Re: yeah. riiiight!!

Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <adman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ml3Rl.44087$b9.5840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <adman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eqbQl.42879$v8.14139@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <adman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:QX3Ql.43863$19.23007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <adman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hYFPl.41547$i9.37531@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Caranx latus wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
Caranx latus wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <adman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:k7qPl.41899$v8.14158@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Plants that grow as a vine will reach for the nearest
stationary object to wrap themselves around in an effort
to mature, grow and thrive with support. Even though the
sun is facing east and the stationary object is facing
west the plant will reach for the stationary object
first. THEN once they grab on to something stationary
they will turn their beautiful leaves toward the sun.
And you think THAT is an evolved trait? yeah... riiiight!

That is clearly a designed feature by a brilliant
creator. Adman
Others have already adequately responded to this silly
argument. I am, however, still interested in hearing you
explain how you recognize design. Despite all of your
arguments from design, you have yet to adequately respond
to this question.
You lack perception to adequately understand an adequate
explaination
Present your explanation anyway. Let Ross figure out for
himself whether he understands or not. If he doesn't, he can
always ask questions.

You want me to repeat the same explaination?

I'd like you to present your explanation regarding how you
recognize design, as Ross requested. If we don't understand
it, we can ask questions and you can explain further or
correct us. That seems reasonable to me.

Yeah. Of course it is reasonable.But i have explained it
before. It takes a certain amount of perception to recgonize
the aspects that show evidence of designed life which you
either do not have or are unwilling to develop. In the case of
my example, well, i have had all sorts of replies.
None of them addressed the fact that the plants turned their
_leaves_ toward the sun afer they found support. If this was
truly an unguided process the leaves would turn toward the sun
regardless if they found support or not. The ones that found
support would live, the others would die. Survival of the
fittest is evolution's claim to fame. But this was not the
case. In my example all of the plants forsake the life giving
sun until they latched on to the fence. After they made the
connection for support they then turned their leaves toward the
sun.

It sounds like you are describing a mechanism for natural
selection. Vines that search for support before they turn their
leaves to the Sun are more likely to survive. This example
doesn't allow us to recognize design, as it would be supported
by both a designer and evolution.
In my opinon this is not an evolved trait but a designed
feature that allows plants (that are vines) to survive.

Since the trait allows the plants to survive, it would also be
favored by evolution.

The same principal applies to God. You will never discover God
if (a) you do not believe He exists and b) don't look for Him.
When you believe and look you will find.

Jesus put it as "Knock and the Door Shall Be Opened" "Seek and
You will Find"

It seems to me that you are the one who isn't interested in
finding the truth. If you were, then you would be willing to
examine and discuss the evidence. You may not have noticed, but
I am the one who is advocating open discussion, whereas you are
the one insisting that I should just believe whatever you say
because you have a special ability to see things that I cannot.

If you do not believe in God or that God created life your will
never develop the perception skills necessary to see his
fingerprint all over creation.

So basically, if I disagree with you, it's my fault?

Me: "I don't see God."
You: "You're not looking hard enough."
Me: "I still don't see God."
You: "You're still not looking hard enough."
Me: "I don't see the design."
You: "Then you aren't capable of recognizing design and you
should just accept what I say without question."

Do I understand your position correctly?

Not really.

Yours is the typical atheist response.

Then please explain how I am wrong.

It is not that you are wrong. You simply have preconcieved
notions.For instance: I never once claimed that anyone at any time
must "accept what I say without question". Quite the contrary. I
suggest personal research frequently. Your preconceptions are
probably based on atheistic litterature or science with an
atheistic spin.

You said, "You lack perception to adequately understand an adequate
explaination." That sounds to me like you are claiming to have some
special ability that I don't have and I should just believe whatever
you say.

Yeah

Finding evidence of creation is not that hard. "Seek and you will
find", "knock and the door will be opened" But if you never look,
or do not knock on the door you will never see or understand no
matter how much i explain it.

What if I do seek and I don't find? What if I do knock and the door
isn't openned? Because I don't come to the same conclusion that you
do, are you going to claim that I am not looking or knocking hard
enough? The example that you provided at the beginning of this
thread is readily explained naturally by evolution. I don't see
anything in your example that suggests design. You, of course, have
claimed that I am just not able to recognize it. So perhaps you
should explain it to me so that I can recognize it as well.

If you make a sincere effort to look and do not give up right away
the answers will come to you without the need of an explanation.

And if I make the effort and I don't come to the conclusion that you
want, then you are going to claim that either I was not sincere or I
gave up too soon, aren't you?

There ya go. You are not serious with your inquiry. You have your answer.
And what happens next? You raise the bar with another question. And you will
just keep doing that. Because you are more interested in proving me wrong
then taking a scientific approach and actually finding out for yourself.

The only one that can answer truthfully if you are sincere, or if you gave
up too soon would be Y O U




So, unless you are going to continue to blame me for not seeing
design in everything, please explain how you recognize design.

You want to "examine the evidence". But you are unwilling to
examine all of the evidence.

I am willing to examine all of the evidence, but I can't examine
evidence that isn't available to me.

You only want one specific kind of evidence. That specific kind of
evidence is scientific evidence.

Can you give me an example of non-scientific evidence?

Which is a set up. Because there is no scientific evidence for the
supernatural.So in a way, you are asking for evidence that you
already have a preconcieved notion can not be given. The
explainations can not be offered while staying within your criteria
of scientific evidence only.. However, that does not mean the
supernatural does not exist because science has no way of proving
it. Science also admits that it cannot explain everything. So there
must be other types of evidence that is outside the scope of
natural science's ability to explain. These need to be examined as
well. How do we know this? Because there are so many people that
claim to make a connection to the supernatural that science cannot
explain with scientific evidence.

Do these people actually make a connection with the supernatural? Or do
they just think they are making a connection? Or are they
just pretending to make a connection? There are many people out
there who claim to have supernatural abilities. But, whether they
are frauds or they really believe they have special abilities, when
they are asked to perform under conditions that preclude cheating,
their abilities always disappear.
Therefore there must be other types of evidence. One must examine
these other types of evidences in order to have a complete
understanding of creation, of God, and of the supernatural.

Give us an example of one of the other types of evidences. I can't
examine them if I don't know what they are.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: yeah. riiiight!!
    ... leaves toward the sun. ... explain how you recognize design. ... _leaves_ toward the sun afer they found support. ... examine and discuss the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: yeah. riiiight!!
    ... beautiful leaves toward the sun. ... explain how you recognize design. ... show evidence of designed life which you either do not have or are ... _leaves_ toward the sun afer they found support. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: yeah. riiiight!!
    ... beautiful leaves toward the sun. ... explain how you recognize design. ... _leaves_ toward the sun afer they found support. ... examine and discuss the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: yeah. riiiight!!
    ... beautiful leaves toward the sun. ... explain how you recognize design. ... show evidence of designed life which you either do not have or are ... _leaves_ toward the sun afer they found support. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: yeah. riiiight!!
    ... grow and thrive with support. ... they will turn their beautiful leaves toward the sun. ... explain how you recognize design. ... examine and discuss the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading