B
buffalo
Guest
You can actually visit the automakers design department for yourself to see them actually designing. If you did you would doubt they are designing? You recognize design because it was cognized.
Last edited:
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
edwest
Guest
What we have here is a clash of worldviews. And a bias that is obviously false.
“Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
“Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
- Richard Dawkins
B
Bradskii
Guest
Again, simply a claim based on incredulity: ‘Gee, it sure looks designed to me’. Trust me, that does not count as science.Bradskii:
You can actually visit the automakers design department for yourself to see them actually designing. If you did you would doubt they are designing? You recognize design because it was cognized.
As Ed has conveniently quoted:
‘Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.’
You would do well to bear that in mind.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
They were not deigning in your visit to the auto plant?
E
edwest
Guest
You will get the same back and forth. Plants and animals weren’t designed, they just look like they were. Give me a break.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The reason its looks that way Ed is because all the plants and animals that weren’t suitable for the place you’re looking at are dead or living somewhere else.
Natural selection got 'em.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
Were plants and animals designed?
R
rossum
Guest
If and only if the designer was also designed.
ID’s proposed designer is more complex than a simple moss. If a simple moss is complex enough to require design then the intelligent designer is also complex enough to require design. Intelligence is more complex than a simple plant.
B
buffalo
Guest
God is the only unconditioned reality. Everything else is conditioned.
A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s not that off topic because it relates back to what has been created, and what I see as a misplaced emphasis on the material.
I argue that what was created over six of God’s workdays, were successive forms of being, that emerged as a hierarchy, where the information, the forms that had previously been created were utilized in the creation of that which was above them. We shouldn’t go into MRI’s if what binds us together as one person are electromagnetic forces. However, it is our spirit that organizes those entities of which we are constructed, into a whole that is me, and you as another one, and that guy over there. A self-other relational entity, possessing a psychophysical structure. We exist as one being in ourselves, capable of knowing what is other to our selves and of free will, which together allow us the capacity to love or not.
I could go on and on, but I think I’ll stop before I scare potential readers away with a typical wall of words.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
And this is where the problem lies.
Science versus a Creator who actually did things. Oh well.
Science versus a Creator who actually did things. Oh well.
R
rossum
Guest
That is theology, not science. ID has made it clear that their proposed designed does not have to be God, see David Berlinski for an ID proponent who does not think the God is the designer.
B
Bradskii
Guest
You’ve seen the number of people who post here, Al. Suffice to say that your wariness is a little late.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Why the capital C? Buffalo is adamant that design does not indicate who the designer was. Put the cat back in the bag. It belongs in a theological discussion.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Have you not been reading what Buffalo has been posting? They all contain dna so…the DI says yes. It’s the only criteria required.
B
buffalo
Guest
ID, the science does not. ID, the philosophy does. Rossum keeps pushing this line.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Again, you are doing nothing but confirming what I have said. I can include the example of a car if you like.Bradskii:
They were not deigning in your visit to the auto plant?
‘A car is designed, so gee, a flower must be as well’.
You aren’t saying anything more profound than that.
B
buffalo
Guest
You are purposely missing the point.
B
Bradskii
Guest
So ID says we have no idea who the designer is at the same time as saying that it is God? I think you’ll find that others have come to that realisation. Hence your loss at the Dover trial.Bradskii:
ID, the science does not. ID, the philosophy does. Rossum keeps pushing this line.
B
Bradskii
Guest
You mentioned a car plant. Cars are designed and look designed. You say that organisms look designed and therefore they are designed.Bradskii:
You are purposely missing the point.
Can you spot the logical error there? And please clarify the point you were making if it was not the one described. I’ll be here for a while.
- Status