justlookinla
Regular Member
Here you go, shying away from how the universe works.
Until you wish to discuss humanity and evolution and not rocks, rivers and clouds.
Upvote
0
Here you go, shying away from how the universe works.
Exactly. We know what features design creates. We know what complexity is created by humans and can recognize it inductively when we see it. We look at the one that is "obviously" naturally occurring and inductively conclude that natural processes are capable of producing it and we look at Mt. Rushmore and inductively conclude that natural processes are not capable of producing it. Inductive reasoning is used all the time.So you're able to make the distinction that Mt. Rushmore is designed, because you have something non-designed to compare it to.
The word "design" is a definition of necessity, it helps up to describe things that were engineered by agency, compared to things that happen naturally. You have just made a tacit admission that design is only obvious when compared to non-designed. Unless you're prepared to provide a metric by which one can quantify design, and proof of a designer, you remain gullible for the reasons Dawkins states in the quote you repeatedly use.
Still waiting for you to give evidence, based on the scientific method.
Exactly. We know what features design creates. We know what complexity is created by humans and can recognize it inductively when we see it. We look at the one that is "obviously" naturally occurring and inductively conclude that natural processes are capable of producing it and we look at Mt. Rushmore and inductively conclude that natural processes are not capable of producing it. Inductive reasoning is used all the time.
Until you wish to discuss humanity and evolution and not rocks, rivers and clouds.
Exactly. We know what features design creates. We know what complexity is created by humans and can recognize it inductively when we see it.
I am discussing all of nature. Why do you shy away from nature?
A link isn't evidence.
What methods? Just saying 'evolution' isn't describing the process of the creation of tactile sensory units.
The tool marks are the structural, functional, and complexity of the features in question that we recognize as those features we humans make when we create.And what did I say that evidence was? It was tool marks and methods of manufacture. Where is that evidence in life?
I have already presented those pieces of evidence, and you ignored them.
Why do you wish to discuss the evolution of man until design is introduced?
Why do you ignore the evidence for man's evolution when it is presented?
Discussion is not all about shifting the burden of evidence to the other guy.
Back to the appearance of a face on that cliff; how would you show that something only appears designed? Is that possible to do, or not?
Are you claiming I am not being cordial or open or meaningful in our discussion?No, I am presenting an argument from a scientific point of view in one of the science forms of the CF, from which I expect cordial, open, and meaningful discussion in science.
Do we recognize design when we see it? Do we need to know who designed it to know it is designed. Can we use inductive reasoning and do scientists use inductive reasoning in their research?All I am asking for is supporting evidence? From a scientific point of view I see no evidence making the connection.
I was just commenting that you were using a common argument used by atheists.I get the feeling that you think I am denying the existence of God. I am not.
That is your opinion. Anything can be explainable if you don't have to provide evidence. So far there has been no evidence provided that the appearance of life forms being designed for a purpose to be an illusion.However, I do disagree with the process of how things come into existence. The process we see things occurring is explainable and evidenced through natural processes.
That is a fact. I do not view Genesis as literal. I doing that I do not have to make things and processes up that I know do not or cannot happen to make them literal. I have previously mentioned that the Genesis account presents the existence of things out of order. It is more than obvious that fruit trees grasses and herbs cannot exist before the sun, not to mention other problems with the genesis account. I have not come to subscribe to it, but I have wondered if God is not a product of the universe (big bang).
Why do you think a link is evidence? And how are tactile sensory units produced?