Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No need.
I'm not trying to convince you to believe that life is designed. Whatever floats your boat is fine with me. I don't insult people who don't believe as I do, and I don't insist that their tax dollars be spent in public schools to dissuade their children from agreeing with them.
If you are sure that life evolved through Darwinian natural selection, you must have proof. Please present it.
If your proof is some version of "everyone says so," why just say so. No shame in that.
If you are honest about it.
Sure, Toddster. Chuckle all you like.No need.
LOL!
I'm not trying to convince you to believe that life is designed.
Well, that's good, because you're doing a poor job.
If you are sure that life evolved through Darwinian natural selection, you must have proof.
Sure? Not 100% sure. But the preponderance of the evidence points to that being the mechanism.
If your proof is some version of "everyone says so," why just say so.
If your proof is "apparent design", allow me to chuckle.
I'm not the one trying desperately to convince others to agree with me.
Sure, Toddster. Chuckle all you like.
I'm not the one trying desperately to convince others to agree with me.
If You've Heard of Someone, Don't Imitate the Way He SpeaksHow would you pronounce your proposed replacement for the grammatically correct "Dawkins'" and why do you think an extra letter is more efficient?
You wouldn't take it well from me. I'll let Richard Dawkins explain it to you:Tell me more about "apparent design".
DURR
I see your point.If You've Heard of Someone, Don't Imitate the Way He Speaks
"Daw kinz izz." That guarantees that his name is Dawkins, not Dawkin. And the On-Air AirHeads' grammatical monstrosity creates the opposite error, too. So when you hear, "Stephen Hawking's theory," you might be led to think it was Postmodernly spelled "Hawkings' theory" and his name would be Hawkings under that unfit spelling that has been forced on us by Diploma Dumbos and their professors. Yet, it originated in the University, the root of all evil.
You wouldn't take it well from me. I'll let Richard Dawkins explain it to you:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
{Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.
Richard Dawkins
I think nobody would claim that random genetic drift is capable of producing adaptation, that is to say the illusion of design. Random genetic drift can't produce wings that are good at flying, or eyes that are good at seeing, or legs that are good at running.
Richard Dawkins
The Rulers' Multiple Choice Never Allows the Choice "None of the Above." So Reject Them All Because of That Intentional Omission.The apparent design is the evidence of a designer.
Given that, it is up to doubters of design to prove their case.
Or at least to provide some evidence that their doubts are anything more than wishful thinking.
So "Appearances Can Be Deceiving" Is a Devil's Dogma?Flat Earthers say “apparent” is proof.
You’re dealing with a youngster who is doing distance learning but not logged in to his class lessons.
I asked a similar question. I was told that the “appearance of design”, the appearance of design regarding humans, animals and all of nature, was so convincing that no other alternative was possible.So "Appearances Can Be Deceiving" Is a Devil's Dogma?
Dawkins showed that already because the Earth is apparently flat. Also, the sun appears to cirlce the Earth, which appears to stand still. Other facts refuted both appearances. Rock Hudson appeared to be as heterosexual as a man could be.
So why don't the pulpit bullies try to claim that the apparently flat earth is different from the apparently designed human?
No it isn't.The apparent design is the evidence of a designer.
Given that, it is up to doubters of design to prove their case.
Or at least to provide some evidence that their doubts are anything more than wishful thinking.
False again.The apparent design means that the burden of proof is on those claiming some other theorynot involving design, but random processes.
www.usmessageboard.com
Ok, then.False again.
I'm claiming we don't know how life started for one.
You claim the Designer/god did it.
Burden is on You.
and second:
Proof is a false burden in science.
Evidence is where the meat is.
Proving design is "apparent", a mere empty personal OPINIO like 'beautiful.'
In fact, you are so Dishonest in trying to Shift the Burden, you weaken your claim from "Design" for which you have/have posted NO Evidence, to "apparent design" a mere opinion.
Who the F cares!
vs
Evolution, Which has overwhelming EVIDENCE.
Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
And now we await Evidence for Creationism, ID, the designER/god. Any evidence at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent Contents 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry 1.1 Genetics 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry 2...
I could also weaken that to "apparent evolution" to try and shift the burden to you, but I don't have to because I have Huge EVIDENCE.
LOL
More BS semantics from FRUAD Flops.
You are and remain a FRAUD.
You Cannot debate me.[
Non sequitur.Ok, then.
Give me the three best pieces of evidence for Darwin's theory.
www.usmessageboard.com
Evolution, Which has overwhelming EVIDENCE.
Ok, then.
Give me the three best pieces of evidence for Darwin's theory.
Non sequitur.
