For Herepton and any others interested

Because both Creationists and Darwinists agree that organisms appear designed. Creationists and Darwinists depart in this respect: Creationists know the appearance is actual; Darwinists assert the appearance is illusory. In this case I should have not used =/equals; it was redundant since I also used the word "corresponds." This is a very good point, but I explained why above. To reiterate: I used appearance BECAUSE both camps agree with this term in this context.If I were talking to Creationists then I would not need or use a qualifier. We bow to straight forward logic: design indicates invisible Designer. What more does God have to do? Go ahead and debate if you feel like it.Ray

How is design = invisible Designer nonsense?What would you have an invisble Designer do, design a mindless process?I notice evolutionists always dodge this question with nonsense.Darwinists always claim to be "open" for evidence of God. The appearance of design indicates invisible Designer. We say the appearance of design logically indicates the work of an invisible Designer. Darwinists say the same characteristic indicates anti-intelligent process (NS).Since when does design indicate antonym?When atheist needs are present.Again, what more does God have to do?Ray

Beause God is invisible and the way He decided to reveal Himself is to make things looked designed so persons would conclude that an invisible Designer exists. Correct.Science knows the appearance of design corresponds to the work of an invisible Designer.Darwinian Scientism says the same appearance corresponds to an antonym (= mindless law of nature that only exists in their head).Ray