Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Discussion is not all about shifting the burden of evidence to the other guy.

That is the problem you never seem to think a burden rests on your claim but it does. The appearance that life forms are designed for a purpose is the evidence if one wishes to claim that evidence is explained by it being an illusion it is your burden to support that claim.

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?

The evidence is what it is. In our experience, we find that things that we know are designed by intelligent agents have certain properties and things that we know are not designed by intelligent agents don't have those properties; therefore, when presented with something of unknown history, if it has properties of a designed thing, we can inductively conclude they are designed by an intelligent agent.

 

[Davian]

Back to rocks instead of humans? So typical.

How so?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Stop right there. In order to have design, you have to have a designer. Therefore, you need to show how the designer came about. This is your argument in a nutshell.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.

You are the one weaseling out. You can't provide one shred of evidence that shows the appearance that life forms are designed for a purpose is an illusion so you try to weasel out of that by shifting the burden. Typical.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is your position as well, as it applies to things like ducks in clouds and faces on cliffs.

You are trying to simplify the argument so that you don't have to address the real issue. It is very obvious.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the one weaseling out. You can't provide one shred of evidence that shows the appearance that life forms are designed for a purpose is an illusion so you try to weasel out of that by shifting the burden. Typical.

And once again with the weasel move of shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Darwinists will stick with their guesses and suppositions on what created humanity, but when design is introduced into the discussion, they suddenly wish to drop humanity and start talking about rocks and rivers.

Why is that?

Hmmmm.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hmmmm.

Can you point to one guess or supposition that the "Darwinists" are using?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And once again with the weasel move of shifting the burden of proof.

Loudmouth, the claim is that the evidence of design in life forms is an illusion. It is your claim, support it with evidence or concede.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can you point to one guess or supposition that the "Darwinists" are using?

Yes, that the appearance of design in life forms is an illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth, the claim is that the evidence of design in life forms is an illusion. It is your claim, support it with evidence or concede.

The claim is that life is designed. Where is your evidence?

 

[justlookinla]

I explain the ERV evidence over in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

I will expect to see your participation in that thread.

I expect to see you describe how tactile sensory units are produced by evolution. Well.....really I don't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

29+ pieces of evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

We need you to provide evidence specifically for this issue. We will assume if not provided that the link has no bearing on the issue we are discussing.

 

[Loudmouth]

I expect to see you describe how tactile sensory units are produced by evolution. Well.....really I don't.

And once again, you ignore the evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The claim is that life is designed. Where is your evidence?

No the evidence is the appearance that life forms are designed for a purpose. The claim is that evidence is due to an illusion. It is your claim, your burden.

 

[Loudmouth]

We need you to provide evidence specifically for this issue.

The ERV evidence is presented in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

 

[Loudmouth]

No the evidence is the appearance that life forms are designed for a purpose. The claim is that evidence is due to an illusion. It is your claim, your burden.

You are assuming your conclusion. That is a logical fallacy, not evidence.

 

[Davian]

That is the problem you never seem to think a burden rests on your claim but it does. The appearance that life forms are designed for a purpose is the evidence if one wishes to claim that evidence is explained by it being an illusion it is your burden to support that claim.


The evidence is what it is. In our experience, we find that things that we know are designed by intelligent agents have certain properties and things that we know are not designed by intelligent agents don't have those properties; therefore, when presented with something of unknown history, if it has properties of a designed thing, we can inductively conclude they are designed by an intelligent agent.

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?

 

[RickG]

I was just commenting that you were using a common argument used by atheists.

No, its an argument used by scientists. Are you suggesting all scientists are atheists. If so, then I need to change my designated faith in my profile.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The ERV evidence is presented in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

ERV is used to show common ancestry, it doesn't provide any evidence for life forms appearring to be designed for a purpose is an illusion.

 

[justlookinla]

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?

Rocks.