Spirituality
25 Jul 18
02 Sep 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeNo, why?
Ever seen pictures of the Giants Causeway old chap?
Originally posted by @divegeesterExcellent question dive!
Isn’t this just an aspect of confirmation bias?
Wouldn’t those in favor and opposed to seeing design both share the same shortcoming with respect to biases? It was even said one model was better because it avoided design, if that isn’t built in bias what is?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYour model cannot account for life evolving from non-life. Your model does not rule out a designer in fact I believe a designer makes it more plausible.
We currently have an accurate model that doesn't require a designer.
03 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kellyjaySomething that appears designed (to the eye) but wasn't.
No, why?
www.ramblersholidays.co.uk/giants-causeway-and-the-nine-glens
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWhy would you say they appear designed?
Something that appears designed (to the eye) but wasn't.
www.ramblersholidays.co.uk/giants-causeway-and-the-nine-glens
There are countless more examples of things that appear designed (to the eye) and in fact are designed.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerPatterns can appear to be designed, I've acknowledged that. It doesn't mean much. Design
Why would you say they appear designed?
There are countless more examples of things that appear designed (to the eye) and in fact are designed.
requires more, snow flakes have patterns even more complex than those. Bird nest can be
quite elaborate time and energy wouldn't produce those, birds would. I think you have not
yet understood my point.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIt was made to exist, how it looks is in the eyes of the beholder! If you are only looking at
If a designer exists and made it look like design isn't necessary to explain the diversity of life, there would be no way for the scientific method to verify their existence.
what supports the theory and ignores that which doesn't, much like the theory itself
looking at the good mutations suppressing the bad you get the outcome you want. You
have even gone so far as to announce this is what you have done with your model, you
put in a blind spot on purpose.
Originally posted by @kellyjay
Patterns can appear to be designed, I've acknowledged that. It doesn't mean much. Design
requires more, snow flakes have patterns even more complex than those. Bird nest can be
quite elaborate time and energy wouldn't produce those, birds would. I think you have not
yet understood my point.
03 Sep 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerdj2becker I responded to you here didn't mean too. Sorry my bad!
Why would you say they appear designed?
There are countless more examples of things that appear designed (to the eye) and in fact are designed.
03 Sep 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukePatterns can appear to be designed, I've acknowledged that. It doesn't mean much. Design
Ever seen pictures of the Giants Causeway old chap?
requires more, snow flakes have patterns even more complex than those. Bird nest can be
quite elaborate time and energy wouldn't produce those, birds would. I think you have not
yet understood my point.
I actually wrote this but responded to wrong post earlier, aggg!
03 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayIt gave me a chuckle. 🙂
Patterns can appear to be designed, I've acknowledged that. It doesn't mean much. Design
requires more, snow flakes have patterns even more complex than those. Bird nest can be
quite elaborate time and energy wouldn't produce those, birds would. I think you have not
yet understood my point.
I actually wrote this but responded to wrong post earlier, aggg!
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke🙂 Well if that is the worst that happens to me I'm in great shape!
It gave me a chuckle. 🙂
Originally posted by @kellyjayNatural selection is really quite a simple process and not hard to understand at all. Perhaps you should really begin to consider just reading the article? Perhaps it does a better job at explaining did than I have.
It was made to exist, how it looks is in the eyes of the beholder! If you are only looking at
what supports the theory and ignores that which doesn't, much like the theory itself
looking at the good mutations suppressing the bad you get the outcome you want. You
have even gone so far as to announce this is what you have done with your model, you
put in a blind spot on purpose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraNo one denies that natural selection accounts for microevolution within a creation framework. We just see no empirical evidence that natural selection can create totally new species out of a chemical soup.
Natural selection is really quite a simple process and not hard to understand at all. Perhaps you should really begin to consider just reading the article? Perhaps it does a better job at explaining did than I have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIts isn't hard to understand, I believe you do not grasp it doesn't have to be agreed with
Natural selection is really quite a simple process and not hard to understand at all. Perhaps you should really begin to consider just reading the article? Perhaps it does a better job at explaining did than I have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
even if you understand it. I'm surprised you offered another link after I told you the
pattern you have while discussing this topic. Oh well, this makes me think you behave in
the same manner you think evolution works, which is evolution suppresses bad mutations
in favor of the good ones, you suppress critical views about evolution in favor of the
good ones keeping the theory alive for you. Doesn't allow you to view it in light of the real
world, only just in the light of what makes it seem acceptable to you.