designed or not designed?Why would one dismiss every example of objects which appear to be designed, have the qualities of being designed, have the attributes of being designed but then it not be delusional to do so?
Exactly! That is why I posted my thread about everything being an illusion. The design we see in nature is just an illusion or delusion depending on who is making the claim. We see Francis Crick claiming that biologists must continue to remind themselves that they are not seeing design but evolution. Richard Dawkins claims that the world appears to be designed but it is an illusion, and they say Christians are delusional...
Why would one dismiss every example of objects which appear to be designed, have the qualities of being designed, have the attributes of being designed but then it not be delusional to do so?
Why would one dismiss every example of objects which appear to be designed, have the qualities of being designed, have the attributes of being designed but then it not be delusional to do so?
So what are the qualities and attributes of being designed? Can they be described in such a way so we can reliably tell if an object is designed or not designed?
LOL. Go figure.
Yep, just like the pig in this cloud is an illusion:
I would say that the cloud is not a pig. What about you?
So what are the qualities and attributes of being designed? Can they be described in such a way so we can reliably tell if an object is designed or not designed?
Link *whistles nonchalantly*
Yeah Loudmouth, but what you say is a cloud, is really a pig. You're just not looking at this objectively. I mean, there really is no way one can really know, but from where I'm sitting, a pig. Besides, I called my neighbor Bob, and he says pig, so pig.
Self-promotion aside, I think the answer (whether you could tell if an organism was designed or not) seemed to be down to the individual. One user said designed organisms would have a lower extinction rate, presumably because they would have optimally adaptated to their environment. I on the other hand believe that designed organisms would have a higher rate of extinction, because of the high number harmful mutations each generation would inherit.Dizredux said:I had read that thread but I never saw an answer to my question. Perhaps I missed it, if so, could you point it out?
*squints* ... Heh, I almost didn't see that.Loudmouth said:Perhaps this is Rasputin reincarnated as a kitten's ear.
As far as I'm aware, there is no reliable way to tell if an organism is designed. It all seems pretty subjective.
*squints* ... Heh, I almost didn't see that.
Must be the evolutionist in me.
You are wrong. I apply decision theory to my every day life. When I get to an intersection late at night and the light is red, I do not say "Well, I've never seen cross traffic here this late at night so I might as well just run the red light." Rather I wait for the green light even when I can't see cross traffic or a police officer waiting for me. The gain if I'm right is outweighed by the potential loss if I'm wrong.
P.S. Even if it could be proved that I engaged in parsimony or something else, that means nothing. The question is not whether people do so but whether such an action or belief is the correct action to take. Arguing that people commit logical fallacies every day is like arguing that drinking and driving is acceptable because there are people who do so.
Yep, just like the pig in this cloud is an illusion:
I would say that the cloud is not a pig. What about you?
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?