Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted June 30, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted June 30, 2014 Appearance of design is the necessity of evolution via natural selection. If balance is not maintained within an environment, that environment will collapse. The reason you see harmony within the environments we can examine is because those environments have been refined to efficiency with each species adapting to their respective roles as either preditor or prey. The environment is further balanced by the introduction of plant life and topical features such as stones or bodies of water, which animal species can use to their advantage. None of this requires a designer; it only requires adaptability and time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Manonmars does give several reasons to think God exists. From Part Two: One of J.T.’s more self-incriminating refutations centers on the argument from Christians regarding the apparent design of the world. To this argument, J.T. asks rhetorically, “And does the universe look designed?”, to which he answers by saying, “Well, no. The universe creates order all by itself which is exactly the universe we would expect to find ourselves in if there was no God” (15:23). Quite humorously, even the aforementioned atheist Richard Dawkins sees the obvious appearance of design in nature. On page one of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins writes, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Appearance of design is not design. Try harder. You say appearance of design is not design. I believe appearance of design points to a designer. Subjective beliefs about the universe do not equal objective truths about it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Manonmars does give several reasons to think God exists. From Part Two: One of J.T.’s more self-incriminating refutations centers on the argument from Christians regarding the apparent design of the world. To this argument, J.T. asks rhetorically, “And does the universe look designed?”, to which he answers by saying, “Well, no. The universe creates order all by itself which is exactly the universe we would expect to find ourselves in if there was no God” (15:23). Quite humorously, even the aforementioned atheist Richard Dawkins sees the obvious appearance of design in nature. On page one of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins writes, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Appearance of design is not design. Try harder. You say appearance of design is not design. I believe appearance of design points to a designer. Subjective beliefs about the universe do not equal objective truths about it. What then is the objective truth about the origin of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Manonmars does give several reasons to think God exists. From Part Two: One of J.T.’s more self-incriminating refutations centers on the argument from Christians regarding the apparent design of the world. To this argument, J.T. asks rhetorically, “And does the universe look designed?”, to which he answers by saying, “Well, no. The universe creates order all by itself which is exactly the universe we would expect to find ourselves in if there was no God” (15:23). Quite humorously, even the aforementioned atheist Richard Dawkins sees the obvious appearance of design in nature. On page one of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins writes, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Appearance of design is not design. Try harder. You say appearance of design is not design. I believe appearance of design points to a designer. Subjective beliefs about the universe do not equal objective truths about it. What then is the objective truth about the origin of life? Your belief that "appearance of design points to a designer" is, in fact, a subjective opinion. It simply does not necessarily equate with reality. So, instead of admitting this, you ask a silly question. Why did you place the adjective "objective" in front of the noun "truth". Seems rather redundant, ya' think? How carbon based life originated on this planet is currently being studied and researched. This is being done using something called "The Scientific Method". Have you heard about that process? No scientific theory concerning abiogenesis has yet been formulated. There are several hypotheses under current investigation. In another thread, you claim that the origin of carbon based life on this planet cannot be "proved" through the scientific method, or words of similar import. Well, since science does not prove anything, you are technically correct. However, I suspect you don't understand the difference between "proof" and "evidence" (in the scientific context) in the first place, so I suspect your mere assertion is simply that, a mere assertion from a theist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Manonmars does give several reasons to think God exists. From Part Two: One of J.T.’s more self-incriminating refutations centers on the argument from Christians regarding the apparent design of the world. To this argument, J.T. asks rhetorically, “And does the universe look designed?”, to which he answers by saying, “Well, no. The universe creates order all by itself which is exactly the universe we would expect to find ourselves in if there was no God” (15:23). Quite humorously, even the aforementioned atheist Richard Dawkins sees the obvious appearance of design in nature. On page one of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins writes, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Appearance of design is not design. Try harder. You say appearance of design is not design. I believe appearance of design points to a designer. Subjective beliefs about the universe do not equal objective truths about it. What then is the objective truth about the origin of life? Your belief that "appearance of design points to a designer" is, in fact, a subjective opinion. It simply does not necessarily equate with reality. So, instead of admitting this, you ask a silly question. Why did you place the adjective "objective" in front of the noun "truth". Seems rather redundant, ya' think? How carbon based life originated on this planet is currently being studied and researched. This is being done using something called "The Scientific Method". Have you heard about that process? No scientific theory concerning abiogenesis has yet been formulated. There are several hypotheses under current investigation. In another thread, you claim that the origin of carbon based life on this planet cannot be "proved" through the scientific method, or words of similar import. Well, since science does not prove anything, you are technically correct. However, I suspect you don't understand the difference between "proof" and "evidence" (in the scientific context) in the first place, so I suspect your mere assertion is simply that, a mere assertion from a theist. "There are several hypotheses under current investigation." I know. I just believe that from what I can see of this planet and all the life and the stars above... that there is a Designer of this universe. No, I can't prove it, but science cannot yet prove how life originated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Manonmars does give several reasons to think God exists. From Part Two: One of J.T.’s more self-incriminating refutations centers on the argument from Christians regarding the apparent design of the world. To this argument, J.T. asks rhetorically, “And does the universe look designed?”, to which he answers by saying, “Well, no. The universe creates order all by itself which is exactly the universe we would expect to find ourselves in if there was no God” (15:23). Quite humorously, even the aforementioned atheist Richard Dawkins sees the obvious appearance of design in nature. On page one of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins writes, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Appearance of design is not design. Try harder. You say appearance of design is not design. I believe appearance of design points to a designer. Subjective beliefs about the universe do not equal objective truths about it. What then is the objective truth about the origin of life? Your belief that "appearance of design points to a designer" is, in fact, a subjective opinion. It simply does not necessarily equate with reality. So, instead of admitting this, you ask a silly question. Why did you place the adjective "objective" in front of the noun "truth". Seems rather redundant, ya' think? How carbon based life originated on this planet is currently being studied and researched. This is being done using something called "The Scientific Method". Have you heard about that process? No scientific theory concerning abiogenesis has yet been formulated. There are several hypotheses under current investigation. In another thread, you claim that the origin of carbon based life on this planet cannot be "proved" through the scientific method, or words of similar import. Well, since science does not prove anything, you are technically correct. However, I suspect you don't understand the difference between "proof" and "evidence" (in the scientific context) in the first place, so I suspect your mere assertion is simply that, a mere assertion from a theist. "There are several hypotheses under current investigation." I know. I just believe that from what I can see of this planet and all the life and the stars above... that there is a Designer of this universe. No, I can't prove it, but science cannot yet prove how life originated. "Just believe" all you desire. As to the science part, you still don't get it. Science "proves" nothing. It merely provides falsifiable/tentative explanations (scientific theories) of all of the relevant evidence, puts forth falsifiable/tentative descriptions of various aspects of reality (scientific laws) and asks many questions. Your attempt to equate your beliefs with scientific inquiry is curious. I do not see an equivalence at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Manonmars does give several reasons to think God exists. From Part Two: One of J.T.’s more self-incriminating refutations centers on the argument from Christians regarding the apparent design of the world. To this argument, J.T. asks rhetorically, “And does the universe look designed?”, to which he answers by saying, “Well, no. The universe creates order all by itself which is exactly the universe we would expect to find ourselves in if there was no God” (15:23). Quite humorously, even the aforementioned atheist Richard Dawkins sees the obvious appearance of design in nature. On page one of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins writes, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Appearance of design is not design. Try harder. You say appearance of design is not design. I believe appearance of design points to a designer. Subjective beliefs about the universe do not equal objective truths about it. What then is the objective truth about the origin of life? Your belief that "appearance of design points to a designer" is, in fact, a subjective opinion. It simply does not necessarily equate with reality. So, instead of admitting this, you ask a silly question. Why did you place the adjective "objective" in front of the noun "truth". Seems rather redundant, ya' think? How carbon based life originated on this planet is currently being studied and researched. This is being done using something called "The Scientific Method". Have you heard about that process? No scientific theory concerning abiogenesis has yet been formulated. There are several hypotheses under current investigation. In another thread, you claim that the origin of carbon based life on this planet cannot be "proved" through the scientific method, or words of similar import. Well, since science does not prove anything, you are technically correct. However, I suspect you don't understand the difference between "proof" and "evidence" (in the scientific context) in the first place, so I suspect your mere assertion is simply that, a mere assertion from a theist. "There are several hypotheses under current investigation." I know. I just believe that from what I can see of this planet and all the life and the stars above... that there is a Designer of this universe. No, I can't prove it, but science cannot yet prove how life originated. "Just believe" all you desire. As to the science part, you still don't get it. Science "proves" nothing. It merely provides falsifiable/tentative explanations (scientific theories) of all of the relevant evidence, puts forth falsifiable/tentative descriptions of various aspects of reality (scientific laws) and asks many questions. Your attempt to equate your beliefs with scientific inquiry is curious. I do not see an equivalence at all. I see a Designer in this world. You should do a Google search on Intelligent Design. Reading is fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 IH Cameron: Reading is fun No, reading giberish is not fun. Reading cogent well thought out material is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Manonmars does give several reasons to think God exists. From Part Two: One of J.T.’s more self-incriminating refutations centers on the argument from Christians regarding the apparent design of the world. To this argument, J.T. asks rhetorically, “And does the universe look designed?”, to which he answers by saying, “Well, no. The universe creates order all by itself which is exactly the universe we would expect to find ourselves in if there was no God” (15:23). Quite humorously, even the aforementioned atheist Richard Dawkins sees the obvious appearance of design in nature. On page one of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins writes, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Appearance of design is not design. Try harder. You say appearance of design is not design. I believe appearance of design points to a designer. Subjective beliefs about the universe do not equal objective truths about it. What then is the objective truth about the origin of life? I'll answer that when you deal with the outstanding matter of the six (6) responses you owe me, Ironhorse. No attempt to deflect, dodge or ignore me will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Manonmars does give several reasons to think God exists. From Part Two: One of J.T.’s more self-incriminating refutations centers on the argument from Christians regarding the apparent design of the world. To this argument, J.T. asks rhetorically, “And does the universe look designed?”, to which he answers by saying, “Well, no. The universe creates order all by itself which is exactly the universe we would expect to find ourselves in if there was no God” (15:23). Quite humorously, even the aforementioned atheist Richard Dawkins sees the obvious appearance of design in nature. On page one of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins writes, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Appearance of design is not design. Try harder. You say appearance of design is not design. I believe appearance of design points to a designer. Subjective beliefs about the universe do not equal objective truths about it. What then is the objective truth about the origin of life? Your belief that "appearance of design points to a designer" is, in fact, a subjective opinion. It simply does not necessarily equate with reality. So, instead of admitting this, you ask a silly question. Why did you place the adjective "objective" in front of the noun "truth". Seems rather redundant, ya' think? How carbon based life originated on this planet is currently being studied and researched. This is being done using something called "The Scientific Method". Have you heard about that process? No scientific theory concerning abiogenesis has yet been formulated. There are several hypotheses under current investigation. In another thread, you claim that the origin of carbon based life on this planet cannot be "proved" through the scientific method, or words of similar import. Well, since science does not prove anything, you are technically correct. However, I suspect you don't understand the difference between "proof" and "evidence" (in the scientific context) in the first place, so I suspect your mere assertion is simply that, a mere assertion from a theist. "There are several hypotheses under current investigation." I know. I just believe that from what I can see of this planet and all the life and the stars above... that there is a Designer of this universe. No, I can't prove it, but science cannot yet prove how life originated. "Just believe" all you desire. As to the science part, you still don't get it. Science "proves" nothing. It merely provides falsifiable/tentative explanations (scientific theories) of all of the relevant evidence, puts forth falsifiable/tentative descriptions of various aspects of reality (scientific laws) and asks many questions. Your attempt to equate your beliefs with scientific inquiry is curious. I do not see an equivalence at all. I see a Designer in this world. You should do a Google search on Intelligent Design. Reading is fun It seems to me that jerking me around is something you consider fun, Ironhorse. Simply pretending that I'll get bored with asking for you to answer is a big mistake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I see a Designer in this world. You should do a Google search on Intelligent Design. Reading is fun Yes you can believe in an intelligent designer but don't put your belief in science classroom. ID is not falsifiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts